Item No. 6.3

Classification: OPEN

Date: 29 JUNE 2010

Meeting Name: PLANNING COMMITTEE

Report title:

Development Management planning application: Application 10-AP-0873 for: Full Planning Permission Address: 29 PECKHAM ROAD, LONDON SE5 8UA Proposal: Refurbishment and restoration of existing Grade II Listed Building, with limited removal of internal walls and demolition of single storey elements to rear; and construction of new build extension to north and west boundaries, with infill to existing elevations, to create a part single, 2 and 3 storey building, all to accommodate an employment academy (training facility to help the local long term unemployed find employment) changing the use of the building from Class B1 (office) to flexible use Class D1 (community use / training) and B1 (office space) as well as a new additional cafe (class A3).

Ward(s) or groups affected:

Brunswick Park

From: Head of Development Management

Application Start Date 06/04/2010 Application Expiry Date 06/07/2010

RECOMMENDATION

1 That planning permission is GRANTED subject to conditions.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Site location and description

2 The site is located on the corner of Peckham Road and Havil Street on a site covering 0.16 hectares, currently occupied by a vacant Council Office building which is Grade II Listed. The existing building accommodates 1,907sqm of office (Class B1) floorspace over 3 floors including lower ground floor level, plus a further attic level, and to the rear of the site a more modern single storey extension at semi-basement level provides the rest of this floorspace.

3 The site is located within the Sceaux Gardens Conservation Area, and forms part of a group of buildings along Peckham Road that are of particular importance in contributing to the character of the conservation area. The Town Hall is located opposite the site and a number of nearby buildings are listed including South House (no.30, 32 & 34) West House (no.33) and East House (no.35) on Peckham Road.

4 Adjoining the site to the north on Havil Street there is a two storey terraced housing development. To the west of the application site there is Southwark’s Children’s Development Centre which is 3 storeys where it adjoins the site, before increasing to 6 storeys high further west of the site.

5 The original building on the application site has a maximum height of 18.8m where it peaks in a turret feature. It currently appears with a range of heights from single to 3

storeys high. The ground level of the adjoining terraced housing development in Havil Street is at a lower level than the application site.

6 The existing building on the site is Grade II Listed and was built as a civic building for the Poor Law Guardians of Southwark and completed in 1904. It is of a late Victorian Baroque style and until recently was occupied by Southwark Council and used as offices.

7 The building is set back behind a decorative red brick and wrought iron boundary wall which is listed in its own right. Internally there are a number of high quality historical features that are worthy of note, including tiled floors and original hard wood panelling in some areas of the building. Only the front garden area is currently soft landscaped, with the rear part of the site forming a hardstanding area for informal parking.

8 The character of the area is largely residential with the exception of the adjoining Childrens Development Centre, the Town Hall, and vacant council offices in South House, West / Central House and East House as well as the application site.

Details of proposal

9 The applicants are Thames Reach who propose to use the building as an Employment Academy, tackling local unemployment in Southwark and Lambeth. Thames Reach aim to generate employment opportunities through both staffing and through the opportunities created for its service users.

10 Thames Reach explain their ‘vision’ for the Employment Academy in the following mission statement: “The Employment Academy is a multi-function, flexible academy designed to offer skills training and support services for the long term unemployed with the intention of helping them back into employment. Principally designed to serve the local community it will house a number of social enterprises and a range of training and employment services and facilities, all geared towards helping people achieve sustainable employment. The academy will be an industrious, bustling centre where equality and interaction between staff and service users – known as ‘members’ – will be promoted. The environment will be designed to engage and inspire members and to promote learning and development in a safe and supportive atmosphere. The facility overall will be an innovative vibrant and professional work space.”

11 The proposed Employment Academy would be multi-functioning, with a range of office and training functions. Whilst the majority of the use may be defined as Class D1 (Non-residential education and training centre) under the Use Classes Order, the building will be used flexibly. It is proposed that areas of the building would be sub-let for office use (specifically to organisations providing similar assistance to the unemployed as Thames Reach), and that the proposed training to be offered would range across more conventional group training and one-to-one guidance and support.

