11-02-09 3 in 1 69-71 bondway vauxhall 212877
TRANSCRIPT
Department for Communities and Local Government Julian Pitt, Decision Officer Planning Central Casework Division, 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU
Tel: 0303 444 1630 Email: [email protected]
9 February 2011 Mr G Sector Addleshaw Goddard LLP Milton Gate 60 Chiswell Street LONDON EC1Y 4AG
Our Ref: APP/N5660/A/10/2123877 Your Ref: 09/01520/FUL
Dear Mr Sector TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY VAUXHALL BONDWAY LTD AT 69-71 BONDWAY, VAUXHALL, LONDON SW8 1SQ APPLICATION: REF 09/01520/FUL 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given
to the report of the Inspector, Mr Alan Novitzky, BArch(Hons) MA(RCA) PhD RIBA, who held a public inquiry on dates between 20 July and 18 August 2010 into your client's appeal against a decision of the London Borough of Lambeth Council (‘the Council’) to refuse planning permission for:
The demolition of existing buildings on site and the erection of a 42 storey building (149m) plus 2 basement levels below ground to provide a mixed use development comprising commercial units (flexible Use Class A1, A2, A3 and A4) of 275sqm GEA at ground floor, commercial units (Use Class B1) of 5,205sqm GEA at ground, first, second and third floor, 671sqm residential amenity space at thirty-sixth floor and 376 residential units at fourth to fortieth floors, two levels of plant at forty-first to forty-second floors, 25 car parking spaces and 22 motorbike parking spaces located in the basements, 568 cycle parking spaces (360 located in the basements, 156 located in storage units on floors four to sixteen and 52 at grade), refuse storage, public realm improvements / landscaping at street level and the formation of new vehicular access from Bondway / realigned vehicular access from Parry Street
at 69-71 Bondway, Vauxhall, London SW8 1SQ in accordance with application number 09/01520/FUL, dated 15 May 2009.
2. On 12 March 2010, the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 to Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The reason for recovery is that the appeal involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities and proposals which could have an adverse impact on the outstanding universal value, integrity, authenticity and significance of a World Heritage Site.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning
permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and agrees with his recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Procedural Matters 4. The Secretary of State has had regard to the error in the amount of commercial
floorspace included in the application’s description of the proposal but is satisfied that the matter was discussed at the Inquiry. Like the Inspector, he has accepted the change because he considers that it is minor and would not prejudice the interests of any party or cause them an injustice (IR3-4).
5. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the environmental information submitted with the application, as set out at IR5 – 7. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement and further environmental information submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The Secretary of State is content that the Environmental Statement complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the application.
Matters arising after the close of the inquiry 6. Following the close of the Inquiry, the Secretary of State received the written
representations listed at Annex A to this letter. The Secretary of State has taken account of these representations in his determination of this appeal but, as they did not raise any new matters that would affect his decision, he has not considered it necessary to circulate them to all parties. Copies of the correspondence can be made available upon written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter.
Policy considerations 7. In determining the appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6)
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that
proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. In this case, the development plan comprises the 2008 London Plan (LP), saved policies of the 2007 Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP), and the Lambeth LDF Core Strategy (CS), which was adopted after the Inquiry on 19 January 2011 (IR15 – 17). The Secretary of State considers that the policies most relevant to his determination of this appeal are those listed by the Inspector at IR15, excluding those saved policies of the UDP that have been superseded by the CS, and CS policies S3, S9 and PN2. He does not consider that there has been any material changes in relevant policies between the draft Core Strategy considered at the Inquiry and the adopted version to the extent that it would affect his decision or require him to refer back to parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision.
9. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the national planning policy statements, planning policy guidance notes and circulars listed at paragraph 5.1 of the Statement of Common Ground (SOCG, Inquiry Document CD1/2), the planning and design guidance documents listed at paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of the SOCG and the Lambeth Supplementary Planning Guidance documents, local strategies and reports listed at paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 of the SOCG. He has also taken into account the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, which came into force on 6 April 2010.
10. The Secretary of State has taken into account emerging policy documents including the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework Consultation Draft (OAPF), the Vauxhall Area Draft Supplementary Planning Document and the consultation draft replacement London Plan (IR16 and 18). As these documents are still in draft form and may be subject to change, he has afforded their policies limited weight.
11. In determining the appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to the impact of the proposed development on the settings of the listed buildings referred to by the Inspector at IR595 – 609. In accordance with section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, he has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. Given that the appeal proposal might affect the Conservation Areas referred to by the Inspector at IR610 – 625, he has also paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of those areas, as required by section 72(1) of the same Act.
Main issues
12. The Secretary of State considers that the main issues in this case are those set out in Section 5 of the Inspector’s report, being:
a) PPS1 and sustainable development matters; b) PPS3 and housing matters; c) PPS4 and sustainable economic growth; d) PPS5 and the historic environment; e) PPG13 and transport matters;
f) PPG17 and open space, sport and recreation matters; g) The relationship of the proposal to the development plan; h) Conditions; and i) The submitted Planning Obligation.
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development Sustainable Development 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions
with regard to whether the proposal would deliver sustainable development, as set out at IR527 – 539. He agrees that the proposals generally accord with the aims of PPS1 and the development plan regarding sustainable development and would accord with LP Policy 4A.3 and UDP Policy 35 (IR539).
Design 14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions, as
set out at IR540 – 557, on the design of the appeal proposal. He has had regard to the advice in PPS1 (IR540) and agrees that the importance of well planned public spaces is echoed in development plan policy (IR541, UDP Policy 77 having been superseded by Core Strategy PN2). He agrees that the proposals pack a great deal onto the site, which would be commendable in such a sustainable location provided no unacceptable harm were to arise (IR542). He considers that the design of the proposed tower has the merits set out at IR544 – 545, but agrees with the Inspector that its greatest shortcoming concerns the relationship of the building to its immediate surroundings. He agrees that the well planned public open spaces that bring people together, and which PPS1 advises should be incorporated, are absent, and that the proposals fail to provide sufficient opportunities for pedestrian movement linked to the wider public realm for it to succeed (IR546).
15. The Secretary of State agrees that the proposals involve great density and site
coverage without the provision or existing availability of complementary public space (IR548). He shares the Inspector’s view that the materialisation of the public open space indicated in the draft SPD, or an equivalent, cannot be guaranteed for a considerable time, or at all, and that if it were not to materialise then unacceptable consequences would arise (IR549). He agrees with the Inspector’s assessment at IR 551 that the visual mass of the building would be overbearing in relation to its local surroundings despite some relief being provided by the form of the building. He also agrees that the difficulties regarding provision of adequate amenity space, and particularly children’s play space, would not necessarily be resolved by the appellant covering the cost of acquiring a substantial area of land, and that the location of public open space of more modest scale, as part of a network of public realm provision, is crucially important (IR552). Overall, the Secretary of State finds the absence of complementary public space to be unacceptable and agrees with the Inspector at IR557 that the proposals would conflict with the aims of PPS1 and with the development plan policies listed, except where superseded by CS Policies S9 and PN2, with which he also finds conflict.
Access Needs 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of whether
access needs have been considered in depth in the design (IR558 – 559). He agrees that the aims of LP Policy 3A.5, 4B.5 and PPS1 would be met regarding access needs.
Prematurity 17. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s reasoning and
conclusions at IR560-561. He does not consider that the issue of prematurity with respect to the CS is now relevant, given that the CS was adopted by the Council on 19 January 2011. He agrees with the Inspector that prematurity has not been demonstrated in relation to the OAPF, the Vauxhall SPD, or any other emerging DPD (IR561).
PPS3: Housing 18. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions, as
set out at IR562-576, with regard to housing matters and whether the proposed scheme would be consistent with PPS3. He agrees that the lack of public space associated with the proposal in an area of Open Space Deficiency throws into relief the need to adequately provide amenity space for residents (IR563) and that the area available for communal use is not large for a residential population of the size contemplated, in an area lacking a town centre and where facilities are scattered (IR564). With respect to children’s play space, he agrees that the absence of adequate dedicated play space within or very near the building is materially harmful (IR567) and that the proposals conflict with LP policy 3D.13 and the aims of PPS3.
19. The Secretary of State agrees that the proposals meet policy regarding the
relative proportions of smaller and larger units (IR568). He further agrees that, overall, the affordable housing aspects of the proposal are acceptable and that it would accord with UDP Policy 16, LP Policy 3A.10 and the aims of PPS3 in this respect (IR573). Like the Inspector, he considers that the appeal site is suitable for housing development (IR575) and that the proposals make efficient and effective use of previously developed land (IR576).
PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth 20. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on
the proposal’s impact on local employment, as set out at IR577 – 591. He agrees that the proposals meet the criteria of CS Policy PN2, which supports mixed use development at Vauxhall for a variety of uses, and the criteria of CS Policy S3 (IR584 and 585). He notes that the proposals involve the loss of all the existing Class B8 floor space but a substantial increase in B1 floor space, of much better quality than exists, and the addition of a small amount of Class A floor space. He agrees that, overall, there would almost certainly be a gain in employment numbers, satisfying criterion b(iii) of UDP policy 23 (IR587). He agrees that the impact of the proposals on local employment would be acceptable and that the
proposals satisfy the development plan policies referred to by the Inspector at IR591 (IR591).
PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment 21. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions
with regard to the impact of the proposal on the historic environment, as set out at IR592 – 639. He considers that while no heritage assets would be directly affected, the proposals might affect the settings of listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and the Westminster World Heritage Site (IR592). He has considered the Inspector’s assessment of the impact of the scheme on the listed buildings and registered parks listed at IR595 – 608 and agrees with him that, overall, the settings of listed buildings and registered parks would be preserved under the proposals (IR609). The Secretary of State agrees that the proposals meet the statutory requirements with regard to listed buildings and conservation areas, that their effect on the character and special interest of the World Heritage Site would be acceptable, and that they satisfy the aims of PPS5 and accord with development plan policy (IR639).
PPG13: Transport 22. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions, as
set out at IR640 – 650, with regard to whether the appeal scheme would meet the aims of PPG13. He has had regard to the proposals having an excellent PTAL rating of 6A and agrees that the proposals would do much to promote more sustainable transport choices (IR640). He further agrees that, overall, accessibility would be good (IR642) and that the location of the site would probably give rise to a reduction in the need to travel compared to most other alternative locations (IR643). The Secretary of State agrees that the proposals meet the aims of PPG13 and would also meet development plan policy in this respect (IR650).
PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport & Recreation 23. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions, at
IR651 – 660, with respect to whether the proposal accords with the aims of PPG17. He agrees that the amenity of Vauxhall Park, and of gardens and amenity spaces of surrounding buildings, would not be significantly harmed by overshadowing (IR656) and, with regard to overlooking, that privacy cannot be expected in a public park (IR657). However, he agrees that the intensity of use to which Vauxhall Park would be subject would erode its recreational function and the character of its open spaces under the present proposals and that, on this point, the proposals would conflict with the aims of PPG17 and with LP Policy 3D.8 and UDP Policy 50 (IR660).
Relationship of the Proposal to the Development Plan 24. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment, at IR661 – 662,
of whether the proposal accords with the development plan. Like him, he considers that the proposals meet the requirements of development plan policy in many respects but that they do not accord in critical areas, reflecting their failure
to relate to public space in an acceptable manner (IR661). He agrees that, overall, the proposals are not in accordance with the development plan (IR662).
Conditions & Obligation 25. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions at Annex A of the
IR, the Inspector’s assessment of these at IR664 and the policy tests set out in Circular 11/95. He considers that the proposed conditions are reasonable and necessary and comply with the provisions of Circular 11/95. He has also had regard to the planning obligation as executed by the applicant and made by Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010, and Circular 05/2005. He agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the Agreement as set out at IR665 - 670 and is satisfied that the obligations within the Agreement comply with Circular 05/2005 and the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL regulations. However, the Secretary of State does not consider that the provisions in the proposed conditions or planning obligation, either individually or cumulatively, would overcome his reasons for dismissing the appeal.
Overall Conclusions 26. The Secretary of State considers that provision of a substantial number of new
homes, of which at least 20% would be affordable, and a likely increase in employment numbers at this highly sustainable location are significant benefits of the proposal. He considers that the design of the proposed tower is of high quality in many respects and would not harm the wider historic environment. He also considers that, in principle, the appeal site is an appropriate location for a tall building. However, he considers that the absence of complementary public open space from the proposal is unacceptable, that the tower would be overbearing in relation to its local surroundings despite some relief being provided by its form, that there are insufficient opportunities for pedestrian movement linked to the wider public realm, that the absence of adequate dedicated play space within or very near the building is materially harmful, and that the intensity of use to which Vauxhall Park would be subject would erode its recreational function and character. For these reasons the Secretary of State concludes that the proposal is in conflict with the development plan and with the aims of PPS1, PPS3, and PPG17. He has taken into account the benefits which would be offered by the proposal, but considers that these benefits do not outweigh the significant conflict with the development plan and the aims of national policies in other respects.
Formal Decision 27. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client's appeal and refuses planning permission for
the demolition of existing buildings on site and the erection of a 42 storey building (149m) plus 2 basement levels below ground to provide a mixed use development comprising commercial units (flexible Use Class A1, A2, A3 and A4) of 275sqm GEA at ground floor, commercial units (Use Class B1) of 5,205sqm GEA at ground, first, second and third floor, 671sqm residential
amenity space at thirty-sixth floor and 376 residential units at fourth to fortieth floors, two levels of plant at forty-first to forty-second floors, 25 car parking spaces and 22 motorbike parking spaces located in the basements, 568 cycle parking spaces (360 located in the basements, 156 located in storage units on floors four to sixteen and 52 at grade), refuse storage, public realm improvements / landscaping at street level and the formation of new vehicular access from Bondway / realigned vehicular access from Parry Street
at 69-71 Bondway, Vauxhall, London SW8 1SQ in accordance with application number 09/01520/FUL, dated 15 May 2009.
Right to challenge the decision 28. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of
the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.
29. A copy of this letter has been sent to Lambeth Council, the Waterloo Community Development Group and the Kennington Association Planning Forum. A notification letter has been sent to all other parties who asked to be informed of the decision.
Yours sincerely Julian Pitt Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
ANNEX A – REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED AFTER THE INQUIRY Name Date J Booth 17 Aug 10 H Monger 21 Sep 10 ‘Gavin’ 1 Dec 10 S Barillot 2 Dec 10 D McKeown 2 Dec 10 L Walsh 2 Dec 10 R Vulgar 2 Dec 10 A Rogers 2 Dec 10 V Steer 3 Dec 10 J Booth 3 Dec 10 J Hepburn 4 Dec 10 N Klein 5 Dec 10 B Taylor 5 Dec 10 M Ginnane 6 Dec 10 C Coady 7 Dec 10 T Price 8 Dec 10 H Chorley 8 Dec 10 C West 11 Jan 11 K Williams 11 Jan 11 M Green 13 Dec 10 F Astroulakis 14 Dec 10 R Harrison 15 Dec 10 C McColl 15 Dec 10 E Bowling 18 Dec 10 A Saxton 27 Dec 10 J Middleton 4 Jan 11 B Wesby 19 Jan 11 M Linfoot 19 Jan 11 A Carey 20 Jan 11 S Hinde 21 Jan 11 M Jacobs 21 Jan 11 A Weller 28 Jan 11 K Fox 31 Jan 11 M Cook 31 Jan 11 J Crowley 02 Feb 11 P Blackwell 02 Feb 11 V White 02 Feb 11 V Hood 02 Feb 11 S Crowley 03 Feb 11
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or making an application for Judicial review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Strand, London, WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000). The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow that the original decision will be reversed. SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS; The decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act). Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act Decisions on called-in applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may be challenged under this section. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application under this section must be made within six weeks from the date of the decision. SECTION 2: AWARDS OF COSTS There is no statutory provision for challenging the decision on an application for an award of costs. The procedure is to make an application for Judicial Review. SECTION 3: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the report of the Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. If you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter, quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice should be given, if possible.
Inquiry opened on 20 July 2010 69-71 Bondway, Vauxhall, London SW8 1SQ File Ref: APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN
GTN 1371 8000
by Alan Novitzky BArch(Hons) MA(RCA) PhD RIBA
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Date: 6 December 2010
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
London Borough of Lambeth
Appeal by Vauxhall Bondway Ltd
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 1
CONTENTS
Glossary Page 2
Paragraph
Procedural Matters 1
The Site and Surroundings 9
Planning Policy 15
Planning History 19
The Proposals 20
IN SUPPORT
Vauxhall Bondway Ltd., the Appellant 22
Written Representations 230
IN OPPOSITION
London Borough of Lambeth, the Council 237
Waterloo Community Development Group, Rule 6 Party 357
Kennington Association Planning Forum, Rule 6 Party 398
Interested Persons 432
Written Representations 503
CONCLUSIONS 526
Recommendation 671
Page No
APPEARANCES 139
DOCUMENTS 141
ANNEX A – Schedule of Suggested Conditions 154
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 2
GLOSSARY AAP – Area Action Plan BDP – Building Design Partnership BRE – Building Research Establishment BREEAM – Building Research Establishment Energy Assessment Method CABE – Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment CAZ – Central Activities Zone CIL – Community Infrastructure Levy CPO – Compulsory Purchase Order CS – Core Strategy DAS – Design and Access Statement DDA - Disability Discrimination Act DPD – Development Plan Document EC – Evidence in Chief EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment ES – Environmental Statement EH – English Heritage GDV – Gross Development Value GEA – Gross External Area GIA – Gross Internal Area GLA – Greater London Authority HTVIA – Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment KAPF – Kennington Association Planning Forum KIBA – Key Industrial and Business Area LBL – London Borough of Lambeth LP – London Plan MDO – Major Development Opportunity (Site) OA – Opportunity Area OAPF – (Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea) Opportunity Area Planning Framework RE – Re-examination SHLAA – Strategic Housing Location Availability Analysis SME – Small and Medium Enterprise SNO – Safer Neighbourhood Office SOCG – Statement of Common Ground SPD – Supplementary Planning Document SPG – Supplementary Planning Guidance TfL – Transport for London UDP – Unitary Development Plan VV – Viva Vauxhall Residents Association WCC – Westminster City Council WCDG – Waterloo Community Development Group WHS – World Heritage Site XX – Cross Examination
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 3
File Ref: APP/N5660/A/10/2123877 69-71 Bondway, Vauxhall, London SW8 1SQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Vauxhall Bondway Ltd against the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth.
• The application Ref 09/01520/FUL is dated 15 May 2009. • The development proposed is: The demolition of existing buildings on site and the erection
of a 42 storey building (149m) plus 2 basement levels below ground to provide a mixed use development comprising commercial units (flexible Use Class A1, A2, A3 and A4) of 275sqm GEA at ground floor, commercial units (Use Class B1) of 5,205sqm GEA at ground, first, second and third floor, 671sqm residential amenity space at thirty-sixth floor and 376 residential units at fourth to fortieth floors, two levels of plant at forty-first to forty-second floors, 25 car parking spaces and 22 motorbike parking spaces located in the basements, 568 cycle parking spaces (360 located in the basements, 156 located in storage units on floors four to sixteen and 52 at grade), refuse storage, public realm improvements/landscaping at street level and the formation of new vehicular access from Bondway/realigned vehicular access from Parry Street.
• The appeal was recovered for determination by the Secretary of State by a direction made under section 79 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on 12 March 2010
• The reason for the direction is that the appeal involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities and proposals which could have an adverse impact on the outstanding universal value, integrity, authenticity and significance of a World Heritage Site.
• The matters about which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed for the purposes of consideration of the appeal are: a) the extent to which the proposed development would be in accordance with the
development plan for the area; b) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies
in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, and accompanying guidance The Planning System: General Principles, with particular regard to:
i) the achievement of sustainable development and sustainable communities through an integrated approach to social cohesion, protection and enhancement of the environment, prudent use of natural resources and economic development;
ii) whether the design principles in relation to the site and its wider context, including the layout, scale, open space, visual appearance and landscaping, are appropriate in their context and take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions, having regard to the advice in paragraphs 33 to 39 of PPS1;
iii) the extent to which the application takes into account the access needs of all in society, including people with disabilities – including access to and into buildings, having regard to the advice in paragraphs 36 and 39 of PPS1;
iv) Advice on prematurity in paragraphs 17-19 of The Planning System: General Principles, having regard to progress towards adoption of any emerging development plan documents or saved policies under the transitional arrangements;
c) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government planning for housing policy objectives in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing, with particular regard towards delivering:
i) high quality housing that is well designed and built to a high standard;
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 4
ii) a mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price, to support a wide variety of households in all areas, both urban and rural;
iii) a sufficient quantity of housing taking into account need and demand and seeking to improve choice;
iv) housing developments in suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure;
v) a flexible, responsive supply of land – managed in a way that makes efficient and effective use of land, including re-use of previously developed land, where appropriate;
d) the extent to which the proposed development accords with Government planning policy advice in Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable economic Growth;
e) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, in particular on the need to locate development in a way which helps to promote more sustainable transport choices; promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; reduce the need to travel, especially by car and whether the proposal complies with local car parking standards and the advice in paragraphs 52 to 56 of PPG13;
f) whether any permission granted for the proposed development should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take;
g) whether any permission granted should be accompanied by any planning obligations under section 106 of the 1990 Act and, if so, whether the proposed terms of such obligations are acceptable; and
h) any other matters that the Inspector considers relevant.
Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed
Procedural Matters
1. A pre-inquiry meeting was held on 17 May 2010.1 The Inquiry sat from 20 to 23 July, 27 to 30 July, and 4 to 6 August 2010. Site visits took place on 19 July and 3 August. The Inquiry was closed in writing on 18 August 2010.
2. Proofs of evidence are included as Inquiry Documents. These are as originally submitted and do not take account of how the evidence may have been affected by questioning or by other aspects of the Inquiry. Opening and closing submissions are also included and have been amended in red to more accurately reflect their delivered content. Typographical errors to Inquiry Documents, where detected, have also been corrected in red.
Description of the Proposed Development
3. The Appellant wrote2 to the Planning Inspectorate before the Inquiry, drawing attention to an error in the amount of commercial floorspace (Use Classes B1 and flexible A1/A2/A3/A4) included in the application’s description of the proposal. This arose in main from the retail floorspace at ground floor level being also included within the B1 floorspace and, therefore, effectively double counted.
4. The change, of some 6 or 7% in B1 floorspace, is not substantial and does not affect the scheme drawings. Corrections to the Environmental Statement (ES)
1 ID1, PIM Notes 2 ID2, letter dated 14 July 2010
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 5
and Design and Access Statement (DAS) are appended to the letter. The matter was discussed at the Inquiry and the statutory consultees were circulated without adverse response. Because the change is minor and, in my view, would not prejudice the interests of any party or cause them an injustice, I have accepted the change. The description of the development set out above is the corrected version.
The Environmental Statement
5. By virtue of Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293), the development proposed is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development. An ES3 was submitted with the application. Following notification by the Appellant, the Secretary of State required4 further information pursuant to Regulation 19 of the 1999 Regulations, mainly to take account of events which have occurred since the ES was submitted. The further information5 was submitted before the opening of the Inquiry.
6. Questions were raised at the Inquiry regarding the manner in which the ES deals with reflected solar glare, overshadowing of nearby gardens and amenity areas, taxi drops, deliveries, impact on the local highway, and sound reverberation. Many of these points were investigated in the Regulation 19 submission,6 and are covered in the present report’s Conclusions.
7. I have taken all the environmental information into account and am satisfied that the EIA requirements have been met.
Statements of Common Ground
8. A Statement of Common Ground (SOCG),7 together with Appendices, has been agreed between the Appellant and the Council. A separate Statement of Common Ground on Energy8 between the Appellant, the Greater London Authority (GLA), and Transport for London (TfL) confirms that the development could export and import heat in connection with the GLA’s proposed district heating network. There would be a loss of 2 basement car parking spaces, from 25 noted in the description of the development to 23. This is acceptable to TfL.9 The putative reasons for refusal are set out in paragraph 9.2 of the SOCG.
The Site and Surroundings
9. The appeal Site is located in the northern part of the London Borough of Lambeth, close to the boundary with the London Borough of Wandsworth. It is some 0.29 hectares in area and is bounded to the north by Parry Street and to the west by Bondway. The brick arched viaduct carrying the mainline railway into Waterloo Station forms the eastern boundary of the Site, and a small triangle of land, currently used as storage space and parking for businesses in the viaduct arches forms the southern boundary.
3 CD 2/4/A‐F 4 CD2/23 5 CD2/4/G‐I 6 CD2/4/H, para 13.23 and 14.31a ‐.000 14.31c 7 CD1/2 8 CD1/2A 9 CD1/2A, p.5 Section 3
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 6
10. The Site is occupied by a late 19th Century warehouse, which would be demolished under the proposals. It was altered and extended during the 20th Century to include a three storey wing to the north, a sixth storey at roof level, and a five storey east wing, between the original building and the viaduct. The forecourt canopy, fronting Parry Street, was built in the 1970s. The building is not listed and the Site does not lie within a conservation area. It is currently used for self-storage (Use Class B8) and general office space for small businesses (Use Class B1)
11. The surrounding area is the nodal point of a network of busy main roads converging on the Vauxhall gyratory system. Parry Street forms part of this system, gathering traffic from the east of the viaduct, a large proportion of which then crosses Vauxhall Bridge. The area is very mixed, in uses and building morphology. To the north of Parry Street, the Site is dominated by the main Vauxhall transport interchange, which includes the bus station with its sweeping roof, and the underground and mainline railway stations.
12. To the east of the bus station, between the northern stretch of Bondway and the viaduct, lies a block of mainly five storeys comprising retail, office, and residential uses. The area to the west of the site is made up of mainly employment uses, from two storey industrial units to the high rise offices of Market Tower at approximately 22 storeys. Further to the north west, flanking the approach to Vauxhall Bridge, are the MI6 building and the St Georges Wharf residential development, with elements varying in height up to some 20 storeys. A mix of uses is also found to the south of the Site, west of the viaduct, such as offices, residential, a food superstore, and storage and distribution including the New Covent Garden Flower Market.
13. The area to the east of the viaduct is predominantly of a smaller scale residential nature, although there are retail and employment uses along South Lambeth Road and Miles Street, notably Keybridge House at 18 storeys, occupied by BT. Vauxhall Park, an urban park of some 2.82 hectares, is a focus of the area, providing amenity space and children’s facilities.
14. Descriptions of listed buildings and surrounding conservation areas are set out comprehensively in the Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (HTVIA).10 Although there are a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the Site, those some distance away might also be affected, through the impact on views within their settings. Similarly, although the Vauxhall, St Marks, and Albert Square Conservation Areas lie nearest to the Site, the effect on more distant views, including those from the Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square World Heritage Site (WHS), would also be significant.
Planning Policy
15. The development plan comprises the London Plan (consolidated with further alterations since 2004) 2008,11 and the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).12 A comprehensive list of policies which may be relevant is set out in the Statement of Common Ground (SOCG).13 Policies central to the proposals are:
10 CD2/4/E; c.f.: CD1/12, Overview Map 11 CD4/1 12 CD5/1 13 CD2/1, para 4.3‐4.4
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 7
The London Plan (LP):
• Policy 2A.4 – The Central Activities Zone
• Policy 2A.5 – Opportunity areas
• Policy 3A.3 - Maximising the potential of sites
• Policy 3A.5 – Housing Choice
• Policy 3A.6 – Quality of new housing provision
• Policy 3A.10 – Negotiating affordable housing in individual private residential and mixed use schemes
• Policy 3B.1 – Developing London’s economy
• Policy 3B.2 – Office demand and supply
• Policy 3B.3 – Mixed use development
• Policy 3B.11 – Improving employment opportunities for Londoners
• Policy 3C.23 – Parking strategy
• Policy 3C.1 – Integrating transport and development
• Policy 3D.8 – Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure
• Policy 3D.13 – Children and young people’s play and informal recreation strategies
• Policy 4A.3 – Sustainable design and construction
• Policy 4A.6 – Decentralised energy: heating, cooling and power
• Policy 4A.7 – Renewable energy
• Policy 4B.1 – Design principles for a compact city
• Policy 4B.5 – Creating an inclusive environment
• Policy 4B.9 – Tall buildings - location
• Policy 4B.10 – Large scale buildings
• Policy 4B.12 – Heritage conservation
• Policy 4B.11 – London’s built heritage
• Policy 4B.14 – World Heritage Sites
• Policy 5E.2 – Opportunity Areas in South West London
• Policy 6A.5 – Planning obligations
The Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP):
• Policy 1 – The Vision for Lambeth
• Policy 3 – The Central Activities Zone
• Policy 7 – Protection of Residential amenity
• Policy 9 – Transport Impact
• Policy 14 – Parking and Traffic Restraint
• Policy 15 – Additional Housing
• Policy 16 – Affordable Housing
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 8
• Policy 22 – Key Industrial and Business Areas (KIBA)
• Policy 23 – Protection and Location of other Employment Uses
• Policy 33 – Building Scale and Design
• Policy 34 – Renewable Energy in Major Development
• Policy 35 – Sustainable Design and Construction
• Policy 39 – Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design
• Policy 40 – Tall Buildings
• Policy 41 – Views
• Policy 45 – Listed Buildings
• Policy 47 – Conservation Areas
• Policy 50 – Open Space and Sports Facilities
• Policy 57 – Planning Obligations
• Policy 76 – Vauxhall Cross Transport Hub
• Policy 77 – Vauxhall – Urban Design and Public Realm Improvements (including Major Development Opportunity sites – MDOs. The Site lies within MDO 81, Parry Street East.)
16. The emerging policy framework includes the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (CS);14 the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework Consultation Draft (OAPF);15 and the LBL’s Vauxhall Area Draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).16 In addition, the replacement London Plan17 was being examined in public whilst the Inquiry sat.
17. The examination into the CS was programmed to begin on 14 September 2010. The CS proposes to remove the KIBA (UDP Policy 22) and MDO (UDP Policy 77) designations covering the Site’s location in Bondway. At consultation in late 2009 there were no representations which raised concern about the proposed designation removal. Central to the proposals are CS Strategic Policy S3 (Economic Development) and Places and Neighbourhoods Policy PN2 (Vauxhall).
18. The draft OAPF has been prepared by the GLA in partnership with Lambeth and Wandsworth Councils to establish a policy framework which brings together the London Plan and the Borough development plan documents. The draft SPD takes forward the Area Action Plan (AAP) identified in UDP Policy 77 to guide development in the Lambeth part of the Vauxhall/Battersea Opportunity Area. Both documents have been the subject of public consultation and are expected to be finalised towards the end of 2010.
Planning History
19. The planning history of the site is set out in the SOCG,18 but is not significant for the purposes of assessing the proposals.
14 CD5/11, CS Submitted Version, March 2010 15 CD4/3, Consultation Draft November 2009 16 CD5/2, Public Consultation Version 2008 17 CD4/2, Consultation Draft 18 CD1/2, para 3.7
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 9
The Proposals
20. The proposed development comprises a 149 metre tall, 42 storey, mixed use tower containing some 90% residential accommodation, with an Amenity Floor at Level 36l, and 10% subsidised employment space on the lower floors. The ground floor would contain entrance, retail and café or restaurant facilities. 2 levels of basement would contain plant, limited car parking, and substantial cycle parking facilities. The residential accommodation proposed consists of 376 apartments of 1 to 4 bedrooms providing some 30% affordable and 70% market housing.
21. Externally, Bondway would be converted to a shared vehicle, pedestrian and cycle surface from Parry Street, through the viaduct arch to South Lambeth Road. Soft landscaping would be installed to Bondway and Parry Street, and improvements made to the Parry Street and Miles Street railway arches.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 10
IN SUPPORT
The Case for the Appellant
The material points are:
Introduction
22. The proposals provide the opportunity to make a significant advance towards the comprehensive regeneration of Vauxhall and the realisation of the Council’s and the GLA’s objectives for this part of Lambeth. The scheme’s scale, design and mix of uses have been refined in cooperation with the Council’s and GLA’s officers, attracting their firm support. It has also attracted the support of CABE for its thorough appraisal of context and the high quality of its design. This is an exceptional opportunity to realise the potential of a ‘key strategic site’19 within the northern part of the Borough.
Policy Relating to Employment20
Context
23. The Site lies within an area that has accommodated Class B employment uses for many years. These include industrial uses which are not compatible with residential development, and are now unsuitable for inclusion in Vauxhall’s comprehensive regeneration. The Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA) and Major Development Opportunity (MDO) designations reflect this historic position.
24. Both of those designations are to be removed. This reflects the Council’s recognition that, as part of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), and as an area earmarked for regeneration with a more varied mixture of uses, the historical emphasis on employment development must change and a more flexible policy approach must be adopted. This is clearly set out in the adopted London Plan, concerning the Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea Opportunity Area (OA):
“Though there is evidence of demand, which in other parts of London would justify retention of industrial type uses, in this CAZ Opportunity Area retention of such an extensive area in low intensity, low value uses conflicts with wider strategic objectives for CAZ”21 .
25. The same approach is also apparent in the emerging Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF), which points out that:
“The spatial fragmentation of existing residential communities to the south [of the viaduct and major roads] from the River Thames to the north is exacerbated by the industrial land uses that currently occupy the OA”
The identification of the continuing presence of industrial land uses as part of the problem underlines the emphasis in the draft OAPF on changing the “…industrial and often inhospitable character of the OA…” and providing an upgrade to the
19 CD2/14, p.163 para 2.11 20 The Appellant’s evidence on the interpretation and application of the employment policies in the development plan is in Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence, and his oral evidence, supported by the reports of Mr Fisher of Tuckermans, A7.2‐A7.4 21 CD4/1, p.340 para 5.142 (LP Policy 5E.2)
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 11
public realm through “…the delivery of high density housing and commercial uses…”22
26. The Council has sought to play down this significant shift in policy approach, arguing, in effect, that little weight can be attached to its own emerging policies and to those of the GLA. However, this fails to take into account the absence of objection to the proposed designation removal in its emerging Core Strategy (CS), leading to the very high likelihood of it being incorporated in the plan when adopted. It also ignores the important underlying factors leading to its decision to remove the designations. The proposed designation removal can, therefore, be given significant weight.23
Emerging Development Plan Policy
27. The proposals are consistent with the two most relevant proposed policies in the emerging CS, Policies PN2 (Places and Neighbourhoods – Vauxhall) and S3 (Economic Development).24
Policy PN2
28. This policy has not been questioned by the CS Inspector, there have been no objections to it, and there is no evidence that the Council has re-considered the principle of the policy or its wording.25 Policy PN2 can therefore be expected to become development plan policy early next year.
29. The proposals satisfy criteria (a) to (e) of the Policy.26 As to criterion (f) (Vauxhall Heart), the proposals accord with the mix of uses identified, including residential, retail and business. Criterion (f) does not make any reference to development being employment-led, or imply it.27 Mr Vinall, for the Council, confirmed that the proposal complies with Policy PN2.28
30. The CS does not adopt a prescriptive approach to the mix of uses in the Vauxhall Heart, whereas it does for other areas such as the South-East Arc. In this it is to be preferred to the draft SPD’s prescriptive approach as the more up to date expression of the Council’s position. The draft SPD has fallen out of step with more recent emerging development plan policy in this respect.29
Policy S3
31. CS Policy S3 demonstrates flexibility by regarding a number of different options as acceptable.30 There are three ways in which Policy S3(b) - Maintaining a stock
22 CD4/3, p.18 23 Mr Taylor, in XX 24 CD5/11, p.65‐67 and p.43‐44 25 Acknowledged by Mr Vinall in XX 26 (a) Active ground floor frontages (b) Developing an accessible, legible and permeable pedestrian and cycling environment, including creating public spaces (c) Seeking substantial improvements in the quality, access and capacity of public transport (d) Supporting the highest standards of sustainable design and construction (e) Promoting development appropriate to the different characteristics and roles of distinct character areas of Vauxhall 27 Mr Vinall accepted this in XX 28 In XX 29 CD5/2, p.70‐75; Mr Taylor in XX 30 Accepted by Mr Vinall in XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 12
of other sites and premises (not in KIBAs) in commercial use - can be satisfied. It is common ground that the proposed development falls within two of those options, through the provision of subsidised employment floorspace, and through the provision of at least half of the site’s area as employment floor space. Mr Vinall confirmed31 that the proposed development complies with Policy S3.
32. Responding to a question in re-examination on this point, Mr Vinall said that the words used in the Policy are “…not as we would like them to be.” However, the Policy formulation had not previously been called into question by its authors. It was carefully framed under Mr Vinall’s supervision, consulted upon and then submitted to the Secretary of State as sound. As Mr Vinall confirmed32 the redrafting of Policy S3 has not been sought, and the CS Inspector has raised no particular questions on its terms.
33. Nevertheless, since Mr Vinall gave this evidence, the Council has decided it wishes to omit part of the draft Policy.33 This is because, at the Inquiry, the Council came to realize that the proposals are entirely consistent with the emerging Policy, and its objectives. This consistency remains true even after the changes, since the diluted draft of the Policy no longer carries development control criteria. These criteria will be provided in due course in the Development Management DPD.34 Therefore, the position has not changed.
Employment Floorspace Supply and Demand in Vauxhall
34. Mr Johnson’s evidence35 took the Council’s case no further forward. It was directed at supporting the KIBA designation which the Council has decided to remove. The Council was aware of the DTZ 2007 study36 and the Lambeth Business Survey 2009 when it took the decision, as Mr Johnson acknowledged.37 Mr Johnson’s evidence did not come to grips with the implications of this for his appraisal of the CS and its broad strategic approach, as he conceded.38 There are other reasons why Mr Johnson’s conclusions should attract little weight:
• Mr Johnson accepted39 that if one were seeking evidence based on practical experience of letting employment floor space in this area, one should look not at his evidence but rather at that provided by Tuckermans for the Appellant.40
• Vauxhall is a secondary office market.41
• Mr Johnson could not confirm42 that the present level of supply of office floor space was below that of the last 5 to 10 years.
31 In XX 32 In XX 33 LBL4.5, submitted by the Council in response to the CS Inspector's questions 34 LBL4.5, paras 3.1‐3.5 35 LBL3.1 et al 36 CD6/7 37 In XX 38 In XX 39 In XX 40 A7.3 41 Accepted by Mr Johnson in XX 42 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 13
forward a
• Mr Johnson could not confirm43 that there was any evidence of frustrated demand in the Vauxhall office market over any particular period.
The London Plan
35. The Council has alleged a breach of London Plan Policies 3B.1 (Developing London’s economy), 3B.2 (Office demand and supply) and 3B.11 (Improving employment opportunities).44 It has not alleged any breach of Policy 5E.2, which deals with the appropriate mix of uses in the Opportunity Area (OA). Neither has the GLA asserted any breach of London Plan policies relating to employment, employment land or to the mix of uses generally.
36. Policies 3B.1, 3B.2 and 3B.11 of the London Plan are not development control policies. Rather, they set certain broad strategic objectives which the Mayor will work with strategic partners to achieve. Mr Taylor’s evidence for the Appellant has explained how the proposed development would further those objectives where they are relevant.45
37. By contrast, Policy 5E.2 is intended to be used in development control decisions and states that, taking account of other policies, developments “…will be expected to maximize residential and non-residential densities, and to contain mixed uses...”46 The proposals comply fully with Policy 5E.2.
The Draft OAPF
38. The proposal accords entirely with the land use strategy of the draft OAPF. The area in which the site is located is identified as being a high density mixed use centre and a focal point for office development, retail development and housing.47 There is no requirement for any particular proportional mix of uses, though the draft OAPF does make clear that the area will need to bring“…significant element of housing…” and the adopted London Plan provides for a minimum of 3,500 homes in the OA between 2001 and 2026.48
39. Mr Vinall accepted49 that if there were any breach of the land use strategy in the draft OAPF, he would have expected the GLA to have said so, and that far from objecting to the scheme the GLA had in fact expressed its support for the land use composition proposed.50
The GLA’s Position
40. Mr Filskow’s evidence shows that the GLA has consistently preferred a residential-led mixed use scheme with employment uses within a tall building for the Site.51 The GLA’s support for this mix of uses is clear in its Stage 1 Report, which notes:
43 In XX 44 CD4/1 45 A7.2, p.51‐53 46 CD4/1, p.339 47 CD4/3, p.26‐27 48 CD4/1, p.339 Table 5E.1 49 In XX 50 CD2/16, p.4 para 17‐19 51 A2.2, para 2.3.1
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 14
“London Plan policy 5E.2 Opportunity Areas in South West London states that new developments in opportunity areas ‘will be expected to maximise residential and non-residential densities and to contain mixed uses.’ Production of an opportunity area planning framework is currently underway but has not yet been subject to public consultation.
The proposed redevelopment of this prominent site for mixed use residential, office and retail uses broadly accords with strategic policy objectives for the CAZ and the opportunity area and is supported in principle.”52
41. The GLA's letter dated 2 August 2010, responding to the minor amendments in the quantum of employment floorspace proposed at the start of the Inquiry, states that it does not consider them to be material. It concludes that, "The proposed mix of residential, office and retail uses accords with London Plan policy objectives for the Central Activities Zone and the Vauxhall-Nine Elms-Battersea opportunity area and continues to be supported in principle."53
The UDP - Interpretation and Approach
42. The Appellant and the Council agree on the interpretation of UDP Policy 77 relating to MDOs 80-83. Whereas the other MDOs are considered individually in the UDP, MDOs 80-83 are considered together.54 UDP policy treats these sites as a group, with the objectives relating to the group as a whole. The Policy refines the general policy approach in UDP Policy 22 (KIBAs) tailoring it to this particular area, through a very particular and flexible approach.55
43. Since it notes that two-thirds of the floor space can be for a use or uses other than employment, UDP Policy 77 clearly contemplates a residential-led development.56 The suggestion made by third parties that the UDP requires an employment-led scheme on the appeal site and neighbouring land fails to recognize this. Policy 22 encourages development which “…increases employment levels…,”57 as the appeal proposals would. Mr Vinall interprets ‘employment levels’ in terms of floorspace rather than jobs, but this is neither the wording nor the intention of the Policy.
44. The explanatory wording of Policy 77 notes that any shortfall below one-third of employment floorspace on an individual site would not contravene the Policy where it can be demonstrated that the shortfall could be made up across the remainder of the site comprised in MDOs 80-83. Significant weight should be attached to the fact that the Council shares this interpretation. For the Waterloo Community Development Group (WCDG), Mr Ball failed to persuade Mr Vinall that he did not understand the policy his team had formulated and the Council adopted.
45. The Council’s interpretation of the policy, as Mr Vinall explained,58 was put to the UDP Inspector by the Council, who accepted it as correct, and it has since been
52 CD2/16, para 18‐19 53 CD2/16A 54 CD5/1, p.183‐184 55 Mr Vinall accepted this in XX 56 Accepted by Mr Vinall in XX 57 CD5/1, p.74 58 In EC
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 15
applied on that basis by the Council. Both in his proof of evidence59 and in his rebuttal proof,60 Mr Taylor has set out the Appellant’s reasons for agreeing with this interpretation. It would achieve the overall objective of the Policy across the four sites, and would be no less effective than the WCDG’s interpretation.
46. However, the Council contends that an individual site can only be allowed to proceed with less than one-third employment floor space if all four MDO sites are in the same ownership, and there is a comprehensive master plan in place which is adhered to.61 Mr Vinall rightly described the policy as ‘very flexible’,62 but the Council’s suggested approach would make the policy unnecessarily prescriptive, robbing it of the flexibility which Mr Vinall sought to emphasize.