12 For this reason, It is proposed to change the use of the building to flexible Class D1 training and Class B1 office space, as well as incorporating a new A3 cafe which would be open to the public. This flexible use allows the applicant to switch between training and office use within different parts of the building in response to the changing needs of the organisation.

13 To make the building suitable for this new use, it is proposed to restore the building internally and carry out some demolition and construct new extensions to the rear

creating a new courtyard area and additional floorspace for the Employment Academy.

14 It is proposed to demolish some of the more recent additions to the rear of the site. At lower ground floor level, the site has an area of semi-basement space, however the area is only suitable for storage. Above this extension a large single glazed roof-light dome has been introduced to improve lighting to this rear space. It is believed that this glass dome addition was introduced in the 1930s. It is proposed to demolish 553sqm of the existing building including this rear area which is unusable floorspace, and construct 617sqm of new floorspace area to the rear of the site around a courtyard space. This new floorspace area together with the refurbishment of the existing building creates, 44sqm of additional floorspace, increasing the size of the building from 1,907sqm to 1,951sqm.

15 The new courtyard area is 24.5m x 8.5m and is created by wrapping a new 1-2 storey building around the edge of the site. An additional 3 storey element (9.9m high) with a curved roof form is proposed where the building faces onto Havil Street.

16 It is proposed to construct the new addition in brick, with windows that are composite aluminium / timber throughout, and to incorporate living roofs on the extent of the flat roof areas proposed as part of the new building.

17 The new building additions have a contemporary design approach with a ‘playful’ approach in the organisation of fenestration in the facades. It is also proposed to landscape the site, with additional border planting onto Peckham Road and to resurface the boundary areas adjacent to Havil Street in granite-look concrete sets.

18 An application for Listed Building Consent (ref: 10-AP-0874) is running concurrently with this application and is included for consideration elsewhere on this agenda. It considers the impacts upon the fabric of the Listed Building from the internal alterations as well as the impact of the external alterations and new buildings on the special character of the Listed building.

19 Planning history

10-AP-0873 – Concurrent application for Listed Building Consent is included elsewhere on this agenda. 02-CO-1413 – Planning and listed building consent for internal alterations to offices at ground and first floor level including new glazed screen at first floor.

20 Planning history of adjoining sites

The nearby Listed Buildings at South House, Central House and East House have

been vacated by the Council and are in the process of being sold. Current pre-application discussions on these sites are considering the use of the buildings for student accommodation, but no formal application has yet been submitted.

KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

21 Summary of main issues

The main issues to be considered in respect of this application are:

a) the principle of the development in terms of land use and conformity with strategic policies.

b) the impact upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers; c) the design of the proposal; d) the impact upon the listed building with reference to application 10-AP-0874; e) the impact upon the character of the conservation area; f) transport impacts; g) planning obligations and the proposed community use.

22 Planning policy

Southwark Plan 2007 (July)

SP4 Removing barriers to employment

SP5 Regeneration and creating employment 1.4 Employment sites outside the preferred office locations and preferred industrial locations 2.2 Provision of new community facilities 2.5 Planning obligations 3.1 Environmental effects 3.2 Protection of amenity 3.3 Sustainability assessment 3.4 Energy efficiency 3.5 Renewable energy 3.6 Air quality 3.7 Waste reduction 3.9 Water 3.11 Efficient use of land 3.12 Quality in design 3.13 Urban design 3.14 Designing out crime 3.15 Conservation of the historic environment 3.16 Conservation areas 3.17 Listed buildings 3.19 Archaeology 3.28 Biodiversity 5.1 Locating developments 5.2 Transport impacts 5.3 Walking and cycling 5.6 Car parking 5.7 Parking standards for disabled people and the mobility impaired. The Council published the Publication/Submission version of it’s Core Strategy in November 2009, and the Examination in Public is due to take place in July 2010. Following this, the Inspectors report is expected to be received in September/October 2010, with adoption programmed for January 2011. At present the policies in the Core Strategy have little weight in determining planning applications, and these should be determined with regard to the policies in the adopted Southwark Plan 2007.

London Plan 2008 consolidated with alterations since 2004

3B.5 Improving employment opportunities for Londoners 3C.23 Parking strategy 3C.2 Matching Development to Transport Capacity

3C.1 Integrating Transport and Development 4A.1 Tackling climate change 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.4 Energy assessment 4A.7 Renewable energy 4A.11 Living roofs and walls 4A.12 Flooding 4A.14 Sustainable drainage 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.3 Enhancing the quality of the public realm 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 4B.15 Archaeology 6A.5 Planning Obligations

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS)

Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Communities; Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth; Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; Planning Policy Statement 10: Sustainable Waste Management; Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport; Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Planning and Archaeology; Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy; Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution; Planning Policy Statement 25: Development Flood Risk

Principle of development

23 The Employment Academy seeks to remove barriers to employment and improve access to jobs for local people. It aims to achieve this through the provision of training and support services, with these operations being undertaken in a predominately office based environment. Many of the staff to be employed by Thames Reach would be office based, with others engaged in training, and the use of rooms would be interchangeable between these office based and training activities. Therefore whilst many of the activities would strictly be classified under the Use Class Order as a Class D1 (training) use, the building would function flexibly between Class D1 (training) and Class B1 (office) based uses.

24 The existing building on the site is currently vacant but was until recently in use as office floorspace. Policy 1.4 of the Southwark Plan Employment sites outside of the Preferred Office Locations and Preferred industrial Location states that employment uses, including office space, will be protected where they are outside Preferred Industrial Locations and Preferred Office Locations, and meet any of the following criteria: i. The site fronts onto or has direct access to a classified road; or ii. The site is in a Public Transport Accessibility Zone; or iii. The site is within the Central Activities Zone; or iv. The site is within a Strategic Cultural Area.

25 The proposal site is located on a classified road (Peckham Road) and therefore it is necessary to apply this policy. The proposed change to Class D1 training / B1 office flexible use could involve the loss of Class B1 (office) floorspace through the use of the buildings for training purposes (Class D1 use). Therefore it would be necessary to demonstrate one of the following circumstances in order to justify the loss of office use floorspace on the site:

a) Convincing attempts have been demonstrated to dispose of the premises, either for continued B Class use, or for mixed uses, over a period of 24 months, have been unsuccessful; b) The site or buildings would be unsuitable for re-use or redevelopment for B Class use or mixed uses including B Class use, having regard to physical or environmental constraints.

26 The purpose of this policy is to protect businesses on sites which have a higher accessibility level, thereby contributing to Southwark’s economy and providing valuable employment opportunities for local people.

27 The proposed use seeks to operate floorspace as a flexible mixture of D1 training and B1 office uses. The role of the academy is to remove barriers to employment and improve access to jobs for local people, contributing to the local economy with members joining, learning skills and ultimately progressing onwards to find gainful employment. Whilst much of the floorspace would not be strictly within the definition of Class B1 use according to the Use Classes Order, these purposes clearly compliment the purposes of protecting employment uses as outlined in policy 1.4 above.

28 The premises at 29 Peckham Road was previously in use by Southwark Council forming part of its office complex, but it is now vacant, the staff having been moved to the new Tooley Street offices. The building is currently owned by Southwark Council, and has been marketed for over 12 months without attracting interest from other office uses. The property agents Colliers CRE have provided information submitted with the application to demonstrate the extent of the advertisement which including marketing brochures, posting on the Colliers CRE Residential website, a 5ft x 4ft v-shaped board erected in front of the property on Peckham Road, and the repeated viewings offered to parties who contacted the agents. Despite this extensive marketing over 12 months, little interest was received from offices occupiers, the only potential purchasers of the property were intending to use the premises for non-office based ventures.

29 The building is not in a conventional office location, such as a town centre or business district, and although there are good bus services along Peckham Road there is no rail or tube station nearby. The relatively large floor area of the building, requiring a significant office occupier, is somewhat incongruous in this location. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that the marketing did not generate any interest from office uses.

30 In addition, the listed status of the building, means that it would be difficult to sympathetically adapt it for modern office space. Therefore the Employment Academy is argued to be an appropriate use, not only generating employment uses and assisting the unemployed back into work, but also by safeguarding the listed building for future generations. Adaptation for a more conventional modern office based use could require, for example, the removal of internal walls for an open plan layout, or the installation of bulky trunking for air conditioning.