47. In summary:
• All of the numbered sites are in several ownerships, and there is no proposal (or obvious justification) to seek to assemble them by compulsory acquisition.
• In those circumstances the Council’s approach would remove the flexibility the caveat is intended to provide, because no individual site owner could ever hope to satisfy its requirements.
• It would, therefore, act as a significant drag on the regeneration of this OA in the CAZ, with no justification possible consistent with the overall objectives of the Policy.
• The Appellant’s approach, by contrast, is flexible and responsive and provides the Council with the ability to regulate the delivery of employment floor space as and when applications are made, so as to ensure the overall proportion achieved is acceptable.
• It also accords with the wording of the Policy, which requires a demonstration that the requisite amount of floor space ‘can be achieved’ across the remainder of the site, not that it ‘will be achieved’.
The Application of UDP Policy for the MDO
48. None of the four MDO sites has yet been redeveloped, though planning permission has recently been granted for the redevelopment of the south-west part of MDO 83 with the 36 storey Sky Gardens tower. There is ample scope for any shortfall of employment floor space on the Site to be met on MDOs 80, 82 and/or 83. As Mr Taylor has shown, the additional employment floor space to be accommodated across the remainder of the area covered by the Policy would be only 12,920 square metres.63
49. It would then be up to the Council, were they to consider it expedient, to ensure that the additional floor space came forward with the redevelopment of these sites over time. In the language of the Policy,64 the Appellant’s evidence has
59 A7.2, p.44‐46 60 A7.4, p.6 61 LBL2.1, p.26 para 7.45 62 In EC 63 A7.2, paras 6.15‐6.16 64 CD5/1, p.184
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 16
demonstrated that the additional floor space ‘can be achieved’ across the remainder of the MDO sites.
50. Mr Vinall confirmed65 that Mr Taylor was correct in stating that the ‘shortfall’ in employment floor space could be met on the remaining MDO sites. That is consistent with the view expressed in the Council officers’ report, that “… further Use Class B1 floorspace would be expected to be provided on the remainder of MDO 80, and on MDO’s 82 and 83 upon their redevelopment which would further boost the employment floorspace in this part of Vauxhall.”66
51. Mr Vinall also confirmed67 as common ground the following four points, which lend more weight to the conclusions reached by Mr Taylor and the officers who handled the application in its progress to committee:
• Roughly 90% of the area to which the policy applies is outside the appeal site, and remains to be worked with.
• The Council has not thought about the potential floor space that could be accommodated on that remaining 90%.
• A considerable amount of floor space can be achieved through redevelopment.
• In the light of Mr Johnson’s evidence, there would be clear justification in commercial terms for employment development being promoted on the remainder of the MDO site, including Use Class B1 development. If demand for office floorspace remains good, it would be represented there.
52. It is clear that any shortfall against the one-third requirement can be met on the other sites within the MDO and the proposals, therefore, satisfy policy. The grant of planning permission for the proposals would make the early redevelopment of the other land within the MDO site more likely as it would engender further confidence in this part of Vauxhall as an attractive location for high quality residential and employment development. The net effect would be to encourage employment floorspace of high quality to come forward more rapidly and in greater quantity than it otherwise would have done.
53. In any event, even if a more restrictive approach were taken to the Policy there are, as the Council's case officer put it in his report to committee, "…a number of cogent factors which do weigh heavily in the balance to justify this proposed level of provision."68 This point is now acknowledged in the Council's closing submissions.69 There are three main reasons why the proposed amount of employment floor space is acceptable.
54. Firstly, the proposals are consistent with the overall policy objective of securing a higher level of employment in this area, and making a greater contribution to the local and central London economies. This is because:
65 In EC 66 CD2/14, p.185 para 6.2.18 67 In XX 68 CD2/14, p.186 para 6.2.21 69 CD8/6, p.6 para 27
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 17
a) The purpose of the policy is to secure a significant level of employment on the site as part of any redevelopment proposal. It would be unreal to consider floorspace without reference to its employment generating potential. Such an approach would ignore the underlying objectives of the policy.
b) This is reflected in the supporting text to Policy 23 (Protection and Location of other Employment Uses), which explains that:
“With intensification of employment sites, overall employment levels could be maintained with a release of some of them to priority alternative land uses – such as affordable housing. This principle also applies to mixed-use employment areas.”70
As Mr Taylor explained,71 the principle applies precisely to the present proposals.
c) UDP policy does not specify any particular quantum of employment floorspace. Nor has the Council identified any particular aspiration for the level of jobs or floorspace on this site. As Mr Vinall agreed,72 the fractional approach is entirely related to the area of the proposed replacement floorspace. Mr Vinall also confirmed73 that the Council does not have a particular floorspace figure as a target for this site.
• Thus it is common ground that the level of employment floor space to be provided would be acceptable to the Council if the overall level of floorspace were commensurately smaller.74 It is also agreed that, in the absence of any particular target, the proposals do not fall short of the Council’s aspiration.
• The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) envisages 112 dwellings being built on the appeal Site,75 which is a little under one-third of the total amount of housing proposed in the appeal scheme. On that basis, the Council envisages redevelopment of the Site at a level which, through its own approach to UDP policy, would generate a requirement for about the same amount of employment floorspace as is presently proposed. In other words, the appeal scheme delivers the same quantum of employment floor space as the Council sees as being appropriate through the SHLAA. Mr Vinall was unable to explain why this analysis might be wrong.76
d) If, as the Council acknowledges in closing submissions, "…the reason the Council is trying to protect and promote employment is to combat the high levels of unemployment in the Borough,"77 the proposals’ consequences for the provision of jobs ought to be given due weight. The development can be
70 CD5/1, p.78 para 4.11.21 71 In EC 72 In XX 73 In XX 74 Mr Vinall accepted this in XX 75 LBL2.1, para 7.34‐7.36 76 In XX 77 CD8/6, p.9, para 37
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 18
expected to yield some 362 full-time jobs, 114 more than the Site contains at present.78
In practice, the net increase would be much higher because there is good reason to believe that all of those currently employed on site would be able to retain their jobs. Those office uses wishing to take up space in the new building would be offered the chance to return, at a subsidized rent. Schedule 3 Part 4 of the s106 Agreement79 obliges the developer to market the new floorspace to those tenants who were in occupation of the existing building's class B1 floorspace in the 12 months immediately prior to the Implementation Date. Those not returning would have an ample choice of suitable alternative accommodation in the area.80 The existing jobs are therefore likely to be retained in this part of Lambeth. The predicted net gain of 114 jobs can therefore be regarded as a minimum figure.
• It is agreed that the proposed development would be capable of providing more jobs than at present.81
• Indeed, it is common ground that this is a particularly valuable benefit given the priority the Council has given to the creation of employment-generating floor space to tackle the high levels of unemployment in the borough.82
e) To focus only on a loss of floorspace takes no account of employment generation. When Mr Taylor was asked83 whether he regarded the loss of floorspace to be substantial, he explained that he did not, because the Use Class B8 floorspace generates only two jobs. The Council’s estimate of the ‘before’ and ‘after’ levels of employment is flawed because it assumes 88 jobs within the Class B8 floorspace – a theoretical and unrealistic number – rather than the two which actually exist.
• As Mr Taylor explained,84 the English Partnerships ratio for this type of space is geared towards a very different type of Class B8 use with a higher ratio of employees. The appeal site, which is used as a low intensity self-storage facility rather than warehousing, is not suitable for such a use.
• Mr Johnson acknowledged85 that he had not contemplated what type and level of warehousing use would generate 88 jobs in this location, or what such a use would look like. He confirmed that his analysis had been based on a ratio derived from larger units with higher ceilings.86
• Generally, as Mr Taylor observed,87 the London Plan ratios are to be preferred to the English Partnerships ratios because the former are more up to date and based on conditions in London.
78 Mr Taylor, EC 79 CD1/10B 80 A7.3, Mr Fisher’s report 81 Mr Vinall accepted this in XX, saying “…job creation is very important.” 82 LBL2.1, p.22‐24 paras 7.37‐7.39 and Mr Vinall in XX 83 In XX 84 In EC 85 In XX 86 In RE 87 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 19
f) It is also necessary to consider the quality of the employment floor space proposed. It would be significantly better than that in the existing building. Rents would be subsidized to make the floor space more affordable for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).
• It is agreed88 that SMEs fulfil an important function in the local economy, and that the appeal scheme brings with it the important benefit of being able to accommodate SMEs.
• Mr Taylor explained89 that the rent would be set at a level matching that of the existing building. This is the prevailing market rate, but it is well below the rate for the high quality modern office accommodation proposed.90 The proposed floorspace would comprise a step change in the quality of office space available in Vauxhall, and would be available at a subsidized rate. Mr Vinall acknowledged91 that the provision of affordable employment floor space would be a particular benefit in itself, and that it would accord with the objective in UDP Policy 22 of improving access to employment.
g) Mr Vinall also accepted92 that the provision of the new frontage floorspace would be of benefit, creating a high quality street environment, not normally associated with industrial sites.
h) Therefore, the overall improvement in the Site’s employment offer, both quantitative and qualitative, would be very considerable. It would be much greater than revealed by a simple comparison of floorspace.
55. Secondly, the more prescriptive element of the Policy is out of date having regard to the CAZ and OA designations, and the approach taken both by the Council and by the GLA in emerging policy. This shift in land use strategy has already been addressed, but the main points can be summarised as follows:
• As an OA, this part of Vauxhall is identified as having scope for increased housing capacity. The London Plan explains that to achieve the objectives for the OA and to accord with the wider objectives for the CAZ, the historic strategic employment location designation covering much of this area should be reviewed.93
• A wider range of activities should be sought in the CAZ, rather than limiting the uses to those normally found in the KIBAs.94
• This is reflected in the rich mixture of uses which is encouraged by the Council’s draft Vauxhall SPD95 and the draft OAPF.96 Also in the pre-application advice given to the Appellant by officers of the GLA and the
88 Mr Johnson in XX 89 In EC 90 CD1/10B, Schedule 3 Part 4 91 In XX 92 In XX c.f.: LBL2.1, p.15 para 7.20 93 CD4/1, p.340 paras 5.141‐5.142 94 LBL2.1, para 7.55 95 CD5/2, p.70‐72 96 CD4/3
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 20
Council, who consistently expressed a preference for a residential-led scheme with employment uses.97
• Policy is moving away from the designation of this area as a KIBA and MDO. No representations have been made which run counter to the proposed designation removals. Mr Vinall accepted98 that de-designation will happen.
56. Thirdly, the Council’s recent application of Policy 77 when dealing with the proposal for Vauxhall Sky Gardens shows that it regards a broader, purposive approach as being the correct one.
• 16% of the overall floorspace proposed in the Vauxhall Sky Gardens building is for employment uses. This is to be in Class B1 use, replacing Class B8 floorspace in the existing building.
• The Council recognised that the shortfall in employment floorspace against the MDO 83 target should be considered in the context of a viable and deliverable high quality mixed use scheme being brought forward on a landmark site that would have major regeneration benefits for the Vauxhall area.99 The same considerations apply to the present proposals.
• The Council also recognised that the level of additional employment generated should be considered, rather than simple floorspace figures.100 Again, the same considerations apply here.
Conclusion
57. For these reasons, the proposals are consistent with the employment policies of the development plan. They would deliver significant benefits in terms of the quality of the new employment floor space, and the net increase in the number of jobs generated.
Private Amenity Space and Children’s Play Space101
Private amenity space
58. Neither the UDP nor the London Plan require a particular quantum of private amenity space in new residential development. The Council’s relevant SPD identifies a guideline figure for shared amenity space of at least 50 square metres, together with a further 10 square metres per flat. This, it explains, can be provided either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated with the communal space.102 The nature of the target is not controversial, and a shortfall of private amenity space has not been advanced by the Council as a reason for refusal.103
97 A2.2, para 2.3.1 98 In XX 99 CD6/14, para 6.2.7 100 CD6/14, para 6.2.8 101 The Appellant’s evidence on private amenity space and children’s play space is in the proofs of evidence of Mr Filskow (A2.2‐A2.4) and Mr Taylor (A7.2‐A7.4), and their oral evidence. 102 CD5/4, para 2.8 103 LBL4.1, para 6.4.3 ‐6.4.6
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 21
59. It is agreed104 that the SPD provides guidance, and that there has to be a degree of flexibility in the approach to amenity space provision in a high density scheme. Applied to the appeal scheme, the overall target is agreed to be 50 square metres + 3,760 square metres, a total of 3,810 square metres. As Mr Taylor explained,105 the proposed development would provide a total of 3,838 square metres,106 and therefore comfortably exceed the figure suggested by the guidance. The lower figures for the level of provision given in the Council’s evidence107 are based on two departures from the Appellant’s approach, neither of which is justified.
• The Council’s figures initially excluded the Amenity Floor because of concern that it would not be available to occupants of affordable housing.108 However, the s106 Agreement secures free access for all residents of the building. Mr Dale confirmed109 that the provision of doors between the affordable and private areas would solve the issue of the need for some in the affordable units to travel down to ground level before travelling up the Amenity Floor. This, he acknowledged,110 was a change to the circumstances in which the third putative reason for refusal had been advanced. The Amenity Floor should, therefore, be included in the total of the amenity space provided by the proposal.
• The Council’s figures use gross internal area (GIA) rather than gross external area (GEA) for the assessment of floor space on the Level 36.111 There is no proper basis for using GIA for assessing internal amenity space, when GEA would be used for external amenity space, so as to include boundary walls, outbuildings etc.
60. In the past, the Council has treated internal amenity space as contributing towards its SPD amenity space targets. The comparative figures112 show that the approved Vauxhall Sky Gardens development only satisfies the SPD guidance if account is taken of internal amenity space.
61. In the present proposals, 370 of the 376 flats would have a winter garden, an external terrace, or both. The winter gardens would vary in size from 6 to 12 square metres, the external terraces from 12 to 30 square metres. In the report to committee, the Council’s officers acknowledged that the terraces “…provide a significant amenity space” and that they “…are an integral part of the building structure, protected from the wind, and have been designed to accommodate external furniture and planting, creating a meaningful, attractive and useable external amenity space for residents.”113 As Mr Filskow explained,114 these flats would benefit from a very high level of amenity. The external spaces provided have been designed to be used throughout the year.
104 Mr Dale in XX 105 In EC 106 A2.2, para 7.1.2 (as amended) 107 LBL4.1, para. 6.4.7 108 LBL4.1, para 6.4.7 109 In EC 110 In XX 111 LBL4.1, para 6.4.7 112 Doc LBL4.4, Table 2 113 CD2/14, p.190‐191 para 6.2.46 114 In EC
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 22
62. The 6 flats without their own balconies or winter gardens would all be private, with one bedroom, at the higher levels of the building, and have excellent views. They would be very desirable homes.115 No representations to the contrary have been made.
63. The proposed development would, therefore, provide more than adequate private amenity space for future residents. The Council’s guidance and the relevant provisions of the development plan would be satisfied.
Children’s Play Space
64. UDP Policy 50116 states that the provision of suitable play areas for pre-school and junior children will be sought ‘where appropriate’ in residential developments of 10 or more units. Where such provision is not appropriate on site, contributions to provision in a more appropriate location may be acceptable. Thus the UDP policy recognises that a judgment needs to be made as to whether on site provision is appropriate in any individual case.
65. The same approach is reflected in the Mayor’s SPG, which establishes a benchmark level of provision of 10 sq. m per child,117 but does not require this to be provided on the site of the development. Whilst the preference is for on-site provision:
“…off-site play provision including the creation of new provision, improvement to existing play facilities and any necessary access improvements may be acceptable in accordance with Policy 3D.13 where it can be demonstrated that there are planning constraints and that it fully satisfies the needs of the development whilst continuing to meet the needs of existing residents”118
66. A pragmatic approach to the application of this guidance is necessary when considering the redevelopment of constrained sites in central London, and in OAs. Criticism of the GLA’s pragmatic approach to the application of its own policy is misconceived.119
67. In this case, the SPG formula suggests a benchmark provision of 1,170 square metres of children’s play space, equivalent to over 40% of the total area of the site. As the Council’s SPD makes clear,120 this is part of the overall total for private amenity space, a point which Mr Dale accepted.121 The proposed building only covers 1,296 square metres (45%) of the site area, with 1,577 square metres (including areas for servicing and access) being open.122 Whilst some provision for children under the age of five could be made within the Amenity Floor, it would be impractical to seek to accommodate all of the required children’s play space on site. This is explicitly recognized by the GLA in its Stage
115 Mr Filskow in response to Inspector’s questions 116 CD5/1 117 CD4/12, para 4.38 118 CD4/12, para 4.46 119 CD8/6, p.29 paras 132‐133 120 CD5/4, p.6 para 2.12 121 In XX 122 A2.4, p.4
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 23
1 response.123 To do so would compromise the full and effective development of the Site.
68. Vauxhall Park is a short and easy walk away.124 It was described as being in ‘extremely close proximity’ to the site by the Friends of Vauxhall Park during discussion of the s106 Agreement and has facilities for young children’s play. The sensible answer is to provide an appropriate sum of money through the s106 Agreement towards the improvement of local parks. This is the approach the Appellant has adopted, which was endorsed by the GLA and the Council’s case officers. The GLA has made its position clear: the Appellant’s approach “…is acceptable in line with London Plan policy 3D.13.”125
69. Improving Vauxhall Park is a more effective means of providing children’s play space than seeking to provide a relatively small playground on the site of the new development. An on-site facility would offer no benefit for those local residents who live on the other side of the viaduct. Moreover, it is likely that many of those living in the building would choose to use Vauxhall Park in preference to a small on site facility, because of its attractions and the ease of getting there from the appeal site.
70. Enhancing Vauxhall Park would provide a valuable benefit both to the residents of the new building and to the wider community. It is clearly the right thing to do in this case. Any doubt has been dispelled by the evidence of Ms Polly Freeman and Mrs Monger of the Friends of Vauxhall Park.
71. No party has suggested a lack of scope for improvement to the facilities at Vauxhall Park, or other nearby parks such as Spring Gardens. This is not surprising, since the Vauxhall Park Management Plan identifies the use of section 106 obligation monies as being one of the main opportunities to achieve improvements for the Park. The Management Plan also identifies a number of weaknesses, opportunities and threats where additional funding could help to improve the Park.126
72. Mrs Monger confirmed that the Park and, in particular the ‘One O'Clock Club’, which is for children under five and their carers, attract people from a wide catchment area. Her evidence demonstrated the good sense of the Appellant’s approach in making a substantial commitment of section 106 money (£488,866.60 + £103,712) to improve local public open space, and to provide new or enhance existing play spaces for children and young people.127 The ‘One O’Clock Club’ is a very popular facility in need of funds for improvement.
73. The main source of cash for the necessary works will be section 106 contributions from nearby developments. This is acknowledged in Appendix Two to the Vauxhall Park Management Plan. The build costs of the intended improvements have been estimated at approximately £450,000, well within the sums identified in the s106 Agreement. It would be appropriate for the Council to use some or all of this contribution to assist the ‘One O'Clock Club’. This would compensate for the absence of open air facilities for the under fives on the appeal site and
123 CD2/16, para 58 124 A2.2, para 7.2.2 125 CD2/15, letter dated 11 May 2010, second page 126 CD6/16, Appendix 2 p.1‐2 127 CD1/10/B
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 24
reinforce a much valued facility already serving the people of this part of the borough.
74. As Mr Taylor said,128 substantial weight should be attached to this contribution in an area of Open Space Deficiency. Mr Dale accepted129 that the contribution would comprise a relevant benefit, which ought to be given weight.
The Kennington Association Planning Forum’s case
75. On behalf of the Kennington Association Planning Forum (KAPF), Mr Boardman raised two additional points in relation to open space.
76. Firstly, it was put to Professor Tavernor130 that the redevelopment of this site (and presumably others in the area) should await certainty over the precise location of future open space provision within the OAPF. However, as Professor Tavernor noted, this would be a recipe for stagnation. It would suppress any hope of achieving the GLA’s and the Council’s objectives for this area for many years.
77. The draft SPD Illustrative Masterplan131 clearly recogises that the location of the Site and its relationship with the viaduct are such that it cannot be expected to provide the open space itself. The proposals do nothing to prejudice future provision but allow a sensible range of options for the redevelopment of the site opposite.132
78. A very similar issue was raised as a ground of objection at the inquiry into the Shard of Glass building at London Bridge, and the Inspector’s approach and conclusions in that case apply equally well here:
“The existing public realm is deplorable. The London Bridge Tower proposal would bring a clear enhancement. It is an obvious first step in the process. It would not prejudice further enhancement through other developments. Indeed, it ought to stimulate further improvements. A masterplan would likely be counter-productive in that its production would delay rather than encourage development and regeneration. And there is much more than a grain of truth in Renzo Piano’s view that it is better to work incrementally ‘otherwise you are paralysed by perfection and never start’.
It should be remembered that much of what we enjoy and admire about London happened incrementally, not in accordance with a masterplan. And one should beware of introducing public open space for its own sake – it should be in the right location to serve an identified purpose. In my opinion, it is sufficient that the London Bridge Tower proposals would considerably enhance the public realm without prejudicing the ability of future neighbouring developments to contribute further enhancement. I do not believe that a building such as London Bridge Tower automatically needs public open space around it, and no public need was identified at
128 In RE 129 In XX 130 In XX 131 CD5/2, p.31 Fig 4.1 132 Mr Filskow in RE
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 25
the inquiry that ought to be, but has not been, provided by these proposals.”133
79. Secondly, Mr Boardman said that the Appellant should provide an additional sum to cover the cost of acquiring 1.4 hectares of land in the area at open market values to provide open space. He was reluctant to fix on a particular figure,134 but had advanced various sums between £5.6m to £173m.135 In closing, the figure of £10m was suggested, which the KAPF "…would be able to welcome…" as a contribution.136
80. There is no justification for the KAPF’s suggestions for disproportionate contributions to the cost of compulsorily acquiring land for more open space. The s106 Agreement would already make a satisfactory contribution, and no policy or evidential basis exists for asserting that anything more is needed. The KAPF has not been able to point to a proposed compulsory purchase order (CPO), and the Council, who would be responsible for making an order, has not sought or suggested such a payment.
81. Mr Boardman accepted137 that a CPO was unlikely. Mr Dale confirmed138 that there is little likelihood of public open space in this area being increased, and that a CPO would not be authorised to achieve it. The idea of compulsory acquisition of the land adjoining the appeal site for the creation of a pocket park was mooted by the Council’s officers both at ‘steer’ stage139 and subsequently when the committee considered the position the Council should take in this appeal,140 but nothing came of it.
Conclusion
82. The provision of private amenity space and the contribution towards the provision or enhancement of children’s play space under the proposals are appropriate and comply with policy and adopted guidance.
The Effect on the Amenity of Vauxhall Park141
The Council’s Concerns
83. The Council has two main concerns, firstly the effect of the building on views from the Park, and secondly overshadowing of the Park. Mr Dale described the second concern as being more limited in degree,142 and a modest impact which “…of itself, would not be sufficient to be a reason for refusal.”143 It has played little part in the Council’s case. In closing, the Council confirmed that it does not
133 CD7/8, para 16.18 and 16.19 134 In XX 135 K1.1, para 5.36‐5.37 136CD8/8 137 In XX 138 In XX 139 CD2/13, p.106‐107 paras 7.3.11‐7.3.13 140 CD2/14, p.192 para 6.2.56 141 The Appellant’s evidence on the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of Vauxhall Park is in the proofs of evidence of Mr Absolon (A5.2‐5.4), Professor Tavernor (A4.2) and Mr Taylor (A7.2), and their oral evidence. 142 In EC 143 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 26
advance any objection "…on daylight and sunlight grounds (using the BRE-guidance)."144
Context
84. Professor Tavernor’s photographs show Vauxhall Park as an urban park in an urban setting, characterised by a number of tall buildings of varying quality.145 The GLA and the Council are actively promoting a cluster of tall buildings in Vauxhall which, it is agreed,146 will inevitably impinge further on the setting of Vauxhall Park. Mr Dale acknowledged the Council’s intention of transforming the area through its regeneration planning in the Heart of Vauxhall. It is agreed that an approach which assumed planning harm would arise from being able to see tall buildings in the cluster from Vauxhall Park would be misconceived. Views of such buildings are not necessarily oppressive and should not be treated as if they were.
85. The Park is also characterized by its many mature trees, including a number of plane trees of considerable stature and spread.147 The canopy and sense of enclosure provided by these trees is identified as one of the Park’s strengths,148 and the ‘considerable shade’ they cast is identified as contributing to the character of the Park.149 Even allowing for the shade cast by the trees, the BRE guidance150 shows that the Park is, and would continue to be with the proposed development in place, a “…very well sunlit space,”151 a conclusion which has not been challenged by the Council.
86. During the preparation of the Vauxhall Park Management Plan, local people were consulted as to what it was they particularly valued about the Park. None of the most valued features identified by that exercise would be affected in any way by the proposed development.152 The proposed development would not affect any of the criteria used to assess the Park for the Green Flag Award,153 nor would it detract from any of the Park’s identified strengths, or exacerbate any of its identified weaknesses or threats.154 It would, however, allow realisation of some of the identified opportunities for the Park through the substantial financial contribution provided.
The Effect on Views from the Park
87. The impact of the proposed development on views within Vauxhall Park can be understood using View L58 of the Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (HTVIA),155 which has been selected as representing the most open view within the Park. The proposed building would be clearly visible in this view,
144 CD8/6, p.26 para 118 145 A4.2, p.35‐37 and 46‐48 146 Mr Dale in XX 147 CD6/16, p.24 148 CD6/16, Appendix 2 p.1 149 CD6/16, Appendix 6, item iv 150 CD6/19, p.12 section 3.3 151 Mr Absolon in EC 152 CD6/16, p.26 153 CD6/16, Appendix 2 p.2 154 CD6/16, Appendix 2 p.1‐2 155 CD2/4/E
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 27
but visibility does not equate to harm. Indeed, the effect would be beneficial in some respects:
• A substantial building of architectural excellence would be added to some views from the Park - this would not constitute harm of any kind.
• The high quality of the design would be apparent in views from the Park, with the mass of the building broken into elements of different heights, and domestic scale apparent in the detailing of the elevations. To ignore the complexity of the form of the building and its expression, in judging its likely appearance, would be a mistake.
• The visibility of the building would help to overcome the long-standing separation between those parts of Vauxhall divided by the viaduct. It would signal the regeneration of the area to the north and west, help to identify the new heart of Vauxhall, and connect the established residential community to the new one.
• When one is in the Park, as Professor Tavernor’s evidence shows, the underside of the canopy of the trees has a significant effect on how much one sees.
• Having regard to the kinetic way in which views from the Park are experienced, it is not reasonable to suggest that the proposed building would be over-dominant. As Professor Tavernor made clear,156 the existing tall buildings do not dominate the Park at present, and the proposed building would not dominate the Park in the future.
The Effect of Shadow on the Park
88. The effect of proposed large buildings on overshadowing is identified as a material consideration in London Plan Policy 4B.10, and in UDP Policy 40. Neither policy provides criteria against which to consider the acceptability of this effect. The only detailed help is to be found in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guide.157
89. The BRE document advises that:
• Access to sunlight can be improved by having taller buildings to the north of the area whose amenity is in question. The proposed building would be situated to the north west of the Park and would therefore not affect its access to sunlight for most of the time. 158
• No more than two-fifths, and preferably no more than a quarter, of any relevant amenity area, should be prevented by buildings from receiving any sunlight at all on 21 March.159 This criterion is not breached in this case. The building would not result in any additional area of permanent shadow on 21 March.
• The question of whether trees should be included in the calculation depends on the type of shade they produce:
156 In RE 157 CD6/19 158 CD6/19, p.10 159 CD6/19, p.13
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 28
o In cross-examining Mr Absolon, the Council’s main concern was whether trees should be included in the analysis at all. The Council’s assessment, as Mr Rees confirmed,160 was based on the concept of a Vauxhall Park entirely devoid of trees and made no allowance at all for the shadows they cast. There are two reasons why this approach is wrong.
o Firstly, the large plane trees cast a considerable shadow.161 That shade, particularly later in the evenings during the summer, is deep and substantial. To ignore the shade cast by these trees would produce an analysis which had nothing to do with the real experience of being in, and enjoying, the Park.
o Secondly, even if that difficulty were disregarded, the Council’s analysis would show the Park with the development in place to be a more sunlit space than in the Appellant’s analysis.162
o Therefore, the Council’s position is unrealistic and ought to be rejected.
• Where an existing outdoor space is already heavily obstructed, any further loss of sunlight should be kept to a minimum. If, as a result of new development, the area which can receive direct sunlight on 21 March were reduced to less than 0.8 times its former size, such a loss of sunlight would be significant.163 This criterion would not be breached in this case, and the proposed building would not result in any additional area of permanent shadow on 21 March.
• Where a large building is proposed, which may affect a number of gardens or open spaces, it is often useful to plot a shadow plan showing the location of shadows at different times of day and year. It is not suggested that this provides an indication of whether the development would be acceptable, and no criteria are provided to indicate the materiality of shadowing at times of the year other than 21 March. Nevertheless, a shadow plan has been provided for the times of year and day identified as being of most concern to the Council. Mr Absolon’s technical analysis has not been disputed by the Council,164 or either of the Rule 6 parties It shows that there would be no harm to the amenity of the Park.
o There would be no increase in transient shadow affecting the Park for most of the year.
o During the summer months there would be no effect at all on transient shadow for the majority of the day, including weekend afternoons when the Park is likely to be most heavily used.
o It is only during summer evenings that there would be any increase at all in transient shadow, and then only for a limited amount of time.
160 In XX 161 CD6/16 162 Mr Absolon in RE 163 CD6/19, p.14 164 Mr Rees in XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 29
o For most of the time the limited increase in shadow would affect only certain marginal areas of the park alongside Lawn Lane, which would not have any discernible effect on amenity.
o The temporary effect on the central area would last for only 50 minutes, at a time of the day when this part of the Park is unlikely to be much frequented by the public for uses depending on direct sunlight. It would probably not be noticed, and even if it were, any effect on amenity would be very limited.
o A building on the Site at the Council’s preferred height of 80 metres would cause the same effect on the central area of the Park in summer evenings.165 It seems that the Council had not considered this issue at all, nor the general effect of a cluster of tall buildings in this location.166 As Mr Rees accepted, he could not say to what degree, if at all, within the context of the planned cluster of tall buildings the proposed building would be different in effect from any other.
90. When those matters are considered in context, it is clear that the very slight overshadowing effects of this building during the summer evenings would be insignificant:
• The diagrams showing the existing position in the Park on summer evenings167 demonstrate that by the time the shadow from the proposed building starts to encroach on the main area of the Park, the Park as a whole would already be heavily shaded. Whilst some small areas would continue to enjoy direct sunlight, most of those who use the Park at this time experience it as a heavily shaded environment. As Mr Absolon said,168 the tennis court, the children’s playground and basketball court are already in shade at this time. The amenity of Vauxhall Park on summer evenings does not depend on the amount of direct sunlight which reaches the Park at that time of the day.
• There may be various reasons why people choose to visit or remain in the Park after 18.00 hours on a summer evening. Whilst some may wish to sit in the remaining patches of direct sunlight, moving when necessary to keep out of the shadow, the evidence suggests that most do not. The majority of those present in the Park at this time would be doing something unaffected by any increase in shadow, such as playing games, walking a dog, jogging, or simply walking along.
• With the proposed building in place, the amenity of the park would not change.169 This conclusion has not been challenged, either in the Council’s evidence or in cross-examination.
91. The amenity of Vauxhall Park would, therefore, not be compromised in any way by the proposed development.
165 Mr Absolon in EC 166 Mr Rees in XX 167 A5.3.2‐A.5.3.5 168 In EC 169 Mr Absolon in EC
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 30
PPS1
Sustainable Development170
92. The proposals represent an inherently sustainable form of development. The scheme would make the best and most efficient use of a previously developed site adjoining a major public transport interchange. The mixture of uses, the excellent accessibility to public transport, the limited provision of car parking and the large amount of cycle parking proposed would provide opportunities for highly sustainable patterns of living.
93. The efficient redevelopment of highly accessible previously developed sites such as this, at appropriately high densities, is crucial to the protection of the wider environment, reducing pressure to develop housing on less sustainable sites and making prudent use of natural resources. The very high quality building proposed, together with the improvements to the public realm, would enhance the local environment, stimulate the redevelopment of other previously developed sites in the area and maintain the momentum of regeneration in Vauxhall.
94. The development would also promote the aims of policy for sustainable communities. It would provide market and affordable housing within a single building, all of the same high quality, and all with convenient and equal access to the shared Amenity Floor. The new residents would become part of the existing wider residential community of Vauxhall and Kennington, using the same shops and facilities as other local residents.
95. The building has been designed to be sustainable both in its construction and operation:171
• The building would be orientated, and its façade designed, to minimize sunlight penetration in summer and to maximize it in winter.
• It is designed to conserve energy, regulating temperature naturally to reducing the use of mechanical ventilation.
• On-site biomass boilers would provide ‘green’ energy, exceeding the target of 25% renewable energy use on the site.
• The development would be sustainable in its use of embodied energy and materials, optimising material use with efficiency of fabrication and delivery to the site.
• It would comply with all of the essential standards and some of the preferred standards of the Lambeth SPG, Sustainable Design and Construction.172
• The commercial part of the building would achieve a Building Research Establishment Energy Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating of ‘Very Good’, and the residential part would achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes minimum rating of Level 3, with numerous aspects achieving Level 4 or higher.
170 The Appellant’s evidence on this matter is at pages 70 to 73 of Mr Filskow’s proof of evidence (A2.2), and page 24 of Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence (A7.2), and their oral evidence 171 A2.2, p.70‐73 172 CD5/9
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 31
• A high standard of water efficiency would be attained, and measures to encourage water conservation would be put in place. It is agreed between the Appellant and the GLA that, with the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposed development would meet the requirements of London Plan Policy 4A.6 (Decentralised energy: heating, cooling and power).173
96. It is common ground between the Appellant and the Council that the energy efficiency measures are acceptable.174 The proposed development would contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and sustainable communities, in accordance with Government policies in PPS1.
The Design of the Proposed Development175
Introduction
97. The proposed development’s design is appropriate to its context, and takes the opportunities available for improving the character of the area and the way in which it functions:
• Assessment of design quality is not simply a subjective matter in which all opinions should be accorded equal weight. Professor Tavernor’s approach to design assessment is based on well-established architectural principles and his considerable expertise and experience.176 It also reflects the principles of good design referred to in By Design,177 and its attempt to provide as objective and systematic a basis for assessment as possible.
• The detailed evidence of Mr Shuttleworth, Mr Filskow, Mr Coleman, and Professor Tavernor has demonstrated the exemplary design quality of the proposed building. Their collective experience and expertise, especially in relation to tall buildings and other significant structures in historic cities such as London, is beyond doubt. It is sound and compelling evidence.
• The points those witnesses make are reinforced by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment’s (CABE) views,178 whose reviewers include a number of very experienced architects and whose assessment was rigorous. Mr Rees acknowledged179 that the Council was not alleging any want of competence by CABE, and he accepted that Mr Eyre, the Vice-Chairman on the design panel, has a great deal of experience in designing tall buildings. CABE have praised the “…rigorous analytical work on the urban context [which] has led to a robust architectural solution”, and judges the scheme to be “…exciting and interesting” with “…elegant massing and good proportions”. CABE’s conclusion is that “… the scheme has the potential to be a benchmark for the quality of future development in the potential cluster of towers at Vauxhall”.
173 CD1/2A, para 5.3 174 CD1/2A, para 8.10 175 The Appellant’s evidence on design is in the proofs of evidence of Mr Shuttleworth (A1.2), Mr Filskow (A2.2‐2.4), Mr Coleman (A3.2‐3.4), Mr Taylor (A7.2, pp. 25‐28) and Professor Tavernor (A4.2), and their oral evidence 176 In EC 177 CD3/21 178 CD2/18 179 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 32
• The only reservation CABE expressed, the level of control exercised over design details, is a matter it considers can be appropriately dealt with by conditions.180
• The Council's Conservation and Design team considered the design of the scheme to be acceptable, as did the Council's case officer.181
• The design of the proposed building can claim an exceptionally strong lineage. Mr Shuttleworth has explained182 how the form and detailing of the building represent a refinement of themes which have emerged through a series of iconic and successful tall buildings, with which he has often been directly involved as a member of the design team. The lineage starts with the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank building in Hong Kong, includes other landmark buildings such as The Gherkin, and culminates most recently with 51 Lime Street, mixed use buildings such as the Cube in Birmingham, and residential buildings such as Grosvenor Waterside and Walpole House in Westminster.183 Mr Shuttleworth is one of the nation’s leading architects with unparalleled experience of designing buildings of the highest quality.
• Equally, however, the building has been carefully designed as a response to its particular site and surroundings. The architect’s response to the Site’s context has been exemplary.
• The strength of the design is immediately apparent in the overall form of the building and, as Mr Filskow explained,184 becomes more so when considered in greater detail.
• Different layers of modelling and detailing have been employed to break up the mass and to define the scale of the building in terms of an appropriate grain. The form of the building is unusual, not a dull rectilinear or cylindrical shape, but profiled in a way that reveals different aspects seen from different angles. The materials of the building facade –principally stainless steel, copper and glass – are of the highest quality, and would require little maintenance. As both Mr Shuttleworth185 and Mr Filskow186 have explained, the use of a variety of stainless steel finishes would help to articulate the façades and express the function of the upper floors of the building as residential.
• Mr Rees acknowledged187 that the building had been designed with ‘exceptional skill and care’, that it employed a ‘good language’, that it was ‘highly articulated’, even going so far as to say that he found the building over-articulated. He acknowledged that the Council had not raised any concerns about the palette of materials selected, and that it was no part of the Council’s case to say that the building was anything other than successful in the way it met the ground.
180 CD2/18, concluding paragraphs 181 CD2/14, p.13, 23‐25, 4‐48 182 In EC 183 A1.3 184 In EC 185 In EC and answers to Inspector’s questions 186 In EC 187 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 33
• Mr Filskow explained188 that the design approach gives the building a distinctive personality. It would be not only unique but also memorable, like so many other elements in the skyline of central London, marking its location and aiding orientation. Such distinctive quality is particularly appropriate in a cluster of tall buildings. It is also important for the regeneration of the area, since the building would become associated with Vauxhall and enhance confidence in its revival.
Design Issues
98. Two main issues require consideration. The first concerns the height of the proposed building, the second its overall scale and the allegation of overdevelopment. The effect on designated heritage assets is addressed separately below, with reference to PPS5.
Height
99. There are two important preliminary points:
• All the main participants in the Inquiry have explicitly accepted that the redevelopment of this site with a tall building is acceptable in principle.189
(a) This acknowledgement is consistent with the adopted London Plan, which explains that, subject to the other policies in the plan, good quality tall buildings in appropriate parts of the Opportunity Area (OA) will help reduce its perceived isolation, clearly signposting its transformation as an OA.190
(b) It is also consistent with both the emerging OAPF, which includes the Site within the area considered suitable for tall buildings up to 150m,191 and with the Council’s emerging SPD.
(c) Section 9 of Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence192 provides a full account of UDP policies, and of decisions by the Council, Planning Inspectors and the Secretary of State, which support the Site as a suitable location for good quality tall buildings.
• It is common ground that, in this part of Lambeth, the development plan places no restriction on the height of buildings.193 The appeal site is not within any of the strategic viewing corridors identified on the UDP Proposals Map.
100. Mr Filskow explained194 how the height of a building which ought to be promoted on the appeal site, at approximately 150 metres, emerged as a consensus between the officers of the Council and the GLA, and the team of architects at Make. This was after an extensive exercise of modelling and
188 In EC 189 Acknowledged by Mr Dale in his cross‐examination, by Ms Rebecca Freeman in hers, confirmed by Mr Ball in his closing submissions (CD8/7, p.8) and by Mr Boardman in his closing submissions (CD8/8). 190 CD4/1, p.340 para. 5.141 191 CD4/3, p.141 192 A7.2 193 As Mr Dale conceded in XX 194 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 34
assessing different heights and scales of building. As Mr Filskow said, all involved shared the feeling that this height was right. Mr Filskow’s account of these discussions and the unified view which came out of that process has not been challenged as being in any way inaccurate or incomplete.
101. The building’s height represents an appropriate balance. Its highest element would be 32 metres shorter than that of the Vauxhall Tower, establishing a satisfactory relationship with that building, but high enough to maintain a strong presence in the emerging cluster of tall buildings.195 To describe the building as ‘eight mini-towers rising to 149.5 metres’ and to contend, as has the Council in closing submissions that there is "…a confusion over [the building's] intended form and mass",196 is patently wrong and betrays a failure to concede the coherence and elegance in the design.
102. The height of the building would not be uniform across its width. Each of the eight slender vertical elements composing its structure would rise to a different height. Drawings A2101 and A2103197 demonstrate the relationships between the vertical elements. The southern-most element would rise to a height of 57.6 metres, the next to 76.2 metres, the next to 94.8 metres, the next to 113.4 metres, the next to 132.0 metres, the next and tallest to 149.5 metres, the next to 122.7 metres, and the northernmost element to 94.8 metres (the heights AOD being in each case slightly greater).
103. The building would therefore assume an ever changing outline as one moves beside, towards or away from it. To the south, where the scale of nearby buildings falls away, the proposed building would descend, in the two southern-most elements, to approximately half its overall height. Viewed from South Lambeth Road, however, or within the central Vauxhall Cross area to the north, the building would present itself as taller.
104. The overall height of the building in its local context would serve to reduce the apparent bulk of the railway viaduct. The viaduct is a very dominant feature in the local and wider townscape and has long been acknowledged as having a significantly harmful impact on the environment of this area of south London. As the UDP states:
“The Vauxhall area is split in two by the railway viaduct … This effectively cuts off the riverside area from the residential hinterland and gives it a poor environment.”198
105. The visibility and physical scale of nearby buildings can help make the viaduct appear less overbearing.199 This effect can be seen in the views from the Vauxhall Conservation Area towards the viaduct, such as those from Lawn Lane.200 Rather than this view being terminated by what Mr Filskow described201 as a no-man’s land of car workshops and the viaduct, the building would, as he said, mark the beginning of another area. Mr Coleman noted that there would be
195 CD8/1, para 23 196 CD8/6, p.19 para 83 197 CD1/3, p.2‐3 198 CD5/1, p.182 para 5.15.3 199 As Mr Filskow explained in his XX by Mr Ball 200 CD2/11, View L57 p.6‐7 201 In EC
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 35
no harm to any interest of acknowledged importance in the local scene as a result.202
106. Professor Tavernor endorsed that judgment.203 The Appellant does not control the use of the viaduct or the uses taking place on the adjacent land. However, the effect of the proposed development would be to draw the eye away from unattractive elements in the townscape.
107. The height of the proposed building would not lead to any harm to designated heritage assets or their settings.204 The only specific objection raised to the height of the proposed building is the suggestion made by Mr Rees that it would dominate Vauxhall Tower. This point was not raised in the Council’s putative reasons for refusal and does not stand scrutiny. The guidance set out in the emerging OAPF shows the Site in a location where buildings in the region of 150 metres are said to be likely to have a secondary relationship to the Vauxhall Tower.205 This guidance arose from a thorough analysis of built and heritage context, including an assessment of heritage assets, built form and urban grain, existing and consented tall buildings, local views and key strategic views.206
108. In the event, Mr Rees struggled to find street level views which could support his concern. He relied on two views207 in which, as he acknowledged, the Vauxhall Tower was further away and clearly separated from the proposed development. The true relationship of the buildings could be readily appreciated in these views.