31 The Employment Academy would also create permanent employment for staff providing skills training and support services in an office based environment. It is anticipated that there will be approximately 40 permanent staff working at the Employment Academy with approximately 150 daily service users. This is a further indication of the employment opportunities the academy would offer in line with the purposes of policy 1.4.

32 The academy would also offer offices and training spaces for use by various service providers who provide similar assistance to the unemployed as Thames Reach. The sub-letting of office space as part of the proposal also allows opportunity for business

start-up and space for organisations that provide assistance to the unemployed by providing training or finding jobs. The opportunity to sub-let space to other small business or organisations involved in training or other measures to assist the unemployed back into work, will also further the purposes of the academy to remove barriers to employment. This would also encourage business uses on the site in accordance with the aims of policy 1.4.

33 It is considered that the information submitted could be considered to justify an exception from the strict terms of policy 1.4. Although the marketing has been over a period of 12 months, rather than the 24 months normally required by the policy, the marketing was extensive, and to continue the marketing at this stage would run the very significant risk of losing the Academy, which is reliant on HCA funding. Given that the use will deliver important training and employment benefits, which meet the requirements of the strategic policies in Part 1 of the Southwark Plan (for instance removing barriers to employment), then it is considered that the use is acceptable in these circumstances.

34 In its role assisting the unemployed into work, the Employment Academy accords with the purpose of policy 1.4 by providing employment opportunities for local people. The applicant has also demonstrated that the building is unsuitable for office use.

35 The restoration of the building will offer the opportunity for the building to play a part in the local community. The applicant is intending to offer rooms and spaces within the building, including the grand ceremonial spaces, for hire by the local community for classes, events and meetings, as part of the proposed use. It would be necessary to request further information on the proposed community use by way of condition attached to any grant of consent for the scheme. This can be achieved through the preparation of a ‘Community Use Strategy’ which will provide further details of the spaces and facilities on offer to the community and at what times / prices.

36 A café is also proposed on the ground floor, which is proposed to provide a service to the local community and occupiers of the building, generating an element of employment in itself.

37 Therefore in relation to the use of the building, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle, the use being in accordance with the purposes of policy 1.4 and the applicant having demonstrated convincing attempts to market the property for office use without success, demonstrating that the property is not suitable for normal modern office accommodation. The use will generate employment, with much of the space proposed to be used for office purposes and the organisations / businesses within the proposed building all working to assist the local unemployed back into work. It is only because of these specific circumstances which are individual to this application, as well as the unusual purposes of the proposal to assist the unemployed back into work, that it is considered that policy 1.4 is satisfied and the change of use to a flexible D1 training and B1 office use is acceptable. It is recommended that conditions are attached to secure the benefits for local people through community use of the building as well as ensuring that only organisations involved with training and removing barriers to employment can operate in the premises.

38 It is of course necessary to demonstrate that there are no significant adverse impacts arising from the use or extensions proposed before it can be considered that the development proposal is acceptable in its entirety. The assessment of the application is therefore continued below.

Environmental impact assessment

39 An Environmental Statement is not required with this application as the development

does not fall within Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.

40 A Screening Opinion was not requested prior to the submission of the application as the site does not exceed 0.5ha (being 0.16ha), and therefore the site is not classified as a Schedule 2 'urban development project'. It has been determined that the development is unlikely to have a significant effect upon the environment by virtue of its nature, size or location based upon a review of the Schedule 3 selection criteria for screening Schedule 2 Development. The site has an established use as offices, and is located outside of a sensitive area as per Regulation 2(1) and the development is unlikely to generate any significant environmental effects. Therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Impact of proposed development on amenity of adjoining occupiers and surrounding area

41 42

Policy 3.2 Protection of Amenity of the Southwark Plan seeks to protect the amenity of existing and future occupiers in the surrounding area or on the site. Daylight and Sunlight A Daylight and Sunlight Report was submitted which provides an assessment of possible impacts upon surrounding residential properties as a result of the proposal, in relation to daylight and sunlight. It uses guidelines from the Building Research Establishment (BRE) ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ which provides the criteria and methodology for calculation in connection with daylight and sunlight. The surrounding properties at 142 Havil Street, 112-130 Havil Street and St Giles House have been assessed in the report, and a further assessment of overshadowing impacts has considered for the closest surrounding areas of open amenity space in the rear gardens of 112-130 Havil Street and 142 Havil Street.

43 In terms of the daylight assessment two tests have been undertaken for each of the above properties. Vertical Sky Component (VSC) assesses the loss of daylight entering existing rooms by considering the amount of available daylight from the sky reaching a window and is measured on the outside of that window. The target figure for VSC recommended by the BRE is 27% which is considered to be a good level of daylight and the level recommended for habitable rooms with windows on principal elevations. The BRE suggest that the daylight and sunlight can be reduced by about 20% of their original value before the loss is noticeable. The Average Daylight Factor (ADF) determines the natural internal light or daylit appearance of a room, taking account of the interior dimensions and surface reflectance within the room. The ADF values recommended by the BRE guide are 2% for family kitchens, 1.5% for living rooms and 1% for bedrooms. Daylight distribution has been assessed by plotting the 'no sky line' in each room. The availability of sunlight is dependent on the orientation of the window or area of ground being assessed relative to position of due south. The Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (ASPH) is considered for all windows facing within 90 degree of due south.

44 The following analysis shows that, the scheme does not result in unacceptable impacts upon the daylighting and sunlighting of surrounding residential properties. BRE guidelines and values are met for all of the tested windows / gardens, and impact upon surrounding resident’s daylight, sunlight and overshadowing is so small that it is likely to be imperceptible.

45

142 Havil Street This property is a modern 2 storey end of terrace house to the immediate north of the application site. It has no windows on the flank wall which faces the application site. The proposed 3 storey building would be 2 metres from the site boundary, and 4

46

metres from the flank wall of the house, with a single storey building to the rear which extends parallel to the rear garden. The new buildings would result in a minor reduction of up to 6% in the VSC to the ground floor living room of the house, and no impact on the VSC to the first floor bedroom windows. There is no noticeable effect on the ADF levels, which remain well above the minimum required for the type of room. There is some reduction in sunlight availability to the ground floor windows, more noticeable in the winter, but the levels remain well above the minimums recommended by the BRE.

47 48

112-130 Havil Street This property is a single storey modern property whose rear faces the application site. There is a significant change of levels between the two sites, with the gardens and internal ground level of the units being approximately 0.9 metres below the ground level of the application site. However the proposal would lower the ground level in the site which has the effect of reducing this change in levels. The proposed single storey building closest to the boundary is 3.6 metres high as viewed from the garden of the neighbouring properties. The impact on VSC is minimal, with reductions of up to only 1.4% to ground floor rooms, and these are hallways only. Some bedrooms on this building face receive relatively low ADF levels in the current situation, but these levels are not reduced further by the development. Similarly the sunlight levels are currently relatively low, but they are not impacted by the development. This is not only because of the relatively low height of the proposal, and reduced ground level proposed on the site, but also because of the separation distance maintained between the proposed extension and the neighbouring site at 112-130 Havil Street. The proposal at this point is located at least 4m away from the boundary with 112-113 Havil Street. The main building faces are 9.6 metes apart, with the courtyard on the application site, and the neighbours rear garden separating the buildings. The daylight results show that the building retains in excess of the relevant daylight levels and therefore the impact is acceptable with reference to the BRE guidance. Similarly the ASPH results for this property show that all rooms retain levels of total annual and winter sunlight in excess of the BRE criteria.

49 St Giles House This premises is the Children’s Development Centre, it is 3 storeys where it adjoins the application site, increasing to 6 storeys high further west of the site. As this property is not a residential dwelling, it is not afforded the same protection as those other adjoining occupiers in terms of impacts upon daylight and sunlight. In any case, the result of the daylight testing for this property demonstrates that all windows retain in excess of the relevant criteria and the impact is therefore acceptable with reference to the BRE guidance. In relation to sunlight, none of the windows which overlook the site face within 90 degrees due south of the development, therefore none are relevant for sunlight testing.