109. The Council’s tentative preference for a building half the height and less wide, is arbitrary and wholly unjustified. Also, it would be unlikely ever to be realized should the appeal fail. No evidence has been produced to show that such a development would be viable. Moreover, a proposal such as this would conflict with the policy imperative to intensify and maximize the use of the Site.208
Scale
The Scope of the Issue
110. The Council’s concerns regarding the overall scale of the building have been expressed by reference to its width, plot ratios, density and suggested coalescence with other tall buildings. None of those concerns is well-founded.
Width
111. The Council misunderstands how the form of the proposed building, including its width, emerged. This is surprising since the Council’s officers were closely involved in the evolution of the design.
112. The questions put to Mr Filskow in cross-examination were made on the assumption that the width of the building was dictated by a target of 55,000 to
202 In RE 203 In RE 204 See submissions on the proposals relationship to PPS5, below 205 CD4/3, p.141 206 CD4/3, Executive Summary and Appendices TA2 and 3 207 LBL1.5, Slides 34 and 35 208 As Professor Tavernor remarked in RE; see also the draft OAPF, CD4/3, p.26
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 36
60,000 square metres of floorspace. Moreover, Mr Rees’ evidence209 noted the ‘impossible brief’ which the Appellant’s architects had been given. However, as Mr Filskow explained, the form of the building, including its width, was settled through the design process before the floor space figure emerged. Far from the floor area informing the width, the position was precisely the reverse. This is a design-led scheme in which the width emerged as part of the architect’s response to the Site.
113. The shape of the proposed building does not disqualify it from being considered a tower, as well as being a traditional and legible urban block at ground level and in the massing of its lower floors. It is both, and there is no contradiction as Mr Filskow shows.210 The apparent width of the building would vary depending on the location of the viewer. It would be at its widest on its east and west facades. On its south and north sides it would be much narrower.211 There are few views in which its full width would be appreciated, but there are none in which its width would give rise to harm or to an inappropriate relationship to its context.
114. None of the dimensions of the building, including its width, offend any principle of policy or guidance relating to good urban design.212 The form of the building may be described as dynamic. To describe it as a ‘slab’213 shows a failure to appreciate not only the sophisticated geometry of the building, but also a simple English word. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘slab’ inter alia, as: “1 A flat comparatively thick and usu. Square or rectangular piece of solid material, esp stone … f A high-rise building with uniform features …”
115. Nobody has ever sought to argue that the proposed building is square or rectangular, or that it has uniform features. As has already been noted, its overall width would be broken down into several narrower components, which would emphasize its verticality and modulate its breadth when seen at street level. As Mr Coleman explained,214 this is patently a highly articulated building on all its elevations. Mr Rees and Ms Rebecca Freeman have also sought to criticize the width of the building by reference to what they seem to regard as golden rules governing proportion.215 However, neither of those witnesses identified any planning policy or guidance, or Ministerial decision, which endorsed the use of such rules.
116. As Professor Tavernor explained,216 these rules are simply not applicable to a tall building of this type, which is not intended to be a simple classical tower in its form. Similarly, the ‘golden section’, referred to by Ms Freeman, is not appropriate to three-dimensional forms because it is predicated on the viewer being located in a fixed viewing position.
209 In EC 210 A2.2, p.37 para 4.3.1 211 A2.2, p.36 Fig. 24 212 Professor Tavernor in RE 213 See e.g. the Council's closing submissions, CD8/6 at para. 15 on p. 4 and para. 60 on p. 14 214 In XX by Mr Boardman 215 LBL1.1, paras 5.7 and 5.47‐5.48 216 In EC
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 37
117. As Mr Dale accepted,217 there is nothing in policy which goes beyond the normal approach of making a judgment in the contextual framework. Moreover, there is no specific design guidance in terms of bulk, massing and scale which would limit the architect’s response to the challenge of a site.
118. If one looks at the designs of several of the tall buildings for sites in central London which have come successfully through the planning process in the last 10 years, it is clearly the innovation and boldness of their form which provoke comment and earn praise. Perhaps the best known of these is ‘The Gherkin’ (30 St Mary's Axe) and ‘The Shard of Glass’ (32 London Bridge Street), but there are others with equally distinctive shapes of their own including ‘The Cheese Grater’ (122 Leadenhall Street), the ‘Walkie Talkie’ (20 Fenchurch Street), and ‘The Helter-Skelter’ (22-24 Bishopsgate). Their defiance of the stale conventions of skyscraper architecture associated with the spread of high rise development in London and other major cities in the world, such as Hong Kong, in the 1970s and 1980s is to be applauded.
119. The Octave Building218 would join this new tradition. Its lack of exact precedent,219 represents one of its virtues.
Plot Ratio
120. The Council’s concerns about the overall scale of the proposed building were also expressed through comment on its density and plot ratio.
121. In cross-examination of Mr Shuttleworth, the plot ratios of various tall buildings were used as evidence of design quality or acceptability, rather than simply the result of a mathematical exercise undertaken after the event. However, the use of plot ratio in this way is not reflected in any adopted policy or guidance. It tells one nothing about how a building will appear, either in the abstract or in its particular context.
122. Mr Rees conceded220 that there is no policy basis for rejecting a scheme simply on plot ratio. Plot ratio does not inform any basic principle of architecture, nor is it a concept that is to be found in the CABE/EH guidance on tall buildings.221 The references to plot ratio in the Council’s draft SPD have not crystallized as adopted policy for the Council, and find no resonance in the draft OAPF, as Mr Rees acknowledged.222 Mr Dale noted223 that the references to plot ratios in the draft SPD should attract very limited weight.
123. Even in the draft SPD, it is emphasized that the plot ratios assigned to individual sites do not take into account urban design considerations peculiar to each site, provide guidance on heights or the footprint of development, or define
217 In XX 218 Recalling the musical definition of an ‘Octave’ (which the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines as an ‘interval embracing eight notes …, the highest note having twice the frequency of … the lowest …’) 219 CD8/6, p.20 para 84 220 In XX 221 CD6/1 222 In XX 223 In EC
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 38
the criteria for design quality. The draft SPD also stresses that the plot ratio criteria are regarded as secondary to the general principles of design quality.224
124. Mr Rees’ own evidence demonstrates why his approach to plot ratio is artificial and unhelpful. Site ownership was said to be a crucial determinant of the area used for the calculation. This led him to the conclusion that for Vauxhall Tower, the plot ratio was lower than that of the Octave Building, and acceptable because the developers also own buildings on the nearby St George Wharf development.
125. This implies that the development would have been acceptable if carried out by St George, but unacceptable if the site belonged, or were sold, to another developer. Mr Rees was given the opportunity to describe some other outcome, but he declined to answer.
126. When considering what weight to attach to Mr Rees’ evidence it should be borne in mind that he does not claim to have designed any successful tall buildings so far during his career.225 The Inquiry has shed light on the reasons why the use of plot ratio as a development control tool has failed to find its way into adopted policy.
Density
127. Reference to density or plot ratio cannot properly be used to upset judgment if the design of a building has been found to be acceptable in terms of height, massing, its relationship to its surroundings, and the living conditions of existing and future residents. As Mr Taylor explained,226 the correct approach is to test the scheme on these specific questions.
128. To use the London Plan density matrix227 as some form of ceiling for development is misguided, because it is intended generally to apply to buildings of between 6 and 10 storeys, rather than tall buildings of the type envisaged by the GLA for Vauxhall. Decisions made already on other sites in the Vauxhall area show that neither the Secretary of State nor the Council regard the guidance on density in the London Plan as limiting what is acceptable.228 For example, the Strata Tower has a density of 997 units per hectare, 81 Black Prince Road 1,262 units per hectare, and the Vauxhall Sky Gardens development 1,166 units per hectare.
129. Mr Dale acknowledged229 that the density figures in the London Plan ‘are not set in stone’ and are merely ‘informative’. High density was not, he stressed, a reason in itself for refusing planning permission. It is necessary to consider whether any real harm would arise from the density of the development. Mr Dale also said that there is scope to exceed the London Plan’s density ranges on sites such as the appeal Site which are suitable for tall buildings, and that no density limit applies to this, or any other part of central London.230
224 CD5/2, p.55‐56; this point was also made by Mr Taylor in XX 225 In XX 226 In EC 227 CD4/1, p.69 Table 3A.2 228 A7.4, para 3.7 229 In EC 230 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 39
130. These concessions were properly made, and they reflect the approach to the issue of housing density set out in the GLA Stage 1 Report:231
“London Plan policy 3A.3 aims to ‘ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with local context … and with public transport capacity’. Table 3A.2 of the London Plan provides a framework for assessing density. For the purposes of assessment against the London Plan density matrix, the site is in a ‘central’ setting, characterised by tall buildings, high density development, large building footprints and close proximity to central London. It also benefits from excellent access to public transport at Vauxhall station, with a public transport accessibility level of 6b,232 on a scale of 1 to 6 where 6 is most accessible. In such areas, the density matrix suggests a range of 650 to 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare. The residential element of the scheme comprises 1,045 habitable rooms. Based on a crude measurement against the site area of 0.29 hectares, the proposed density is 3,063 habitable rooms per hectare, which substantially exceeds the guidance in the London Plan density matrix. The extremely high density footprint is a function of the small site area, the majority of which would be occupied by the building’s footprint, and the height of the tower, which includes 36 levels of residential accommodation. The design of the building is also extremely efficient, with gross to net efficiencies of up to 88% for the residential element. Subject to design, residential quality and amenity space issues addressed elsewhere in this report, the high density is not out of context with the site’s highly accessible central London location.”
131. Professor Tavernor explained233 why it would not be possible to design a more successful scheme at a lower density for this site. A number of factors come into play, the first being the physical nature of the site, its size and location and especially its proximity to the viaduct. Secondly, policy requires intensification of the use of the site. Thirdly, a twin-tower approach would not be feasible since the site is not big enough for it to be either practical or economic. In a residential scheme, the gap between the two towers would be so small as to provide less than satisfactory living conditions for the residents of flats facing one another. Such an approach would also involve sacrificing the very high quality of light and views that the architects have managed to achieve for all of the apartments in the appeal proposal. It would clearly be a compromise, which would deliver no real townscape benefit, at the cost of both the number and quality of the new homes delivered on the Site, and the integrity of the design.
Coalescence
132. The Council has raised concerns about the apparent coalescence of two or more nearby buildings, and the so-called ‘wall effect’. Mr Filskow explained234
231 CD2/16, paras 30‐33 232 Calculated as 6A in the Transport Assessment, CD 2/4/D, Appendix C 233 In response to Inspector’s question 234 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 40
that such an effect occurs when buildings appear to form a single, indistinguishable and impenetrable mass. Mr Rees could not explain why this kind of harm is not mentioned in the Council’s putative reasons for refusal.235
133. Mr Rees accepted236 that it only has resonance in policy terms in the draft OAPF when considering views from the Palace of Westminster. The draft OAPF does not raise this matter as a concern in other views, and the point is not raised in the Council’s own draft Vauxhall Area SPD.237
134. The Council accepts238 that there would be no visual coalescence of the proposed building with any existing or approved buildings. The only coalescence alleged is in relation to the Vauxhall Cross proposals, which the Council has yet to consider. The Council's case officer concluded in his report to committee:239
"Whilst it is acknowledged that the [Vauxhall Cross] site immediately adjoins the application site and as such would have a significant impact upon it, the application scheme is considered to be acceptable, on balance, on its merits and any future scheme opposite which may come forward would have to account for the constraints posed by this development when built out, as would be the case anywhere".
135. The same point was made by Mr Filskow.240 Mr Filskow also explained how, in designing the proposed building, he had attempted to prevent coalescence occurring in relation to development which might follow. Subsequent designs have their own role to play, and would need to address the form of the Octave Building, but its distinctive form and roof profile and the strongly articulated facades would do as much as any individual scheme could to avoid coalescence.
136. This can be seen in the images produced showing the recently submitted Vauxhall Cross scheme in views alongside the Appellant’s building.241 Mr Filskow maintained that these two buildings read clearly as two separate buildings in the cluster.
The WCDG’s objection on design grounds
137. Little weight should attach to Ms Rebecca Freeman’s evidence regarding the architectural merits of the proposals:
• Ms Freeman confirmed242 that she has no architectural qualifications, and no practical experience of designing buildings.
• Ms Freeman acknowledged that she did not appear as an independent and impartial witness, because she was seeking to further the aims and objectives of the WCDG.
235 In XX 236 In XX 237 CD5/2 238 By Mr Rees in XX 239 CD2/14, p.13 240 In XX 241 See the images appended to Mr Rees's rebuttal proof of evidence, LBL1.3 242 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 41
• Her evidence did not include any identification or analysis of the characteristics of the area to the north-west of the viaduct in which the building would be located.
• Ms Freeman accepted that her critique of the architectural design represented her own subjective views.
Additional matters raised by the KAPF
138. The KAPF introduced the 2006 and 2009 studies carried out by the Building Design Partnership (BDP) on behalf of the Council. Their reliance on those documents is misplaced:
• The Council confirms that the draft SPD has formed the basis for the urban design approach taken by the Council. The 2006 study was only background and not policy.
• Neither document constitutes SPD or SPG, as Mr Rees confirmed.243
• Neither document was ever taken before a Council committee for its consideration or approval, as Mr Dale confirmed.244
• Neither document is mentioned or relied upon in the Council’s reasons for refusal, a point acknowledged by Mr Rees.245
• Mr Rees accepted246 that the authors of the draft OAPF have clearly taken the 2006 study into account in drawing up their own guidance, including the principle of 150 metres as an indicative height for tall buildings in the zone which includes the appeal site.247 As Mr Filskow remarked,248 the 2006 study cannot carry any material weight in the present appeal; it simply conveys one view, reached in a different policy context, apparently with no input from the GLA, which the Council neither adopted nor considered worthy of publication. It is significant that the Council’s officers did not ask the Appellant’s design team to take account of the document, during the pre-application stage of the process.249
Conclusion
139. The proposed building would be an exemplary piece of architecture. It would be of an appropriate height, scale and massing in this location and in its present and changing context, having regard to existing and emerging policy. The proposal satisfies the requirements of PPS1, and of UDP Policy 33 (Building Scale and Design) and 40 (Tall Buildings). It also satisfies London Plan Policy 4B.1 (Design principles for a compact city), 4B.2 (Promoting world-class architecture and design), 4B.9 (Tall buildings – location), and 4B.10 (Large-scale buildings – design and impact).
243 In XX 244 In EC 245 In XX 246 In XX 247 CD4/3, p.140, noted by Professor Taveror in RE and accepted by Mr Rees in XX 248 In XX by Mr Boardman 249 Mr Filskow in RE
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 42
l.
Accessibility250
140. The approach to this issue is explained in detail in chapter 8 of the Design and Access Statement.251 An audit was undertaken by David Bonnett Associates. The proposals have been designed from the outset to be accessible for all, including people with disabilities:
• The flats would be arranged around two residential cores, consequently the units in the centre would be deeper and meet Wheelchair Housing Standards.
• Two dropping-off spaces are proposed as close as possible to the lobby entrances, and are designed to be compatible with taxi ramps.
• 12 parking spaces suitable for use by people with disabilities would be provided.
• Approaches to lifts, stairs and foyers would all meet the requirements of building regulation Approved Document Part M.
• All lifts would satisfy the dimensional requirements of Part M.
• Internal circulation spaces in the commercial areas would have passing spaces.
• 10% of the units would be wheelchair accessible.
• All units will be built to Lifetimes Homes Standards.
Prematurity252
141. The issue of prematurity is not raised by the Council in their objections, even though it is referred to in their closing submissions.253 Prematurity can only arise as a potential objection in circumstances where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting planning permission could prejudice an emerging Development Plan Document (DPD) by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in policy in the DPD.254
142. This is not the case here, and neither the GLA nor the Council as plan-making bodies have expressed any concern that the proposed development would be premature in that or in any other sense. Mr Dale has made clear255 the Council’s view that the appeal scheme is not premature.256 The proposed development is consistent with both the emerging Replacement London Plan and the emerging Lambeth Core Strategy.257 Neither document would need to change as a result of the outcome of the appea
143. The essential policy principles guiding the determination of the proposals and others like it, including principles concerning the height of buildings and the mix
250 The Appellant’s evidence on how the proposals take into account the access needs of all in society, including people with disabilities, is in Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence (A7.2, p.28) and has not been challenged. 251 CD2/3 252 The Appellant’s evidence is in Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence (A7.2), and in his oral evidence. 253 CD8/6, p.3 para 12 254 CD3/2, para 17 255 In EC 256 LBL4.1, p.35 para 8.3 257 A7.2, sections 7 and 8, respectively
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 43
of uses, are clear and can be found in the London Plan, the UDP and national policy guidance. The proposals are consistent with these policy principles.
144. The proposed development is also consistent with the emerging guidance in the OAPF258 and the Vauxhall Area SPD.259 Again, neither document would need to change as a result of the outcome of the appeal. In any event, those documents will not have DPD status. For those reasons there can be no tenable objection relating to prematurity in this case.
PPS3
High Quality Housing260
145. PPS3 seeks high quality housing that is well-designed and built to a high standard.261 Nobody at the Inquiry has suggested that the proposed housing, both private and affordable, will not be of high quality. It is common ground between the Appellant and the Council that the flats comply with the Lambeth Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions SPG (2008).262
146. There would be no difference in quality between the private and the affordable flats. They would all be spacious, larger than those typically provided in central London,263 with good views and good levels of natural daylight. The stepped plan profile ensures that every apartment would be at least dual-aspect, with several end units having triple-aspect vistas across London. As has already been noted, all but a very small number of these dwellings would have either a winter garden or a roof terrace, or both. The overall quality of the accommodation in the development would be extremely high.
Housing Mix264
147. Some 64% of the proposed units would have two or more bedrooms, and therefore be within the Council’s and the GLA’s definition of family-sized accommodation. This is an appropriate proportion in a building of this type. Each floor would contain a mix of dwelling sizes to encourage diversity in the resident community within the building.
148. It is common ground between the Appellant and the Council that the mix of unit sizes and types in the proposed development complies with relevant policy.265 The GLA has also accepted the proposed mix of units as appropriate having regard to the nature and location of the proposed development.266
258 CD4/3 259 CD5/2 260 The Appellant’s evidence on the quality of the proposed housing is in the proofs of evidence of Mr Filskow (A2.2‐2.4) and Mr Taylor (A7.2), and in their oral evidence 261 CD3/4, para 10 262 CD1/2, para 8.13 263 A2.2, para 6.4.4 264 The Appellant’s evidence on the mix of unit sizes and types is in Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence (A7.2, p.32‐33) 265 CD1/2, para 8.13 266 CD2/16, para 29
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 44
Affordable Housing267
149. Much needed affordable housing would be provided, of a very high quality and at a level compliant with policy. The need for more affordable housing in Lambeth is not in doubt, and was described by Ms Hoey, the local MP, as being ‘desperate’. As Ms Hoey put it, there is “…an extreme shortage of affordable housing in our area”.268
150. UDP Policy 16 (Affordable Housing)269 seeks the maximum reasonable proportion of affordable housing from housing developments. Contrary to the WCDG's understanding of the Policy,270 there is no "…requisite proportion of affordable housing." The proportion of affordable housing provided can be below the target levels indicated where it has been demonstrated and independently confirmed that a higher level would compromise the viability of the development.
151. The approach in the UDP aligns with London Plan Policy 3A.10 (Negotiating affordable housing),271 which also seeks the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing but stresses that this should be considered having regard to the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development and the individual circumstances of the site. Targets should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements.
152. The Appellant has applied the GLA’s 2008/2009 Development Control Toolkit Model and established to the Council’s and the GLA’s satisfaction that the scheme is currently viable with a 23% affordable housing provision (by affordable rooms), split 70/30% between social and intermediate housing. The Appellant proposes a target of 30% affordable provision, split 60/40% between social and intermediate housing. The Council is satisfied that this level of affordable housing complies with policy.272
153. To take account of possible changes in market conditions between approval and implementation, a ‘cap and collar’ mechanism with a suitable review mechanism has been agreed. This would ensure a minimum of 20% and a maximum of 50% affordable housing provision. Mr Billington set out an agreed explanation of the mechanism in his proof of evidence,273 which he expanded in his oral evidence. A summary is provided in paragraph 33 of Addleshaw Goddard's report on the s106 Agreement.274
154. The term ‘implementation’ is defined in the s106 Agreement to ensure that minor works would not cause the review mechanism to be triggered. The s106 Agreement also provides that if the Implementation Date does not occur within 18 months of the developer serving a copy of the Appraisal on the Council, the
267 The Appellant’s evidence on the provision of affordable housing is in the proofs of evidence of Mr Billington (A6.2‐A6.4) and Mr Taylor (A7.2, p.54‐56), and their oral evidence 268 In her evidence to the Inquiry 269 CD5/1 270 CD8/7, p.5 271 CD4/1 272 CD1/2, para 8.14 273 A6.2, paras 7.5‐7.16 274 CD1/10C
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 45
developer must undertake a further Appraisal at its own cost, which would re-start the process of identifying the relevant level of provision.275
155. Mr Billington’s rebuttal proof of evidence276 explains why the concerns of the KAPF and the WCDG are either unfounded or are satisfactorily addressed by the review mechanism agreed by the Council and secured by the s106 Agreement. In the event, the only real issue on affordable housing raised by the Rule 6 parties during the inquiry was whether a second review stage would be needed to make the affordable housing provision acceptable.
156. The points made by the WCDG and the KAPF about residential sales values and comparators were largely abandoned following Mr Billington’s evidence. In any event, they would be subject to the review mechanism in due course, with the ability to go to independent expert arbitration if agreement were not reached .
• It was acknowledged by Mr Ball277 that there is no policy requirement for the first review stage, let alone for a second.
• As Mr Billington made clear,278 the timing of the suggested second stage review would be unrealistic in commercial terms. It would not be possible to obtain funding for implementation if there were no certainty as to the affordable housing costs. In his evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Boardman made clear that, having heard Mr Billington’s evidence about the difficulties to which a second review stage would give rise, he was no longer pursuing this point.
• In any event, because of the need to complete a large number of sales before constructing the building, the real price of the flats within it would crystallize prior to implementation. Mr Taylor’s rebuttal proof of evidence279 explained that advance sales would be essential to the economics of the project. Any further review would thus be academic.
157. The GLA concluded:
“… the applicant’s offer including the review mechanism represents a fair and reasonable approach and allows for changing market conditions which may result in a higher proportion of affordable housing being delivered. This aspect of the scheme is now acceptable in line with London Plan policy 3A.10”280
158. The level and quality of affordable housing proposed in this case accords fully with relevant policy, and is a substantial benefit of the scheme, which should weigh heavily in the planning balance. Real affordable housing would be of great value to the homeless, and this is one of the reasons for making full use of the Site.
275 CD1/10B, Schedule 4, para 14 276 A6.4, paras 2.1‐10.1 277 In XX 278 In EC 279 A7.4, letter at Appendix A 280 CD2/15.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 46
The Amount of Housing Proposed281
159. The proposed development would make a substantial contribution to meeting the identified need for more housing in London and specifically in Vauxhall. As the officers’ report to committee acknowledged, the 376 new homes proposed would help the Council meet its housing targets, and the contribution to affordable housing should also be welcomed.282
160. There is no room for complacency regarding the delivery of more housing to meet identified needs, not least in an uncertain housing market. The emerging development plan shows that the need for more housing in London is growing rather than receding.283 Those who do not have a home have not been heard at this Inquiry, but their needs, and their role in the more complete and more sustainable community which Vauxhall would become if the regeneration of the OA is secured, must not be ignored.
161. The provision of a substantial number of good, well-designed homes of the right size and type on a previously developed site which at present contains not a single dwelling, represents a substantial planning benefit. Policy at all levels stresses the importance of making the most of such opportunities.
The Suitability of the Location284
162. The Site is an inherently suitable location for the development of new housing at high density. As part of the CAZ and the Vauxhall Opportunity Area, it is a location identified in the London Plan and in emerging guidance as suitable for a significant increase in, and intensification of, housing development.285 This policy objective is reflected in the views expressed by the GLA.286
163. The building’s occupants would not only have access to the leisure, retail and employment opportunities within the building, but also to the many community facilities and services nearby, which the development would help to sustain and improve.287 In addition, using public transport, they would have access to all of the facilities and opportunities of central London. Mr Dale confirmed for the Council,288 that the residents of the proposed development would have ample access to local facilities and services.
The Effective and Efficient Use of land
164. The proposal would bring about a highly efficient and effective use of previously developed land, meeting the objectives of national planning policy set out in paragraph 10 of PPS3. The Council’s resistance to the proposals sits uneasily with this guidance and seems to deny the necessity of making full and effective use of urban land served so well by public transport.
281 The Appellant’s evidence is in Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence (A7.2, p. 33‐34) 282 CD2/14, para 6.2.61 283 See the draft replacement London Plan (CD4/2) p.64‐66, and the emerging Core Strategy (CD5/11) p.34. 284 The Appellant’s evidence is in Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence (A7.2, p.34) and his oral evidence 285 CD4/1, paras 5.141‐5.142 286 CD2/16, paras 17‐19 and 33. 287 CD2/3, p.154‐155; and A7.2, paras. 5.76‐5.79 288 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 47
165. It is unclear what lesser level of development the Council might think acceptable. However, the question is not what the Council might prefer, but whether there is any compelling reason why, in this location, such a well designed high density development should not be allowed to proceed. The Appellant maintains that there is no such reason.
PPS4
166. Mr Taylor has demonstrated that the proposals are consistent with the guidance in PPS4 and his evidence289 has not been effectively called into question. The following points deserve emphasis:
• The proposed employment and retail provision would encourage and contribute to sustainable economic growth.
• The retail component is below the size threshold in PPS4 requiring detailed assessment (Policy EC14.4).
• The proposed building has been designed to limit carbon emissions during its lifetime, and thus satisfies the requirements of Policy EC10.2, part a.
• The site is highly accessible by a choice of means of transport, and thus satisfies the requirements of policy EC10.2, part b.
• The proposed development will be of high quality and inclusive design, and is therefore consistent with policy EC10.2, part c.
• The provision of high quality subsidized office space would have a positive effect on the economic and physical regeneration of the area.
• Overall, it is likely that there would be a net increase in employment of more than 100 jobs The existing businesses could remain in the Vauxhall area if they wished and the Use Class B1 businesses could be accommodated in the new building. It is highly unlikely that any jobs would actually be lost, or lost to the Vauxhall area, as a result of the implementation of the proposed development.
PPG13290
167. The Appellant’s evidence on the application of PPG13 has not been subject to any effective challenge. The transport consultees have raised no objection. The Site is adjacent to a major public transport interchange, and it is common ground that it has an ‘excellent’ Public Transport Accessibility Rating (PTAL) of 6A.291 Jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are all easily accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. Siting this mixed-use building in such a location promotes sustainable travel:
• The building would contain 4 floors of employment generating uses, together with local retail facilities. Opportunities would therefore exist for residents to live and work in the same building.
289 A7.2, p.35‐38 290 The Appellant’s evidence is in Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence (A7.2, p. 39‐41); more detail can be found in the DAS (CD2/3) and in the Transport Assessment (CD/2/4/D). 291 CD1/2, para 8.3
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 48
• As the officers’ report to committee acknowledged, the form of office floorspace proposed would be expected to attract local businesses within Lambeth, rather than from beyond the borough.292
• Those leaving the building to go to work on public transport, would have a very short walk to Vauxhall Interchange, which lies immediately to the north, and for those walking or cycling to work there are a number of cycleways and pedestrian routes connecting to the surrounding area.
• Those same routes would also allow residents to reach shopping, leisure facilities and other services very easily. The proximity of these facilities and services are identified on pages 154 and 155 of the DAS.293
• Public open space is available close by in Vauxhall Park and Spring Gardens, and the River Thames is a short walk away to the west.
168. Whilst the appeal site also has good access to the strategic road network, only very limited car parking would be provided, to discourage the use of the private car. Those living in the building would be prevented from applying for a residential parking permit, and it is common ground that the development would not generate any additional parking demand on the surrounding highway network.294
169. The Site falls within a Controlled Parking Zone, and only 23 car parking spaces would be provided (12 of which would be for people with disabilities, and 2 for the car club, which would serve those residents who need to use a car). No parking is required for the commercial element of the development and none would be provided.
170. The proposed parking provision is well below the maximum levels permitted by the UDP295 and accords with London Plan Policy 3C.23 (Parking strategy) and Table A4.2.296 It is common ground between the Appellant, the Council and Transport for London that the proposed level of parking provision is compliant with policy.297 There would be a total of 568 cycle parking spaces, which is agreed as appropriate and exceeds by a generous margin the minimum requirements of the London Plan and the UDP.298
171. The Transport Assessment submitted with the application demonstrates that the impact of the proposed development would be minor, and the impact on the surrounding highway and walking network insignificant.299 The development would provide two major financial contributions to the improvement of public transport in the area. A payment of £800,000 would be made towards the planned investment programme for Vauxhall Cross interchange, and a payment of £418,772 for transport improvements in the Vauxhall-Nine Elms-Battersea
292 CD2/14, para 6.2.14 293 CD2/3; c.f.: A7.2, p.40 294 CD1/2, para 8.3 295 CD5/1, Table 6 296 CD4/1, Annex A25 297 CD1/2, para 8.4 298 CD1/2, para 8.8 299 CD2/4/D, p.49
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 49
area. Both payments have been agreed with TfL and the Council.300 The proposals are entirely consistent with PPG13.
PPS5301
The Appeal Site
172. The Site does not contain, and is not part of, any heritage asset. It is not within a conservation area. It carries a building of little or no architectural or historic interest, which is considered unsuitable for either statutory or local listing. There are no listed buildings on land adjoining the site or in its immediate vicinity. The Site is also in an area that the Council and the GLA consider suitable for the development of tall buildings. Indeed, the Council and the Rule 6 parties accept that it would be appropriate to redevelop the Site with a tall building.
173. Three basic points follow:
• There can be no proper objection to the demolition of the existing building, which would not require permission since it is neither listed nor included within a conservation area.
• The only matters that fall to be considered under PPS5 are impacts on the settings of heritage assets.
• It is therefore important to distinguish between impacts arising from any tall building on the appeal site and those specific to the proposals. As the case officer noted, in his report to the Council's Planning Committee meeting on 24 March 2010: "It is crucial therefore to consider what additional harm, if any, created by a building of 149m tall as opposed to one at, say, 100m or 80m as suggested in the emerging draft SPD."302
174. The Council does not oppose the removal of the existing building. The WCDG’s position on the retention of the building has not been consistent. On the one hand it has expressed a wish to see the building retained, and even made an application for it to be listed. On the other hand, it has emphasized the importance of creating a new link underneath the viaduct on the appeal site, which the retention of the existing building would prevent.303 Ultimately, the WCDG has acknowledged304 that demolition of the building would be acceptable, provided that the replacement would be of a suitable design.
The Setting of Heritage Assets
175. It is necessary to make a judgment about the nature and extent of the setting of a heritage asset. Some guidance is provided in PPS5,305 and in the
300 A7.2, p.101, para 12.65; and the GLA's letter to PINS dated 11 May 2010, CD2/15, p.2‐3 301 The Appellant’s evidence on the application of PPS5 is in the proofs of evidence of Mr Coleman (A3.2‐A3.4), Mr Taylor (A7.2), and Professor Tavernor (A4.2), supplemented by their oral evidence. 302 CD2/14, p.202 para 6.3.63 303 Professor Tavernor explained in RE 304 Ms Freeman in XX 305 CD3/7, p.14
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 50
accompanying Practice Guide,306 but that guidance is not prescriptive and requires the exercise of judgment.
• In essence, the guidance in PPS5 and the Practice Guide is that the setting of a heritage asset constitutes the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.
• That definition is of little practical assistance without the application of further analysis and judgment. As Mr Coleman has said, one can see and thus experience the Palace of Westminster from Parliament Hill, but plainly no part of Hampstead Heath would be considered as forming part of its setting.307
• Equally, the fact that a building is visible from within the setting of a heritage asset does not mean that it becomes part of the setting of that asset.
• A more refined level of analysis is therefore required. Mr Coleman uses the term ‘essential setting’ to describe the group of buildings and spaces which bear upon the human senses as experienced spatially, in movement and memory, while in the presence of the heritage asset.308
• The concept was encapsulated in the exchange between the Inspector and Mr Coleman, in which Mr Coleman agreed that the issue was not to do with the distance of the building from the heritage asset concerned, but rather with the presence the building exerts when viewed in conjunction with that asset.
• Mr Coleman’s approach is consistent with the advice in paragraph 122 of the Practice Guide that a proper assessment of the impact on setting will take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the asset and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it.309
• The approach taken by the Council and the Rule 6 parties has consistently conflated visibility with harm. This misconception was encapsulated, for example, in the question put to Mr Coleman by the Council: whether the viewpoints he had selected represented ‘the worst case’.310 As Mr Coleman explained, this question assumes that if the building is visible, harm inevitably ensues. In a part of central London where regeneration must involve the development of tall buildings, this approach is untenable.
The Policy Context
176. The impact of the proposed development on views from the Westminster World Heritage Site (WHS) and from several conservation areas, and on the setting of the listed Woodstock Court, must be understood in the context that this is an area where a cluster of tall buildings is proposed. Moreover, all the main parties agree that a tall building is appropriate on the Site.
306 CD3/8, para 113‐117 307 A3.2, p.19‐20 para 5.4.9 308 A3.2, para 5.4.7 309 CD3/8, p.35 310 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 51
ll
177. The draft OAPF311 shows the extent of the proposed cluster, where buildings up to 150m are expected to have an appropriate relationship with the VauxhaTower. The following points flow from this:
• The authors of the draft OAPF were conscious that a cluster of tall buildings in Vauxhall would be highly visible from a number of conservation areas. It is common ground that this is not regarded by the authors of the OAPF as being unacceptable. Mr Rees agreed.312
• It was acknowledged by Mr Rees313 that a modern tall building seen from a conservation area, or in a view from or including a listed building, is not necessarily harmful in itself.314 It is common ground that tall new modern buildings are frequently seen in visual juxtaposition with conservation areas, as Mr Dale accepted.315 The townscapes of Lambeth, and of central London as a whole, abound with such examples, as Mr Dale also acknowledged. Those concessions are reflected in the conclusions reached by the Inspector in the Vauxhall Tower inquiry, who said this:
“There is no doubt that tall buildings have a role to play in accommodating the future development needs of London. In view of the facts that heritage assets are widely distributed and that buildings of great stature are visible from many points over a wide area, it follows that tall buildings will inevitably impact on views to and from listed buildings and conservation areas. The fact that a tall building will be seen in conjunction with historic assets does not mean that there will inevitably be harm.”316
The Secretary of State endorsed that conclusion.317
• Mr Rees accepted318 that no views have been identified by the Council in which a tall building ought not to be visible from a conservation area.
• For the KAPF, Mr Boardman acknowledged that it would not be consistent with the draft OAPF to regard the visibility of tall buildings in views down Whitehall as being unacceptable. He agreed319 that if the cluster were developed as intended, different tall buildings in the cluster (including the Octave Building) would move in and out of view as the observer moves along the street. This can be clearly seen in practice using the acetate overlays.320
Impact on the Setting of Listed Buildings
178. The Council’s concern, as it relates to listed buildings, is limited to the impact on the setting of the Grade II* listed Woodstock Court. To assess the impact on the setting of this building, the Appellant’s HTVIA321 has considered a view (M29)
311 CD4/3, p.141 312 In XX 313 In XX 314 C.f.: CD2/14, p.202 para 6.3.65 315 In XX 316 CD7/9, para 11.43 317 CD7/9, letter dated 31 March 2005, para 24 318 In XX 319 In XX 320 A3.6 321 CD2/4/E
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 52
in which the proposed development would interact with the listed building to the greatest extent. As Mr Coleman explained,322 the position of View M29 was determined by the degree of interaction it provided rather than the relative value of the view itself.
179. This point can be understood through the material at Appendix B to Mr Coleman’s proof,323 which illustrates these views as one moves. Even for a viewer whose attention is focused throughout on Woodstock Court when walking past it, the interaction between the two buildings would not only be limited in degree, but also momentary and fleeting.
180. It would be an oblique and incidental view, diminishing rapidly as one moves away from the point selected in the HTVIA. It would not harm the listed building, or cut down the viewer’s ability to see and appreciate it.
181. The setting of Woodstock Court is urban, and the tops of other permitted tall buildings in the emerging cluster of tall buildings, including the Vauxhall Tower and Hampton House, would be visible in views within that setting.324 As Mr Coleman observed,325 Woodstock Court is a low building and is likely to receive views of taller buildings above it. Such visual contrasts are not only an inevitable consequence of developing tall buildings in the Vauxhall area, they are also entirely characteristic of central London.
182. They add variety to its townscape and generally accentuate rather than detract from the significance of heritage assets. The visual conjunction of these two buildings would not harm the local scene in which the listed building is perceived. There would be no harm to Woodstock Court as a feature of the historic environment. Mr Coleman concluded326 that, having regard to PPS5 there would be no harm either to its setting or to its significance. That was also the view of Professor Tavernor.327
183. For the WCDG, Ms Freeman made more wide ranging allegations of harm to ‘multiple listed buildings’,328 but she did not identify them or assess the impact of the proposed development on their settings. As Ms Freeman accepted,329 her evidence did not demonstrate any unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
Impact on the Setting of Conservation Areas
184. In its putative reasons for refusal, the Council alleged harm to the setting of four different conservation areas: Vauxhall, St Marks, Kennington, and Albert Square. The appellant’s HTVIA330 assesses the impact on views from each one of these conservation areas. In his closing submissions Mr Ball for WCGD has criticized the methodology adopted by Mr Coleman in the HTVIA, contending that
322 A3.2, para 11.1 and EC 323 A3.3B, p.20‐21 324 A4.2, para 3.51 325 In EC 326 In EC 327 In EC and RE 328 W2.2, p.10 para 1.32 329 In XX 330 CD2/4/E
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 53
the images should not be relied upon as a guide to the proposed building's likely appearance in local and wider views.331 The criticism is not justified. It echoes a complaint made by objectors in the recent Brighton Marina appeal, which was rejected by the Inspector in that case.332
The Vauxhall Conservation Area
185. The Vauxhall Conservation Area is largely composed of Victorian residential development with some warehousing and pockets of open space, including Vauxhall Park. The appeal site is separated from this conservation area, and the St Mark’s Conservation Area, by the railway viaduct, the various businesses and unsightly paraphernalia on the south east side of the viaduct, and South Lambeth Road. The viaduct marks a clear dividing line in the character of the townscape.333
186. The effect on views from the Vauxhall Conservation Area is assessed in detail in section 11.0 of the HTVIA (see Views L55, L56, L57, L58, L59, L60 and L61), which demonstrates that the proposed building would not affect the essential character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Views out of the Conservation Area are not essential to its significance as a heritage asset. It retains its intimate character despite its proximity to the railway viaduct and the very large transport interchange beyond.
187. Several manifestations of the difference in built character prevailing on the other side of the railway are already evident in views from within the Conservation Area. The proposed development would be a further example of the existing contrast. The contrast would continue to be both considerable and visible but it would not harm the conservation area itself. Rather, the views of the development would serve to reinforce the integrity of the area as a piece of largely intact Victorian residential development.
188. The surroundings of the Vauxhall Conservation Area, including the surroundings of Vauxhall Park, already include tall buildings.334 For the reasons given regarding the impact of the proposals on the amenity of Vauxhall Park, there would be no harm to views from the Park or the streets bounding it or near it. There would be no harm to views from Langley Lane, Lawn Lane or any other view from the Conservation Area. As the evidence of Mr Filskow, Mr Coleman, and Professor Tavernor has demonstrated, the proposed building would close these views in an entirely satisfactory way. In this respect it is helpful to recall the conclusion of the Secretary of State that views of the Vauxhall Tower from the Vauxhall Conservation Area would "…add interest and excitement to the vista."335
189. Nor would views from Bonnington Square be harmed. This delightful residential enclave has flourished despite its close proximity to the centre of the city. Its attractiveness has not been diminished by the presence of taller buildings within its surroundings.336
331 CD8/7, p.8‐9 332 CD7.14B, paras IR 1.11‐1.22. 333 See the Inspector's decision for the 81 Black Prince Road appeal, CD7/2, para 22 334 See, e.g.: the photographs in Appendix 3 to Mr Coleman's rebuttal proof of evidence, A3.4; and A2.5, slide 50 335 CD7/9, letter dated 31 March 2010, para 25 336 E.g.: A2.5, slide 47
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 54
190. The high quality of the design of the proposed development justifies Mr Coleman’s conclusion that its visual impact would be beneficial.337 Professor Tavernor endorses that judgment. Whilst the Appellant does not control the use of the viaduct or the uses taking place on the land to the south east of it, the effect of the development would be to draw the eye away from these unprepossessing elements in the townscape. It would be seen as an element within a deliberate grouping of tall buildings, which stand together as mutually contrasting forms in the ‘Heart’ of Vauxhall. Far from competing with the fine grain and small scale fabric of the hinterland, it would be distinct and respectful.
191. There would be no harm to the significance or the setting of the Conservation Area, or to views associated with it.
The St Marks Conservation Area
192. The effect on views from the St Marks Conservation Area is assessed in detail in section 11.0 of the HTVIA (see Views M31, M32, M33, L59 and L60). The proposed development would be seen above the roofline of the long terraced streets in this area, acting as a distant landmark for the Vauxhall area beyond, in a similar way to the consented Vauxhall Tower and other existing tall buildings such as Market Tower and Keybridge House.
193. The high quality of the design of the building would enhance the affected views, and the likely impact of the development is therefore fairly judged to be beneficial.338 Again, there would be no harm to the significance or the setting of the Conservation Area, or to views associated with it.
The Kennington Conservation Area
194. The effect on views from the Kennington Conservation Area is assessed in detail in section 11.0 of the HTVIA (see Views M29 and M30). This Conservation Area is distant from the Site. The proposed development would not figure greatly in prospects from it because of the orientation of most of the streets, which run at an angle away from the appeal site, and the absence of open spaces allowing views in its direction.
195. The only viewpoint identified as being of any potential significance is the momentary view of the proposed development together with the listed Woodstock Court. For the reasons already given, the proposed development would not harm the significance of the Conservation Area as a heritage asset, or its setting. Once again, there would be no harm to the significance or the setting of the Conservation Area, or to views associated with it.
The Albert Square Conservation Area
196. The effect on views from the Albert Square Conservation Area is assessed in detail in section 11.0 of the HTVIA (see Views M34 and M35). The proposed development would be seen in some of the views through and out of this conservation area. However, these are glimpsed views which would appear and disappear as the observer moves through the area. Glimpses of tall buildings beyond the Conservation Area already exist. The impact would be limited but
337 CD2/4/E, p.23 338 CD2/4/E, p.24
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 55
beneficial, because of the excellence of the building design and, in particular, the pleasing articulation of its form.339
197. Mr Coleman has shown340 that none of the important views from this Conservation Area identified by Mr Rees341 would be adversely affected by the development. Here again, there would be no harm to the significance or the setting of the Conservation Area, or to views associated with it.