50 Overshadowing Results The results of the permanent overshadowing assessment show that the proposed development has very little impact at all upon the rear gardens of 112-130 & 142 Havil Street. The change in the amount of permanent shadowing is 0.1% and 0% respectively, where the BRE guidelines would suggest that a 20% increase in permanently shaded area would be a noticeable change. Therefore the proposal is acceptable with reference to BRE guidance on overshadowing impacts.

51

Impact upon the outlook of adjoining occupiers Occupiers in Havil Street have expressed concern that the development proposal would create a loss of outlook and light to their gardens, where the proposal is located adjacent to the boundaries for these neighbouring properties. While a three storey

52

element is proposed, this is located onto the street and is located over 2m away from the boundary with the adjoining property on Havil Street, and over 4m away from the flank wall for the house situated on this adjoining site. The proposal is single storey where it meets the boundary parallel for the garden to 142 Havil Street, before stepping away from the boundary by 4m where the site adjoins 112-130 Havil Street, but remaining single storey. While currently the boundary treatment here is a wire fence, and the construction of a more solid form along the boundary extent will alter the impact, it is actually likely to increase security and will have minimal impact on light and outlook being only single storey in height. Where there are higher elements, they are located away from the boundary with properties in Havil Street. The 3 storey element is over 2m away from the boundary where it is above ground floor, and over 4m away from the flank wall of the house located adjacent to the site here. The two storey element adjacent to the west boundary of the site is located over 10m away from the rear boundary where it adjoins 112-130 Havil Street. Residents have raised concerns regarding the security of their boundary treatments. Currently the boundary is secured by wire fencing which could be climbed, and this proposal will create a more substantial boundary treatment which not only encloses the site but also improves the security for adjoining neighbours by creating a stronger edge to the site. The Daylight and Sunlight Report also clearly demonstrates that the proposal will not result in excessive overshadowing or loss of daylight and sunlight to these properties. Therefore it is not considered that adverse impacts upon the outlook of adjoining occupiers’ results form the proposal.

53 Impact upon the privacy of adjoining occupiers The submitted plans include a terrace area at raised ground floor level adjacent to the boundary with properties on Havil Street. In order to ensure that this area does not create potential for overlooking and associated adverse impacts upon the privacy of these adjoining occupiers, it will be necessary to prevent access to this area. It is possible to attach a condition to a grant of consent that would require that no part of the development be used as a terrace area and the applicant has agreed to this restriction.

54 There is also a window proposed within the three storey turret element at first floor level facing onto the boundary with properties in Havil Street; to ensure that this window does not create opportunity for overlooking, it is possible to condition its finish to be obscure glazed. Two further window details are depicted at upper level of the turret element and at raised ground floor level in the middle of the proposed extension on the north boundary. These windows are for aesthetic value only and are merely design details to add interest in the façade, they are not intended to serve as windows in practice. There are no rooms served by these ‘false windows’ and there are no other windows overlooking adjoining occupiers, therefore there are no objections raised regarding privacy or overlooking.

55 Impact of proposed use on adjoining occupiers Residents have raised concerns regarding the type of use to be carried out on the premises and the associated users of the facility. The applicants have provided a response to these concerns and insist that the respect and support of neighbours is essential to the creation of a successful scheme. Thames Reach operates a scheme similar to the proposed Employment Academy use in Lambeth in Hudson House and they have not experienced any complaints from the neighbours there. Thames Reach have explained that in 29 Peckham Road, Academy staff will be able to respond to initial approaches from members of the public who drop in during working hours, explaining options available to them both in the Academy and through the wider range of provision in Southwark and Lambeth. People who go on to use the Academy on a regular basis will be expected to take up membership, and this will form a contract which will contain expectations around timekeeping, behaviour and working with staff

and other members. As well as helping prepare ‘clients’ of the Academy for mainstream employment, the contract will also enable Thames Reach to ensure that the behaviour of members does not become a concern to neighbours, and to withdraw membership if these expectations are not respected.

Traffic issues

56 57

Access Two pedestrian accesses are proposed from Peckham Road and Havil Street, reflecting existing pedestrian access arrangements at the site. A new disabled parking bay is proposed on the site, and is accessed from Havil Street. Ordinarily it would be required that users of this parking bay are able to enter and exit in a forward gear, however currently the arrangement of the site means that an entry and exit in a forward gear is not possible. It is recommended that further details be required by way of condition, which would demonstrate how vehicle movements will be managed in a safe manner from this parking bay. Level access from street is provided from Havil Street and internally the building includes lifts, ensuring full accessibility for wheelchair users.