Other Conservation Areas
198. Westminster City Council (WCC) has raised an objection to the impact of the proposals on the Pimlico Conservation Area. Its concern relates to the view from Belgrave Road. The effect on views from the Pimlico Conservation Area is assessed in detail in section 11.0 of the HTVIA (View 50). In the view from Belgrave Road, the Vauxhall Tower will provide a substantial focus. The proposed building would be a smaller element in the distance. It would not impair the relationship between the Conservation Area and the river.342
199. Mr Coleman’s clear conclusion343 was that there would be no harm to the significance of the Pimlico Conservation Area or to its setting. His analysis is supported by the view of the Inspector who conducted the inquiry into the proposal for the Vauxhall Tower.344 In his report to the Secretary of State the Inspector concluded:
“From Belgrave Road, which is one of the principal streets in the conservation area … the tower would be seen just off the axis at a distance of around 1km. Whilst the street has a consistency of design with its white stuccoed terraces, there are views through to the taller structures of Victoria Street and glimpses of the tower of Westminster Cathedral at certain junctions. The area is not insulated from the wider City of which it forms a part. Whilst I have certain misgivings, I am not convinced that the introduction of a contrasting vertical feature at the termination of the view would have a damaging effect.”345
The Secretary of State endorsed that conclusion.346
200. Applying the same principles here, it should be concluded that there would be no harm to the Pimlico Conservation Area or associated views.
339 CD2/4/E, p.29 340 A3.4, para 1.2.1 341 LBL 1.1, para 3.22 342 CD2/4/E, p.35 343 Emphasised in RE 344 CD2/4/E, View M50 (cumulative) p. 301 345 CD 7/9, IR p.88 para 11.67 346 CD7/9, DL dated 31 March 2005, para 34
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 56
Impact on the setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site347
General submissions
201. The Council's closing submissions refer to the comments of Westminster City Council (WCC) and English Heritage (EH),348 but no objection is raised in the Council’s case relating to conservation areas in Westminster, or to the setting and significance of the World Heritage Site (WHS). As Mr Rees confirmed,349 the Council does not argue that the proposed development would adversely affect the setting of the Westminster WHS. This is a concern raised by WCC and EH.
202. EH's generalized comments350 are not the product of a systematic consideration of the proposals’ specific effects on heritage assets, seen within their physical, visual and policy context. The concerns raised by both EH and WCC seem a reflex reaction to any proposal involving a minor degree of change to a skyline. Change is inevitable if strategic policy for regenerative development, including tall buildings at Vauxhall, is realized. Their concerns are not well founded and would not be, even if the recent planning of the OA and the regeneration of Vauxhall had been different.
203. The development would be visible in some views from within and close to the WHS. It would be visible from Westminster Bridge, alongside the WHS, and to a lesser extent from Hungerford Bridge. It would also be visible from Whitehall, looking towards Parliament Square, and from Parliament Square through the WHS.
204. However, the proposed development would have no effect on those parts of the surroundings of the WHS that are capable of affecting its significance. The scope for appreciating the significance of the WHS as a heritage asset would be left entirely unaffected. There would be no loss or impairment of particular impressions designed to be seen from specific viewpoints within the WHS.
205. As Mr Coleman has shown, therefore, the proposed building would not affect the essential and definable setting of the WHS, which would remain undisturbed. The focus must therefore be on the effect that the proposed development would have on the setting of certain views of and through the WHS.
Views from Whitehall
206. These are essentially kinetic views with much in the foreground and in the middle distance to take the eye and to hold the viewer’s interest. The animation provided by Miller Hare351 shows that the proposed building, in the distance, would come in and out of view depending on where the observer might be at any particular moment.
347 The effect of the proposed development on views associated with the Westminster WHS is assessed in detail in sections 9 and 11 of the HTVIA (see Views D1, D3, M9, M10, M11, M12, M13, M14, M15, M16, M18, M19, M20, M21, M22, M23 and M24); ES Vol. 4a HTVIA Addendum of June 2010 (CD2/24), Section 3 (which considers the implications of the DCLG's Circular 07/2009 on the Protection of World Heritage Sites (CD3/22); and in Mr Coleman’s proof of evidence (A3.2, para 5.4.1‐5.4.11, 9.5, 13.1.1‐13.1.7, 13.2.2, 13.2.9‐13.2.12). 348 CD8/6, p.15‐16 para. 63‐65 349 In XX 350 CD2/19 351 A3.3B
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 57
207. From the Banqueting House (View M10), the effect would be to add a building of visible design quality to a view which consists of buildings of many ages. The dominant feature would remain the Victoria Tower, with a great variety of buildings in the background.
208. As the observer moves further up Whitehall towards the Cenotaph (View M12), the modern city beyond the WHS becomes readily apparent. The proposed development would not be at all obtrusive or distracting, as a small element in the view beyond the Millbank Tower. It would sit even more comfortably in this context than will the Vauxhall Tower, for which the Secretary of State has granted approval, as the cumulative View M12 illustrates.352 The cumulative effect would not be harmful.
Views from Parliament Square
209. From the northern side of Parliament Square (View M15), only a very small part of the proposed building would be visible, and its effect would be very slight. With the Palace of Westminster in the foreground, it would not be readily noticed, and would form a small part of the distant townscape. Again, it would be a less noticeable element than Vauxhall Tower, as the cumulative View M15 demonstrates very well.353
210. As far as possible, views should be assessed as they would be experienced in reality. When one is standing in Parliament Square, as Mr Coleman has said, the railings and piers around the Houses of Parliament are more obvious in the view than buildings on the other side of the river at Vauxhall, or even than the Millbank Tower, which is much closer. The view is dominated by the magnificence of the Palace of Westminster itself and the majesty of Westminster Abbey, its neighbour: these physical symbols of State and Church set side by side, each incomparably impressive in its own right. The proposed building would take nothing away from the experience.
Views from Westminster and Hungerford Bridges
211. Views from Westminster and Hungerford Bridges (M18-M22) would not be spoiled. Rather, they would be enhanced by the addition of a well designed building, whose effect on views of, or the setting of, the WHS would be benign.354 The form and profile of the building would be clearly apparent in these views, revealing the quality and sophistication of the design, a worthy contribution to the emerging cluster of tall buildings at Vauxhall.
212. The acceptability in principle of tall contemporary buildings appearing in views involving heritage assets of all types, including World Heritage Sites, is well established. It was acknowledged by the Inspector in the appeal involving the Shard of Glass project at London Bridge, which will be highly visible in views of and from the Tower of London WHS.355 It was also acknowledged by the Inspector in the Brighton Marina case, where the proposed tower would have appeared above the collection of Grade I listed Regency buildings in Lewes
352 CD2/4/E, p.137 353 CD2/4/E, p. 149 354 A3.2, para 5.4.6 355 CD7/8, paras 16.71, 16.78 and 16.86
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 58
Crescent and Arundel Terrace in the Kemp Town Conservation Area.356 It should not be controversial here.
213. Also relevant is the Inspector’s report and the Secretary of State’s decision letter in the Vauxhall Tower case, although there are important distinctions between the cases (see below). In paragraph 11.57 of his report the Inspector explained why he did not consider the impact of the Vauxhall Tower in views from Whitehall and Parliament Square to be sufficiently serious to justify the rejection of the proposal:
“I write this for various reasons. The Vauxhall Tower would appear as a relatively small feature appearing over the roofs of existing buildings at a distance varying between around 2km in the case of WV10C [Whitehall – IR 11.54] and 1.8km in the case of V101 [Parliament Square – IR 11.55]. It would be less prominent than the existing Millbank Tower and it would be seen in the context of a dynamic sequence of views as the observer moves around, sometimes it would be seen, sometimes not. Also it would be seen in the context of a varied and changing foreground where the eye would be drawn not only to buildings but features such as the railing around the palace of Westminster and street furniture which would be more prominent in relative terms”.357
214. Applying the same broad principles, Mr Coleman explained358 that the Inspector’s analysis in the Vauxhall Tower case relates directly to the present position, albeit the Bondway proposals would represent an even smaller element in the view. The Inspector’s conclusions in the Vauxhall Tower case, about the harm that would be caused to the WHS by that building, must be understood in their proper context:
• The particular concern of the Inspector, which led to his adverse recommendation, was the impact of the proposed tower in views from Westminster Bridge.359
• The Vauxhall Tower (181m) will be materially taller than the building proposed in the present case (149m), and situated in a more prominent location on the edge of the river, closer to, and more visible from, Westminster Bridge in particular and the WHS generally.
• The Secretary of State did not share the Inspector’s view that the harm identified in that case was such as to justify the refusal of planning permission.360
• Since that decision, and partly as a result of it, the policy context has changed. At the time of the Vauxhall Tower case the concept of a cluster of tall buildings at Vauxhall was not reflected in either adopted or emerging development plan
356 CD7/14B, p.130 paras 16.49‐16.50 357 CD7/9 358 In RE 359 CD7/12/B, IR para 11.76‐11.77 360 CD7/9, DL dated 31 March 2005, para 29, 37, 39, 56 and 58
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 59
policy,361 and this was plainly a matter that influenced the Inspector’s thinking.362
215. As well as making those points, Mr Coleman has provided a detailed response to the particular concerns raised by WCC and EH.363 Neither WCC nor EH has sought to respond to Mr Coleman’s evidence in this respect, and neither has come to the inquiry and produced a witness whose evidence could be tested through cross-examination, or an advocate who could put their concerns to Mr Coleman and Professor Tavernor. In those circumstances, less weight should be attached to their written evidence. The broad assertions made in that evidence should not be accepted.
Conclusion
216. The proposed building would not harm any heritage asset, or the setting of any heritage asset. The proposals are consistent with the Government’s guidance in PPS5.
PPG17364
217. The Council’s reasons for refusal do not allege any inconsistency with the guidance in PPG17. Submissions on the provision of a contribution towards the enhancement of open space as part of the scheme, and the absence of any adverse impact on the amenity value of Vauxhall Park, are set out above. For the reasons given in those submissions, the appeal proposal should be seen as consistent with the guidance in PPG17 so far as it is germane.
Conditions
218. A set of proposed conditions agreed between the Appellant and the Council has been produced.365 The two main parties agree that these conditions satisfy the tests set out in Circular 11/95 and that they can properly be imposed should the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted.
Obligations
219. The Appellant’s evidence explaining the contents of the s106 Agreement is provided by Mr Taylor in his proof of evidence.366 A report has also been provided by Addleshaw Goddard367 which explains how the obligation works.
220. The payments to which the Appellant is committed under the s106 Agreement amount in all to £4,652,283.20. The several contributions making up this total would deliver a range of very substantial planning benefits. It is common ground that these commitments are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the proposed development, and fairly and
361 CD7/9, IR para 11.12‐11.17 362 CD7/9, IR para 11.18‐11.20 363 A3.2, Section 13 364 The Appellant’s evidence on the application of the guidance in PPG17 is in the proofs of evidence of Mr Absolon (A5.2) and Mr Taylor (A7.2, p.41‐42), and their oral evidence. 365 CD1/15 366 A7.2, section 12 367 CD1/10C
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 60
reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development. Thus it is agreed that under regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, it would be lawful for the Secretary of State to take the obligation into account when determining the appeal.
221. It is also common ground that the package of measures contained in the obligation would be sufficient to mitigate the impacts of the development if planning permission were granted.368 The majority of the proposed payments are in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s adopted SPD.369 Where they are not, the sums have been agreed following negotiation, having regard to the whole of the Appellant’s commitments in the Agreement and the financial viability of the proposed development.
222. In this respect, the obligations include £1,000,000 for improvements to local streets, which would enable the complete remodelling of the section of Bondway between Parry Street and Miles Street. It would incorporate a shared surface carriageway layout, new footways, a contraflow cycle lane and changes to the Traffic Management Orders, as well as improvements in Miles Street. This contribution, as with the £1,218,772 contribution for improvements to public transport provision to meet the requirements of TfL, is in addition to the payments requested under the Council’s SPD.
223. Schedule 3, Part 5 of the s106 Agreement370 addresses the requirement of the Metropolitan Police for a Safer Neighbourhood Office on the first floor of the proposed building. Although neither the Council nor the Appellant consider such provision to be necessary, the s106 Agreement enables the Secretary of State to trigger the offer of this space to the Metropolitan Police at a peppercorn rent for a 25 year leasehold term.
224. Mr Taylor’s evidence addresses each of the proposed obligations in turn, explaining why they have been offered, and why some of the Council’s initial requests for payment have not been met in full, in view of the legal and policy tests applicable to planning obligations. Having regard to those tests, it should be concluded that each and all of the commitments and contributions in the agreement is appropriate, and would ensure that the relevant policy requirements are met. Significant weight should be attached to the s106 Agreement in the determination of the appeal.
Benefits
225. Not only would the proposed development accord with the development plan and avoid any unacceptable impact on interests of acknowledged importance, it would deliver a range of substantial and lasting planning benefits. The submissions of others do little to acknowledge the benefits of the proposals. It is common ground between the Appellant and the Council, as Mr Dale acknowledged,371 that the proposals have the potential to deliver important advantages for Vauxhall and for the existing and enlarged communities of this part of Lambeth. These were agreed to include:
368 LBL4.1, para 31 369 CD5/7 370 CD1/10B 371 In XX
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 61
• The provision of further momentum and stimulus to the regeneration of the OA and the ‘Heart’ of Vauxhall.
• The provision of a substantial amount of new housing.
• The provision of the maximum viable amount of affordable housing on the site.
• Achieving those aims in a part of London that benefits from an extremely high level of accessibility by public transport, thus enabling occupants to get about without needing to use a private car.
• The benefits of the proposed employment floor space in the development, were acknowledged by Mr Vinall (see above).
• The provision of improvements to Vauxhall Park for all users of that much valued public open space.
• The provision of a significant improvement to the public realm and to activity at ground floor level, setting a benchmark for other developers to follow.
226. The proposed building would represent architecture of great and enduring beauty. It would enhance and invigorate the locality, creating a sense of place and signalling confidence and investment in an area where they are much needed. It would be tangible proof that regeneration in Vauxhall is not to be merely a paper promise. It would encourage other developers and landowners to progress projects for other sites in the OA, conscious of the quality of design and development which they would be expected to emulate.
227. New jobs would be created, together with both open market and affordable new homes of a very high quality. The regeneration of a dismayingly bleak part of central London would move forward. Where a community should be flourishing, greater prosperity would be initiated and a larger residential and working population would gradually emerge.
228. Those who have spoken as objectors to this proposal, some with passion, may one day come to accept that nothing short of a transformation of the environment in the ‘Heart’ of Vauxhall to the west of the viaduct is required. This is one part of Lambeth where radical change is long overdue. The proposals are part of that radical change. They can realise the huge latent potential which the Vauxhall area holds.
Conclusion
229. The development proposed is in accordance with the development plan and with national policy. It earns the statutory presumption in its favour, and it holds in prospect benefits of quite exceptional strength. This appeal should therefore be allowed, and planning permission granted, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State finds it reasonable and necessary to impose.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
230. A number of parties wrote in support of the proposals. They point out that the Site is underused and would be developed with an exciting architectural scheme in a cluster of the very best quality tall new buildings. The more people live in the area, the more inward investment would be attracted to help the economy.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 62
The Case for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)372
The material points are:
231. CABE regard the scheme as interesting and exciting. The elegant massing and good proportions have produced a successful form and, in principle, the height could be appropriate. The proposals demonstrate a commitment to high quality design and CABE support the scheme.
232. The building should be considered not only within its existing context, but also as a part of the emerging cluster of tall buildings, which CABE support in principle. However, the towers, and this first one in particular, must be of excellent architectural quality to justify the impact on views. Despite some reservations about the form-driven design, and the potentially wall-like appearance of the east and west elevations, the form and massing of the proposed building is well considered. The stepped massing skilfully breaks down the scale of the building as it would be viewed from the north and south.
233. The layout of the base of the tower and the surrounding public realm are not yet fully integrated. The success of the cluster depends on the implementation of the 40 metre public space to the west of the site, proposed as part of the Council’s SPD. However, the ground floor would need to work hard to animate the space, which would be of considerable scale. The local authority should ensure that the public space is well designed, carefully integrated with the adjacent new buildings and offers significant amenity to local residents.
234. It is disappointing that the small triangular site to the south is not included as an amenity for residents, in view of the density. Besides the welcome undercutting of the ground floor at the junction with Bondway, more work is needed to enhance the pedestrian experience on Parry Street, with its tight pavement and harsh road environment. However, trees in the narrow pavement may be unrealistic.
235. Stainless steel cladding would give lightness to the building’s appearance. The use of earthy and robust materials, copper and timber, is vital to give warmth. The proposed use of winter gardens would add variety to the elevations and provide usable amenity space in bad weather. The articulation of the central corridors, the generous floor areas, and the corner aspect to every flat would generate good quality residential accommodation. The form of the canopies is the least successful aspect of the design. The angles create uncomfortable juxtapositions with the rectilinear elevations and do not relate to the angled terraces at the top of the building.
236. The design of the canopy requires further work, as does the building’s relationship with the ground to ensure that the building engages with the public realm, both existing and emerging. Overall, however, the scheme has the potential to be a benchmark for the quality of future development in the emerging cluster of towers.
372 CD2/17 and CD 2/18
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 63
IN OPPOSITION
The Case for the Council
The material points are:
The Process
237. On 25 November 2009, the officer’s report on the proposals, 373 setting out the detailed policy framework, was presented to the Planning Committee. Members were asked to give a steer, indicating areas where they considered further thought was necessary. They did this with great care. Subsequently, little ground was given by the Appellant on the matters indicated, such as employment space and the height of the proposed building. For the Appellant, Mr Taylor noted374 that they were, even then, confident that their scheme would succeed, despite the fact that the proposals were controversial.
238. The appeal was lodged by the time that the Council considered the application formally, on 24 March 2010. Had they been able, the Committee would have refused planning permission, despite the officer’s recommendation for approval, which was ‘on balance’ rather than an unequivocal endorsement of the proposals. The recommendation was based on certain assumptions which have quite properly been addressed in the Inquiry, in particular the loss of employment land, the weight to be given to the draft SPD and draft OAPF, the need for on-site child space, and even the officer’s assumption that a building half the height would have a similar visual impact. This process has shown that the Committee were right to have been cautious, and to have rejected the proposals.
239. Whilst tall buildings in general have supporters and opponents, the objections advanced at the Inquiry have addressed the specific characteristics of these particular proposals. In short, the building would be far too big and it would fail to meet specific important policy objectives on employment opportunities and open space.
The Development Plan and the Emerging Core Strategy
240. One of the major issues which arose during the Inquiry was the relationship between the development plan and emerging policy. Whilst the two main parties are agreed over the planning framework, there are considerable differences of opinion over the application of policy.
241. Draft supplementary policy includes the Mayor’s draft Planning Framework for this Opportunity Area (the draft OAPF)375 and the Council’s own draft SPD for Vauxhall.376 The draft SPD is awaiting adoption of the OAPF, but the infrastructure study required for the OAPF is still incomplete.
242. The GLA is seeking to align the draft OAPF with the earlier draft SPD,377 and they are intended to work together. Local issues would be left to the SPD. The SPD would be supplementary to UDP policies 2, 40, 58, 75, 76 and 77 and the
373 CD2/13 374 In EC 375 CD4/3 376 CD5/2 377 CD4/3, p.8 Key Principles
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 64
various MDO sites identified in the Vauxhall Area,378 and based on the objective of providing 3,500 new dwellings and 8,000 new jobs in the OA.379
243. Little weight can be given to the OAPF and SPD,in their draft form, as Mr Dale notes.380 However, these documents indicate the detailed guidance concerning the appearance of a cluster of tall buildings. The draft OAPF and the draft SPD appear to represent different things to the Appellant and to the other parties, including the Council, underlining the difficulty in seeking to rely at this stage on emerging policy, whose form is not complete. The Council have approached the proposals according to current development plan policy.
244. Further caution is required when considering the draft Core Strategy (CS). It has not been adopted for development control purposes, and is very unlikely to have been formally adopted by the time the appeal decision is made. It currently carries little weight.381 This is not of great concern to the Council as, unlike the Appellant, they consider the CS’s direction of travel is similar to that of existing policy.
245. If the Appellant is right about the direction of the CS, then prematurity becomes an issue. This is because an appeal decision will have been taken on the basis of an interpretation of a draft policy contrary to its stated intentions, which would then become the standard interpretation.
Issues not in dispute between the Council and the Appellant
246. The parties have worked hard to resolve the remaining details on the points not in dispute, set out in the Statement of Common Ground (SOCG).382 There would be benefits associated with any major development on the Site and none of the proposals’ benefits would be absent from alternative schemes. Moreover, the s106 matters are those necessary to offset the impact of the development and such wider benefits as they might bring would be minor, since their focus and justification is mitigation. None of the claimed benefits offset the major adverse impacts identified.
Underprovision of Employment Floorspace
247. The dispute over the proportion of uses within this mixed use development would arise whatever the merits of the design. The Council’s fourth reason for refusal encapsulates the problem, that ‘The application fails to provide at least 1/3rd of the overall floorspace for employment use as required by the designation of the site as Major Development Opportunity site 81.’
248. This represents a clear and unambiguous application of current development plan policy. The reason for refusal correctly refers to Policies 22 and 77 of the Unitary Development Plan, which applied to the Site at a time when it was already in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). The GLA letters appear to suggest
378 CD5/2, p.7 379 CD5/2, para 21 380 LBL4.2 381 LBL4.2 382 CD1/2
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 65
that the CAZ extension in 2008 changed matters, but this is not the case for this Site.383
249. The UDP policies were written in the light of the CAZ designation of the Bondway KIBA, which contains Major Development Opportunity sites (MDO) 80 to 83, and are consistent with the CAZ policy. The London Plan states that where commercial development occurs it should include housing.384 However, it should not be dominated by housing.
250. The Site is covered by the important UDP KIBA designation for the protection of areas of employment land, as set out in Policy 22 and the supporting text. These areas are critically important to the provision of adequate employment land in the Borough, and they have been supported through the UDP process,
251. There are certain areas within the KIBA that have been identified for Major Development Opportunities through UDP Policy 77 and the MDO designations. The Site comprises about 82% of MDO 81 (0.2873 hectares of the total 0.35 hectare MDO site). When redeveloped, the MDO 80-83 sites are required to provide at least one-third of the floorspace for employment use. They should not simply replace what has been removed, but provide further employment opportunities.
252. The reason for refusal also refers to the following policies of the London Plan (2008 version):385
• Policy 3B.1 (Developing London’s economy)
• 3B.2 (Office demand and supply – including the requirement to promote the provision of additional space and the rejuvenation of existing office space in CAZ)
• 3B.11 (Improving employment opportunities for Londoners)
These policies are all concerned with improving opportunities, rather than simply maintaining existing floorspace. The Site, even though designated as a MDO, is intended to deliver new employment space as part of any redevelopment. The proposals would involve a significant under-provision of employment floorspace according to UDP Policy 77. They would not replace the floorspace lost, and would provide only 10% of the minimum 33% required.
253. This objection was already relevant when, as set out in the committee report, there appeared to be a loss of 464 square metres and a possible increase in jobs of about 80. But the starting point for considering the issue of employment floorspace has changed. The full facts are:
• The provision of 4,871 square metres means that there would be a loss of 4,398 square metres of floorspace for employment use, protected by development plan policy.
383 See the UDP Proposals Map. The extension of the CAZ in 2008 takes the boundary a little further south and east in Lambeth. 384 CD4/1, Policy 5G.3 (Central Activities: Offices) 385 CD4/1
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 66
• The replacement of Use Class B8 floorspace with B1 floorspace would be likely to yield a greater density of jobs per square metre, but little more than the existing capacity overall, whichever method of calculation is used.386
• It was agreed between the Council and Drivers Jonas Deloitte,387 the Appellant’s consultant, that the English Partnership (EP) figures should be used for this theoretical assessment. On this basis, there will be 2 new jobs.
• The loss of physical floorspace would not be justified under UDP Policy 22, even though a similar theoretical job capacity might be produced.
254. The best that could have been said for the Appellant’s approach was that the proposals were contrary to Policies 22 and 77, but that there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to justify the loss of 464 square metres. These circumstances might include the increase in the B1 floorspace, the obligation to provide subsidised B1 floorspace at below market rents for 25 years, and the incorporation of affordable housing on the Site.
255. As part of this balance, the officers promoted the idea, in the committee report, that it would not be possible to provide more employment floorspace within the overall design. This repeats the assertion made in the Appellant’s Planning Statement of May 2009.388 It has proved to be false: Mr Filskow confirmed389 that it would be possible to provide further employment floors without compromising the design.
256. The reduction of employment floorspace now evident would be extraordinary, amounting to several thousand square metres. For the Appellant, Mr Taylor remained unconcerned about the loss of B8 space:
“The nature of B8 use is very different to the way in which the policy would normally apply to B8. This is a very low level of employment and I don’t think this loss is material.”390
Mr Taylor noted that the draft SPD no longer encouraged B8 uses in Vauxhall.391 However, this does not mean that existing floorspace can be lost in contravention of UDP policy.
257. For the Council, Mr Vinall pointed out that UDP policies protect all B Use Class land, and that B8 uses cannot easily be located elsewhere in Lambeth. The UDP policies are realistic and up to date. The Council’s external consultants, DTZ, were asked to re-examine the issue of supply and demand for business floorspace in Vauxhall and confirmed strong demand continuing into the medium and long term, when the proposals would be in place. Mr Johnson’s evidence on behalf of DTZ demonstrates that the future requirements for business floorspace support the UDP’s policies.
386 LBL 3.8 and LBL 3.9; DTZ figures show an increase from 321 jobs to 348, EP figures from 266 to 268, London Plan figures from 331 to 362 387 A7.2, para 6.24 388 CD2/2, para 8.15. 389 In XX 390 In EC 391 CD5/2, section 4 p.38, referred to in A7.2, para 8.41
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 67
258. There appeared to be no disagreement between Tuckermans, for the Appellant,392 and DTZ that the proposed B1 floorspace would all be taken up, and that there would be a demand in the future for more B1 floorspace. Indeed, DTZ’s work on the current property market conditions for business space in Vauxhall was primarily carried out to identify key themes influencing future demand. DTZ’s work is summarised in Mr Johnson’s proof:
“…I conclude that the future prospects for the local economy are good, within the context of overall recovery in the London economy. This will drive requirements for business space in Vauxhall, both supported and encouraged by a clear policy framework. The appellant’s scheme will be likely to reach completion at a point when this economic recovery is well underway and will therefore be well-placed to capture growing demand, particularly as the space being provided will be capable of being occupied by SMEs. A requirement to provide an amount of business space in line with UDP policy is therefore justified and will help to overcome concerns over future constrained supply of such space in the Vauxhall area.”393
259. “…in line with UDP policy” would mean the one-third provision of 16,233 square metres GIA.394 The ability to satisfy the policy statement in the MDO 80-83 text, that this amount of employment floorspace (the one-third) would not be required where it can be achieved through comprehensive development across the entire MDO site, has not been demonstrated. Mr Taylor asserts395 that the shortfall in employment space can be built by other developers, in addition to their share of the new floorspace they would be expected to provide. However, this is mere assertion. Mr Vinall confirmed that there is no masterplan or agreement with other landowners that could be relied upon.396
260. Mr Taylor provides his own answer to the proper policy approach: “Securing full compliance with the policy across the whole site principally lies with the Council…”397 The Council has treated the Site in accordance with the development plan. There are no material considerations that indicate that this application should be determined otherwise than in accordance with this policy.
261. Mr Taylor’s assertions that the Council has adopted a different approach in the case of Vauxhall Sky Gardens are not correct. The officer’s report on the second scheme398 shows that the failure to provide one-third floorspace as employment use was treated as being in conflict with policy and considerable justification was required to outweigh this harm. The provision of 16% employment floorspace in the March 2010 permission was seen in the context of the provision of 100% more floorspace than that existing (2,482 square metres in addition to the existing 2,240 square metres GEA).399
392 A7.3.1 393 LBL3.1, para 4.1.14 394 LBL3.9 395 A7.2, para 6.13 396 In RE 397 A7.2, para 6.14 398 LBL4.3 399 Arguably the whole 4,722 square metres can be regarded as new, according to the committee report (CD 6/14, para 6.2.6) as the building was already demolished and the last use of the site was for data storage. It was also estimated to provide 240 jobs compared to 28 jobs before, using the English Partnership assumptions (para 6.2.18).
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 68
262. Important further justification can be found in the committee report regarding the viability assessment submitted in support of the lesser provision of employment floorspace compared to the 33% in the first scheme.400 Moreover, the building site comprised only a small part, 0.19 hectares, of a much larger MDO site of 2 hectares, the balance of which is available for redevelopment.
263. Nor can a comparison be properly drawn with the July 2010 application scheme for the Vauxhall Cross Island site.401 It is a vacant site and does not lie within a KIBA. It provides 33% non-residential development, comprising 5.4% of the total floorspace as employment use, all of it new, and 27.8% as retail, hotel and other non-residential uses.
264. Bondway is the only scheme which seeks to reduce existing employment floorspace, whilst the Council tries to protect and promote employment floorspace to combat the high levels of unemployment in the Borough. More people are unemployed in Lambeth than any other Borough and there are limited areas where opportunities for new employment can be created. Vauxhall is one of the key areas, a point recognised by its Opportunity Area status.
265. Developers would like to build housing on nearly every site in the borough. However, there are a limited number of areas with such exceptional public transport accessibility, encouraging employers to locate. If such an ideal site as this is unable to deliver a significant amount of employment floorspace, the idea of a sustainable Lambeth suffers.
266. The employment-led requirement continues in the draft SPD.402 This was accepted by Drivers Jonas Deloitte until their clients changed their plans from office to residential, and then their views changed.403 The value of such a changeable expert opinion should be regarded with suspicion.
267. The UDP uses percentages and not targets, but the MDO sites and policies concern maximising the opportunity rather than providing the bare minimum on a site. The argument in cross examination concerning the amount of employment floorspace expected in relation to the Strategic Housing Location Availability Assessment (SHLAA) illustrates this. The SHLAA assumed 112 units on the site, that is, 30% of the units provided in the current proposals. On the 60:40 split used in the SHLAA, this would imply there would be 5,905 square metres of employment floorspace included in that theoretical building.404 This scheme’s 4,871 square metres appears almost acceptable in this light, until one remembers the purpose behind the MDO.
268. The Appellant relies strongly on the draft OAPF and the emerging Core Strategy. The draft OAPF arises from LP Policy 5E.2 (Opportunity Areas in South West London), which states that “…developments will be expected to maximise residential and non-residential densities and to contain mixed uses.” It also refers to an indicative employment capacity of 8,000 jobs and a minimum of 3,500 homes. There are several important points to note:
400 LBL4.3, para 6.2.10‐6.2.18 401 LBL4.3 and LBL4.7 402 CD5/2, Fig 4.4 and Ob3.2, p.40‐41 403 Mr Taylor in XX 404 The question in XX used 33%, but the SHLAA assumptions of 60:40 need to be kept consistent. 30% of the GIA of this appeal building is 14,757 square metres (from 49,191). So 40% equates to 5,902 square metres.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 69
ial
• Any development of the OA must still deliver significant jobs.
• These capacity figures are taken account of in the draft Vauxhall SPD, and are the basis for Option 2, not the ‘developer-led’ Option 3.405
269. The draft OAPF clearly puts a heavy emphasis on housing provision, but it also expects significant job creation. There is a clear and important distinction between the mixed uses envisaged:406
(a) “High density mixed use centre focal point for office and retail including housing” (pink area), where the explanation is:
• These areas will come forward as new CAZ areas in the OA and will be the focus for new commercial developments including office and retail uses. These areas will also bring forward a significant element of housing. They will retain distinct river freight uses which have a strategic importance for London as safeguarded wharves.
It is no surprise that the mix of uses to be brought forward should include a “…significant element of housing.” That is what the CAZ policy requires of new commercial developments. This is distinct from the housing-led area.
(b) “High density mixed use housing-led intensification” (yellow area), where the explanation is:
• These areas will come forward as new housing areas with a mix of commercial and community uses to support emerging communities.
Mr Vinall observed407 that this distinction involved locating employment uses nearer the transport hub for sound planning reasons.
270. There is one further important distinction to draw out between local and London Plan policy as Mr Vinall explained.408 The draft OAPF proposes changes to the Strategic Employment Land (SEL), which has been protected by the London Plan. The implications for the SEL, now to be called a Strategic IndustrLocation (SIL) are illustrated and explained at pages 28 and 29 of the draft OAPF.
271. The KIBA land of Lambeth is not, and has not ever been, treated as SEL. It is a local designation, to which clear UDP policies relate. Therefore, the comments about the re-organisation and concentration of the SEL in paras 5.141 and 5.142 of the London Plan 2008 are not relevant to the employment land designations applicable to this site. In this case, we need to look to the UDP alone.
272. The other important policy issue under this heading concerns the proposed removal of Bondway KIBA designation, encompassing 88,691 square metres of employment land.409 This will be a specific subject of the Core Strategy examination. As the Council response to the questions raised in the CS Examination has made clear,410 the designation removal reflects the proposals in the draft OAPF. The KIBA and MDO designations in the UDP would be removed
405 CD5/2, p. 63‐64 406 CD4/3, p.26‐27 407 In RE 408 LBL2.1 409 Figure identified by Mr Johnson (LBL3.1, para 3.1.16) from the 2008 KIBA survey of existing floorspace 410 LBL4.5
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 70
from the Site with the adoption of the Core Strategy, leaving policies more akin to those that apply to the Vauxhall Cross Island site.
273. Considerable debate took place about CS Policies S3 (Economic Development) and PN2 (Places and Neighbourhoods – Vauxhall). Mr Vinall acknowledged that these policies would give increased flexibility. There is so much flexibility in the wording it seems that he was led in cross examination into accepting that the proposals can be said to comply with the policies, although his view was that they did not comply.
274. The cross examination of Mr Vinall confirmed that the current wording of Policy S3 of the draft CS411 does not deliver what the policy section intends. Clearly, it is not the intention of the Council, as the plan-making authority, to promote such a result, or to adopt a potentially contradictory policy. This matter will be examined by the CS inspector. The proposal is now to remove the detailed wording and to leave Policy S3(b) simply as, “Maintaining a stock of other sites and premises (not in KIBAs) in commercial use across the borough subject to the suitability of the site and location.”412
275. Draft Policy PN2413 is open to wider interpretations. It supports mixed use for employment uses, housing, retail, hotel, student accommodation, leisure, entertainment and other commercial and community uses in line with its CAZ designation. However, it seeks to distinguish between areas, so that the Vauxhall Heart (PN 2(f)) has the opportunity to develop “…a cluster of high quality taller buildings for a mix of uses including residential, retail [and] business…”, whereas the South East Regeneration Arc (PN 2(g)) is for “…a residential-led mixed-use quarter…” This would be an otiose description if the Appellant is correct in assuming that residential-led can be everywhere.
276. If the Bondway KIBA designation were removed, UDP Policy 23 (Protection and Location of other Employment Uses) would still be in operation and would then apply to the Site. It would do so until such time as a sound Development Management DPD were adopted.414
277. Policy 23 states that outside KIBAs, where land is or has last been in employment use, loss of floorspace to non-employment use will not be permitted unless either, “(i) The site is no longer suited for employment use….or (ii) If the site is vacant it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect in the medium term of re-use or redevelopment…”. There is clearly still a demand for the employment land on the Site as it is at present.
278. Finally, the GLA’s stance on the employment issue is strange. The GLA were clearly aware of UDP Policy 22 and MDO 81 when commenting on the policy-compliant first pre-application scheme, comprising a 150-170 metre tower, 42% Use Class B1 floorspace, and a 0.35 hectare site, on 9 January 2009.415 They then failed to refer to these policies in relation to the application proposals, comprising some 90% residential and 10% employment floorspace. The failure
411 CD5/11, p.43 412 LBL4.5 413 CD5/11, p.65 ff 414 Mr Vinall in RE 415 CD2/15, para 5 and 12
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 71
to provide further employment land, the very ‘opportunity’ that the MDO requires, was not discussed.
279. In effect, the GLA have chosen to support “…the principle of a high density residential-led mixed use development on this site.”416 They have ignored important parts of the local UDP. Their support should be seen for what it is, a strategic assessment only. The whole of the existing plan should be considered.
Urban Design
280. Any building proposal of this prominence must be subject to careful scrutiny. According to the London Plan, all large-scale buildings including tall buildings should be of the ‘highest quality design’.417 This is a difficult challenge to meet on this small site, abutting the railway viaduct.
281. This building must be considered on its own merits and in relation to the proposed cluster. It cannot seek to rely on the proposed policy designation of the area as suitable for high buildings and then ignore the urban design consequences of the need to consider several sites together to achieve the policy objectives. The putative reasons for refusal mainly address the specifics of the particular building, but overdevelopment of this site would affect other sites as well.
282. The opinions of the individual architects involved have been presented, including MAKE’s assertion that every scheme they design is exceptional.418 Of course they are normally architects who produce high quality work, but that does not mean that any particular building is necessarily of high quality, let alone the highest quality in its context. We can applaud the attempt, but we do not have to accept the result.
283. Richard Rees of BDP has also given his opinion. He and his team have been commissioned to consider the urban design challenges of the Vauxhall cluster since 2006. His work and that of his multi-disciplinary team have informed the SPD, and he has already considered the Tall Building Cluster in a 2009 study. He has considerable international and national experience as an architect and urban designer. His analysis supports the conclusions reached by the councillors, based on their own local knowledge and considerable practical experience of the planning system.
284. The local community has expressed strong support for the stance taken by the Council, that the proposed building would be overdominant and overbearing, and would have an adverse effect on Vauxhall Park. They are not persuaded by the architects’ and by Mr Coleman’s and Professor Tavernor’s warm words of praise.
285. CABE’s views have also been explored. They cannot bear decisive weight, since they are not the local planning authority or the decision maker in this case. However detailed was the presentation made to them, it cannot have provided the same degree of scrutiny as the public inquiry process. Nor did they hear any dissenting voices to the scheme, or have the benefit of BDP’s input. Mr Rees noted that in the UK, our approach to tall buildings is evolving, and we have only
416 Their description, 8 July 2009, on the 0.29 hectare Site. 417 CD5/2, Policy 4B.10 418 Mr Shuttleworth, although in XX he accepted that not all agree and admitted that MAKE were runners up for the 2009 Carbuncle of the Year award from Building Design magazine.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 72
.”421
an embryonic understanding of their impact.419 Given his background in helping to design Hong Kong, he is in a position to know. As he said, the architects missed the point on visual mass with their proposals.
286. Furthermore, as the statutory body with responsibility for historic buildings and matters relating to conservation, and as joint authors of the Tall Buildings guidance,420 the views of English Heritage should have equal weight. They oppose the grant of planning permission. Not for the first time it must be said, as the Inspector noted in the case of the Vauxhall Tower, that “The support of CABE must be balanced against the concerns of English Heritage, the co-authors of the recent guidance on tall buildings
287. English Heritage422 recommend refusal, and conclude by saying, that whilst they support ‘good quality contextual modern architecture’:
“By virtue of its scale and massing of the proposal, its significant harm on the setting and significance of the World Heritage Site, listed buildings and conservation areas, and loss of local heritage asset it is difficult to see how this could be achieved without a significant reduction in scale and height of the building.”
288. CABE/EH’s Guidance on Tall Buildings offers advice on good practice. Tall buildings should be considered as pieces of architecture in their own right and as pieces of urban design sitting within a wider context.423 The guidance remains relevant and is discussed in the draft OAPF.424 Paragraph 4.1 of the guidance lists the criteria against which proposals should be assessed. Criterion i) refers to:
‘The relationship to context, including natural topography, scale, height, urban grain, streetscape and built form, and the effect on the skyline. Tall buildings should have a positive relationship with relevant topographical features and other tall buildings; the virtue of clusters when perceived from all directions should be considered in this light.’
289. Westminster City Council also gave their expert view. Whilst the Council are satisfied that the proposals would not unacceptably affect the strategic views from Westminster and Pimlico, their objections and those of the WCDG must be considered.
Policy Framework on Design Issues
290. Design judgment is not a completely subjective matter. A clear policy framework exists in the development plan and in PPS1, and the structured approach recommended in By Design425 must be considered. A summary of the Council’s intended approach to Tall Buildings in the emerging Core Strategy is
419 In EC 420 CD6/1 421 CD7/9, IR para 11.42 422 CD2/19 423 CD6/1, para 1.4 424 CD4/3, p.138 425 CD3/21
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 73
provided in Topic Paper No.3, March 2010.426 This includes a discussion of the very full policy background.
291. Consideration of good design should not be limited to the boundaries of the particular site. As PPS1 notes:
‘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.’427
As Mr Dale pointed out,428 this consideration is also relevant to the provision of open space.
292. London Plan Policy 3A.3 (Maximising the potential of sites)429 might be seen to support the development as it states that boroughs should ensure that developments achieve ‘the maximum intensity of use’. However, this is only so far as ‘compatible with local context’, with the design principles in Policy 4B.1, and with public transport capacity. LP Policy 3A.3 also refers to the density matrix (Table 3A.2), which itself is supplemented by the guidance in the Housing SPG.430
293. London Plan Policy 4B.10 (Large-scale buildings) states that all large scale buildings including tall buildings should be of ‘the highest quality design’ and sets out a number of criteria against which proposals should be assessed. Among these are that they should:
• be suited to their wider context in terms of proportion and composition and in terms of their relationship to other buildings, streets, public and private open spaces, the waterways or other townscape elements
• be attractive city elements as viewed from all angles [emphasis added]
294. UDP Policy 40 (Tall Buildings) applies to high buildings over 25 metres on sites adjacent to the Thames and buildings over 30 metres elsewhere. It states that tall buildings should not be located where they would harm the character or settings of ‘Historic or characterful parks (including views out)’. Amongst the visual design criteria it notes that ‘Bulky, solid structures … will not be permitted.’
295. Policy 41 (Views) states that permission will not be granted for developments which detract from important views, backdrops or settings of, among other things, historic parks and gardens. This accords with the need, under PPS5,431 to take account of views from conservation areas and from listed buildings. PPS5 contains a set of policies intended to guide assessment of the impact of proposals on heritage assets and their significance. In particular, Policy HE.10 relates to setting, and relies on the principles in Policies HE.7 and HE.9.
296. The draft OAPF has a little to say on local views. Professor Tavernor agreed that it would be possible in principle for there to be a building of up to 150 metres that did not impinge on strategic views but which unacceptably impinged
426 CD5/15 427 CD3/1, para 34; c.f.: PPS3, para 13 428 In EC 429 CD4/1 430 CD4/14 431 CD3/7
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 74
on local views. It is the Council’s case that this would occur with the present proposals.
297. The draft OAPF’s 150 metre indicative threshold432 has become an important part of the Appellant’s case. Its role is to ensure that Vauxhall Tower is seen as the pinnacle of the emerging cluster of tall buildings in strategic views. Mr Filskow understood it as an area in which buildings of this height could be located, and not as a blanket permit for such buildings. This accords with the draft OAPF’s own language, which illustrates its concern for local views:
“It is important to deliver variety on the skyline not just to build to the maximum envelope. This is particularly relevant given the extensive views into the OA and its riverside from Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea to the north, and from conservation areas in Lambeth and Wandsworth to the south of the OA.”433
298. These comments are central to one of the points that lie at the heart of this appeal, about the appropriate approach to the consideration of tall buildings in Vauxhall. As the Council’s comments to the GLA on the draft OAPF stated:434
“Tall building strategy The Lambeth draft Vauxhall Area SPD also promotes a cluster of tall buildings at Vauxhall but is more detailed in its approach, ensuring that this steps down to existing residential areas to reduce impact. The OAPF needs to reflect this - at present it gives heights for very broad areas. Further consideration should be given on how any wall affect can be avoided both in terms of strategic and local views. There needs to be a proper consideration of ‘inland views’ as well in relation to the approach towards tall buildings and the approach should be more refined in the way proposed in the Lambeth draft Vauxhall area SPD.”