58 Cycle Storage Due to the size of the development, it would be expected that a minimum of 8 cycle storage spaces were accommodated on site in a convenient, covered location. The proposal currently includes 22 cycle storage spaces, but the application contains little detail of how these would appear. Staff cycle storage would need to be provided separately to visitor spaces and should be secure and weather proof. Currently the plans detail access to the cycle storage area down steps from the central courtyard space. Further details are needed to demonstrate how access for cyclists would be convenient despite the inclusion of these steps, possibly with the inclusion of some kind of ramp beside the steps. Details of cycle storage can be secured by way of condition attached to any grant of consent for the scheme.

59 Car Parking The proposal site is located in a controlled parking zone and therefore staff and users of the proposed Employment Academy will not be able to park on-street without a parking permit. It is considered that the separate assessment procedures undertaken by the section in the Council that controls the provision of parking permits, are appropriate to control the provision of permits in relation to this site. Therefore it is not considered necessary to exempt occupiers of the development from obtaining a permit in any decision on this application. The lack of on-site parking other than the single disabled bay proposed, along with the location of the site in a controlled parking zone and a good public transport accessibility level of 3, will encourage staff and users of the site to use public transport to travel to and from the site.

60 61

Servicing Due to site constraints and the need to provide a disabled parking bay on the site, it is not possible to accommodate servicing on the site. While there is a serving entrance at present, many servicing vehicles cannot enter and exit the site in a forward gear and therefore much of the current servicing for the site takes place on-street. It is considered that a maximum of eight service vehicle movements a week would be needed in association with the proposed development and this is unlikely to generate adverse impacts upon the local transport network. Further information will however be required on how these service movements will be managed, and this can be requested through a condition requiring the submission of a Service Management Plan. Subject to the approval of further details concerning cycle storage, the parking area

and a Service Management Plan, it is considered that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the local transport network.

Design issues

62 In relation to the design of the proposal, reference should be made to application 10-AP-0874 which relates to the Listed Building Consent for the proposed alterations and extensions on the site which is included elsewhere on this agenda. It assesses the impacts of internal alterations, as well as the construction of the new extension, upon the Listed Building. This Listed Building Consent application contains a more detailed assessment of the design qualities of the proposed extension, and their impact on the special character of the Listed Building.

63 The proposal seeks to sensitively restore and refurbish the vacant Grade II listed building; this includes the ‘ceremonial’ routes and the areas of high historic interest. It is proposed to demolish the current service areas towards the rear of the building and to re-order this area through the creation of a new courtyard and surrounding complex of buildings. The courtyard areas on the site centrally and to the western boundary are proposed to be resurfaced and accommodate new crab apple trees. The new range of buildings will create a dramatic sequence of spaces and a central courtyard garden. The Havil Street range of buildings will be terminated by a slender 3 storey building, which will contain office space on the upper floors and a disabled parking space and refuse store on the ground floor.

64 The design of the new buildings has adopted the playfulness and respected the scale and materials of the listed building, but nevertheless has an identity of its own. During the pre-application process concern was raised at the irregular design of the elevation. Whilst the design, size and placement of windows on the new buildings are varied, the overall composition is now calmer, more refined and regularised. A rationale has been developed for the placement of windows, with datums established between the listed building and openings on the new development. In addition the amount of glazing at ground floor level has been increased. No objection is raised in principle subject to the approval of detailed drawings of all new fenestration and doors; a condition is recommended which requires further detail prior to implementation of any permission for the scheme.

65 Two separate steel frame structures are proposed for the buildings, with a high quality brick proposed for the facades. The pale colour of the brick will reflect the decorative natural stone dressing found on the listed building. The bricks will correspond to the size of the Cambridge White bricks found on the rear elevation of the listed building. No objection is raised to the proposed brick, subject to the approval of a sample.