299. Urban design objectives need to be read together with the development form, as Professor Tavernor agreed.435 By Design makes the point well under the heading, Objectives and Development Form Brought Together:436
• “Effective design policy and design guidance is likely to focus on how, in a particular context, development form can achieve the urban design objectives.”
• “The lists of objectives and aspects of form have been produced in order to encourage … decision-makers to ask a series of questions that go deeper than generalisations.”
• Looking at the overall picture, under the heading, Aspects of Development Form:
“Urban design objectives are, by themselves, abstract. They have an impact on people’s lives only by being translated into development. The form of buildings, structures and spaces is the physical expression of urban design. It is what influences the pattern of uses, activity and movement in a place, and the experiences of those who visit, live or work there. This guide sets out the most important characteristics of the physical form of development by
432 CD4/3, p.142 433 CD4/3, p.142 last column 434 CD8/2A 435 In XX 436 CD3/21, p.17
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 75
iry.
ls.439
articulating eight aspects. Together, these define the overall layout of the place (in terms of its routes and building blocks); its scale (in terms of building height and massing); its appearance (as expressed in details and use of materials); and its landscape (including all the public realm, built and green spaces).”
The Building Design
300. A considerable amount of work has gone into the design of the building, and its details. However, it is still too big, and the proposed mitigation of this scale would not be successful.437
301. The Design and Access Statement (DAS)438 shows the evolution of the scheme. It notes that the architects’ immediate response to the brief, site and programme was to suggest a 20 to 30 storey building, which would accord withthe urban design constraints of the Site that have been described to the InquThe building then expanded enormously. Early designs show a 177 metre toweras part of a possible cluster. By late summer of 2008, it had become a pre-let office tower of 150-175 metres with some housing, whose form seems still to influence the present proposa
302. The final proposals comprise eight mini-towers rising to 149 metres. There appears to be some confusion over its intended form and mass. Mr Filskow describes a contradictory situation, “The overall shape of the building is, broadly speaking, neither a simple vertically extruded tower nor a horizontal slab, but lies somewhere between the two.”440 The conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the overall shape would be, broadly speaking, a vertically extruded slab. Mr Filskow also states that, “The appeal scheme is …almost an extruded terrace or a vertical village.”441 It would also be seen as an urban block up to the canopies.
303. The design’s proportions are unusual, and it gives an impression of excessive visual mass.442 It is remarkable, but not surprising, that none of the four design witnesses for the appellant could name a similar building, nor could the design witnesses for LBL and WDCG.
Height, Scale, Bulk, Mass
304. The Council have criticised the proposals on certain specific aspects, its height, scale, mass and bulk. Mr Rees has analysed the scheme in this respect, concentrating on the eastern façade. He has also addressed the issues raised by the considerable silhouette of the building over long periods of the day, the reflectivity, the effect of shadows, and the choice of materials. The details of the building would be lost to the human eye in ‘white noise’, 300 metres away. The aggressive stepping of the top of the mini-towers would be incongruous when seen from the residential areas nearby. There would be a distinct contrast with the existing urban grain.
437 Mr Rees lists a number of points, LBL1.1, Section 6 438 CD2/3, p.60 et seq 439 CD2/3, p.66‐67 440 A2.2, para 4.3.1 441 A2.2, para 4.6.1 442 LBL1.2, Appendix F
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 76
305. These issues overlap to an extent, but the issue is certainly not just about height, which seems to have unduly obsessed the GLA and planning officers involved in the early stages.
306. The overlap is explained in By Design, under the heading, Aspects of Development Form, where it is noted that ‘scale’ refers both to:
• Height - Scale is the size of a building in relation to its surroundings, or the size of parts of a building or its details, particularly in relation to the size of a person. Height determines the impact of development on views, vistas and skylines.
• Massing - The combined effect of the arrangement, volume and shape of a building or group of buildings in relation to other buildings and spaces.443
307. It is possible to support the general principle of a tall building on this site, as well as on other sites, but to then object to its specific attributes, such as its scale, bulk, and mass. To give a sense of the exceptional height and bulk of the proposed building, six of the eight mini-towers would be higher than the 88 metres of the Market Tower, and the seventh mini-tower is only some 8 metres lower.444 Four of the eight mini-towers would rise to over 117 metres.
308. The exceptional height would be significant. As Mr Shuttleworth and Mr Filskow accepted, a building of this height (149 metres), or that of Vauxhall Sky Gardens (120 metres), or the Vauxhall Tower (180 metres) belong to a different category to that existing at the moment. The draft OAPF, indicating where tall building clusters might be located445 refers to tall buildings over 100 metres. Of course, in certain locations, for instance Hampton House on the Albert Embankment, even that can be too high.
The Relationship to Neighbouring Land
309. The proposals must be acceptable in their own terms and in terms of the emerging cluster. There would be an uncomfortable relationship with Vauxhall Park experienced in views from the Park towards Bondway, exacerbated by the Vauxhall Cross Island scheme.446 An unacceptable wall-like effect would be produced.
310. The objection from the adjacent landowner of the larger ‘Wandsworth Road site’ (MDO 80)447 raises the question of the need for ‘substantial and useable’ public realm’. It notes that the appeal scheme is ‘an extremely large building on a very modest site.’ The objection illustrates the point that no consideration has been given to the impact on neighbouring land. The Appellant simply hopes that the draft SPD would be applied rigorously so that the public amenity land CABE says is ‘essential to the success of the cluster’448 would be provided for their building on their neighbour’s land. Mr Filskow illustrates the need for this space in his proof.449
443 CD3/21, p.16 444 CD1/3, dwg A2104 445 CD4/3, Fig 10.1 p.137 446 LBL1.2, Appendix K 447 Main file, Rolfe Judd’s letter dated 17 June 2010 448 CD2/19 449 A2.2, p.53
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 77
ered.
a.458
311. The history of the proposals with regard to the triangle of land to the south of the Site, still owned by Network Rail, has been set out.450 The Appellant has suggested compulsory purchase by the Council, even though they contend it is not necessary to their scheme. Nevertheless, it appears in the visualisations from the south451 as a pocket park and is illustrated in Mr Filskow’s proof.452
312. Its current use is as a car park, and for access to the businesses in the 8 railway arches. Far from it being used as open space in conjunction with the proposals, it could be developed with buildings. The Appellant acknowledges that the draft SPD shows it as a small triangle of development,453 although Mr Filskow denied it could take more than a pavilion.454 All that can be concluded is that the Appellant’s intentions cannot be deliv
The Urban Design impact
313. Mr Rees’ proof455 discusses the impact which the proposed building would have on local views and heritage assets, including the Vauxhall Conservation Area which contains the Park. As he points out, in many of the views the impact would be substantially adverse.
314. The particular location of the Site within Vauxhall is important. In the case of the 180 metre Vauxhall Tower, the Inspector was able to conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the Vauxhall Conservation area.456 He bore in mind the separation of the Conservation Area from the appeal site (some 300 metres), the existing surroundings which include tall buildings (Market Tower and Keybridge House), and also the slender proportions of the Tower.
315. By way of contrast, this Site is much closer to the Vauxhall Conservation Area. The building is also much more massive, and it presents its widest elevation to the most sensitive viewpoints in the four conservation areas to the east.457 There would also be a cumulative degradation of views across the are
316. There are distinct limitations to the accuracy and usefulness of the visual representation images. Mr Rees, one of the few Fellows of the Society of Architectural Illustrators, has set out his concerns.459 Even where rendered images have been provided, allowance must be made for the effect of factors such as variable light and weather conditions. The Inspector in the recent Brighton Marina appeal decision confirms the need for a detailed, on-site inspection and consideration. Mr Coleman used the same approach to his images as here and, as the Inspector noted, they “…cannot be regarded as an exemplar
450 A2.2, paras 2.5.3‐2.5.6; 5.5.4 451 CD2/3, p.76‐77 452 A2.2, p.29 453 A2.2, para 5.5.3 454 In XX 455 LBL1.2 456 CD7/9, IR 11.42 ‐11.48 457 LBL1.1, para 5.65 and LBL1.2 Appendix J 458 LBL1.1, para 5.70 459 LBL1.2, para 5.74‐5.95
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 78
roposed
of best practice”460 This point was not acknowledged in the HTVIA, but was accepted in cross examination.
317. There are also weaknesses in the methodology. Mr Coleman acknowledged that the methodology is of his own devising.461 The most important statement in the HTVIA is that:
“It is essential for any reader using the visual assessments as analysis, to be conversant with this methodology, which is particular to the author.”462
318. Mr Coleman considers that a high quality design will improve any view.463 He sets out the significance criteria464 and, as soon as a building is judged to be of the ‘highest quality’, he regards it as no longer adverse. Moreover, there is a distinct inconsistency in how an ‘adverse mitigated’ becomes a ‘substantial beneficial’ in the space of a few tens of metres (Views L57 to L56).
319. Professor Tavernor contends that the impact of Market Tower and Keybridge House on the Park is negligible, and that the visibility of tall buildings beyond the Park does not constitute harm in an urban setting.465 However, he acknowledges his judgment is made from a viewing position on the east side of the Park, in summer, with the tree canopies masking the buildings, and that the buildings are more visible from the open spaces in the centre of the Park.466
320. A building half the height, as suggested in BDP’s urban design study,467 would have much less impact. When this was put to Professor Tavernor, rather than commenting on its urban design effect, he said it was unlikely to happen. This evasion is revealing.
321. Regarding the computer animations of the effect of the proposals within the Park, Mr. Rees was of the view that they are so distant from experiences to which we can readily connect that little weight should be attached to them. They are very limited in their usefulness, do not address where most people walk, and can essentially be ignored.
322. The Council’s objections with regard to Woodstock Court remain (View M29).468 It is important to distinguish between the tall buildings granted planning permission which would just be seen above the roof, and the pdevelopment which would compete with the campanile and be visible from the 26th floor to the 42nd above the listed building. The sensitivity to change in the setting of Woodstock Court is acknowledged as ‘high’. Far from being redeemed by its high quality design, the impact should be regarded as moderate and adverse.
323. As to the conservation areas, the main difference between the parties concerns the effect of the quality of the building seen in particular views and the value of
460 CD7/14B, IR 16.36 461 In XX 462 CD2/4/E, p.88 para 11.2 463 In XX 464 CD2/4/E, section 3 p.6 465 A4.2, para 3.3.9 466 A4.2, para 3.2.1 467 K1.15 468 CD2/4/E
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 79
the development acting as a marker for the Vauxhall transport interchange. It is accepted by Mr Coleman that some of the principal streets align with the site, making views very likely, especially in St Marks Conservation Area. A great deal of the building would be visible in many of the views, especially M32, M33 and M34. Moreover, in View M35 (Albert Square Conservation Area) the effect on the square is underplayed by Mr Coleman. If one were to come to the conclusion that the proposed building was not world class from this viewpoint, the impact would be substantial and adverse, rather than beneficial.
Impact on Vauxhall Park
324. Although containing both urban design and amenity aspects, the impact of the proposals on Vauxhall Park is seen as a discrete issue, and is addressed for the Council by Mr Dale and Mr Rees.
325. The second reason for refusal refers to UDP Policies 1 (Vision for Lambeth), 33 (Building Scale and Design), 41 (Views), and 47 (Conservation Areas).469 Policy 1 indicates that protecting and improving Lambeth’s heritage, character and open spaces will be one of a number of spatial priorities. Policy 33 requires that all development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area. Major development should ‘relate satisfactorily to adjacent townscape taking into account its scale, character, historic street layout and uses’. With respect to residential density and scale Policy 33 states:
‘The primary consideration in determining the 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. Buildings should be of a scale, massing and height that are appropriate to their site characteristics, setting, civic function and/or importance and location in the townscape.’ [emphasis added]
326. The second reason for refusal also refers to London Plan Policies 3D.8 (Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure), 4B.10 (Large-scale buildings), and 4B.12 (Heritage conservation).
327. The over-dominant and overbearing presence of the building would be seen from almost everywhere in the Park. The sole image in the HTVIA (View L58)470 is therefore illustrative of a very wide problem. The adverse impact would be caused by the scale and slab-like appearance of the building and its proximity and orientation to the Park.471 The appeal scheme would cause severe harm to Vauxhall Park, which is a well-used, high quality, open space.472
328. The proposed building represents poor design since it is inappropriate in its context and fails to take the opportunity for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. The proposal therefore fails to accord with important policy objectives identified in PPS1, PPS3, PPG17 and the policies of the London Plan and Lambeth Unitary Development Plan.
329. The impact would be particularly acute in winter when the group of trees at the western end of the park would be bare of leaves. Moreover, the visual
469 CD5/1 470 CD2/4/E 471 LBL4/1, para 6.3 472 LBL1/1, para 5.125‐5.131
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 80
impact in the summer would not be adequately mitigated by the trees. In the evening, the building would cast a vast shadow across the park.473
330. There is no separate reason for refusal on daylight and sunlight grounds, since the proposals meet BRE guidance. Mr Absolon assumes that Vauxhall Park is abnormal, with heavy shade from trees. Only if this is accepted can his conclusion of negligible loss of amenity from the overshadowing of the building hold true.474 However, it is a normal park, with people experiencing dappled shade and capable of remembering the difference between such shade and the vast shadow the proposed building would project.
331. It has been argued that there will be a high building on the Site in any event, so the impact of the building is inevitable. However, location within the Vauxhall Heart and its form and scale is crucial. The emerging cluster would not necessarily rise above the mature trees of the Park, and a building on the Site would not have to be of the visual mass and scale proposed. The GLA’s view on Vauxhall Park in their Stage 1 Report, that “…any tall building on this site would be likely to have a similar relationship with the park”475 is clearly a false premise. Scale, massing and bulk must be taken into account, not just height.
332. The Friends of Vauxhall Park have taken the considerable time and trouble to make detailed representations, based upon their fundamental knowledge of the Park. They have allied this knowledge to the expert work of Land Use Consultants. Considerable weight should be given to that evidence.
Communal open space and children’s open play space
333. The third reason for refusal notes that the proposals would fail to provide any communal open amenity space or children’s open play space on site, thereby failing to provide a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers. This is an important issue for any residential development and is even more important for high rise development. The reason for refusal refers to UDP Policies 33 (Building Scale and Design), and 50 (Open Space and Sports facilities). It also refers to London Plan Policy 3D.13 (Children and young people’s play and informal recreation strategies).
334. It is assumed that some 117 children would be resident under the proposals, 45 of whom would be under 5 years of age. Local policy is expressed in terms of minimum areas that should be provided. These minimum figures are lower than national standards, because of the central London location. It is important, in an area of Open Space Deficiency,476 that requirements are met on site.
335. This deficiency would be exacerbated by the adverse impact on the Park of the over-dominant building. As PPG17 advises:
‘The recreational quality of open spaces can be eroded by insensitive development…..Local authorities should avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance the character of open spaces….. [and]
473 LBL4.1, para 6.3.13 and Mr Rees’ modelling 474 BRE Guidance ref to trees, and the “normally...need not be included” assumption to leave them out of the assessment – see CD 6/19, last para in 2nd column on page 13‐14 [the part missing from his extract in his proof at para 8.4]. 475 CD2/16, para 56 476 CD4/3, p.19
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 81
ensure that open spaces do not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic flows or other encroachment…477 [emphasis added]
336. Reliance can be placed on local parks for facilities for the over 5s, but not for the under 5s. The nearest park to the site, Vauxhall Park, is a 260 metre walk from the ground floor entrance of the proposed building,478 in addition to the distance from the flats down the corridors and lifts to the entrance point.
337. The failure to provide any communal open amenity space is an issue of quality. There would be some communal space, now agreed to be free for all residents, on the Amenity Floor (Level 36). However, the provision would be compromised: there would be overall private amenity space of 3,167 square metres made up of 2,436 square metres of winter gardens and 731 square metres of private terraces. There would also be 104 square metres of public terrace on Level 36.
338. This leaves the remaining 489 square metres to be provided internally through the communal space, pictured in the DAS without any internal walls.479 Mr Taylor was only able to say this could be achieved if the gross external area of 567 square metres were to be counted. The net internal area amounts to only 366 square metres.480 Indeed, the list of areas set out by Mr Filskow481 totals only 363 square metres. Little of the area is the normal amenity space that might be expected. Not only is it not outdoors, it comprises a series of semi-private rooms including a gym, a business room, and a rentable private function room.
339. The failure to provide any children’s open play space on site has become muddied by the proposal to include dedicated play space for the under 5s on the Amenity Floor. It is not clear how much would be provided. The Mayor’s SPG (Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation) recommends that, since there would be no facility within 100 metres, it should all be on site.482 It is also an issue directly raised in PPS3.483
340. The GLA raise no objection on this issue. However, the GLA do not seem to have applied their own policy consistently, as set out in LP Policy 3D.13 and in the SPG:
• It will be essential that new housing, both affordable and market, provides a high quality environment for all residents with sufficient high quality play and recreation space accessible by children and young people of different ages.484
• The Mayor will and the boroughs and other partners should ensure that all children have safe access to good quality, well-designed, secure and stimulating play and informal recreation provision.485
• In a densely developed, highly urbanised city like London, safe and stimulating play facilities are essential for a child’s welfare and future development.486
477 CD3/15, para 16‐17 478 A2.2, para 7.2.2 479 CD2/3, p.156‐157 480 LBL4.1, para 6.4.1 and CD2/3, p.322 481 A2.2, para 7.3.8 482 CD4/12, p.53 Table 4.4; p.54, para 4.46 483 CD3/4, paras 16‐17 484 CD4/12, para 1.1 485 CD4/1, Policy 3D.13 486 CD4/1, para 3.310
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 82
• Provision should normally be made on-site, and be in accordance with the play strategy for the area.487
• A benchmark standard of a minimum of 10 square metres of dedicated play space per child regardless of age is recommended 488 to establish the quantitative requirements for play space.489
341. Perhaps the GLA have been seduced by the argument that “…it would be unrealistic to expect 1170 square metres of children’s playspace, which equates to over a third of the site area, to be provided on site.”490 However, this is not additional space, but is intended to be part and parcel of the amenity space provided. On the GLA’s logic, none of the open space should be provided on site, as it equates to one and one-third of the site area. This logical fallacy appears in the officer’s report to committee as well. Its source is the Planning Statement, May 2009.491 It is as if the GLA and the officer are echoing back the Appellant’s own point, and this does not give it any greater credence.
342. Without the pocket park, the scheme runs out of land. Other designers have met the requirements for open space in the design of their tall buildings and surrounding land, as is shown in the table of comparative amenity space.492 The amenity space provided in the Vauxhall Sky Gardens scheme is some 32% in excess of the minimum. Although it is not all located outdoors, as policy would require, and there is an ‘outdoor’ shortfall of 385 square metres, 62% of it is achieved outdoors and it includes its own on-site child amenity areas. The debate regarding the Vauxhall Cross Island site is just beginning, which demonstrates how important this appeal decision will be for the future regeneration of the area if tall buildings are to be promoted.
343. The proposals simply fail to provide the minimum space benchmark. Residents should not be short changed in the name of tall buildings, nor should the carefully considered policies on open space for families be rewritten.
344. Section 106 contributions, would help, but they are not the whole answer. The draft OAPF masterplan and the draft SPD look for the provision of new open space, but the likelihood of this coming forward in Lambeth is low. This development makes no contribution towards it, aiming only to meet its own requirements under existing SPD policy. It is a limitation that needs to be acknowledged, and taken into account within the Site. Mr Taylor relies on others to provide for this in the future. When questioned about the lack of amenity space, he answered:
“My view is that the proximity to Vauxhall Park and the emergence of the Linear Park, will deliver a reasonable amount of amenity space and open space within the confines of Central London.”493
487 CD4/1, para 3.312 488 CD4/12, p.49 para 4.29 489 CD4/12, p.52 para 4.38 490 CD2/16, para 58 491 CD2/22, para 11.23‐11.24, repeated in Doc A7.2 para 6.98 and A7.4 para 4.18 492 LBL4.4 493 In XX by Mr Boardman
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 83
Overdevelopment
345. The last reason for refusal is that the proposals would result in overdevelopment of the Site. They would give rise to a very large building which attempts to squeeze every last ounce out of the site. It would have a dominant and overbearing scale which would severely diminish the townscape qualities of the Site and the surrounding area. The net effect would be that it would lead to a ‘borrowing’, effect whereby the surroundings would be adversely affected, including Vauxhall Park.
346. It is agreed that the proposals exceed the density matrix set out in policy.494 Although this is a guide rather than a ceiling, it gives a very good indication of potential concerns. It also demonstrates that a smaller scheme would accord with policy to maximise the use of the site.
347. The overdevelopment can be expressed in figures. We now know the following:
• 0.2873 hectare site, 1,045 habitable rooms,495 376 units; this equates to: 3,637 habitable rooms per hectare, 1,308 units per hectare.
• Both these figures lie some 3 times above the highest levels in the density matrix in the London Plan, which itself is based on the assumption that a district centre would exist at Vauxhall.
348. The density figures included in the application and given to statutory consultees were those in the initial Planning Statement, namely 2,989 habitable rooms per hectare.496 This figure was used by the Council until, arising from significant errors over the employment calculations, all figures came into question. The value of 2,989 habitable rooms per hectare only works mathematically if the site area is taken as 0.35 hectares. Similarly, in Mr Taylor’s Rebuttal,497 the density figure of 1,074 units per hectare only works if the site area is taken as 0.35 hectares, which would be the Site area including the pocket park.
349. The Council has also referred to plot ratio, in this mixed use development. The very high plot ratio of the proposed development arises from the architects’ approach of using the absolute extent of the Site, up to and beyond the red line, and then building to a height of 150 metres. As Mr Rees notes:
‘The plot ratio of the proposed development is 20, which means that the total floor area of the building is 20 times that of the total site area and is equivalent to the whole site being covered by a 20 storey building.’498
350. The draft SPD criticises a plot ratio in excess of 10.499 A ratio of 20 is found not even in Hong Kong, which has a maximum ratio of 15 despite its location near the Tropic of Cancer, which assists sunlight penetration.500 Nor is such a high ratio found in Canary Wharf, where the large buildings are complemented by
494 Mr Taylor in XX by Mr Boardman re: CD4/1, p.69 Table 3A.2 495 CD2/3, DAS; and figure used in s106 calculations 496 CD2/2, p.39 497 A7.4, para 3.8 498 Doc LBL1.1, para 5.29; c.f.: LBL1.2, Appendices 499 CD5/2, p.55‐56 500 LBL1.1, para 5.29
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 84
open public space. Successful tall buildings require a balance between their intensive built form and open space.
351. Plot ratio is only a tool of analysis, but it is found helpful by the GLA to assess mixed use schemes. It should be remembered that 4 floors of commercial and business use are not taken into account in the proposals’ residential density calculation. The Housing SPG refers to a plot ratio of 5 to 1 for ‘highly accessible areas in central London and some Opportunity Areas.’501 If the Site were developed at a plot ratio of 5, it could still deliver 22 storeys on the larger 3.46 hectare site with a narrower residential floor plan or somewhat less with a squatter commercial floor plan.502
352. Such an intensive development has repercussions on the relationship to the rest of the emerging cluster. Even though, at 149 metres, the proposed building would be some 30 metres less than Vauxhall Tower, it will be 1.4 times its volume and would not be read as subordinate to it.
353. Overdevelopment conflicts with UDP Policy 33 (Building Scale and Design), which takes account of the London Plan density matrix. Table 10, within the explanatory text of Policy 33, suggests that residential densities of 650-1100 habitable rooms per hectare can be achieved in central locations such as Vauxhall.503 The Policy notes:
‘The primary consideration in determining the 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. Buildings should be of a scale, massing and height that are appropriate to their site characteristics, setting, civic function and/or importance and location in the townscape.’ [emphasis added]
Conclusions
354. The negative aspects of the proposed development are enormously significant. They are not outweighed by its potential benefits. Although they do not accept this was the case, the architects were given a very challenging brief for this small, constrained urban site, to which they have responded by producing a building of exceptional height and exceptional width. The design would result in overdevelopment of the Site.
355. Rather than creating a world class building, a tall building of elegant proportions, a slab block has been produced which is too wide and too bulky. When seen from the important local viewpoints on the eastern side, it has a dominant and overbearing scale which would severely diminish the townscape qualities of the Site and surrounding area. When Mr Coleman wrote that the scheme “…offers a gesture towards the centre of the Heart of Vauxhall…”504 he may not have appreciated what many people would interpret that gesture to be.
356. Whatever the outcome of this appeal, it will be of great importance in determining the approach that should be taken to the continuing regeneration of Vauxhall and the proposed cluster of tall buildings. The Council considers that an
501 CD4/14, p.27 paras 10.3 and 10.4 502 Doc K1.15, p.19 503 CD5/1, p.97 504 CD2/4/E, para 6.2.5
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 85
established and emerging policy framework is already in place against which the proposals can be judged, and which they fail in several important respects. The proposals would not achieve an appropriately high quality architectural precedent for an area which is intended for significant regeneration and intensification.
The Case for the Waterloo Community Development Group (Rule 6 Party)
Employment
357. The Site lies within the most significant protected Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA) in Lambeth, providing 21% of Lambeth's safeguarded Use Class B floorspace. It is protected by UDP Policy 22 which seeks to protect the full range of B class uses against:
“…a continuing and steady loss of employment sites and floorspace in the borough, with intense pressure for development to other uses... [and] to maintain a balanced distribution of land uses in the borough available to differing skill levels; to maintain a full range of unit and site sizes to aid inward investment and firm retention; to reduce commuting for borough residents... and to reduce social exclusion..”505
358. This Policy is rooted in the social facts in Lambeth: the unemployment rate is the seventh worst in London and is the fastest rising, with 17% of residents dependent on benefits.506 The Sustainable Community Strategy identifies worklessness as the key issue on which to focus in tackling deprivation, and Policies 21, 22 and 23 amongst others reflect that.
359. Policy 22 states that:
"Key Industrial and Business Areas (KIBAs) are safeguarded for B Class Uses (business, industrial, warehousing) and other uses falling outside a use class ... Development in these areas which protects and improves land in employment use and increases employment levels, will be encouraged."
The proposals do not protect land in employment use, but involve a loss of 45% of the existing employment floorspace.
360. When the GLA initially considered the proposals, they had regard to strategic priorities for the CAZ and noted:
“Also relevant is Lambeth UDP policy 22 'Key Industrial and Business Areas' which requires that at least 50% of the replacement floorspace in new developments in defined Mixed Use Employment Areas should be for B1, B2 or B8 uses.”507
361. The London Plan is silent on Class B uses other than B1 in the CAZ. It neither protects them nor promotes their redevelopment and it is therefore pertinent to turn to UDP policy for guidance. The UDP is in conformity with the London Plan on this matter. The Bondway KIBA was always part of the CAZ from the first draft of the UDP and of the London Plan in 2002. Non-conformity was not raised as an issue on this matter at any stage of the UDP process. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that the GLA initially considered Policy 22.
505 CD5/1, para 4.11.12 – 4.11.14 506 CD5/21, p.20 507 CD2/15, para 12
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 86
362. However, the GLA did not consider it again because they were misinformed by the Appellant that there would be no loss of non-B1 uses. When the GLA went on to respond to the planning application itself and issue their Stage 1 Report, they were faced with an application which appeared not to trigger Policy 22, but appeared to provide roughly the same amount of Class B use as already existed. The GLA therefore concluded in July 2009 that the application “…broadly accords with strategic policy objectives...”508
363. The GLA were not informed until recently of the real state of affairs regarding the loss of 45% of existing Class B uses. The GLA would normally have reconsidered the application again at Stage 2, but the appeal prevented that reconsideration. Having supported the application over the past year they are reluctant to re-open the issue by considering UDP policy again. In a note to Mr Ball, Giles Dolphin, the Head of Planning Decisions at the GLA, referred to the silence of London Plan policy on protecting B2-8 Use Classes in relation to the CAZ when explaining the GLA's position, but failed to refer to the wider development plan. This is simply not an appropriate approach.
364. The Appellant has relied heavily on the GLA's support throughout this Inquiry. However, on this matter the GLA have simply got it wrong, having consolidated their support for the proposals on the basis of the Appellant's misinformation.
365. Having set out the primary purpose of safeguarding Class B uses in KIBAs Policy 22 deals with the Major Development Opportunities in KIBAs.
"Here some residential and other non-employment uses are acceptable on appropriate parts of the site. The overall development, however, should be predominantly employment-based, incorporating the maximum feasible amount of employment development... either at least 50%... unless otherwise specified in the MDO."
366. So development of the Site should be 'predominately employment-based' with a minimum floorspace for employment. The minimum is established in MDO 81 as one-third of the floorspace. The Appeal scheme is not 'predominantly employment-based': 376 flats form some 90% of the development; the B1 use provides only 1.5% of the gross development value509 of the scheme; Lambeth's planning report which recommended approval glowingly comments ‘this application is residentially led.’510
367. With only some 10% employment-based floorspace the proposals clearly do not meet the minimum requirement of MDO 81.511 MDO 81 does offer the possibility of developing less than the minimum of employment-based floorspace, if:
‘…it can be demonstrated that, through comprehensive development, this amount of floorspace can be achieved across the entire MDO site.’512
368. Such a demonstration has not been provided by the Appellant. In a solitary paragraph of his Proof513 Mr Taylor gives the most cursory of theoretical
508 CD2/16, para 19 509 XX of Mr Billington 510 CD2/14, para 13.1.7 511 CD5/1, Policy 77 p.183 512 CD5/1, p.184
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 87
comments: since none of the other sites have permissions or applications for total redevelopment, then they could provide the employment-based floorspace the Appellant fails to provide.
369. MDO 81 contains only one other site, the car park to the south which the Appellant apparently attempted to purchase, but was rebuffed. Comprehensive development of the site is, therefore, not possible. But Mr Taylor chooses to read MD0 81 as plural when it is definitively and repetitively singular:
‘…each site within each MDO.....the entire MDO site.’
370. The words are clearly singular. To read them as plural is simply to misread them. Mr Vinall points to the Inspector's UDP Report in support of such a reading, but this is inconclusive because of the imprecise use of the term 'sites'. However, whether across one MDO or all four, Mr Taylor does not demonstrate that, through comprehensive development, this amount of employment floorspace can be achieved. He merely states that there is no impediment through extant permissions.
371. Mr Taylor attempts to marshal one other argument, that the proposals would increase employment above existing levels. Setting aside the fact that Policy 22 is not framed in these terms, he does this by comparing existing workers with predicted numbers of workers, which is like comparing apples and pears.
372. In conclusion, the proposals:
• Fail to meet the requirement of Policy 22 to safeguard B class uses in the KIBA
• Fail to meet the requirement of Policy 22 to bring forward a predominately employment-based scheme
• Fail to meet the requirement of MDO 81 to provide a minimum of one-third of floorspace for employment use
• Fail to demonstrate that, through comprehensive development, this amount of floorspace can be achieved across the entire MDO site.
373. The draft OAPF also identifies the area containing the Site as primarily for commercial uses including housing. Although the words are actually ‘…mixed use centre focal point for office and retail including housing’,514 these words contrast with the adjacent area for ‘…mixed use housing-led intensification’. It is therefore reasonable to construe that the area at the heart of Vauxhall should contain commercially-led development as opposed to residentially-led.
374. However, the draft OAPF remains only a draft, as does the Core Strategy, so they should attract little weight.
Affordable Housing
375. A key strategic objective of PPS3 is to create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities.515 The proposals involve a significant shortfall in the requisite proportion of affordable housing. The Appellant justifies this shortfall on the basis of a financial viability assessment which it unfortunately refused to make
513A7.2, para 6.13 514 CD5/2, p.26 515 PPS3, para 9
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 88
hanism stage.
fully available until midway through the Inquiry. The assessment raises many concerns and is full of inexplicable or contradictory assumptions.
376. The office development value could be under-estimated by as much as £4m were the figure of £22.50 per square foot to be used, as set out in the draft s106 Agreement, rather than the rate of £15 per square foot referred to in the BNP Paribas review for LB Lambeth of the Drivas Jonas assessment.516
377. The residential sales are based on figures for the first quarter of 2009, the worst quarter for house sales in at least 40 years. Comparables, which are entirely unsuitable, have been taken from within an area stretching from Victoria to Tower Bridge. WCDG have obtained 10 years sales data at St George's Wharf, which offers a much better comparison, and also generate a much higher sales value than the £570 - £630 per square foot proposed by the Appellant. Tellingly, only five properties were sold at St George's Wharf in the first quarter of 2009, whereas 50 or more were sold in other quarters.
378. BNP Paribas have not accepted the private sales values suggested by the Appellant.517 When this point was raised at the Inquiry, it was stated for the Appellant that an agreement had subsequently been reached. However, with the release of the full document, it is evident that this is less than half of the picture. In fact BNP Paribas state in email correspondence that they ‘agree to disagree.’518 If the parties to this process cannot agree the methodology and assumptions at this stage, there is no reason to believe that they would be able to do so at the Review Mec
379. The outcome of the differences is very significant. The Appellant offers only 23% affordable housing, but BNP Paribas consider that, with some necessary tweaking of the Viability Assessment, 34% could be provided.519 This is a difference of 48%.
Play Space, Amenity Space, Open Space
380. London Plan Policy 3D.13 (Children and young people’s play informal recreation strategies) refers to the need for adequate provision. The SPG requires 10 square metres of dedicated children's play space per child to be provided within the development.520 117 children are predicted so 1,170 square metres should be provided, but would not be available under the proposals. At least 800 square metres of this should be ‘on-site local or neighbourhood playable space.’521
381. The Appellant refers to the availability of the Amenity Floor at Level 36, but this is clearly multifunctional space. Despite being presented with the opportunity during the Inquiry, the Appellant failed to specify a dedicated play space area within the Amenity Floor.
382. Instead the Appellant proposes a s106 contribution towards playspace in Vauxhall Park. The playground and One O'Clock Club are over 400 metres from
516 A6.5, section 2 517 A6.5, section 2 para 5.2 518 A6.5, section 3, e‐mail of 23.10.09 from Duncan Henderson to Steve Billington 519 A6.5, section 2 para 5.2 520 CD4/2, para 4.21 521 CD4/12, p.78 Table B.6 final column
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 89
the Site, which the Mayor’s SPG (Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation) advises is too far for children under age 11.522 If considering an off-site provision for children of 12 or more, the SPG requires it to be in accordance with the local authority's Play Strategy.523 The context of the Play Strategy is established at the beginning of the SPG in the simple guide on page 8. However, the Appellant does not refer to LB Lambeth's Play Strategy. It is not even provided as a Core Document.
383. The SPG makes clear that, in any circumstance, on-site provision is required for developments with over 80 children. The Appellant contends this would not be possible, but the floorspace of a few of the 376 flats could simply be turned over to this use, or a second amenity floor created as a dedicated play space, possibly with a semi-outdoor winter garden.
384. The Appellant refers to the London Plan to support the acceptability of off-site provision. However, the Plan states that off-site provision is only applicable where it ‘fully satisfies the needs of the development’.524 The 800 metre round trip for toddlers to the Vauxhall Park playground clearly does not.
385. The proposed development also fails to satisfy the need for open space it generates. The Lambeth Open Space Strategy525 modestly seeks to maintain the relatively low level of 1.56 hectares of open space per 1,000 residents. To do this, 27 hectares of new open space would be required to absorb the projected additional residents in the borough over the next 15 years. Were such additional open space not forthcoming, all of the existing residents of Lambeth would suffer. This would be the result if the appeal were upheld. The Appellant claims provision is not possible on such a small site. This shows that such a small site should not be developed in the way proposed.
386. The Appellant consistently claims the proposals are of high quality. However a high quality development would not suffer from insufficient amenity space, a lack of dedicated children's play space, or a lack of any open space whatsoever.
Amenity
387. A wide range of evidence has been presented to indicate that the amenity of existing and future residents would be seriously harmed by the proposals. The s106 contributions would never be able to make up for their impact on the Park. The shining stainless steel building would dominate views, completely filling the outlook when one stands in the middle of the Park. Any sense of privacy would be undermined by the perception of hundreds of pairs of overlooking eyes.
388. The building would cast shadows at the most popular times of Park use. It would generate reflective solar glare in the morning and might reflect the reverberated and amplified noise of trains and road traffic. All of these harmful effects would fall on Fentiman Rd, Langley Lane, Lawn Lane, Bonnington Square, and many places beyond. The issue of solar glare is inadequately covered in the ES. The issue of external noise reverberation is not covered at all in the ES.
522 CD4/12, p.78 Table B.6 first column 523 CD4/12, p.78 Table B6 final column, bottom row 524 CD4/1, para 3.312 525 CD5/30l
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 90
Heritage and Views
389. Evidence has been provided to show that various views associated with the conservation areas, listed buildings and the setting of the World Heritage Site (WHS) would be harmed by the proposals, contrary to PPS5, the London View Management Framework (LVMF), and Lambeth's UDP. English Heritage and Westminster City Council concur with our opinion that the proposals would unacceptably harm many of these heritage assets.
390. WCDG fully accept that the site is suitable for tall buildings. However, an 80 metre building, as recommended for the site in the draft Tall Buildings Cluster Study,526 would both contribute to the proposed cluster and perform the function of stepping down from the cluster to the lower Victorian townscape. An 80 metre building would have the virtue of not demanding to be seen from all over South London, and not popping up in the views from the WHS, Belgrave Rd, Victoria Gardens and elsewhere.
391. Much of the visual material submitted to the Inquiry was misleading. This includes wide-angle lens images, overextended trees in the animation, and the enormously high trees in the physical model. The line images provided for the site visit by the Appellant were more acceptable and appear to have been produced using a 50mm lens as required by the guidelines.527
392. If the acetate provided of the 50mm image of View L56 is laid over the wide-angle image provided in the HTVIA , it can be seen that the width of the HTVIA image is 70% of the width of the 50mm image. The area of the building in the HTVIA image is, therefore 50% of the area in the 50mm line drawing. This means that the apparent volume of the building in the HTVIA image is only one-third of the apparent volume in the 50mm image. The images in the HTVIA, therefore, give the impression of a building one-third of the volume or bulk it would actually appear. The apparent volume is underplayed by two-thirds.
393. Mr Coleman and Professor Tavernor emphasise that seeing tall buildings is a kinetic experience, all about movement and memory. However, it is experienced rather differently by those looking out of their windows or from their gardens and seeing the same aspect of the same building every day, or sitting in the Park and knowing that is what they will see.
Cluster of Tall buildings
394. Many of the tall buildings approved in the CAZ have either been developed in areas already marked by tall buildings, such as the City, or as part of a plan for a cluster of tall buildings such as at Canary Wharf, or at Waterloo. The Strata (149 metres) is one of several permitted at the Elephant and Castle, all of which are part of a larger masterplan. Doon St (143 metres) at Waterloo was considered in the context of a number of existing tall buildings along the spine route of Belvedere Rd/Upper Ground such as the Shell tower and the ITV tower. The two towers at 20 Blackfriars and the Beetham Tower on the adjoining site were considered together in the same public inquiry as forming a new cluster.
395. One exception to this is the Shard of Glass, which at 300 metres is quite capable of standing alone but could also form the unambiguous centre of a future
526 K1.15, p.15 Fig 7.1 527 CD6/18.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 91
cluster. The other exception is the Vauxhall Tower, which is adjacent to the existing Market Tower (88 metres) and part of an area at Vauxhall Cross identified since 2002528 for a cluster. However, there has never been an agreed masterplan, or even a framework for resolving the fundamental problems at Vauxhall. These include the 14 lanes of traffic which run from river to hinterland, some of the worst air quality in Europe, and the complete lack of purpose of the area.
396. With the Vauxhall Tower, as with the present proposals, we were told the height would not set a precedent, but it would be a catalyst for the regeneration of the area. In fact, the precedent occurred without the regeneration, indeed, without the tower.
397. When WCDG expressed doubt during the Inquiry that the Vauxhall Tower, in its permitted form, would be built we were informed by the Appellant that the cranes are on site and construction work is beginning. In fact, the cranes are not on site, just a small sad rig and some men laying down the customary trench which demarks implementation for the purposes of keeping the permission alive in perpetuity. This is about as far away from regeneration as can be imagined. The Secretary of State should not repeat the mistake of his predecessor.
The Case for the Kennington Association Planning Forum (Rule 6 Party)
398. As KAPF conceded in Opening,529 the people of Vauxhall now expect a cluster of tall buildings, whether they like it or not. Mr Philpot drew attention to a relevant London Plan extract.530 The issue is not whether there is to be a cluster, but what sort? KAPF have procured from the Council, under the Freedom of Information Act, two urban design studies addressing the issues and possible forms of cluster. There are four published cluster variations, only one of which, that in the draft Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) would countenance a building of the proposed Bondway Tower’s height of 149 metres.
• Vauxhall Urban Design Study, 2006531 - a clump round Vauxhall Cross/Triangle, with a peak height there of 140 metres
• Draft Vauxhall SPD, 2008532 – a similar clump, but with no peak height prescribed
• Draft OAPF, 2009533 – the least particularised, the crenellated table top with gaps, with buildings, ‘in the region of 150m’
• Draft Tall Buildings Cluster Study, 2009534 – a preferred rising profile towards the north
399. Both elements of the emerging guidance acknowledge the need to temper the impact of tall buildings on heritage assets:
528 Draft Deposit Lambeth UDP; Draft London Plan 2002 529 CD8/4 530 CD4/1, para 5.141, in XX of Mr Boardman 531 K1.14 532 CD5/2 533 CD4/3 534 K1.5
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 92
• “Strategic viewing corridors, river prospects, local views and the historic environment require detailed consideration in relation to any tall buildings in the Vauxhall Heart, and proposals which would adversely impact upon those elements will not be accepted.”535
• “…there are a number of key issues to be considered in terms of the emerging tall buildings strategy for the OA: - .....The potential for tall buildings to compromise key local views from conservation areas both within and beyond the OA.”536
400. Consistent with this general position, three out of four of the studies propose a reduction in the height of the tall buildings in their cluster nearer the conservation areas to the east. Only the draft OAPF would allow the Bondway Tower at 149 metres to be considered. The Bondway Tower would be the effective precedent, setting the form of the cluster for the foreseeable future. These urban design considerations are highly material to the present proposals.
401. It is questionable whether a policy free, developer-led, tower building campaign would provide anything but residential towers alone, with no significant retail or leisure component. Would that actually regenerate Vauxhall, give it a heart, and make it a ‘destination’ as the Appellant claims? It is notable that, after 10 years of residential led regeneration in the form of St George’s Wharf, Tuckermans can comment on Vauxhall:
‘Vauxhall as a location is well provided for by transport facilities, benefiting from the train and tube lines as well as the new bus station. It is also a short walk to Westminster and Victoria. However, retail amenity is poor and the local environment has no ‘heart’ from either a community or business perspective. It is also viewed as a harsh environment due to the one way system, the clubs and the vagrant population. It is therefore generally seen as a secondary office location by the property industry and business community.’537
402. The Inquiry has been continually exercised by the sheer density of the development, which in residential terms is about three times the upper limits of the Mayor’s density matrix,538 and in plot ratio terms around 20:1. As KAPF noted in proof and evidence in chief539 recent residential towers are way beyond the ranges contemplated by the density matrix, beyond even the 500 units a hectare upper limit of ‘Living at Superdensity’.540
403. In KAPF’s view we are sleepwalking into a wholly different range of buildings, without assessing the impacts of living in the ways they imply. We note that few, if any, of the recent appeal decisions for tall residential towers raised these issues, and the mix of dwelling sizes generates a ‘child-lite’ development on policy assumptions about child yield, suggesting unsustainable demography and unstable communities.
535 CD5/2, p.71 para 184 536 CD4/3, para 10.2 537 A7.3, para 2.4 538 CD4/1, Table 3A.2 539 K1.1, para 5.8; K1.17 540 CD6/8, Preface
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 93
rk ure on
ent.
404. For example, the child yield from the proposed development is 117, out of an estimated 880 inhabitants, a child proportion of about 13%. This compares with a proportion within Lambeth of 19% recorded in the 2001 census541 and the 25% proportion embodied in the draft OAPF.542 In addition, amenity space is contrived in unusual ways, (it proved impossible to provide open air child amenity space on the Site, and the developer has had to look to an existing pato satisfy this requirement). Moreover, there is a serious issue about presspublic amenities and services from such a concentrated developm
405. For these reasons, the wholesale setting aside of the density matrix is a significant and unjustified departure from development plan. We agree strongly with the evidence of the Council’s witness, Mr Rees, that the proposals represent overdevelopment, and the proposed tower would be an overbearing development, contrary to UDP Plan Policy 33.543
406. The employment arguments have been well trodden during this Inquiry. The Site forms part of MDO 81 within a Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA).544 On such a site, UDP Policy 22 provides that:
“Here some residential and other non-employment uses are acceptable on appropriate parts of the site. The overall development, however, should be predominantly employment-based, incorporating the maximum feasible amount of employment development...”
407. In this case we are testing whether a development 90% residential, with a commercial GDV of 1.5% (as emerged in the evidence of Mr Billington), which reduces by 40% the existing employment floor space on the site is actually, ‘…predominantly employment-based, incorporating the maximum feasible amount of employment development...’
408. The common rubric to MDOs 80 to 83 indicates that each MDO is a site, and some are also groups of sites. In the latter case, one-third of floorspace on each constituent site has to be for employment use, unless it can be demonstrated that, through comprehensive development, this amount of employment floorspace can be achieved across the entire MDO site. The developer is unable to acquire the remaining small site in MDO 81, and certainly cannot demonstrate that the one-third target can be achieved. It follows that the development does not conform to UDP Policy 22.
409. As regards affordable Housing, Mr Billington’s evidence has been enlightening, and the disclosure of the full viability assessment and expert appraisal545 helpful, and will enable the Secretary of State to have a better view of the working of the viability testing machinery. This machinery regularly abates the 50/40% affordability headline rates in policy to barely half those levels, even with developments of up-market flats, which might be expected to have the capacity to deliver nearer policy headline rates.
541 CD6/8 542 CD4/3 543 CD5/1 544 CD5/1, Policy 77 545 A6.5
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 94
410. The viability test essentially totals the likely value of market sales and the capitalised value of commercial contributions, and deducts the likely construction costs, prescribed levels of developer profit and financing charges and any social housing grant, to assess how much headroom is left for affordable housing, while still leaving a residual land value just above the existing use value (EUV) of the site. Crucial to this process is the estimation of flat prices in future years.
411. In the case of the proposed development, if it were to secure permission, the first estimate of prices would have taken place about 6 years before completion and actual sales (2009 assessment and a four year build completing in 2015).546 Such estimates are notoriously prone to error. Property Forecasts, the leading forecaster in the field for town and city specific forecasts, finds that even three years ahead only 25% of its forecasts are within 15% of the true level.
412. Witness testimony has shown how sensitive the percentage provision of affordable housing is to the estimates of market sales. Mr Billington stated that an increase of 5% in market sales estimates, the difference between the professional views of those compiling the original viability assessment and of the Council’s expert appraisers, increased the affordable homes percentage emerging from the viability test from 23% to 32%. This is an increase of no less than 40% in provision.
413. KAPF have doubts about the market sales assumptions currently embodied in the viability assessment, (around £600 to £635 per square foot), given current prices at the nearby St George’s Wharf development, given anecdotally at some £700 per square foot. This is only partly resolved by the provisions for further review, just before implementation of planning permission. Given the build time, this still involves estimation of flat prices four years ahead. Such estimates are inherently uncertain, and likely to be conservative. The even handedness of the methodology is questionable.
414. The whole process needs to be opened up so that society can see whether the balance is being properly struck between developer and wider public interests. In this and similar cases, if permission were granted, there should be a post mortem following completion, to audit the assumptions and estimates made. This could be either as a stand alone audit by the Council, with developer co-operation, or via an addition to Schedule 4 of the s106 Agreement,547 stipulating such a report by the developer.
415. English Heritage,548 Westminster Council, WCDG,549 and Ms Hoey, the local MP, have all expressed their concerns about the impact of this proposal on distant views. There is a risk of piecemeal erosion, and the impact of the proposed tower on View M12 from the Cenotaph,550 as noted by Ms Hoey, is significant. So also is the straggle of tall towers in the distant view from Westminster Bridge,551 where either the cluster profile of the 2006 Vauxhall
546 CD2/4A, para 1.44 547 CD1/10B 548 CD2/19 549 W2.2 550 CD2/4/E 551 CD2/4/E View M19 Cumulative
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 95
are
Urban Design Study552 or the argued rising profile of the 2009 study553 are to be preferred on aesthetic grounds. KAPF adopt the EH view as expressed in its representation:
“Our view is that we support good quality contextual modern architecture, which can enhance the historic environment given careful consideration of the relationship with its surroundings. By virtue of its scale and massing of the proposal, its significant harm on the setting and significance of the World Heritage Site, listed buildings and conservation areas, and loss of local heritage asset it is difficult to see how this could be achieved without a significant reduction in scale and height of the building.”554
416. Wide angle lenses,555 which Mr Coleman uses for his 72 studies of the visual effect of the proposed development,556 mislead the eye by providing extra foreground and reducing the significance of distant objects. For that reason, Mr Coleman’s images markedly understate the impact of the development. It would therefore be even more obtrusive and overbearing than shown, particularly in its broadside impact on Vauxhall Park and the Vauxhall conservation area. All the parties agree that the only real way of assessing the visual impact of the proposed scheme is to go and see the views personally, armed with acetates showing the outline of the proposed development above the existing skyline.
417. It will, therefore, be necessary for the ultimate decision taker to be able to say, and record in their decision, that they have looked personally at the views concerned. They should not rely on the misleading images put forward in evidence, or they would not have had regard to a relevant consideration.
418. The testimony of all the residents and community representatives who gave evidence to the Inquiry557 was that the proposed tower would be overbearing and intrusive to their community, the Conservation Area and the Park. They already a vibrant, largely self built community, in no need of ‘repopulation’ as the developer suggests.
419. Plan policies governing the impact of this broad, tall tower on heritage assets are plentiful:
• UDP Policy 33 – Overdevelopment resulting in an overbearing effect, harming the setting of the Conservation Area.
• UDP Policy 40 – Tall building harming the character of Vauxhall and St Mark’s conservation areas and impairing the development possibilities of surrounding sites without a wider masterplan.
• UDP Policy 45 – Development adversely affecting the setting of a listed building (Woodstock Court).
552 K1.14 553 K1.15 554 CD2/19 555 K1.16 556 CD2/4E 557 R1‐R8, including the evidence of Miss Hilling
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 96
ent.
• UDP Policy 47 – Development outside conservation areas harming their settings and views in and out (Vauxhall and St Mark’s conservation areas).558
The proposed development breaches all of these plan policies and should be rejected.
420. The Appellant contends that there is no practical difference between the ‘employment led’ areas washed pink in the draft OAPF land use diagram,559 and the ‘residential led’ areas washed yellow. If that were right, there would be little point in planning for the OAPF. It would be a developer free for all, with social infrastructure grudgingly provided by developers, if at all, and a question mark over whether any development were capable of delivering the employment aspirations of the framework. KAPF remain of the view that the distinction exists, and wait to see if the wording is strengthened in subsequent drafts of the OAPF.
421. Both KAPF and Ms Hoey, with her wide experience of the problems of Vauxhall, support the establishment of a Metropolitan Police Neighbourhood office in the development, which is provided for in paragraph H and Schedule 3 para 5 of the S106 agreement.560 It satisfies the now statutory tests of necessity, directness and proportionality. KAPF draw attention561 to the gap in police station presence in Vauxhall. The development adds 880 residents to an area with high levels of crime for robbery and serious violence to the person, and the 90 squaremetres of office space is hardly disproportionate to the overall scale of some 50,000 square metres of developm
422. KAPF drew attention in proof and evidence in chief 562 to the issue of public transport accessibility, judged by PTAL rating, compared to capacity of the infrastructure itself. In policy we now find recognition that both are important to the satisfactory location of development, and we note in particular UDP Policy 9 (Transport Impact)563 and the draft OAPF.564
423. Transport assessments that concentrate on Underground train capacity at Vauxhall miss the point. At issue, for the moment, is gateline and escalator capacity. We are close to various trigger points in passenger numbers that would substantially increase periodic gate and station closures, made to deal with access congestion. The consequences of such closures, on successive days, have been illustrated.565
424. The ES did not present a full cumulative analysis of transport impact,566 lacking material for recently consented developments like Vauxhall Sky Gardens. The Secretary of State should be informed that subsequent proposals, like the Vauxhall Cross Island development, will need a more complete analysis, and when this is available, it may be found that congestion begins to trump accessibility, unless significant expenditure is made on mitigating infrastructure.
558 CD5/1 559 CD4/3, p.27 560 CD1/10B 561 K1.1 para 5.28‐5.30; and K1.8 562 K1.1 para 5.84; and K1.17 563 CD5/1 and its London Plan equivalent 564 CD4/3, p.76 565 K1/6 566 CD2/4
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 97
425. It is clear that additional open space at Vauxhall is critical to the success of any cluster there567:
• “Within the Vauxhall Heart, intensification is expected to occur with new development creating a cluster of taller buildings of exemplar architectural quality…..New buildings will be expected to form a cluster framing a central public space with building heights varying according to the relationship with the river and residential hinterland.”568
• “We support the 40m wide public space to the west of the site, which is proposed as part of Lambeth’s Vauxhall Area SPD, and feel that the success of the cluster is, in fact, dependant on the implementation of this. However, the ground floor of this building will need to work hard to animate the space, which will be of considerable scale. We urge the local authority to ensure that the public space is well designed, carefully integrated with adjacent new buildings and offers significant amenity to local residents.”569
426. A similar view was expressed by Mr Rees, of the vitalizing and humanizing effect of well designed public open space on tall building clusters. There is a clear audit trail in policy too:
“UDP Policy 50(c) - New Open Space, Greening, and Green Chains – The creation of new open spaces, urban ‘greening’ initiatives, and the linking and improvement of open spaces will be supported, especially in areas deficient in these features. Developments which materially add to the demand for open space, which are proposed in an area of open space deficiency, or where existing open space needs improvement, will be required to contribute to appropriate improvements in open space provision in the immediate area. Where on-site provision or provision in the immediate area is impractical or insufficient, developers will be required to contribute to such initiatives elsewhere. Arrangements for the long term maintenance of new and improved open spaces will be secured.”570
• The development lies in an Open Space Deficiency Area.571
• There is a two part tariff for s106 contributions in Vauxhall and Waterloo, under the adopted SPD on s106 obligations:572
• The National Playing Fields Association have a general standard of 2.4 hectares of open space per 1,000 population, Lambeth as a whole is deficient in meeting that standard, in that it has 1.54 hectares per 1,000 of population, projected to fall to 1.44. Lambeth’s Open Space Strategy recommends that a target of 1.6 hectares per 1,000 population is set for 2016.
• Higher financial contributions are sought on a park or open space basis from commercial and residential developments in Waterloo and Vauxhall Opportunity Areas to support environmental and physical regeneration objectives.
567 K1.1, para 5.31‐5.39; and K1.17 568 CD5/2, p.70 para 180‐181 569 CD2/18 570 CD5/1, UDP Policy 50(c) 571 CD5/1, UDP Map 2 p.135 572 CD5/7
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 98
427. It is understood that enhanced contributions have been made in Waterloo, with Shell agreeing £1m for open space on a 37,000 square metres commercial development, and Elizabeth House agreed £1.5m for open space on a 280 unit development.573 The officers have failed to implement the Council’s adopted policies for open space contributions at Vauxhall. However, it is clear that there is a need for new open space to vitalise the proposed cluster, and established machinery exists for securing contributions to finance it.
428. The 880 people who would occupy the proposed development, in an open space deficiency area, would generate an additional demand for 1.4 hectares of open space, at Lambeth’s 1.6 hectare per thousand existing standard of provision. This deficiency is equivalent to half Vauxhall Park’s area of 2.82 hectares.574 Bondway’s paved areas do not meet this need. It is no use the developer piously hoping someone else will provide it. It is part of the necessary mitigation arising from choosing to develop a high density residential tower, and they should put up the funds to acquire mitigating space, or choose to develop something else that does not put excessive strain on the infrastructure.
429. 1.4 hectares at existing use value equates to £38m. This would be an adequate level of mitigation of this particular harmful aspect of the development. However, given the SPD and CABE comments about open space at the heart of the cluster, £10m would be appropriate. This would fund 0.4 hectares at existing use value, the size of the open space at the heart of the cluster, contemplated by the draft SPD,575 and is a conservative measure of the harm that should be mitigated.
430. Vertical villages should be provided with a village green. Georgian terraces stacked into the sky should not lack that ornament of urban living, the Georgian garden square. If it is impossible to fund a development like this and provide the necessary open space, the developer should try a mix of uses which does not look to neighbouring developers to provide essential infrastructure. The s106 contributions put forward to benefit the Park, its playspace, and the public realm are small value solutions to much larger problems caused by the developer.
431. The proposals represent the precedent for the Vauxhall cluster of tall towers. However, they are the wrong starting point for the Vauxhall cluster, with the wrong mix of uses, in the wrong form of tower, with the wrong mitigation.
INTERESTED PERSONS
Where the witness also submitted written representations, their content has been consolidated in the summary of evidence given at appearance.
Kate Hoey MP
The material points are:
432. Ms Hoey, who has been the Member of Parliament for Vauxhall since 1989, supports the various groups in the community who have spoken against the proposals. The existing building is a link with the area’s industrial past which
573 CD7/4 574 CD6/16, p.10 para 2.2.1 575 CD5/2
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 99
should be maintained, and there are concerns regarding the damaging effects on Vauxhall Park arising from the proposed development.
433. Land Use Consultants’ report indicates that the Park would be overshadowed at certain times, despite the evidence of the Appellant’s witness. The significance of this overshadowing is really only apparent to those who live near the Park or use it regularly. It will certainly be overlooked and used even more intensively than at present. To many residents the Park is their garden, play area and place of tranquillity. The developers have not understood the scarcity of open space and the value placed on the Park.
434. Vauxhall is badly in need of regeneration but the piecemeal approach to the emerging cluster of towers does not serve it well. The proposed development departs from the London Plan because of its enormous density.
435. English Heritage explains how the development would harm, through further erosion, some of Westminster’s finest designated heritage assets. For instance, seen from Whitehall, it would fill the gap of sky between the equestrian statue of Field Marshall Earl Haig and the Victoria Tower, a view central to the World Heritage Site. Bit by bit we are destroying the setting of London’s heritage sites.
436. The development would have a harmful impact on all the nearby conservation areas. It would also harm the listed Woodstock Court and St Stephens Terrace within the Albert Square Conservation Area.
437. Mr Coleman considers the quality of the design mitigates the impact of the development in many views. The building may be technically well designed, but it is ugly, overpowering, and far too high. The proposals should be dismissed. However, if the Secretary of State is minded to allow the appeal, the option of a police neighbourhood office should be taken up, in the interests of community safety.
David Hughes
438. Mr Hughes is a tenant of the existing Bondway building. He objects to the appearance of the building, the separate entrances for market and affordable housing accommodation, and the lack of parking space provision. The necessary infrastructure is missing. Despite the proximity of the underground station, there would be overcrowding on the platforms and people would be held back at the entrance gates. The s106 contribution would have little effect on necessary alleviation works, and it would be very difficult to improve the existing traffic flow. Moreover, there were practical difficulties building so close to the railway viaduct.
439. Mr Hughes put forward figures questioning viability and suggested that the proposals had been assembled in the hope of selling on once the value of the opportunity had been cystallised with the planning permission. He noted that the present building is a good example of Victorian architecture and that there are better sites for such a development. The scheme would work only if a much larger area is developed to about the same height as St Georges Wharf, resolving the present collection of incompatible uses.
Draeyk van der Horn
440. Mr van der Horn described the popularity of the Bonnington Café, as a focus of a vibrant, thriving community. He considers the proposals represent gross
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 100
overdevelopment, harming views and causing overshadowing. The great width of the building would be so overbearing that the existing feeling of access and connection to the river would be harmed. The proposals would operate as a vertical gated community with little connection to the existing heart of the community in Vauxhall.
Jane Vuglar
441. Ms Vuglar spoke as a local resident and businesswoman. She said that the Octave Tower would be too tall, too wide, and too insensitive to its surroundings. As an example, the architect was unaware of the Sky Gardens permission and said he would design as if it were not there. The building would reflect heat, the materials would degrade and not be maintained, there would be added light pollution, wind effects, loss of sunlight and there would be danger of flood and fire. The proposals would open up the floodgates for a series of inappropriate tall buildings, cloned and characterless.
442. The area is already overcrowded, public services including schools and transport are at breaking point, there is insufficient car parking and there are dangerous levels of pollution. The proposals would provide little employment and reduce the number of employment sites available.
443. There are enormous social problems of personal anger, teenage pregnancy, and so on in Vauxhall. She suspected that some of the affordable homes proposed would be subsumed into the market housing, and that those in the Tower would be isolated from the real issues of the community. Only the wealthy would have access to a good view.
444. Over 30 years ago, like minded people including writers and artists, some later to become famous, settled in derelict buildings in and around Bonnington Square. They created gardens, revived the fabric of the area, and gave it a heart. All sorts of promises have been made by the Council but too little has been provided. Low tech, low rise housing is needed, rather than soulless blocks, or better, improved facilities and resources for existing houses.
James Fraser
445. Mr Fraser is a horticulturalist and represented the Bonnington Square Gardens Association. He came to the area 30 years ago when it was totally derelict without even street lighting. It has been revitalised by residents, the houses turned back into living accommodation, bomb sites into gardens, 130 street trees have been planted.
446. The effects of shadowing, lack of light, wind tunnelling, and so on would have as negative an effect on the green environment as it would on the people. The area is not a utopia but experiences disturbance from flight paths, sirens and so on, which would be amplified by reflection from the proposed building.
447. The tall buildings policy means that the nature of development is decided by the Mayor and local interests are neglected. The existing building should be retained and could be enhanced through sensitive refurbishment. The trees proposed at the base of the Octave Building, shallow rooting Prunus, are inappropriate. Ginko Biloba with their balanced crown would be better suited to proximity to a tall building.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 101
Rita Keegan
448. Ms Keegan lives in Bonnington Square, is associated with the Vine Housing Co-operative, and is chair of the Bonnington Centre which rents rooms at minimal charge for community activities. There is a lack of basic infrastructure and support for local residents. Residents are concerned not about change but about how it happens. They feel a lack of consultation and alienation from the decision making process.
Mary-Anne Francis
449. Ms Francis is a resident of the Vine Housing Association, of Viva Vauxhall, and a Garden volunteer, but she spoke in a professional capacity as a fine artist. She has a PhD and teaches at Chelsea College.
450. Aesthetics may be subjective but it is coming to be realised that the capacity for aesthetic appreciation is hard wired into the brain. The proposed building would be hideous, comprising 8 towers glued together to save space, their tops sliced at 45 degrees to soften the effect. It reminds one of very little, being neither good modern, nor good post-modern architecture. It makes poor contextual reference being the sort of scheme a first year undergraduate might come up with.
Helen Irwin
451. Ms Irwin represented the Vauxhall Society. She was concerned about the trend towards higher buildings and the potential loss of the low skyline typified by the viaduct and lower buildings. The ‘green giant’ had once been proposed on the site of the MI6 building, which would have led to a feeling of being hemmed in. Much sky has been lost in Vauxhall and further loss should be resisted.
Charlie Boxer
452. Mr Boxer is proprietor of the Italo Delicatessen, the corner shop on Bonnington Square. He drew attention to a very special atmosphere, an oasis at Bonnington Square which would be threatened by the proposed development. Nothing in the proposals considers what would happen to this, one of the most delightful places in the country. It has an Edenesque feeling, with its street planting, parks and gardens, the fruit of 30 years of voluntary labour. Mr Boxer is upset to the point of outrage.
April Hilling
453. Ms Hilling has been a resident of Langley Lane for nearly 5 years. At the steer meeting of the Council in November 2009, she set out local residents’ concerns. These include:
• Limited parking for the disabled, residents, visitors and deliveries.
• Lack of clear drop off and pick up points for taxis.
• Increased public transport congestion.
• Serious lack of social housing. The market price of apartments, on which the viability of the scheme and the proportion of affordable housing depends, is unclear.
• Excessive height, scale and bulk, dominating the area. The hard external materials would bounce sound, light, heat, and wind onto surrounding areas.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 102
Hoists and other necessary maintenance and cleaning equipment would harm the building’s clean lines.
• Shadowing and overlooking of residents’ houses and gardens, and of the Park.
• Substantial reduction in the amount of employment floorspace. This matter was not discussed at the second Council meeting considering the proposals. Only recently has the true amount of employment floorspace in the proposals been ascertained.
454. Turning to points in the ES which do not meet guidelines:
• Reflected Solar Glare – Para 14.20576 is not correct. Fig. 14.3 clearly shows glare directed down local streets, such as Langley Lane. The sun would be low and the glare would dangerously hinder drivers turning onto the main South Lambeth Road. Para 14.27 states that Fig 14.1-14.5 show the surrounding building facades are subject to direct sunlight. However, the Figs refer to reflected rather than direct sunlight. In addition, problems are identified in para 14.29-14.31, yet the conclusion at para 14.36 is that, “No specific problematic reflected solar glare issues have been identified…” Ms Hilling strongly disagrees with this conclusion.
• Overshadowing – Overshadowing of most of the surrounding buildings is not considered. The gardens and outdoor amenity spaces of many houses would be overshadowed. The loss of sunlight to these houses has not been calculated.
• Taxi Drops – Para 9.75 assumes taxis would drop off passengers in Bondway. This would cause congestion and accidents, made worse by future development to the west, and there are no defined dropping points.
• Deliveries – Para 9.77, identifying 46 deliveries per day, is not consistent with Para 9.84 which includes servicing, car parking, and visitor trips. Subsequent analysis and conclusions are of no value since most of the traffic generated is not considered.
• Impact on the Local Highway – Para 9.116 states that the proposed development would create no adverse impact on the local highway and pedestrian networks. However, an extra 600 people crossing the highway, together with extra cyclists and cars may, at times, bring the main road to a standstill. A bridge linking with the transport interchange should be provided. Para 121 and Table 9.9 identifying residual impacts as minor and negligible is simply wrong. Para 9.126, which indicates that minimal trips would be made by private vehicle, is wrong. Residents would purchase visitor and tradesman parking permits. It can be expected that more than 50% of the 376 units would have at least one car.
455. At present, the area is an exceptionally beautiful part of Vauxhall with a village atmosphere and a community feel. Vauxhall is classified as deprived, lacking a centre which would create employment and services. Ms Hilling travels to the surrounding suburbs and the West End for shopping and entertainment. The proposals should contribute to the Vauxhall area rather than simply housing over 1,100 people who would overcrowd existing amenities and open space. Only two small retail units are proposed at ground level, and the café with outdoor seating is unrealistic because of the wind and vehicle traffic that would be generated.
576 CD2/4/B
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 103
456. A swathe of council properties exists on the south eastern side of the viaduct. The balance of council properties, commercial buildings and retail is not encouraging unless developers can offer more in the way of commercial and retail facilities. Moreover, the local parks would become massively overcrowded. The proposals offer no dedicated play space for the under 5s, and amenity space would be deficient by some 10%, exacerbating existing pressure on open space.
457. The scheme is not driven by the needs of Vauxhall, but by profit and ego. A large number of aspects of the scheme are harmful individually and cumulatively. However, the overriding harm, warranting refusal, is the development plan requirement for Class B floorspace of one-third of the total. Currently, only 10% is provided.
Charles Pender
458. Mr Pender is the recent chair of the Fentiman Road Residents Association. The Association does not take an absolutist approach, fully accepting the need for regeneration, but considers that the proposals have many flaws. The association is not happy with very tall buildings but recognises that some are inevitable as part of the development plan. It supports the Vauxhall Cross Island proposals, but deplores the general lack of co-ordination and the piecemeal nature of proposals coming forward.
459. However, the proposed Bondway development would be much closer to the high quality low rise housing in the area, and the desire to generate as much housing as possible would impinge on transport capacity. In addition, harm to views would be likely, because of the breadth and height of the building. It is ridiculous to suggest that the railway viaduct is a visual barrier at present and that the Tower would resolve the problem. Overall, the proposed development would be in the wrong place relative to the Vauxhall Conservation Area.
460. Other harmful aspects of the proposals include the shortfall in the provision of amenity space, the poor provision of retail space, and the effect on the Park. The argument about s106 contributions misses the point. The Park operates at capacity at present and could not bear the burden of the additional population. On Saturday and Sunday afternoons it is hardly possible to sit down.
Polly Freeman
461. Ms Freeman is the membership secretary of the Friends of Vauxhall Park, a society of some 130, founded in 1999 to counter neglect of the Park. The Friends organise two events a year, the Easter Egg Hunt and the Summer Fair, and liaise with the Council over current issues and the future of the Park. Regular open meetings are held.
462. Vauxhall Park was opened in 1890 to provide open air and recreational facilities for local people living in extreme poverty. Because of current levels of deprivation, it performs the same function today. It provides a place of peace and tranquillity, a place of respite from the urban environment, particularly for children. It has been extremely successful, awarded the Green Flag, the gold standard for parks and open spaces. However, the proposed development would overwhelm the Park. The Friends do not oppose development in Vauxhall, but are dismayed that this site was not identified as providing a step between the projected cluster of tall buildings and the surrounding Park and residential area.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 104
463. The Friends’ objections are based on four issues, overshadowing, overlooking, overcrowding, and poor consultation:
464. Overshadowing – The central grassy area does not fall into shadow and this and the tennis court and playground are very well used, particularly in summer evenings. As shown in the Land Use Consultants’ (LUC) modelling study, commissioned by the Friends, the shadow of the Octave Building would track across the Park during summer evenings, obscuring the entire central area. The shadow may be transitory, but it would occur every evening in the summer, reinforcing the feeling of the loss of an unshaded central grassy area.
465. The LUC study does not include tree shadows. The BRE guidance indicates that normally trees and shrubs need not be included, partly because their shapes are almost impossible to predict and partly because the dappled shade of a tree is more pleasant than the deep shade of a building. This would be so, with the movement of leaves and branches.
466. Overlooking - The residents of the Octave Building would be able to see clearly into the Park from windows, terraces and winter gardens. Moreover, the building would present its flank to the Park, reinforcing the feeling of separation from the other side of the viaduct and the river frontage. PPG17 recognises that the recreational quality of an open space can be eroded by insensitive development. It also advises that developments should maintain or enhance the character of an open space and that open spaces should not suffer from increased overlooking.
467. The Friends acknowledge that Bannerman House and Keybridge House both already overlook the Park, but it is important that overlooking is not increased. Moreover these two buildings do not overshadow the Park at times of greatest use. The Octave Tower would intrude to a much greater extent. Sitting in the central grassed area would be much less pleasant with the feeling of being overlooked from the proposed building.
468. Overcrowding - The lack of quality open space nearby would put huge pressure on the Park. Drivers Jonas Deloitte’s assessment of local open spaces577 overestimates the size of both Vauxhall Park and Spring Gardens. Moreover, the Vauxhall City Farm is listed, but is part of Spring Gardens, and the Claylands Road Pocket Park is a dog fouling area. Albert Embankment with its six lanes of traffic, also mentioned, would be unsuitable for children and is difficult to reach. The facilities listed for the parks are also incorrect.
469. Vauxhall Park’s One O’clock Club is an essential resource to many families living in poor accommodation. Its playground has not been renovated for at least 14 years. The Club would be put under increased pressure were the Octave Building, deficient in facilities for the under-5s, built. The increased use of the Park would be inevitable, exacerbating the problems of overshadowing and overlooking.
470. Consultation – Three leaflets and two exhibitions were held. The consultation company claims to have contacted the Vauxhall Park Society but the Vauxhall Society and the Friends of Vauxhall Park are separate organisations. It is also questionable whether large sections of the Council estates received the leaflets as the buildings are generally controlled entry.
577
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 105
471. A useful consultation could have been carried out at the Summer Fair held on 21 June 2009, attended by some 500 people. Only 32 people attended the first exhibition and 120 the second. The Friends only became aware of the scale of the building at the end of 2009. As key stakeholders, this is unacceptable.
472. The Park Management Plan578 was instigated by the Council but driven through and delivered by the Friends. Any proper consultation about s106 matters should have included the Friends. No amount of contributions, however, would make up for the enduring damage that the building would cause.
Helen Monger
473. Ms Monger for the Friends of Vauxhall Park described the origins of the Vauxhall Park Management Plan. She answered the Appellant’s questions regarding the Friends involvement in the formulation and spending of s106 contributions, particularly as it related to the One O’clock Club.
Victoria Conran
474. Ms Conran has lived in Vauxhall for the last 25 years. Vauxhall then was very different and cried out for the attention of its community members. The voluntary dedication, commitment, care, and attention of hundreds of people have built a remarkable, diverse and sustainable community. To suggest this effort is deficient, and that regeneration through substantial built development is required, is insulting. The sheer scale and overbearing nature of the proposed building would create an ominous and oppressive presence. It would be dramatically out of proportion with its surroundings.
475. Noise levels are already high, arising from airplane, train and road traffic. It is probable that sound would be reflected from the building towards pedestrians and residents. Recent research from southern Sweden579 into road traffic noise shows increased risk to public health in children and the middle aged, in particular hypertension, atherosclerosis and some increased risk of heart disease.
476. Moreover, the WHO Working Group on the Noise Environmental Burden of Disease have concluded that noise can create a form of chronic stress that keeps human bodies in a state of constant alert, increasing levels of stress hormones such as cortisol, adrenaline and noradrenaline in the body, even during sleep. Long term physiological changes from heart failure and strokes to high blood pressure and immune problems can result. All this happens imperceptibly.
477. Current transport overcrowding, frequently experienced at Vauxhall, resulting in access to the tube being prevented, combined with noise, can give rise to these stress effects. The Appellant suggests using the Park facilities to make up for the lack of on-site provision for children. Similar lack of on-site provision for children occurred at St Georges Wharf. The walk is impossible without encountering serious noise levels from road and rail transport. It is impossible to conduct a conversation with an accompanying child whilst walking back from the bus station to South Lambeth Road. The building would add to these effects.
578 CD6/16 579 Environmental Health 2009, 8:38doi:10.1186/1476‐069X‐8‐38
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 106
James Booth
478. Mr Booth has been a local resident of Bonnington Square since 1992 and is a member of the Local Garden Association. In that time, he has seen an amazing transformation. People who visit, especially the French, ask, “Wow, who planted these trees?” In Langley Lane, there is an avenue of Catapas (Indian Bean trees), recently ransacked by a group of green parakeets.
479. The physical model shows none of the 90 trees planted in Bonnington Square and the Harleyford Road Community Gardens. Trees soften a harsh urban landscape and provide a haven for wildlife. However, the 20 or 25 trees shown next to the proposed building would receive little light and have a poor chance of survival. Each of the trees planted in Bonnington Square was nurtured for at least 2 years. It is unlikely that those proposed would receive a similar level of care.
480. The existing Market Tower building at some 20 storeys generates a looming presence, but the proposed development would double this effect. The present tranquillity would be destroyed.
Maureen Johnston MBE
481. Ms Johnston is Chair of the Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum. It was established in 2000 by local representative groups and individuals at the instigation of the Council, to strengthen community involvement in programmes and policies. There are four Forum meetings a year and four or more executive board meetings. Meetings are well attended, there being 200 at a meeting to discuss the Opportunity Area earlier in the year and 80 at a follow up meeting.
482. It has always been of concern that no plans have been put in place to ensure the development of a sustainable community. Development plans should look not only at north-south development on the river’s edge, but east-west flow, mitigating the barrier effects of the railway viaduct. Also, development should ensure that there are jobs commensurate with the skills of the local population, and not turn Vauxhall into a financial hub.
483. There is no significant town centre in Lambeth between Waterloo and Brixton. Vauxhall Cross is an obvious place to create a new shopping area because of its transport connections. There is no library, and there are no cultural or sports facilities in Vauxhall, the nearest swimming pool being at Brixton. There is a deficiency of open and green space.
484. The harmful effects of the Vauxhall gyratory would be exacerbated by the increase in population brought about by the proposals. People need to reach outlets on foot to shop easily and this is not possible because of the nature of the gyratory. There are no plans to improve the situation and the air quality in Vauxhall is well below WHO standards.
485. Current building developments are already excessive. Too much would be built in too small an area, creating a mean and hostile environment, for daytime office workers as much as local residents. There would be insufficient amenity space and pressure would be put on public transport. Is this where we would want children to be brought up?
Patricia Holland
486. Ms Holland represents the Vine Housing Co-operative. It has been established 25 years, has 50 dwellings of various sizes and 75 members. Vauxhall Grove
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 107
and Bonnington Square are in close proximity to the development and the residents’ quality of life would be seriously affected in two major ways.
487. Firstly, the building itself would have a seriously harmful effect through its height and massing, dominating views, blocking light, and spoiling the sense of spaciousness characteristic of a riverside site. The proposed development involves a loss of sense of place and of historical continuity. The building would not accord with the development plan with regard, for instance, to views, it would reduce sunlight and the prominence of the sky at night, and it would be child-unfriendly. The effect should be considered in the context of a planned cluster of towers, and its cumulative effects, including the crowding out of space which could be used for central services. The argument should initially not be about the quality of tall buildings, but their appropriateness for the site.
488. Secondly, the proposals would change the nature of the locality. Being mainly residential in content, the greater population would make unacceptable demands on the existing infrastructure. It would give rise to an increase in car traffic and harm public transport which is at maximum capacity and unlikely to be expanded. It would impact harmfully on schools, there being a shortage of local places, on local GP facilities, facilities for the elderly, and police capabilities.
489. The existing community is vibrant, diverse, multi-cultural and settled. It is, therefore, able to run local enterprises successfully to which people come from all over London, in preference to chain outlets. The proposals would bring a gated, socially divisive community, much less firmly rooted in the area. Local policy advocates a mix of dwelling sizes and tenures in new housing developments. It aims to protect family sized houses, improve residential amenities, plan spaces for essential services and social interaction, and enable disability access and a child friendly environment. Activity happens at street level, and the proposals would contribute little to its enhancement.
Pauline Gaunt
490. Ms Grant has lived in Vauxhall since 1964. She is a resident of Regents Bridge Gardens, a communally run private estate some 150 metres from Vauxhall Park. She notes that the scale of Regents Bridge Gardens is represented completely inaccurately in the physical model, and that the trees in the Park are far too large, giving a misleading impression of their ability to mask the Bondway Tower.
491. Within the 92 households of Regents Bridge Gardens, there is considerable concern over the proposals. The residents care passionately about the Park and regularly use it for recreation, enjoy the splendid gardens, and use it as the most pleasant route to the Vauxhall transport hub.
492. The building would be overbearing, looming 42 storeys high over the trees and only 200 metres away. It would cast a significant shadow on summer evenings when the Park is at its busiest. It would alter wind effects and change the ecology of plants. It would also add to the overcrowding of the Park, for which there is no proposed mitigation. Use of the Park has increased noticeably in recent years, partly as a result of the growth of a population who may not have gardens of their own.
493. Considered in the wider context, Vauxhall already has very many flats at St Georges Wharf. Vauxhall Tower and Sky Gardens will provide many more and the Vauxhall Cross Island towers yet more. Vauxhall is becoming grossly overcrowded and there are no plans to ease the strain on the neighbourhood,
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 108
public transport, parking, and services. The proposals would blight the Park whilst adding nothing of value to the community.
David Spofforth
494. Mr Spofforth came to Vauxhall Grove to live some 10 years ago. He is proud and honoured to be associated with Bonnington Square, and particularly with Harleyford Road Gardens. The Gardens provide their own warm, sheltered, sunny microclimate allowing delicate plants to grow, which might not survive the changed microclimate brought about by the proposed building. As an examlar of the Government’s ‘big society’, the area should be protected and cherished.
Andrea Hofling
495. Ms Hofling spoke for herself and for the Viva Vauxhall Residents’ Association (VV), which is roughly based around Vauxhall Grove and Bonnington Square. Some months ago, at its AGM, VV was given an overwhelming mandate to oppose the proposed development.
496. Tall buildings are not particularly modern or innovative. The capacity to build high has existed for over one hundred years. Instead we should focus attention on sustainability and human scale.
497. Local residents were first asked whether they wanted tall buildings in Vauxhall in 2008, when the Vauxhall Tower had already been granted permission. It was not generally realised that the heights contemplated were up to 150 metres, the point at which a tall building becomes a skyscraper. The leafleting of individual households about the proposed Octave Tower was scanty and haphazard and there were no exhibitions until February 2010. Various planning documents indicated that a cluster of very tall buildings in Vauxhall was inevitable, given the precedent of Vauxhall Tower.
498. The proposals’ environmental credentials are not persuasive. The ample bicycle parking is unlikely to be used, and the energy credentials are not impressive. Changes to the microclimate would take place and there would be extra pressure on services. There would be little social spin off, such as schools, and little thought has been given to the effects at ground level, including the lack of public space to compensate for the density of the development and the hostile traffic environment of the gyratory system which poses a greater barrier than the railway viaduct. The installation of numerous pedestrian crossings as the cluster grows would result in gridlock. Equally uncertain is the possibility of enhanced permeability through the viaduct.
499. The idea that an amenity space with a children’s play on the 36th floor would be an acceptable substitute for an outdoor green space is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is not clear that sufficient attention has been given to the risk of flooding, to evacuation and rescue, and to emergency evacuation from Vauxhall Underground Station.
500. The appearance of the building would be oppressive, the visual effects having been glossed over. Sunlight and daylight would be taken from streets, roof terraces and small gardens. The area is described as ‘light deprived’ in the Vauxhall Area Conservation Statement of 1984, therefore any further loss of daylight or sunlight would be keenly felt. By contrast, the occupants of the proposed building would enjoy unimpeded views over Victorian and Georgian terraces and leafy Vauxhall Park. The influx of affluent residents might bring
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 109
more shops and restaurants, but Bonnington Square already has a variety of good and interesting cafes and restaurants of more than local patronage.
501. The draft OAPF may have given rise to the anticipation of opportunities involving the relaxation of height and density norms, driving up land prices well above existing use values. This creates a vicious circle which can only be closed at the expense of neglecting planning benefits and the interests of the local population.
502. A picture emerges of urban regeneration taking place in the late 1800s after the railway viaduct had been driven through, resulting in remarkable buildings which ought to be appreciated. Housing, workplaces, and amenities such as tram lines, shops, a bank, schools, a park, library, public houses and entertainment halls were built on both sides of the viaduct, apparently to a coherent strategy. Such a strategy is sadly missing from current plans.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
There are a substantial number of written representations.580 The points made are largely covered in the evidence given by those who appeared at the Inquiry. Summaries of selected cases are set out below.
The Case for Westminster City Council
The material points are:
503. Because of its height and scale, the proposed 42 storey tower would harm views from the City of Westminster and in particular from a number of conservation areas, including Whitehall, Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square, and St James’s and Pimlico. Strong objections are raised to the impact of the development on the setting of the World Heritage Site in views from Parliament Square and Whitehall. Furthermore, in views from Victoria Tower Gardens, Belgrave Road and the Duke of York Steps, the development would adversely affect the settings of the Buxton Memorial (listed at Grade II*), the terraced houses (listed at Grade II) and Westminster Abbey (listed at Grade I) respectively.
504. The proposals are contrary to the City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Policies STRA 28, STRA 29, STRA 30, DES 9, DES 10, DES 12, DES 15 and DES 16. They are also contrary to the City Council’s Metropolitan Views Draft SPD581 and to national guidance. The City Council recently commented on the draft OAPF, raising concerns that the establishment of a cluster of very tall buildings in the Vauxhall area based on the planning permission granted for the Vauxhall Tower could harm many important views. The Tower may never be built and should not be used to justify a cluster of similar very tall buildings in this area. The following Views from the HTVIA582 are examined:
505. Views M10 and M12 Whitehall and Parliament Street – The proposed building would be most prominent at M10, where it would fill the gap of sky between the equestrian statue of Field Marshall Earl Haig and Victoria Tower. The building would be seen north and south of M10 on the eastern side of Whitehall. It would,
580 CD1/9 and main case file 581 CD6/17 582 CD2/4/E
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 110
therefore, not be confined to a single viewpoint but would harm a sequence of views characteristic of the WHS. It would not be possible to appreciate the quality of the design from this distance. Silhouette, massing, height and appearance are the main aspects to be considered.
506. At M12, the development would not be visible in the context of Victoria Tower but, moving west to the footway, it would be. Although smaller in relation to Victoria Tower than in M10, it would harm the setting of the Tower. Even though Millbank Tower is a dominant background building, the space and sky around it separates it from the Victoria Tower. The proposed building would reduce this sense of space and replace it with a more solid background. The important vista and sequence of views experienced along Whitehall and Parliament Street would change from an open to a more enclosed aspect to the detriment of the heritage assets.
507. View M15 Parliament Square – The upper part of the proposed building would encroach on the background space which exists between Victoria Tower and Millbank Tower and acts as an important buffer. Vauxhall Tower, as yet unbuilt, would be visible in this view. The approval of an additional tall building in the Vauxhall area would worsen the impact on this important skyline.
508. View M17 Victoria Tower Gardens – The proposed building would close the vista in this open axial view. It would fill the sky between the converging lines of trees and distract the eye from the Grade II* listed Buxton Fountain. The impact would be more significant in winter when the trees are not in leaf.
509. Views M50 and M51a Belgrave Road – The proposed development would terminate the vista down Belgrave Road and part of Pimlico Conservation Area, distracting the eye from the restrained townscape of listed buildings that line the street. The Vauxhall Tower would cause greater harm, but it might not be built. Also, the accumulated impact of development closing the vista would be extremely harmful.
510. Views M53 and M53a Duke of York Steps – Although screened by trees when in leaf, at other times the building would be prominent in the view across St James Park, seen to the right of the west towers of Westminster Abbey. It would be a discordant element on the historic skyline, particularly at night, an important consideration in all views which take in the proposed building.
The Case for Vauxhall Cross Ltd
The material points are:
511. Vauxhall Cross Ltd owns the majority of the land bounded by Bondway, Parry Street, Wandsworth Road and Miles Street, to the west of the Site. A major redevelopment is proposed for this land, which is of greater strategic significance than the appeal Site. It is four times larger, more prominent, and has significantly greater capacity and potential to contribute to the regeneration of Vauxhall.
512. The appeal proposals have not taken due account of the likely future development of this land. They represent an extremely intensive development which would need to provide very substantial benefits to offset its inevitable impacts, and have substantial usable public realm space around it to be successful.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 111
513. The building would be highly dependent on light from, and outlook over, neighbouring land. The proposals do not set out what consideration has been given to the future development of neighbouring sites other than those which already have consent and which are some distance away. It is unfortunate that there has been no direct consultation with Vauxhall Cross Ltd. It would not be reasonable for redevelopment of neighbouring land to be restricted to make up for the inadequacy of public realm provision in relation to the appeal site, or to avoid impact on the Bondway proposals.
514. Vauxhall Cross Ltd has a record of commitment to the Vauxhall area. It is pursuing its redevelopment plans through the emerging LDF to achieve a properly planned and co-ordinated approach to the redevelopment of Vauxhall. It would be a mistake to prejudice the development of significant sites by prematurely allowing ad hoc development proposals on smaller, less strategically important sites.
The Case for English Heritage583
The material points are:
515. English Heritage (EH) have significant concerns about the impact of the development on longer views towards Parliament Square from Whitehall, especially Views M10 and M12. The glimpse views of a more open landscape at Parliament Square’s south eastern corner are an essential element in this world class historic environment. The proposed development would be a significant step in changing the character of the views from open aspect towards enclosure by built development.
516. EH also have concerns about the impact when viewed from Hungerford Bridge in the winter (M20a). The proposals, when considered with the cumulative impact of approved development yet to be built, would begin to create a wall of development which would compete visually with the Palace of Westminster, detracting from the outstanding interest of the World Heritage Site.
517. The proposals would also significantly harm the settings of several local conservation areas, in particular Kennington Conservation Area above the Grade II* listed Woodstock Court (M29) and Albert Square Conservation Area above St Stephen’s Terrace (M35). It would also harm the setting of Pimlico Conservation Area through its impact in enclosing the open views along Belgrave Road(M50 and M51), distracting the eye from the formal terraces either side and compounding the harm caused by the as yet unbuilt Vauxhall Tower.
518. The Grade II* Battersea Power Station and the Grade II* registered Battersea Park would also be harmed since the proposed building would appear between the chimneys in the view from the Park (M41). In addition the proposed development would harm other views including the existing open view towards the abutment obelisks of Lambeth Bridge and Views M15, M18, M19, M21, M26, M42 and M53a (winter).
519. EH are also disappointed that adaptation of the existing building, which makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and is one of the few remaining elements of the area’s past industrial landscape, has not been considered in the redevelopment proposals.
583 CD2/19
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 112
The Case for the Metropolitan Police Authority
The material points are:
520. The scale of the proposed development would have a material impact on policing provision in the local area. Appropriate police related facilities should be provided in the form of a Safer Neighbourhood Office (SNO) within the building. This should be of approximately 90 square metres floor area, fully DDA compliant and preferably located at ground floor level, although first floor accommodation would be acceptable.
521. The floorspace should be provided to shell and core standard at a peppercorn rent for a minimum period of 25 years. Police office use falls within the B1 Use Class proposed as part of the mixed use development and would provide employment space for some 6 to 8 officers.
522. The provision of these facilities accords with development plan policy and national guidance, in particular LP Policy 3A.17 (Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population) and LP Policy 3A.18 (Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities). It also accords with UDP Policy 53 (Infrastructure and Utilities), which supports the provision of adequate land and buildings for the operational requirements of public utility companies and authorities.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 113
CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS
523. The main parties prepared a set of suggested conditions which was incorporated in the SOCG. Round table discussions on the conditions and draft s106 Agreement took place during Inquiry sessions on Days 10 and 11 (4 and 5 August 2010) and an agreed version of the suggested conditions was then produced.584
524. In addition, the s106 Agreement between the Council, the Owner and the Mortgagee has been completed and submitted.585 A report produced by the Appellant explaining the terms of the Agreement is also amongst the Inquiry documents.586
525. The Agreement contains Owner’s and Council’s covenants relating to schedules incorporated. These schedules deal with agreed financial contributions, together with commitments regarding the use of local labour, access to the Amenity Floor, subsidised employment floorspace, and the provision of a Safer Neighbourhood Office for use by the Metropolitan Police should the Secretary of State consider it appropriate. Also included are schedules dealing with affordable housing, public art, transport and highways (covering the provision of a travel plan, a car club, and parking permit provisions), energy and sustainability, and television reception.
584 CD1/15 585 CD1/10B 586 CD1/10C
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 114
CONCLUSIONS – References to other paragraphs in the report are in brackets []
Introduction
526. These conclusions are arranged to respond to the matters on which the Secretary of State particularly wished to be informed.587 They encompass the main considerations relevant to the decision.
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development
Sustainable Development [92-96, 140]
Social Cohesion and Inclusion
527. The proposals would be largely consistent with the aims of Government policy regarding social cohesion and inclusion. In particular, the wide mix of apartment sizes accords with these aims, as do the arrangements for the provision of market and affordable housing units. They would be to a common standard of space and quality, within the same building, with access to the same facilities, although accessed from separate entrances. However, there are serious concerns regarding lack of public open space and play space provision, which would have repercussions on the quality of life of the occupants and the existing community. These matters are considered in more detail below and under PPS3 [540-557, 563-567].
528. Limited community facilities would be incorporated in the building on the Amenity Floor, at Level 36, and minor retail and café facilities at ground floor level. Other community facilities, which include access to Vauxhall Park, are available in a scattered manner at varying distances from the Site. However, Vauxhall has no identifiable town centre to give focused access to shopping, entertainment, schools, and health facilities. Residents would be able to compensate to a large extent by making use of the highly accessible location with regard to public transport, walking and cycling.
529. Access to jobs is considered under PPS4 [579-591] and PPG13 [641-642]. Diversity considerations are largely met, including those concerned with age, income, and disability. 10% of the overall apartment provision would be suitable for adaptation to wheelchair use and all apartments would be built to Lifetimes Homes Standards. In these respects, the proposals satisfy LP Policy 3A.5 (Housing choice). The building would be safe, healthy and attractive, and physical activity would be encouraged through the health club planned within the Amenity Floor, provision of extensive cycling facilities, and the availability of the Park.
Protection and Enhancement of the Environment
530. The Site is highly sustainable in principle because of the proposals’ intensive re-use of previously developed land and its location near a major transport interchange. The Environmental Statement (ES) indicates that the effect of the proposals on the environment is acceptable [5-7].
531. Regarding reflected solar glare, the Regulation 19 submission notes that Langley Lane and Lawn Lane would be subject to reflected solar glare in spring, summer and autumn mornings. However, these roads are currently subject to
587 CD1/11
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 115
similar levels of direct solar glare in the evenings which would be blocked by the proposed development. Moreover, drivers turning onto South Lambeth Road would be looking at right angles to the direction of glare, rather than into it [6, 454].
532. In my professional opinion, reverberating or amplified noise from trains or road traffic would be unlikely to arise as a significant issue. This is because the modelling and small scale relief of the building would diffuse rather than reflect or focus sound [388].
533. The effect of the proposals on the historic environment is considered under PPS5 [592-639]. The main area of concern, considered below, is pressure on existing public open space.
Prudent Use of Natural Resources
534. Besides meeting Part L of the Building Regulations and all other essential standards, the building would achieve good BREEAM and carbon footprint ratings, and a high level of renewable energy use through biomass boilers. The s106 Agreement commits the Owner to providing and implementing an Energy and Sustainability Scheme.
535. Passive means of energy conservation would include appropriate orientation and shading; selective use of solar gain; controlled climatic buffering through the use of winter gardens; natural as well as mechanical ventilation; an openable, double skin, sound insulated envelope facing the railway; a good level of thermal insulation and air tightness; and the use of the building’s thermal mass to conserve energy. Active means would include heat recovery ventilation systems, and compatibility with planned district heating systems. Rainwater harvesting would be incorporated together with the non-potable use of ‘grey’ water and sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS).
536. Concern for economy in the use of materials is demonstrated, for instance, through the use of post tensioned concrete slabs, and for economy in construction through means such as prefabrication and installation from floor slabs, rather than scaffolding. Concern for the use of recycled materials and for efficient recycling of waste produced in occupation is also shown.
537. The Statement of Common Ground on Energy,588 between the Appellant, the GLA, and Transport for London (TfL), confirms that the proposals meet the requirements of LP Policy 4A.6 (Decentralised energy) and the draft OAPF. They also accord with LP Policy 4A.7 (Renewable Energy) and UDP Policy 34 (Renewable Energy in Major Development). Overall, the proposals would involve the prudent use of natural resources.
Sustainable Economic Development
538. Sustainable economic development is considered under PPS4 [540-557].
Conclusion on Sustainable Development
539. The Council raises no objection to the proposed development on sustainability grounds. The proposals generally accord with the aims of PPS1 and the development plan regarding sustainable development. In addition to the policies
588 CD1/2A
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 116
noted, the proposals accord with LP Policy 4A.3 (Sustainable design and construction) and UDP Policy 35 (Sustainable Design and Construction)
Design [75-81, 97-139, 280-323, 347-348, 389-397, 415-419, 425-430]
540. PPS1 advises in its Key Principles (paragraph 13(iv)) that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. It notes, in paragraph 35, that high quality and inclusive design should create well mixed and integrated developments which avoid segregation and have well planned public spaces that bring people together and provide opportunities for physical activity and recreation.
541. The importance of well planned public spaces is echoed in development plan policy. LP Policy 3D.8 (Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure) states that all developments will be expected to incorporate appropriate elements of open space that make a positive contribution to and are integrated with the wider network. UDP Policy 77 (Vauxhall – Urban Design and Public Realm Improvements) also emphasises the importance of public open space linked to wider public realm access and improvements.589
542. The proposals undeniably pack a great deal onto the site. This would be commendable in such a sustainable location, and accord with policy, in particular LP Policy 3A.3 (Maximising the potential of sites), provided no unacceptable harm were to arise.
543. The depth of thought of the design team and the ingenuity of their solution is impressive. The visual bulk of the building is broken down through division into separate slightly offset vertical elements of different heights with alternately angled tops, clustered together to produce a facetted, tapering form with a profile that touches the sky lightly. Similarly, the organisation of the façade enhances the modelling of the building, providing visual interest and variety. It achieves this through the alternating expression of neighbouring vertical elements, through their set backs, and through the layering of the façade by the use of devices such as winter gardens, giving depth and shadowing. Moreover, the materials assist in lightening the form, and the visual hierarchy allows the eye to move from overall form to detail in a satisfying manner.
544. As a result, a very large building on a tight site is given a form which in general does not appear over dominant and attracts interest in a subtle way, enhanced through progressive changes in appearance to the overall form and its detail as the observer moves. This works particularly well seen from the north and south, where the elevations would be at their narrowest and the elements seen to climb with the succession of zig-zag roofs to a shallow pinnacle.
545. It would also work from the east and west, seen from a distance, where the overall form could be appreciated and the eye would be led by the building’s profile into the articulated modelling of the elevations. From the middle distance, particularly in certain views from the Vauxhall Conservation Area explored below, the width of the building would become somewhat dominant.
546. The greatest shortcoming, however, concerns the relationship of the building to its immediate surroundings. The well planned public spaces that bring people
589 Cf.: LP Policy 4B.1, LP Policy 4B.10, UDP Policy 40 and UDP Policy 50
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 117
together, which PPS1 advises should be incorporated, are absent. Moreover, the proposals fail to provide sufficient opportunities for pedestrian movement linked to the wider public realm for it to succeed.
547. CABE point out that, although only partly within the Appellant’s control, they are not convinced that the layout of the base of the tower and the surrounding public realm are fully integrated. They support the 40 metre wide public space to the west of the site, which is proposed as part of Lambeth’s Vauxhall Area SPD and feel that the success of the cluster is dependent on the implementation of this.590
548. The proposals involve great density and site coverage without the provision or existing availability of complementary public space. This is necessary to act as a civic gathering space relieving the intensity of activity that would be generated by the proposals, and encouraging the development of linkage routes through the area. In turn, this would reduce pressure on Vauxhall Park, the only real oasis of calm and tranquillity available for public use in the vicinity.
549. The materialisation of the public space indicated in the draft SPD, or an equivalent, cannot be guaranteed for a considerable time, or at all. If it were not to materialise, unacceptable consequences would arise. The immediate surroundings would be unpleasantly congested at ground level. Bondway’s shared surface would carry car traffic, service vehicles, a cycle route and outdoor café facilities as well as pedestrians. The volume of entry to, and egress from, the proposed building would be very high and this would be compounded by access to commercial facilities to the west.
550. The situation would be particularly harmful, given the existing high volume of traffic and generally hostile environment associated with the gyratory system, and the absence of tranquil spaces to compensate. Not even the triangle of land to the south, currently used for parking, would be available. Its use as a pocket park, perhaps with play facilities, would have provided some, but not sufficient relief. Moreover, improvements to the public realm resulting in high quality paving to Bondway and improvements to the Parry Street and Miles Street railway arches would not provide sufficient mitigation.
551. Moreover, without associated public space, the visual mass of the building would be overbearing in relation to its local surroundings. The form of the building, with lower floors set back to maximise ground space and canopies masking the upper floors from ground level close to the building, creating the impression of an urban block and reducing scale, would provide some relief, but not sufficient, given the narrowness of Bondway. Also, the visual mass of the building would be evident in the immediate approach from north and south.
552. Furthermore, the difficulties regarding provision of adequate amenity space, and particularly children’s play space, described below [563-567], would be exacerbated by lack of public space adjacent to the Site. The difficulties would not necessarily be resolved by the Appellant covering the cost of acquiring a substantial area of land, perhaps 1.4 hectares, to maintain existing standards of open space provision in an area of Open Space Deficiency, even if the land were
590 CD2/18, p.2
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 118
available. The location of public open space of more modest scale, as part of a network of public realm provision, is crucially important.
553. The Appellant argues that the Site is too small to be used to provide public space, that any lesser intensity of development would be unviable, and that to wait for the provision of public space would be a lost opportunity and a recipe for stagnation. Rather, the Appellant contends, once the proposals are in place, they would provide the stimulus for the necessary public realm to be developed.
554. However, these are not reasons for accepting a seriously flawed solution. Other elements of regenerative development are well placed to come forward, including Sky Gardens, Vauxhall Tower and Vauxhall Cross. Incremental development is as likely to kick start the process of regeneration on these sites as on the Bondway Site.
555. Far from there being a parallel, in this respect, with the Shard of Glass building at London Bridge, the present proposals are not the unique starting point for the regeneration of the area. There is no suggestion of having to wait for a complete masterplan before development takes place in the area. Nor is it a case of refusing to work incrementally and thereby being paralysed by perfection and never starting [78].
556. The proposals are not a good example to follow. Successors may attempt to emulate its density and site coverage to the overall detriment of the area. These tendencies would increase as regeneration progresses and land values rise. At the same time, subsequent development would be under pressure to devote proportionately more of their site area, or make much greater financial contributions to improve the public realm as compensation for the shortcomings of the present proposals.
557. Overall, the absence of complementary public space is unacceptable. The proposals would accord with LP Policy 3A.3 (Maximising the potential of sites). However, in their relationship to public space they would conflict with the aims of PPS1 and with LP Policy 3D.8 (Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure), 4B.1 (Design principles for a compact city), 4B.9 (Tall buildings – location), 4B.10 (Large scale buildings), UDP Policy 33 (Building Scale and Design), 39 (Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design), 40 (Tall Buildings), 50 (Open Space and Sports Facilities) and 77 (Vauxhall - Urban Design and Public Realm Improvements)
Access Needs [140]
558. Access needs have been considered in depth in the design. Access to, and circulation through, the building for people with disabilities, including wheelchair users, has been fully incorporated as part of the general routes used by all occupants and visitors. Dropping off spaces adjacent to the entrance lobbies would be provided, compatible with taxi ramps, and some 50% of the basement car parking spaces, accessible by car lift, would be suitable for people with disabilities.
559. Wheelchair passing points and wheelchair accessible facilities would be provided throughout common areas of both the commercial and residential floors. 10% of all the residential units would be wheelchair accessible,591 and all of the
591 In accordance with SPD CD5/4, para 7.4 and CD4/1, LP Policy 3A.5
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 119
units would be built to Lifetime Homes standards. Overall, access needs could be met in accordance with building regulation and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requirements. The aims of LP Policy 3A.5 (Housing choice), 4B.5 (Creating an inclusive environment) and PPS1 would be met regarding access needs.
Prematurity [31-33, 141-144, 245]
560. No formal issue was raised by the Council before the Inquiry concerning prematurity. The emerging Core Strategy (CS) had undergone consultation and the examination was programmed to begin on 14 September 2010. The relevant policies of the CS continue the thrust of the UDP whilst introducing greater flexibility.
561. The Council proposed during the Inquiry, following cross examination of one of their witnesses, to remove the detailed wording of CS Policy S3 relating to the minimum proportion of site area to be devoted to business use. Even if this were to be done, the effect of the proposals, either individually or cumulatively, would not be so significant as to prejudice the CS by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development being addressed in the CS. The Council have not demonstrated otherwise. Under the CS, greater flexibility than at present would still be available regarding the location of business use. Furthermore, prematurity has not been demonstrated in relation to the OAPF, the Vauxhall SPD, or any other emerging DPD.
PPS3: Housing
Housing Quality
562. PPS3 sets out matters to be considered when assessing design quality at paragraph 16 which the proposals generally meet. The proposals also generally meet LP Policy 3A.6 (Quality of new housing provision). However, the second point in PPS3 paragraph 16 concerns access to open amenity and recreational space, including play space. Paragraph 17 goes on to advise that it will be important to ensure that the needs of children are taken into account and that there is good provision of recreational areas, including private gardens, play areas and informal play space.
Amenity Space [58-63, 333-344, 380-386, 404]
563. The lack of public space associated with the proposals in an area of Open Space Deficiency, exacerbating pressure on Vauxhall Park, throws into relief the need to adequately provide amenity space for residents. The Lambeth SPD target of 3,810 square metres would be met if the gross external area of the communal Amenity Floor on the Level 36 were taken into account but not if its gross internal area were used in the calculation.
564. The area consumed by the circulation core is a relatively large proportion of the total floor area at this level, because of the taper of the building as it rises. There is, therefore, a substantial difference between gross and internal areas. Moreover, the area available for communal use is not large for a residential population of the size contemplated, in an area lacking a town centre and where facilities are scattered.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 120
565. The spaces indicated in the Design and Access Statement (DAS)592 are a gym, function room and games room all of approximately the same size, and a smaller meeting room or business centre. The games room is shown to contain only a snooker table and a ping pong table and this can be taken as a measure of the level of space provision. The potential difficulties are highlighted by the suggestion made at the Inquiry of incorporating children’s play space into the Amenity Floor, which would inevitably displace other activities.
Children’s Play Space [64-74, 333-344, 380-386, 404]
566. The SPG attached to the London Plan recommends 10 square metres of dedicated play space per child, equating to overall provision of 1,170 square metres (as part of the overall open space provision, according to the SPD). Reliance is placed on Vauxhall Park and the play facilities there. However, the SPG indicates that the maximum walking distance to play space for under 5s should be 100 metres. The distance from the building entrance to the facilities would be very much more than this.
567. The only on-site provision would be the undefined facility within the Amenity Floor, suggested at the Inquiry, but it is difficult to see how this could be co-ordinated with the existing indicative uses. Whilst the financial contributions for public open space and play space could be used productively, they would not relieve pressure on the Park arising from the proposed development, which could be cumulatively exacerbated as the cluster of tall buildings materialises. The absence of adequate dedicated play space within or very near the building is materially harmful. In this respect, the proposals conflict with LP Policy 3D.13 (Children and young people’s play and informal recreation strategies) and the aims of PPS3.
Housing Mix [147-148]
568. The housing mix would include a good proportion of larger units, including 3 and 4 bedroom apartments. It is common ground between the Appellant and the Council,593 and was not challenged at the Inquiry, that the proposals meet policy regarding the relative proportions of smaller and larger units. This includes LP Policy 3A.5 (Housing Choice) and UDP Policy 15 (c) (Additional Housing – Housing Mix), and the aims of PPS3.
Affordable Housing [149-158, 375-379, 409-414]
569. It is also common ground between the Appellant and the Council that the arrangements for the provision of affordable housing, secured in the s106 Agreement,594 are satisfactory.595 They include a ‘cap and collar’ mechanism ensuring a minimum 20% and a maximum 50% provision of affordable housing out of the overall total of residential accommodation, calculated by habitable room. The viability report accompanying the planning application indicated a provision of 23% affordable housing. A further appraisal would be undertaken at a review stage, shortly before the implementation date596 of the development, which would be independently assessed, any differences discussed and, if
592 CD2/3, p.157 593 CD1/2, para 8.11‐8.12 594 CD1/10B 595 CD1/2, para 8.14‐8.16 596 Implementation is defined in the s106 Agreement as excluding minor and preparatory works.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 121
agreement could not be reached, referred to an independent expert for determination.
570. If the provision were to lie between 20% and 30% of the total residential accommodation, 70% of the affordable houses would be social rented and 30% intermediate; from 30% and up to 50% provision, 60% would be social rented and 40% would be intermediate. The Council could elect to receive a financial contribution in lieu of any or all of those units appraised above 30% provision.
571. The Waterloo Community Development Group (WCDG) and the Kennington Association Planning Forum (KAPF) draw attention to the sensitivity of the viability calculations to residential sales values. They are critical of the values used and point to disagreements between the Appellant’s and the Council’s consultants over the values. However, the review stage would resolve differences in accordance with values at the time of implementation, with recourse to independent expert determination were agreement not reached. It is at this stage that certainty concerning the affordable housing commitment would be required by the developer to obtain project funding.
572. The market could either rise or fall between the review and completion, and the developer would take the risk. The idea of a second review to audit assumptions on sales values against the market at completion is interesting. Were it to take place, it should be seen alongside similar reviews for other schemes in the context of general market movements, and might inform negotiations over future schemes. However, it would be too late to influence the proportion of affordable housing provision and should not be a requirement of planning permission.
573. Overall, the affordable housing aspects of the proposals are acceptable. They accord with UDP Policy 16 (Affordable Housing), LP Policy 3A.10 (Negotiating affordable housing) and the aims of PPS3.
Quantity [159-161]
574. The site would be developed very intensively. It is clear that the proposals would make a valuable contribution to the Council’s housing targets and add to available choice. The balance between the supply of residential and employment floor space is considered under PPS4 [577-591].
Location [162-163]
575. The Site is suitable for housing development for the reasons set out above in PPS1 considerations [527-529].
Land Supply [164-165]
576. The proposals make efficient and effective use of previously developed land.
PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth [166]
577. PPS4 Policy EC10.2 sets out the impact considerations against which all planning applications for economic development should be assessed. The impact of the proposals in terms of carbon dioxide emissions and resilience to climate change is considered in these conclusions in PPS1 above [534-537]. Accessibility is also considered in PPS1 [530] and PPG13 below [640-642]. Design is considered in PPS1 [540-557] and regeneration is an overarching theme.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 122
578. The impact on local employment was a serious point of contention at the Inquiry, and is considered below. The retail component falls below the threshold requiring detailed assessment.
Local Employment [23-57, 247-279, 357-374]
579. The Site lies within a Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA), safeguarded for Class B uses under UDP Policy 22. The Site also falls within a Major Development Opportunity Site (MDO). UDP Policy 22 notes that here some residential and other non-employment uses are acceptable on appropriate parts of the site but the overall development should be predominantly employment-based, incorporating the maximum feasible amount of employment development – either at least 50% of the site area or 50% of the replacement floor space unless otherwise specified in the MDO.
580. UDP Policy 77 describes the Vauxhall MDOs. The Site is part of MDO 81 – Parry Street East, in a group of 4 contiguous MDOs, (MDO 80 to 83). The explanatory text relating to this group notes that at least one-third of the floorspace on each site within each MDO should be for employment use, unless it can be demonstrated that, through comprehensive development, this amount of employment floorspace can be achieved across the entire MDO site.
581. The Appellant and the Council agree that this means across the entire MDO group. The Rule 6 Parties argue that it means across each individual MDO, consequently MDO 81 could not support sufficient employment floorspace under the proposals. The Council said that its interpretation of the Policy was put to the UDP Inspector and accepted, and has since been applied on that basis. Therefore, although the wording is ambiguous, I am inclined to accept the Council’s version as the intended interpretation.
582. The Council maintains the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the balance of employment floorspace can be achieved across the MDO group, since there is no masterplan or agreement with other landowners that could be relied upon. However, the Policy does not require a masterplan or agreement and it is clear that sufficient space is available for the required employment floorspace for all the MDOs to be established across the group.
583. Under the emerging development plan, both the KIBA and the MDO designations would be removed. There have been no objections to their removal and, given the advanced state of the CS process, this potential policy shift must be accorded significant weight. The removal of the designations is consistent with the greater flexibility introduced through CS Policy PN2 and Policy S3.
584. CS Policy PN2 (Places and Neighbourhoods - Vauxhall) supports mixed use development at Vauxhall for a variety of uses within its Central Activity Zone (CAZ) designation as part of the wider OA. The proposals meet the criteria of the Policy regarding employment content.
585. The proposals also meet the criteria of CS Policy S3 (Economic Development). Criterion (b) seeks to maintain a stock of sites other than KIBAs in commercial use. Although no target is specified, it could be satisfied by the proposed subsidised provision of business space. Moreover, it would meet the alternative requirement of at least half of the Site area being for business use.
586. The ‘yellow’ area to the south west of the Site is described in the emerging OAPF as high density mixed use housing-led, and the ‘pink’ area containing the Site as a high density mixed use centre focal point for office and retail including
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 123
housing. Despite much debate at the Inquiry over what could legitimately be read into the wording, I see nothing within these descriptions or elsewhere in the emerging OAPF which would conflict with the mix proposed. Nor do I see conflict with the land use indicators in the Vauxhall Draft SPD.
587. The proposals involve loss of all of the existing Class B8 floor space but a substantial increase in B1 floor space, of much better quality than exists, and the addition of a small amount of Class A floor space. Overall, there would almost certainly be a gain in employment numbers, satisfying criterion b(iii) of UDP Policy 23 (Protection and Location of Other Employment Uses). The discrepancies between the floor space figures set out in the planning application and those confirmed at the Inquiry are not significant. [4]
588. The existing Class B8 floor space, comprising self-storage facilities, employs very few, nothing like the numbers involved in a warehouse or distribution centre. The draft SPD does not encourage Class B8 uses in Vauxhall and the London Plan is silent on such uses in the CAZ. If demand exists for self-storage in the area, it could probably be provided from existing building stock.
589. The subsidised Class B1 floor space proposed would be well suited to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) which are important to the Vauxhall economy. Moreover, the existing Class B1 tenants would be given the opportunity to rent space in the proposed building.
590. The proposed Class B1 provision of floor space appears consistent with policy aims. These aims might be better served by greater employment floor space, but this would be at the expense of affordable housing provision. Moreover, scope for further employment floor space exists on sites nearby.
591. In these circumstances, the impact of the proposals on local employment would be acceptable. In this respect, the proposals satisfy LP Policy 3B.2 (Office demand and supply), 3B.3 (Mixed use development), UDP Policy 22 (KIBAs), 23 (Protection and Location of Other Employment Uses), 77 (Vauxhall), and the aims of PPS4. They also meet the aims of LP Policy 5E.2 (Opportunity Areas in South West London) of maximising residential and non-residential densities and containing mixed uses.
PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment
592. The building occupying the Site is not listed and the Site does not lie within a conservation area. Therefore no heritage assets would be directly affected. However, the proposals might affect the settings of listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks, and the Westminster World Heritage Site. These are considered below.
593. The visual material submitted to the Inquiry, including the Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (HTVIA), has been criticised as misleading. I have used it as an introduction to assessment before visiting each location. Assessment can never be made directly from visual material since we do not perceive the world in the same way as the camera. Instead, we scan the scene in front of us, building up a composite impression informed partly by what we expect to see.
594. Particularly useful, however, have been the A3 clear acetate overlays carrying outline reference markings, which allow the scene to be directly observed
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 124
through them. They give an indication of the scale and form of the proposed building, without the mediation of a two dimensional montage. Similarly, the physical and computer models, though a useful starting point, have been viewed critically.
Listed Building Settings [178-183, 313-323, 389-393]
595. The Grade II* Listed Brunswick House, an isolated late 18th Century detached house lies to the north west, within 150 metres of the Site. It stands like a living fossil of great interest in an alien environment, surrounded by hostile busy roads and very large, recent buildings such as the 22 storey Market Tower and St George’s Wharf. The proposed building would certainly have an impact on this setting, seen in conjunction with the listed building in oblique views and in full view from the listed building rising above the viaduct. However, it would not alter the nature of the setting and would simply form a visually acceptable part of the emerging cluster of tall buildings.
596. Vauxhall Bridge is Grade II* Listed. Its setting comprises the river and the varied forms on the embankments including the MI6 building and St George’s Wharf to the south east. The Octave Building would be seen from the Bridge, and from either side, rising above St George’s Wharf, and complementary to the sweeping roof of the bus station, taking its place in a visually acceptable manner in the Bridge’s setting.
597. Numbers 101-109 (odd) Wandsworth Road comprise a small terrace of early 19th Century dwellings of three storeys and basement in London Stock brick, Grade II Listed. They lie some 100 metres from the Site. The existing setting includes the Flower Market and Market Tower opposite the terrace, and the 18 storey Keybridge House forming a backdrop, as well as many other commercial buildings of varied form. The proposed building would rise above the terrace seen from Wandsworth Road, the step in scale from Keybridge House moderated by its varied form and profile, a visually acceptable part of the evolving surroundings.
598. Numbers 57-59 South Lambeth Road are Grade II listed, consisting of an early 19th Century terraced building in London Stock with a three storey centre range and two storey wings, all above a basement. It is some 150 metres from the Site, directly opposite Keybridge House, set back from the terrace with ground floor shops to the north. It would be difficult to capture the proposed and listed buildings in the same view but, seen from the listed building, the Octave Building would rise above the unlisted St Anne’s Church in a substantial way. Given the general expectation of contrasts in scale in the locality and, unlike Keybridge House, the successful attempt to break down scale and massing, the effect on the listed building’s setting would be acceptable.
599. The Noel Carron Almshouses, Numbers 106-112 (even) Fentiman Road, and the Calvary Church are Grade II Listed buildings immediately south of Vauxhall Park. The Almshouses are mid 19th Century, of cottage form, in red brick, next to three storey mid 19th Century semi-detached stuccoed townhouses. The Church is early 20th Century in red brick gothic freestyle, with stone dressings. Fentiman Road is a pleasant, prosperous, well treed residential street with an inward focus. The existing 20 storey tower blocks of Bannerman House and Sirinham Point can be seen from certain positions in the background, as can Market Tower at the end of the road.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 125
600. The Octave Building would be seen from the south east above the listed buildings, in conjunction with Vauxhall Tower were its permission implemented. Its impact would be shielded and softened by the foliage of the street and Park, and moderated by the characteristics of its form. Moreover, the setting of the listed buildings relates strongly to the street. The background visual events, whilst observable, would not intrude in a materially harmful way on the setting.
601. Number 29 South Lambeth Road is an early 19th Century Stock brick house of three storeys and basement, within 100 metres of the Site. Its setting includes the busy gyratory system and the viaduct, which focus attention locally. The two buildings would not easily be seen together but, from the listed building, the Octave Building would be seen to rise strongly above the viaduct. Because of the local focus of the setting, the expectation of contrasts in scale especially beyond the viaduct, and the formal characteristics of the proposed building, the setting would not be materially harmed.
602. Number 32 Vauxhall Grove is an early 19th Century double fronted villa of three storeys and basement, in Stock brick with red dressings. Although only a little further from the Site than number 29 South Lambeth Road, the Octave Building would not be seen from the listed building and the two would be seen together only in acutely angled views. As with number 29, because of the local focus of the setting, and the expectation of contrasts in scale which will inevitably increase with the emerging cluster of towers, the setting would not be prejudiced.
603. Other listed buildings in the vicinity of the Site have not been considered in detail either because the proposed building would have little or no visual impact, or because of the local focus of their setting would divert attention away from the Octave Building. Further from the Site, the Octave Building’s effect would generally fall on the wider townscape, rather than the settings of individual listed buildings, and is considered in the sections which follow. However, the Council draws attention to the effect of the proposals on the setting of Woodstock Court, and English Heritage to their effect on the settings of Battersea Power Station and Battersea Park.
Woodstock Court
604. The Grade II* Listed Woodstock Court comprises a two storey quadrangle of Stock brick almshouses in late Georgian style with shop fronts at the corners and an internal landscaped courtyard surrounded by a Tuscan loggia. It was completed in 1914 to house retired workers from the Duchy of Cornwall estate. The top of the Octave Building would be seen over the shallow roof slopes looking south westwards whilst moving along Black Prince Road past the junction with Newburn Street, and whilst moving down Newburn Street.
605. The roofscape has a pattern of chimney stacks and a small campanile over the main entrance on the south west face. Because of the effects of parallax, the top of the proposed building would be seen moving across the stacks and towards or away from the campanile. It would be experienced as some distance away from Woodstock Court and as part of the urban background one would expect, which would include other elements of the cluster of tall buildings planned. Moreover, its profile of angled layers, reaching towards an oblique summit, would be far less visually disruptive than if it were of a cylindrical or rectangular profile. It would not have a materially harmful effect on the setting of the listed building.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 126
Battersea Power Station [518]
606. The Grade II* Listed Battersea Power Station is a well loved landmark, with its vast turbine hall and its four fluted chimneys on paired pavilions placed symmetrically to the front and rear of the building, as if defining the form of a vast temple. The proposed building would be seen from various positions in conjunction with the listed building, such as the Chelsea embankment, and Battersea, Albert, and Chelsea Bridges. In all cases, the two buildings would remain visually discrete, and the proposed building would appear lower than the Power Station chimneys, whereas the Vauxhall Tower would approach their height in some views. Far from harming the setting of the listed building, the intriguing profile of the Octave Building would add interest to the riverscapes in which both buildings appear.
607. Although often screened by trees, from some positions in Battersea Park the proposed building would be seen in occlusion with the Power Station. However, very little of it would appear above the parapet of the listed building and it would clearly be seen as a distant feature moving from the effects of parallax, as one walks across the Park. Planned regeneration of the shell of the Power Station, including restoration of the roof, might well mask the Octave Building entirely and, in any event, the Vauxhall Tower would be much more intrusive, competing visually with the Power Station chimneys through height and similarity of form. In these circumstances, the proposals would pose no material harm to the settings of either Battersea Power Station or the Grade II* Registered Battersea Park.
St James Park [510]
608. From the Duke of York Steps, overlooking St James Park, the top of the Octave Building would be just visible in winter through the tree screen, alongside Millbank Tower and the west towers of Westminster Abbey. It would appear as a distant object, much further away than the other buildings, and could add interest to the vista because of its lively profile and the way its materials catch the light. Summer foliage would mask views of these buildings. The proposals would not harm the setting of the Grade I Registered St James Park.
609. Overall, the settings of listed buildings and registered parks would be preserved under the proposals.
Conservation Area Settings [184, 323, 389-393]
Vauxhall Conservation Area [185-191, 326-329]
610. Vauxhall Conservation Area is characterised by a fine grained residential layout of mainly 2 and 3 storey Victorian terraces together with some larger mansion blocks and institutional and commercial buildings. Also, by the presence of Vauxhall Park, an important example of one of London’s smaller Victorian municipal parks. Beyond the western boundary of the Conservation Area at South Lambeth Road, especially beyond the viaduct, a larger grain and scale of buildings takes over.
611. Vauxhall Park in the South, and the surrounding streets of Vauxhall Grove, Langley Lane, Lawn Lane and Fentiman Road, whose streets and open spaces are oriented towards the Site, would be most affected by the proposed building. From the north, including Harleyford Road and Kennington Lane, glimpses of the Octave Building might be available, but would not materially affect character or appearance.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 127
612. Generally, the focus of the Conservation Area is inwards, encouraged by the proximity of the viaduct and the busy roads feeding the gyratory system. Within the Park the proposed building would appear to rise in a substantial manner above the trees. To an extent, this would be mitigated by the tree screen and the varied, tapering form of the building. However, the Building would still exert a strong presence, especially in winter with the trees bare, and the impression might increase as other buildings are added to the proposed cluster of tall buildings.
613. From Lawn Lane, flanking the Park to the north, the building’s presence would be very strong, visually blocking the end of the street and obscuring sight of Market Tower west of the viaduct. From Langley Lane, further north, the effect would be less pronounced, the building being seen at a slight angle with space either side. From Vauxhall Grove, the top of the building would appear above the roofs. Whilst still a substantial visual presence, attention would be focussed on the local space and its enclosure. The effect from the western end of Fentiman Road and its junction with South Lambeth Road, both within the Conservation Area, has been covered in consideration of the effect on the setting of the listed building on South Lambeth Road [598].
614. The proposals would have the most dramatic effect on this, of all the conservation areas. However, the character of the Vauxhall Conservation Area includes an inward focus, diverting attention from hostile surroundings, and a contrast with much larger scale development to the west. This contrast is a reality which will develop with the emergence of the tall buildings cluster. The Octave Building would do much to moderate the harshest potential effects of this contrast through its design, and would take its place as a coherent element within the assembly of tall buildings. Overall, the effect of the proposals on the Conservation Area’s setting would be acceptable. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved.
St Mark’s Conservation Area [192-193]
615. St Mark’s Conservation Area largely comprises a fine grained pattern of mid to late Victorian streets of mostly 2 to 4 storey terraced housing, with some larger scale residential, commercial and institutional buildings along Clapham Road and its continuation as Kennington Park Road. Its principal features are the early 19th Century Grade II* Listed St Mark’s Church, and the mid 19th Century Kennington Park, to the east.
616. The street pattern of the Conservation Area is largely oriented towards the Site. The effect from the western end of Fentiman Road, the most direct effect on the Conservation Area, has been covered in consideration of the effect on the settings of the listed buildings [599-600]. Further east, the upper part of the Octave Building would be seen above the roofline, along with other elements of the tall buildings cluster. However, they would not form the focus of any significant views. Instead, they would be seen as part of a backdrop in the mid-distance, and attention would be focused on the local streetscape.
617. From Kennington Park the lower part of the proposed building would be masked by intervening buildings and the upper part generally screened by trees. Where glimpsed in the distance, the Octave Building’s unusual form might attract interest but would not be objectionable. Overall, the proposals would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its setting.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 128
Kennington Conservation Area [194-195]
618. Kennington Conservation Area contains a variety of residential types, mostly 19th Century or early 20th Century, generally to a fine grained, coherent street pattern, with small areas of open space, and commercial and institutional buildings to some frontages. As a rule, street alignment would prevent little more than glimpses of the upper part of the proposed development. In general, the effect of such glimpses on the character or appearance of the Area would be insignificant. In the case of the Grade II* Listed Woodstock Court, the effect has been considered in detail [604-605].
619. Kennington Lane is roughly aligned with the Site in the eastern part of the Conservation Area. However, it curves and therefore would not offer an axial view of the Octave Building, allowing only a partial view above the street profile. The effect would be to add interest to the skyline. Vauxhall Tower would be much more prominent. The proposals would, therefore, preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its setting.
Albert Square Conservation Area [196-197]
620. Albert Square Conservation Area is characterised by mid to late 19th Century villas and terraces of strong classical form in brick and stucco. The centrepiece is the large Square surrounded by buildings which stand at four storeys and basement, with smaller scale terraces elsewhere. Tall buildings are already glimpsed over and between the built fabric and the Octave Building would be seen in this way.
621. Seen above the roofline of St Stephen’s Terrace by the pedestrian, the proposed building would appear as part of a moving backdrop, of some interest because of its unusual tapered form. However, the visual focus would be the contained space of the street.
622. Similarly, entering Albert Square from Clapham Road, a more complete view of the building would be seen for a little while through the open north west corner of the Square, partially screened by trees. The eye would be attracted by the articulated modelling in a three quarter view of the building and would then revert to the enclosed central space. The effect would be to briefly enliven the visual experience without detracting significantly from the visual power of the formal Square. The proposals would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its setting.
Other Conservation Areas [509, 517]
623. The Octave Building would also be glimpsed in the distance looking north across the circus of Lansdowne Gardens Conservation Area. The circus comprises a formal arrangement of mid 19th Century buildings of two storeys and basement with strong north-south and east-west axial routes. Large scale 20th Century buildings can be seen along some axes and above rooflines. However, the geometry of the Conservation Area is so strong, giving a powerful inward focus, that its townscape qualities are not significantly disturbed at present.
624. This would remain so with the Octave Building in place. It would be seen some distance away above the roofline, and would be of formal interest as a background feature on its own account. In any event, the mature trees within the circus would effectively mask the proposed building much of the year. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its setting would be preserved.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 129
625. Pimlico Conservation Area was developed from the 1830s to a tight urban grid of straight streets and squares, taking a lead from Belgravia. Looking south east along Belgrave Road, with its 4 and 5 storey stuccoed classical frontages, the Octave Building would become an axial focus alongside the more dominant Vauxhall Tower, masking the much lower St George’s Wharf.
626. There might be doubts about the desirability of such a dramatic visual presence. However, it would provide a visual reference point so far absent in this classical composition. In any event, such intervention is inevitable should the cluster of tall buildings emerge, and the Octave Building would formally complement, rather than compete with, the Vauxhall Tower. On balance, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its setting would be preserved.
Westminster World Heritage Site Setting [201-215, 389-390, 415, 435, 503-510, 515-516]
627. The extent of the setting of the World Heritage Site (WHS) indicated in the HTVIA597 is accepted for the purposes of this report. It includes Hungerford, Westminster and Lambeth Bridges, and the area to the east bounded by the bridges, including Lambeth Palace and County Hall. I have also taken it to include those parts of Whitehall which offer a view of the proposed development.
Whitehall
628. Walking southwards down Whitehall, the effects of parallax would mean that, alongside the Old War Offices north of Horse Guards, the Octave Building would come into view, followed by the Grade II Listed Millbank Tower. Just north of the Banqueting House, the Building would almost fill the gap between Field Marshall Earl Haig’s equestrian statue, up to the level of his waist, and the corner building between Parliament Street and Bridge Street, which appears in front of the lower part of Victoria Tower. Proceeding onwards, the Octave Building would move out of view and Millbank Tower, appearing broader and higher, would fill the gap.
629. The next view of the Octave Building would be south of the Cenotaph, appearing between Millbank Tower and the corner building as part of the distant backdrop, whilst Millbank Tower would exercise a presence in the middle distance. Moving into Parliament Square, the very top slopes of the Building would just be visible as a very minor and distant feature alongside the much more dominant Millbank Tower. Vauxhall Tower would also appear in views towards the north east of Parliament Square.
630. Overall, the effect would be acceptable. The main focus of the view from Whitehall would remain the Victoria Tower until the Octave Building disappears. Its intervention alongside the equestrian statue would be as a distant feature, enlivened by a tapering and angled profile, complementing the squarer appearance of Millbank Tower, and having some visual association with the gothic pinnacles of the Victoria Tower and Westminster Abbey. From Parliament Square, its appearance would be beneficial, adding interest to the distant skyline.
Victoria Tower Gardens
631. From Victoria Tower Gardens, it would be possible to position oneself so that the Octave Building appears in the gap at the end of the wide avenue of trees
597 CD2/4/E, p.74 Fig 9.3
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 130
enclosing the Gardens. In this position it would be in occlusion with the abutment obelisks of the Grade II Listed Lambeth Bridge, but not with the Grade II* Listed Buxton Memorial Fountain. From other positions within the Gardens, including those where the Fountain appears to occupy the gap, the Building would be masked by the trees in their summer foliage and heavily screened in winter. However, the top of Millbank Tower would still hover above the tree canopies.
632. No rigid focus is suggested by the open layout and fluid enclosure of the Gardens. If any is implied, it would be occupied by the Fountain, and the Building would not intrude. Moreover, the Octave Building would appear as a feature of some interest because of its lively profile, in the distance, without exerting the immediate, rectilinear presence of Millbank Tower. Overall, the effect of the proposals, seen from Victoria Tower Gardens, would be acceptable.
Lambeth Bridge
633. From the western end of Lambeth Bridge, the facetted, tapered form, angled towards the sky, would provide a welcome focus of interest, terminating the rather bland even skyline of the Albert Embankment’s 20th Century buildings. Walking across the Bridge one would be close enough to observe the changing form of the Building as its elements move, through the effects of parallax, into different relationships, further enlivening the view.
634. At the eastern end, next to the Albert Embankment steps, the Building would be sufficiently prominent to add interest to the nearer view of the Embankment’s river elevation. The effects would not be compromised by the cumulative impact of Sky Gardens and Vauxhall Tower.
635. Moving north from Lambeth Bridge along the Albert Embankment, onto Lambeth Palace Road, it would be possible to see the Octave Building in conjunction with Lambeth Palace. It would form the focus of views along Lambeth Palace Road beyond the backdrop of the existing streetscape of Albert Embankment. Strongly framed by the foreground elements of the Palace’s rear elevation and the boundary wall of St Thomas’s Hospital, it would provide a beneficial point of interest to an indifferent streetscape.
Westminster Bridge
636. Likewise, from Westminster Bridge, the Octave Building would add interest and variety to the existing, rather blocky skyline which, at present, does little to respond sympathetically to the form and profile of the Palace of Westminster. Again, the cumulative impact of other schemes with planning permission would not compromise the beneficial effects of the proposals.
Hungerford Bridge
637. It would be very difficult to see the Octave Building from either end of Hungerford Bridge or from Jubilee Gardens. It might just be possible to glimpse the Building through the tree screen in winter, from the western end of the Bridge, alongside foreshortened views of the Palace of Westminster. However, Millbank Tower would intervene, as would the Vauxhall Tower and Sky Gardens if they were built. The effect would be insignificant.
638. From other positions on Hungerford Bridge, the effect would be similar to that from Westminster Bridge. However, Millbank Tower would assume less prominence relative to both the Octave Building and Westminster Palace. The
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 131
Building would add appropriate interest to the skyline without being compromised by the cumulative impact of other permitted schemes.
Conclusion
639. The proposals meet the statutory requirements with regard to listed buildings and conservations areas, and their effect on the character and special interest of the World Heritage Site would be acceptable. They satisfy the aims of PPS5 and accord with development plan policy, in particular LP Policy 4B.12 (Heritage conservation), 4B.14 (World Heritage Sites), UDP Policy 41 (Views), 45 (Listed Buildings), and 47 (Conservation Areas).
PPG13: Transport [167-171]
Sustainable Transport Choices
640. The Site has an excellent PTAL rating of 6A, being close to Vauxhall Cross transport interchange, with its concentration of underground and bus services. Taxis are easily hailed, limited shared car club facilities would be available for essential car use, and extensive provision has been made within the design for accommodating cycle use and discouraging the use of private cars. Altogether, the proposals would do much to promote more sustainable transport choices.
Accessibility
641. Approximately 10% of the floor area would be devoted to Class B1 use, with some retail and café/restaurant use at ground floor level. This would give the opportunity of excellent accessibility to jobs for a few residents of the building. For the majority, jobs would be available either in the local area or elsewhere within the CAZ, accessible by public transport, walking or cycling, without the need to use private cars.
642. Although Vauxhall has no town centre, various shopping, leisure facilities and services are within walking distance. A wealth of complementary facilities is accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. Overall, accessibility would be good.
The Need to Travel
643. The location of the Site, with its level of accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services would probably give rise to a reduction in the need to travel compared to most other alternative locations. Where journeys are undertaken, the availability of public transport and opportunities to cycle and walk, together with the difficulties of car use in central London, would discourage travel by car.
Parking
644. No parking would be provided for the commercial element of the scheme. Residential parking provision would be well below the maximum UDP levels and would accord with London Plan policy. Provision for those with disabilities would comprise approximately half of the total of 23 spaces and would meet the required standards. Cycle parking provision would exceed development plan minimum requirements. The proposals comply with advice in paragraphs 52-56 of PPG13 and with development plan policy in this respect, in particular LP Policy 3C.23 (Parking strategy) and UDP Policy 14 (Parking and Traffic Restraint).
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 132
Other Matters [6, 454]
645. Taxis dropping off passengers at the entrance to the building might add marginally to congestion in Bondway. It is not likely that safety would be compromised, but the level of activity within Bondway, to which taxis would add, might well be uncomfortable.
646. In considering vehicle demand, it is important not to confuse aggregate trips per day with AM and PM Peak figures. The ES appears consistent in this respect.
647. There is no reason to doubt the conclusions of the Transport Assessment with regard to impact on the local highway. Whilst improved pedestrian crossing facilities might well be needed, a bridge would be difficult for many to use and could increase the feeling of the ground level being dominated by hostile vehicle traffic. The Council have demonstrated that controls on parking permits would be sufficiently watertight to avoid abuse.598
648. Concern was expressed regarding access congestion associated with the underground station, at the gates and on the escalators [423, 438, 477]. The s106 Agreement provides for financial contributions which could be put towards station improvements, easing any such effects, should they be seen by TfL to be of sufficient importance.
Conclusion
649. The Transport Assessment shows the impact of the development would be small on highway and walking networks. The primary focus of trip generation would be on the local public transport networks which are currently heavily used in the Vauxhall area. The Transport Assessment projects that the development would add some 2 extra passengers per underground train and less than 6 additional bus users per route. Subject to the agreed contribution towards planned investment for Vauxhall Cross, this impact would be acceptable. An agreed contribution would also be made for transport improvements in the area.
650. Overall, the proposals meet the aims of PPG13. They also meet development plan policy in this respect, in particular LP Policy 3C.1 (Integrating transport and development), UDP Policy 9 (Transport Impact), and 76 (Vauxhall Cross Transport Hub).
PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation
Effect on the Amenity of Vauxhall Park [83-91, 309, 319, 324-332, 387-388, 425-430, 461-473]
Views
651. The effect on views from, and associated with, the Park has been considered in PPS1 and PPS5 above. [545, 612] The issue of overbearing presence has been considered in PPS1. [551]
Shadowing
652. The BRE advise that to avoid harm by overshadowing, no more than two fifths of an open space should be prevented from receiving any sunlight at all on the
598 LBL4.12
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 133
day of the equinox, 21 March. The proposals meet this criterion. It is agreed that no additional area of permanent shadow would fall on the Park on 21 March.
653. The proposed building would be located to the north west of the Park and shadowing of the Park would, therefore, occur only on summer evenings. The central area would be affected for less than an hour. The Park is fairly extensively used in the evenings. However, shadows are already cast by the trees which, although pleasantly dappled towards the edges, already restrict the sunlit areas. Anyone attempting to sit in the evening sun at present might find themselves moving quite frequently to avoid shadows.
654. Such transitory effects are likely to arise from the emerging policy regarding the cluster of tall buildings in the area. In any event, a similar shadow pattern would be cast with a significantly less tall building and it would be unrealistic to expect any other redevelopment of the Site to yield markedly different results.
655. With regard to overshadowing of the gardens and amenity spaces of surrounding buildings, the main areas to be considered are to the north of the Park, in the vicinity of Vauxhall Grove, Langley Lane and Lawn Lane. As with the Park, it is unlikely that any additional area of permanent shadow would fall on these areas on 21 March. The proposals therefore meet the BRE criterion but there would be transitory effects similar to those falling on the Park on summer evenings [6, 454]. UDP Policy 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity) would be satisfied.
656. In these circumstances, the amenity of the Park, and of gardens and amenity spaces of surrounding buildings, would not be significantly harmed by overshadowing. The proposals accord with UDP Policy 40 (Tall Buildings) and with LP Policy 4B.10 (Large scale buildings) in this respect.
Overlooking
657. It would certainly be possible to overlook the Park from the proposed building. However, the separation distances are great, much more so than in the case of Bannerman House. A very determined resident, using visual aids, might be able to identify individuals or their activities. Some Park users could feel uncomfortable because of overlooking. However, privacy cannot be expected in a public park and, in the absence of material intrusion, it must be concluded that the proposals would not cause unacceptable harm through overlooking.
Intensity of Use
658. The Park is not large and is well used. Although the functions of a park and a public square differ, inevitably the Park would come under increasing pressure were public spaces not provided within the area of redevelopment to the west. The effect would be cumulative as further elements were added to the projected cluster of towers. This would be so irrespective of financial contributions to improve the Park and its play facilities.
659. Under the proposals, no complementary public space would be provided, nor is any assured in the future. Without it, the pressure on Bondway, the surrounding areas and the Park would be unacceptable. This issue is addressed in PPS1 above [540-557].
Conclusion
660. The intensity of use to which Vauxhall Park would be subject would erode its recreational function and the character of its open spaces under the present
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 134
proposals. On this point, the proposals would conflict with the aims of PPG17, and with LP Policy 3D.8 (Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure) and UDP Policy 50 (Open Space and Sports Facilities). On all other points to which attention has been drawn, it would accord with the aims of PPG17.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
661. The proposals meet the requirements of development plan policy in many respects. In addition the s106 Agreement meets LP Policy 6A.5 (Planning obligations) and UDP Policy 57 (Planning Obligations). However, the proposals do not accord with the development plan in critical areas, reflecting their failure to relate to public space in an acceptable manner.
662. In particular, the proposals conflict with LP Policies 3D.8 (Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure), 4B.1 (Design principles for a compact city), 4B.9 (Tall buildings – location) and 4B.10 (Large scale buildings); and UDP Policies 33 (Building Scale and Design), 39 (Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design), 40 (Tall Buildings), 50 (Open Space and Sports Facilities) and 77 (Vauxhall – Urban Design and Public Realm Improvements). Overall, I consider that the proposals are not in accordance with the development plan.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
663. The proposals are of high quality in many respects but are critically flawed, in my view in their relationship to complementary public space. Should the Secretary of State disagree, the suggested conditions attached at Appendix A and discussed below may be considered necessary to mitigate otherwise harmful effects of the proposals. In addition, I have given weight to all aspects of the completed s106 Agreement submitted.
CONDITIONS [523]
664. The Schedule of Suggested Conditions set out in Annex A is based on those agreed between the main parties at the Inquiry, following extensive round table discussion. Minor adjustments have been made to bring them into accord with advice in Circular 11/95. The suggested conditions meet the tests of Circular 11/95. Regarding each condition:
• Construction Method Statement – Necessary to protect the living conditions of local residents and assist the free and safe flow of traffic.
• Shopfront Design Specification – Necessary in the interests of visual amenity.
• Samples and Schedules of Materials – Necessary in the interests of visual amenity.
• Internal Layout of Residential Units – Necessary to safeguard the living conditions of occupants.
• Details of Canopies – Necessary to ensure high design quality.
• Landscape and Public Realm Strategy - Necessary in the interests of achieving quality and consistency of treatment.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 135
• Amenity Floor - Necessary in the interests of achieving appropriate facilities for occupants.
• Connection between Circulation Cores – Necessary to ensure access for all to the Amenity Floor.
• Crime Prevention Strategy – Necessary in the interests of security and community safety.
• Lighting Strategy – Necessary in the interests of visual amenity and public safety and amenity.
• Means of Enclosure – Necessary in the interests of highway safety.
• External Fixtures – Necessary to maintain design quality
• Sound Insulation – Necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants.
• Amplified Sound – Necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants and those in the locality.
• Party Wall and Floor Soundproofing – Necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants.
• Ventilation and Extract Equipment – Necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants and those in the locality.
• Mechanical Equipment and Building Services Plant – Necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants and those in the locality.
• Noise Levels of Mechanical Equipment and Building Services Plant – Necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants and those in the locality.
• Machinery and Processes – Necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants and those in the locality.
• Hours of operation of Ground Floor Commercial Floorspace – Necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants and those in the locality.
• Hours of Delivery - Necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants and those in the locality.
• Lifetime Homes Standards – Necessary to satisfy diverse housing need.
• Wheelchair Housing Standards – Necessary to satisfy the needs of wheelchair users.
• Impact on Existing Water Supply Infrastructure – Necessary to ensure sufficient capacity.
• Surface Water Drainage - Necessary for sustainable drainage and to protect against flooding.
• Programme of Archaeological Work – Necessary to protect archaeological remains.
• Basement Evacuation Plan – Necessary to protect people against flood risk.
• Contamination – Necessary to protect against pollution of the water environment.
• Waste Management Plan – Necessary to protect the amenity of the area.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 136
• Sustainability Statement – Necessary to ensure that environmental impacts are acceptable.
• BREEAM Ratings – Necessary in the interests of sustainable design and construction.
• District Heating Network – Necessary to minimise carbon emissions.
• Completion of Commercial and Employment Floorspace – Necessary to ensure satisfactory provision.
• Visibility Splays – Necessary in the interests of highway safety.
• Cycle Parking – Necessary to promote sustainable modes of transport.
• Details of Proposed Access – Necessary in the interests of highway safety and convenience of use.
• Vehicle Parking and Manoeuvring – Necessary in the interests of highway safety.
• Servicing – Necessary in the interests of highway safety.
• Delivery Management Plan – Necessary to limit the effects of increased travel movements.
• Access to the Amenity Floor – Necessary to ensure satisfactory access for all occupiers.
• Aims of the Design and Access Statement – Necessary to ensure quality of design.
• Approved Plans - Otherwise than as set out in the Secretary of State’s decision and conditions, it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
OBLIGATIONS [524-525]
665. The s106 Agreement submitted599 meets the three statutory tests of Community and Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulation 122 both overall and in its specific details. It also complies with the Government’s Policy on planning obligations set out in Circular 05/2005 and would be likely to fulfil its stated objectives.
666. The financial contributions to be paid by the Owner are set out in Schedule 3. The starting point for consideration of the sums involved was the Council’s SPD S106 Planning Obligations600 which sets out a formula based approach to the level of contribution likely to be sought. However, their applicability to the proposals has been examined in detail, how and on what the money would be spent identified, and the quantum reassessed and agreed. This information has been set out in a tabulated form by the Council.601
667. Covenants within Schedule 3 concern Local Labour in Construction (making known opportunities for work), free use for all occupiers of the Amenity Floor, the
599 CD1/10B 600 CD5/7 601 CD1/10D
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 137
subsidy framework for Employment Floorspace, and the provision of the Safer Neighbourhood Office (SNO). The provision of the SNO would be triggered should the Secretary of State consider it appropriate [223, 421, 437, 520-522]. In my view, the police presence would be highly desirable given the influx of population brought about by the proposals and existing crime levels. It would accord with development plan policy.
668. Schedule 4 contains detailed provisions relating to Affordable Housing [569-573] and Schedule 9 contains the housing Nominations Agreement. Schedule 5 allows the provision of public art either through a financial contribution, identified in Schedule 3, or through the Owner procuring a scheme agreed with the Council of equivalent value.
669. Schedule 6 deals with Transport and Highways. Part 1 concerns the provision and management of a Travel Plan for the development. This would be based on the framework set out in Schedule 11. Part 2 concerns the establishment of a Car Club, with subsidised membership for each of the building’s occupants, and the reservation of 2 car parking spaces for use by the Car Club. Part 3 prevents any of the development’s occupants applying for an on street parking permit unless they hold a disabled person’s blue badge. The legal basis on which this can be applied is set out in the Council’s note.602
670. Schedule 7 concerns the provision and implementation of an Energy and Sustainability Scheme. This would be a more developed version of the Sustainability Statement accompanying the application. Schedule 8 concerns Mitigation Measures relating to TV Reception, should the development harm reception in the area. Schedule 10 contains the Fit Out Specification for the Use Class B1 floorspace.
602 LBL4.12
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 138
RECOMMENDATION
671. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission be refused.
672. If the Secretary of State is minded to disagree with my recommendation, Annex A lists the conditions I consider should be attached to an approval.
Alan Novitzky Inspector
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 139
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT
Keith Lindblom QC, Leading Counsel, and Hereward Phillpot of Counsel
Instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP, 60 Chiswell Street, London EC1 4AG
Called:
Ken Shuttleworth Dip Arch (Dist) ARB RIBA Hon FRIAS HonDDes HonDSc HonDLit
Architectural Evidence – Practice Philosophy and Design Overview
Frank Filskow MA(Arch) Dip Arch ARB RIBA
Architectural Evidence – Scheme Evolution and Design Detail
Richard Coleman Dip Arch (Cant) RIBA
Visual Impact, Strategic Views and Built Heritage
Professor Robert Tavernor BA Dip Arch (Dist) PhD RIBA
Visual Impact, Local Views and Built Heritage
Ian Absolon BSc MRICS Daylight and Sunlight
Steve Billington BSC Affordable Housing
Nicholas Taylor BSc MRTPI MRICS
Planning Policy
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
William Upton of Counsel Instructed by the London Borough of Lambeth
Called:
Alan Vinall BA(Hons) MRTPI Employment Planning Policy
Tim Johnson MA MBA MRTPI Employment Demand in Vauxhall
Richard Rees BA(Hons) MA Dip Arch RIBA FSAI
Visual Impact and Urban Design
Chris Dale BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI
Planning Policy and Amenity Issues
FOR THE WATERLOO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, Rule 6 Party
Rebecca Freeman BA MA(Heritage Con)
Visual and Built Heritage Matters
Michael Ball BA Dip Anthropology
Planning and Other Matters
FOR THE KENNINGTON ASSOCIATION PLANNING FORUM, Rule 6 Party
David Boardman MA (Natural Sciences)
Panning and Other Matters
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 140
Constituency Member of Parliament
Kate Hoey Member of Parliament for Vauxhall INTERESTED PERSONS:
David Hughes Bondway Tenant Draeyk van der Horn Bonnington Café Jane Vuglar Local Resident James Fraser Bonnington Square Garden Association Rita Keegan Bonnington Centre Mary-Anne Francis Local Resident Helen Irwin Vauxhall Society Charlie Boxer Italo Delicatessen April Hilling Local Resident Charles Pender Fentiman Road Residents Association Polly Freeman Friends of Vauxhall Park Helen Monger Friends of Vauxhall Park Victoria Conran Local resident James Booth Local Resident Maureen Johnston Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum Patricia Holland Vine Housing Co-operative Pauline Gaunt Regents Bridge Gardens Residents
Association David Spofforth Harleyford Road Garden Association Andrea Hofling Viva Vauxhall
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 141
DOCUMENTS - CORE DOCUMENT LIST
CD1 Planning Appeal Documents
CD1/1 Planning Appeal Submission (3 March 2010)
CD1/2 Statement of Common Ground between Appellant and London Borough of Lambeth, and Appendices separately bound
CD1/2A Statement of Common Ground - Energy
CD1/3 Inquiry A3 Brochure of Planning Application Drawings
CD1/4 Vauxhall Bondway Limited Rule 6 Statement of Case (23 April 2010)
CD1/5 London Borough of Lambeth Rule 6 Statement of Case (23 April 2010)
CD1/6 Waterloo Community Development Group Rule 6 Statement of Case (6 May 2010)
CD1/7 Kennington Association Planning Forum Rule 6 Statement of Case (13 May 2010)
CD1/8 London Borough of Lambeth Appeal Questionnaire + CD
CD1/9 File of Third Party Further Representations on Appeal Scheme received by Planning Inspectorate (See also further representations within the main case file)
CD1/10 Draft Section 106 Planning Obligation
CD1/10A S106 Agreement updated 2 Aug 2010
CD1/10B Final completed version of s106 Agreement
CD1/10C Commentary on s106 agreement by Addleshaw Goddard
CD1/10D LBL chart re expenditure of s106 sums
CD1/10E Note on the relationship of commercial floor space values and overall viability
CD1/11 Matters about which the Secretary of State wishes to be informed Letter - Planning Inspectorate to Addleshaw Goddard (24 March 2010)
CD1/12 Overview map
CD1/13 Driver Jonas Deloitte letter dated 22 July 2010 re amendment to description of development.
CD1/14 Note on planning conditions
CD1/15 Final proposed conditions as revised 5 Aug 2010
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 142
CD2 Application Documents
CD2/1 Application for Planning Permission for The Octave Building, 69- 71 Bondway, Vauxhall, SW8 1SQ (Ref: 09/01520/FUL) (15 May 2009) comprising:
CD2/1/A Covering letter
CD2/1/B Completed Application Forms, including Certificate B and Agricultural Holdings Certificate
CD2/1/C Plans for approval (separately scheduled) – Plans on CD
CD2/2 Supporting Planning Statement (May 2009)
CD2/3 Design and Access Statement (submitted under letter dated 22 May 2009)
CD2/4 Supporting Environmental Assessment (May 2009) comprising:
CD2/4/A Non Technical Summary (NTS)
CD2/4/B Volume 1 - Introduction and Figures
CD2/4/C Volume 2 - Technical Appendices (2 vols)
CD2/4/D Volume 3 - Transport Assessment
CD2/4/E Environmental Assessment Volume 4 (May 2009) – Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (HTVIA) (submitted under letter dated 22 May 2009)
CD2/4/F Volume 4a heritage, Townscape and Visual Assessment (June
2010) EA Reg 19 submissions:
CD2/4/G Non-technical summary CD2/4/H Vol 1a CD2/4/I Vol 2a Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing
CD2/5 Sustainability Assessment (May 2009) CD2/6 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Statement (May 2009)
(superseded)
CD2/7 Statement of Community Involvement (May 2009)
CD2/8 Further planning application drawings submitted 30 June 2009 (separately scheduled)
CD2/9 Open Space and Childrens Playspace Strategy (July 2009)
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 143
CD2/10 Addendum to the Statement of Community Involvement (4 September 2009)
CD2/11 Addendum to the HTVIA (July 2009 and October 2009)
CD2/12 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Statement (12 October 2009)
CD2/13 London Borough of Lambeth Planning Applications Committee 'A' Meeting Minutes and Report (25 November 2009)
CD2/14 London Borough of Lambeth Planning Applications Committee 'A' Meeting Minutes, Report and Addendum (24 March 2010)
CD2/15 GLA Written Responses (9 January 2009 and 11 May 2010)
CD2/16 GLA - Stage 1 Planning Report (GLA Ref PDU 2014C0B09) (8 July 2009)
CD2/16A GLA’s letter dated 2 August 2010 - Consultation response to minor amendments to the proposals
CD2/17 CABE Design Review Panel Response (8 May 2009)
CD2/18 CABE Formal Response to Planning Application (9 July 2009)
CD2/19 English Heritage: Formal Response to Planning Application (23 October 2009)
CD2/20 Metropolitan Police Representations (21 July 2009 and 4 May 2010) and Drivers Jonas Deloitte response (29 October 2009)
CD2/21 Environment Agency Response (30 July 2009)
CD2/22 Putative Reasons for Refusal Letter - London Borough of Lambeth to Drivers Jonas Deloitte (31 March 2010)
CD2/23 Secretary of State's Regulation 19 Request Letter – Planning Inspectorate to Addleshaw Goddard (9 June 2010)
CD2/24 Drawings list
CD3 National Planning Policy
CD3/1 Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development (31 January 2005)
CD3/2 The Planning System: General Principles (ODPM, July 2005)
CD3/3 Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to PPS1 (17 December 2007)
CD3/4 Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (9 June 2010)
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 144
CD3/5 Planning Policy Statement 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (29 December 2009)
CD3/6 Planning Policy Statement 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Practice Guide (29 December 2009)
CD3/7 Planning Policy Statement 5 Planning for the Historic Environment (23 March 2010)
CD3/8 Planning Policy Statement 5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (23 March 2010)
CD3/9 Planning Policy Statement 12 Local Spatial Planning (4 June 2008)
CD3/10 The Local Development Framework: A Good Practice Guide (ODPM, 2005)
CD3/11 Planning Policy Statement 22 Renewable Energy (10 August 2004)
CD3/12 Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk (29 March 2010)
CD3/13 Planning Policy Guidance 13 Transport (20 April 2001)
CD3/14 Planning Policy Guidance 15 (1994) (superseded)
CD3/15 Planning Policy Guidance 17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (24 July 2002)
CD3/16 Circular 05/2005 Planning Obligations
CD3/17 DCLG Draft Policy for Planning Obligations (March 2010)
CD3/18 Circular 11/95 - The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions (20 July 1995)
CD3/19 Department of Communities and Local Government: Protection of World Heritage Sites Consultation Paper (2008)
CD3/20 Department of Communities and Local Government: Safer Places The Planning System and Crime Prevention (2004)
CD3/21 Department of Communities and Local Government and CABE: By Design - Urban Design in the Planning System – Towards Better Practice (2000)
CD3/22 Circular 07/2009 – Protection of World Heritage Sites (24 July 2009)
CD4 Regional Planning Policy
CD4/1 The London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2004 (2008)
CD4/2 Replacement London Plan (Draft) (October 2009)
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 145
CD4/3 GLA - Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework (Draft) (2009)
CD4/4 GLA SPG - Use of Planning Obligations in the Funding of Crossrail (Draft) (2009)
CD4/5 GLA - Accessible London - Achieving an Inclusive Environment (April 2004)
CD4/6 GLA - Green Light to Clean Power - The Mayor’s Energy Strategy (February 2004)
CD4/7 GLA - London Housing Strategy (February 2010)
CD4/8 GLA - London View Management Framework (July 2007)
CD4/9 GLA - London View Management Framework - Draft Revised SPG for Public Consultation (May 2009)
CD4/10 GLA - Planning for a Better London (July 2008)
CD4/11 GLA - London Housing Design Guide (Draft) (8 July 2009)
CD4/12 GLA - Providing for children and young people's play and informal recreation - Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2008)
CD4/13 GLA - Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance (May 2006)
CD4/14 GLA - Supplementary Planning Guidance on Housing (November 2005)
CD4/15 GLA - Housing Space Standards (August 2006)
CD4/16 GLA - Central London Sub-Regional Development Framework (May 2006)
CD4/17 RPG3a (1991)
CD5 Local Planning Policy
CD5/1 London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (6 August 2007)
CD5/2 London Borough of Lambeth Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document (Draft) (October 2008)
CD5/3 London Borough of Lambeth Economic Development Strategy 2007 - 2010 (October 2007)
CD5/4 London Borough of Lambeth Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions Supplementary Planning Document (July 2008)
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 146
CD5/5 London Borough of Lambeth Sustainable Community Strategy 2008 - 2020 (August 2008)
CD5/6 London Borough of Lambeth Housing Strategy 2009 - 2013 (January 2009)
CD5/7 London Borough of Lambeth S106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (July 2008)
CD5/8 London Borough of Lambeth Safer Built Environment Supplementary Planning Document (April 2008)
CD5/9 London Borough of Lambeth Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (July 2008)
CD5/10 London Borough of Lambeth – Core Strategy 2009 and 2010
CD5/11 London Borough of Lambeth - LDF Core Strategy Submission (March 2010)
CD5/12 London Borough of Lambeth - LDF Site Allocation DPD (June 2009)
CD5/13 London Borough of Lambeth - LDF Core Strategy Topic Paper 1: Affordable Housing (March 2010)
CD5/14 London Borough of Lambeth - LDF Core Strategy Topic Paper 2: Key Industrial and Business Areas (March 2010)
CD5/15 London Borough of Lambeth - LDF Core Strategy Topic Paper 3: Tall Buildings (March 2010)
CD5/16 London Borough of Lambeth - LDF Core Strategy Topic Paper 4: Delivery of Public Transport Infrastructure in Waterloo (March 2010)
CD5/17 London Borough of Lambeth - LDF Core Strategy Topic Paper 5: Delivery of Public Transport Infrastructure in Vauxhall (March 2010)
CD5/18 London Borough of Lambeth - Lambeth Open Space Strategy (February 2007)
CD5/19 London Borough of Lambeth - Albert Square Conservation Area Statement (April 2009)
CD5/20 London Borough of Lambeth - Draft Kennington Conservation Area Statement (October 2009)
CD5/21 Lambeth First - State of the Borough Report 2010 (February 2010)
CD5/22 London Borough of Lambeth - Survey of Key Industrial Business Areas November 2008
CD5/23 London Borough of Lambeth - Lambeth Residential Development Pipeline Report 2008/09
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 147
CD5/24 Vauxhall Conservation Area Designation Report
CD5/25 St Marks Conservation Area Designation Report
CD5/26 London Borough of Lambeth - Bondway KIBA 2010 Update Survey
CD5/27 London Borough of Lambeth - Lambeth Local Development Framework London Wide Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2009: Lambeth Sites. March 2010
CD5/28 London Borough of Lambeth - Kennington Conservation Area Designation Report
CD5/29 Lambeth LDF Core Strategy Proposed Submission: Statement of Representations March 2010
CD5/30 Lambeth Open Space Strategy
CD6 Other Documents
CD6/1 CABE and English Heritage - Guidance on Tall Buildings (July 2007)
CD6/2 English Heritage - Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals (2005)
CD6/3 English Heritage - Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance (April 2008)
CD6/4 English Heritage - Seeing the History in the View - Assessing Heritage Significant Within Views (Draft) (April 2008)
CD6/5 Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan (2007)
CD6/6 Atkins - Lambeth Employment Study (December 2004)
CD6/7 DTZ - Lambeth Business Premises Study (March 2007)
CD6/8 Design for London - Recommendations for Living at Superdensity (July 2007)
CD6/9 Census Material for Prince's Ward (2001)
CD6/10 English Partnerships - Employment Densities: a simple guide (September 2001)
CD6/11 Local Government Association - The Growth of Claimant Unemployment to Vacancy Ration by Area (June 2009)
CD6/12 Vauxhall Cross Island - Public Consultation Document (May 2010)
CD6/13 81 Black Prince Road Committee Report (11 February 2009)
CD6/14 Vauxhall Sky Gardens Committee Reports (A - 11 November 2008 and B -16 March 2010)
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 148
CD6/15 Hampton House Officer's Report to Committee (19 February 2008)
CD6/16 Vauxhall Park Management Plan (2006-2011)(replacement document)
CD6/17 Westminster City Council - Metropolitan Views SPD (Draft) (October 2007)
CD6/18 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (second edition), 2002
CD6/19 BRE – Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (1998).
CD7 Planning Decisions
CD7/1 1-20 Blackfriars Secretary of State's Decision Letter (25 March 2009) and Inspector's Report (9 December 2008)
CD7/2 81 Black Prince Road Inspector's Report (15 September 2009)
CD7/3 Doon Street Secretary of State's Decision Letter (19 August 2008) and Inspector's Report (22 May 2008)
CD7/4 Elizabeth House Secretary of State's Decision Letter (8 October 2009) and Inspector's Report (15 July 2009)
CD7/5 Montevetro Secretary of State's Decision Letter (7 May 1996)
CD7/6 St. Mary Axe Secretary of State's Letter (23 August 2000), Decision Notice (25 August 2000) and Committee Report (4 July 2000)
CD7/7 Strata Castle House - Officer's Report to Committee (March 2006)
CD7/8 The Shard Secretary of State's Decision Letter (18 November 2003) and Inspector's Report (23 July 2003)
CD7/9 Vauxhall Tower Secretary of State's Decision Letter (14 July 2005) and Inspector's Report (27 September 2004).
CD7/10 Lots Road Power Station Secretary of State's Decision Letter (30 January 2006) and Inspector's Report (17 August 2008)
CD7/11 Salamanca Tower Inspector's Report (23 May 2005)
CD7/12 St Georges Wharf, comprising:
CD7/12/A Secretary of State's Decision Letter (28 September 2006) and Inspector's Report (13 July 2006) (entire development)
CD7/12/B Secretary of State's Decision Letter (14 July 2005), Secretary of State's Decision Letter (31 March 2005) and Inspector's Report (27 September 2004) (tower inquiry)
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 149
CD7/12/C Secretary of State's Decision Letter (16 December 2003), Secretary of State's Decision Letter (3 March 2004) and Inspector's Report (14 October 2003) (original application)
CD7/13 Chelsea Bridge Wharf Secretary of State's Decision Letter (11 October 2006) Inspector's Report (5 April 2006)
CD7/14A Secretary of State letter, land at Brighton Marina
CD7/14B Inspector’s Report for Secretary of State
CD8 Parties Miscellaneous Documents
CD8/1 Opening for the Appellant
CD8/2 Opening for the Council
CD8/2A Attachment, letter dated 1st April 2010 from the London Borough of Lambeth to the Mayor of London
CD8/3 Opening for Waterloo Community Development Group
CD8/4 Opening for Kennington Association Planning Forum
CD8/5 Closing for the Appellant
CD8/6 Closing for the Council
CD8/7 Closing for the Waterloo Community Development Group
CD8/8 Closing for the Kennington Association Planning Forum
WITNESS DOCUMENTS
Appellant
Ken Shuttleworth, Chairman of Make Architects
A1.2 Proof and Appendix
A1.3 Images
Frank Filskow, Partner Make Architects
A2.1 Summary
A2.2 Proof
A2.3 Appendices and CD
A2.4 Rebuttal
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 150
A2.5 Images
A2.6 Supplementary Note
A2.7 Slide 21 re-presented ‘Close up of cluster’
Richard Coleman, Principal of Richard Coleman Citydesigner
A3.1 Summary
A3.2 Proof
A3.3A - Appendix A
A3.3B - Appendix B
A3.4 Rebuttal
A3.5 Views for on site assessment
A3.6 Further acetates
Robert Tavernor, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, LSE
A 4.1 Summary
A4.2 Proof
Ian Absolon, Director of GVA Schatunowski Brooks, Sunlight and Daylight Consultant
A5.1 Summary
A5.2 Proof
A5.3.1 to A 5.3.5 Appendices
A5.4 Rebuttal
Steve Billington, Director, Drivers Jonas Deloitte LLP, Affordable Housing
A6.1 Summary
A6.2 Proof
A6.3 Appendices
A6.4 Rebuttal
A6.5 Affordable housing viability and check analyses
Nicholas Taylor, Director, Planning and Development, Drivers Jonas Deloitte LLP
A7.1 Summary
A7.2 Proof
A7.3 Appendices
A7.4 Rebuttal
A7.5 Letter dated 14.7.10 to PINS re: minor amendments to proposal description
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 151
Council
Richard Rees, Urban Design Director, BDP
LBL 1.1 Proof
LBL 1.2 Appendices
LBL 1.3 Rebuttal
LBL 1.4 Image of HSBC building, Hong Kong
LBL 1.5 Images
LBL 1.6 Replacement of Appendix E
LBL 1.7 Additional images of towers
Alan Vinall, Team Leader Planning Policy
LBL 2.1 Proof and Appendices
LBL 2.2 Inspectors Report
LBL 2.3 Core strategy questions
Tim Johnson, Head of DTZ’s Regional Development Consultancy team
LBL 3.1 Proof
LBL 3.2 to LBL 3.7 Appendices
LBL 3.8 Rebuttal
LBL 3.9 Addendum to Rebuttal
LBL 3.10 Employment use floor areas (sheet of rough calculations)
Christopher Dale, Interim Head of Development Control, LBL
LBL 4.1 Proof and Appendices
LBL 4.2 Rebuttal
LBL 4.3 Table 1 – Use comparisons between recently consented and emerging schemes in Vauxhall
LBL 4.4 Table 2 – Amenity space provision comparison between consented and emerging schemes in Vauxhall
Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy Examination Hearing
LBL 4.5 Statement in response to Matter 1: Economic Development
LBL 4.6 Statement in response to Matter 2: Key Industrial and Business Areas (KIBAs)
LBL 4.7 RPS Vauxhall Cross Island Site, Environmental Statement non-technical summary
LBL 4.8 E-mail from Catherine Carpenter dated 2 Aug 2010 regarding Saved UDP Policies
LBL 4.9 UDP Policies to be superseded by the Core Strategy
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 152
LBL 4.10 Table of Unsaved UDP Policies
LBL 4.11 Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Development Infrastructure Funding Study, Interim Report, July 2010
LBL 4.12 Note to Inspector, S106 Agreement Schedule 6 Part 3 – Parking Permit Provision
LBL 4.13 Minutes of LBL Transport Meeting 2, ARIP 1.4.09
Rule 6 Parties
Waterloo Community Development Group
Michael Ball
W1.1 Summary }
W1.2 Proof } bound together
W1.3 Appendices }
W1.4 Rebuttal
W1.5 Pictures
Rebecca Freeman
W2.1 Summary }
W2.2 Proof } bound together
W2.3 Appendices }
W2.4 Rebuttal
W2.5 English Heritage website – settings and views
W2.6 substitute for appendix 3
Kennington Association Planning Forum
David Boardman
K1.1 Proof
K1.2 to K1.12 Appendices
K1.13 Rebuttal
K1.14 Vauxhall urban design study
K1.15 Vauxhall area draft tall building cluster study
K1.16 Notes on wide angled pictures
K1.17 David Boardman’s speaking notes
K1.18 A4 Acetates of selected HTVIA images
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 153
Constituency MP for Vauxhall
KH1 Kate Hoey
Local residents
Speaking notes of:
R1 David Hughes
R2.1 April Hilling
R2.2 Map submitted by April Hilling
R3.1 Polly Freeman
R3.2 Polly Freeman’s presentation
R3.3 Vauxhall Park Management Plan – construction cost estimate
R3.4 Neighbour consultation letter from Vauxhall Bondway Ltd.
R4.1 Victoria Conran
R4.2 Petition submitted by Victoria Conran
R5 Pauline Gaunt
R6 Andrea Hofling
R7 Maureen Johnston
R8 Patricia Holland
Inspector’s Documents
ID1 Pre-Inquiry Meeting Notes
ID2 Drivers Jonas Deloitte letter dated 14 July 2010 re: Amendments to Description of Proposals
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 154
Annex A: Schedule of Suggested Conditions
1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
2. Before any development commences, 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, loading, turning within the site and storage; details regarding dust mitigation, details regarding noise mitigation, details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, hours of operation and other measures to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area. The details of the approved Method of Construction Statement shall be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process.
3. Prior to the commencement of building works, a full design specification of the shopfronts to the commercial units of the scheme based on the approved drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The shopfronts shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
4. Notwithstanding the approved drawings and prior to the commencement of any building work, samples and a schedule of all materials to be used in the elevations, balconies, roofing and 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.
5. Notwithstanding the approved drawings and prior to commencement of building works, full details of the internal layout of each residential unit size and type shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved development.
6. Prior to the commencement of building works, details of the canopies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
7. Prior to the commencement of building works, a Landscape and Public Realm Strategy for all external public realm areas detailed on the approved drawings within the curtilage of the Site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This Strategy is to include, amongst other things, details of proposed plant and tree maintenance, paving materials, pedestrian priority materials and shared surface treatments, plant species, ground levels and boundary treatments. The development shall be carried in accordance with the approved details.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 155
8. Prior to the commencement of building work, full details and layout of the ‘Amenity Floor’ at Level 36, including the ‘Amenity Deck’, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details.
9. Prior to the commencement of building work, amended plans (relating to each of the floors, Levels 7 to 16 only) demonstrating how a secure connection between the private and affordable residential cores can be provided shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved plans.
10.Prior to occupation, a crime prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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.
11.Prior to occupation, full details of a lighting strategy, including details of the lighting of all public areas and buildings 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 retained thereafter. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
12.Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure, other than those shown on the approved plans shall be erected alongside the site frontage.
13.Nothing shall be fixed to external faces of the building which is not shown on the approved plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
14.Prior to commencement of building works, full details of sound insulation for the residential units showing how the building has been designed to meet the following standards, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a) for living rooms, 35 dB(A) Leq 16 hour between 07:00 and 23:00 hrs;
b) for bedrooms, 30 dB(A) Leq 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 be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained for the duration of the use.
15.There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music system fixed, used, or audible outside any of the ground floor commercial premises.
16.Prior to the commencement of building works, full details of the soundproofing of premises and insulation of premises (including treatment to ventilation and other
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 156
penetrations) for all party walls and the ceiling/floor between all uses and activities, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter be retained for the duration of the use, to prevent fumes, smell and noise permeating into adjoining accommodation.
17.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, commercial and residential kitchen exhaust ducting / ventilation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All flues, ducting and other equipment shall be installed and sound proofed as appropriate in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing on site and shall be retained for the duration of the use.
18.Prior to the commencement of building work, a sound insulation scheme for the building services equipment and other approved mechanical plant, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme approved shall be retained and retained in accordance with the details submitted.
19.Noise from any mechanical equipment or building services plant when measured outside the window of the nearest noise sensitive or residential premises, shall not exceed the background noise level of L90 dB(A) 1 hour.
20.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.
21.The hours of operation of the ground floor commercial floorspace (Class A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, D2) 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.
22.No deliveries shall be taken to, or dispatched from, the Site other than between the hours of 07.00 and 23.00 Mondays to Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.
23.All residential flats hereby permitted shall comply with the relevant Lifetime Homes standard.
24.At least 10% of the residential flats hereby permitted shall be designed so that they can be easily adaptable to meet the Wheelchair Housing standard.
25.Prior to the commencement of development, impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The studies shall determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point.
26.Prior to the commencement of buildings works, full details of the surface water drainage system, including:
• details of discharge rates to the sewer from both foul and surface water systems;
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 157
• details of any proposed sustainable source control measures;
• provision of flood resilient construction for the part of the building below the 1:1,000 year flood level of 5.25 m Above Ordnance Datum; and
• confirmation that the ground floor level of the building will be allocated to only commercial uses and residential space will be allocated to upper floors located above the 1:1,000 year flood level;
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained for the duration of the use.
27.No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work has been completed and its findings reported to the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.
28.No development shall commence before an Evacuation Plan for safe egress from the car park to an upper level and a detailed flood warning system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
29.Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the Site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this site investigation shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provision for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved.
30.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.
31.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the aims contained within the Sustainability Statement accompanying the application.
32.Prior to the commencement of building works, assessments demonstrating that the development achieves at least a BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’ for the commercial (office and retail) element of the development and at least a Code for Sustainable Homes rating of ‘Level 3’ for the residential element of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 158
33.Prior to the commencement of development works, a revised Energy Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate a redesign of the building’s heating system to allow compliance with the technical standards, including flow and return temperatures, of the District Heating Network as detailed in technical appendix 5 of the November 2009 draft Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea OAPF (or any subsequent version), published by the GLA. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved.
34.Prior to the occupation of the residential units hereby permitted, the ground floor commercial, and the employment generating floorspace on Levels 1 to 3 shall be completed and available for occupation in accordance with the plans hereby approved.
35.No part of the development shall begin until visibility splays have been provided on both sides of the access between a point 2.4 metres along the centre line of the access measured from the edge of carriageway and a point 2.4 metres along the edge of carriageway measured from the intersection of the centre line of the access. The area contained within the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.9 metres in height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway.
36.Prior to the occupation of any part of the development permitted, details of the provision to be made for cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before any part of the building hereby permitted is occupied and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.
37.Details of the proposed access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. No other part of the development shall be occupied until the new means of access has been sited, laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.
38.Details of parking, garaging, manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The parking, manoeuvring and loading/unloading area shall be laid out and made available for use in accordance with the approved scheme before the development hereby permitted is occupied and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose, or obstructed in any way.
39.No on-street servicing shall take place at any time, unless agreed in writing beforehand by the Local Planning Authority.
40.A Delivery Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation. The measures approved in the Plan shall be implemented prior to both the commercial uses commencing and the occupation of the residential units above and shall be so maintained for the duration of the uses, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.
Report APP/N5660/A/10/2123877
Page 159
41.Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved and prior to the residential occupation of the building, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to confirm that the access to the ‘Amenity Floor’ at Level 36 shall be available to all the residents in the development.
42.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the aims contained within the Design and Access Statement (CD2/3) accompanying the application.
43.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in CD2/24.