66 67

The new buildings are to be located towards the rear of the site, with a slender 3 storey element onto Havil Street. This will act as another ‘statement’ building to complement the existing picturesque grouping of elements. At pre-application stage concerns regarding the height of the new building on Havil Street and the impact on adjoining owners were raised. It is considered that these have been sufficiently addressed, the height having been reduced to 3 storeys and the incorporation of a curve to the roof to further reduce the appearance of bulk when viewed by adjoining occupiers to the rear of the site. This 3 storey element has also been reduced in width, becoming more slender and as a result less dominant in its appearance in relation to the listed building. The element does not exceed the height of the more dominate turrets and towers to the existing Listed Building. It forms a complementary addition which sits comfortably at this end of the site, retaining a subtlety in form while still forming a presence. The addition marks a new period of activity for the building, the proposed restoration of the existing

building will extend its life and useful operation.

68 The scale and height of the new development on Havil Street is a crucial consideration when assessing the effect upon amenity of neighbouring properties as well as the views and setting of the Grade II listed building and the character of the Sceaux Gardens Conservation Area. It is considered that the proposal presents a sufficiently subservient relationship with the listed building and would not unduly dominate in views along Havil Street.

69 However, whilst the overall form of the Havil Street block has been sensitively handled, the design and detailing of the vehicular and pedestrian gates requires further consideration. It is considered that the design lacks the finesse of the listed building or the elevational treatment of the new building around the courtyard. No objection to the principle of gates in this location is raised, therefore it is considered that the detailed design and materials of the proposed gates can be dealt with by condition.

70 A contemporary approach has been adopted for the elevational treatment of the new development which is appropriate. The proposed design reflects the attractive design of the original building while also respecting its scale and material finish. It is considered that the proposed scheme relates sensitively to its context and therefore no objections are raised regarding the design of the proposal.

Impact on character and setting of a listed building and/or conservation area

71 An assessment of the impact of the development upon the Listed Building and Sceaux Gardens Conservation Area is undertaken in the separate Listed Building Consent Application under reference 10-AP-0874. The Officers report for the Listed Building Consent application also contains a detailed assessment of all internal alterations proposed to the existing building retained on the site.

72 In summary the assessment of the Listed Building Consent considers that the proposed development preserves and enhances the immediate and wider setting of the listed building and conservation area as a whole and therefore no objections are raised regarding impacts upon the listed building or conservation area.

Impact on Biodiversity

73 74

Ecology The Ecology Consultancy has prepared a report analysing the various possible habitats that may be on the site, with relevant mitigation measures recommended to prevent any adverse impacts arising to these habitats. The report includes an assessment of bat and bird nesting activity on the site. The report found that there was low potential for bat roosting to be present on the site, the only potential location being the roof spaces. As the proposal does not involve the demolition of the existing building on the site, even if there are bats on the site it is considered unlikely that any disturbance to bat habitat would result from the proposal. It is however considered appropriate to undertake a further survey to allow the presence of bats on the site to be ruled out, therefore it is recommended that a condition be attached to any permission for the scheme to require an emergence and dawn bat survey to be undertaken. Depending upon the outcome of this survey, appropriate mitigation measures should be undertaken if any bats are using the site. The green roofs included as part of the scheme provide significant ecological enhancement for the site, and is considered that there are no significant adverse impacts upon ecology as a result of the proposal.

75 Trees An Arboricultural Report has been prepared and submitted with the application. It considered trees that are located in and around the front garden of the application site. It is proposed that arboricultural management works are carried out on two of these trees, involving crown lifting and crown cleaning. These are not essential works for the proposed development to proceed but they will reduce further shading once the site is in use. It is proposed that the suggested pruning works are carried out and once completed, protective fencing is be erected prior to any construction work taking place. It is possible to secure these protective measures by way of condition. The proposal does not result in the loss of trees on the site and the proposed works would not undermine the health or appearance of the trees, and therefore there are no objections raised regarding this point.

Planning obligations (S.106 undertaking or agreement)

76 The proposal results in a small uplift in floorspace, specifically 44sqm. The assessment of any required mitigation in the form of obligations secured through a section 106 agreement would normally only be required on this uplift in floorspace, or in relation to the additional, training, use. Section 106 agreements are expected to mitigate impacts which could arise from new or more intensive uses on a site.

77 As described above, the purposes of the proposal is to create an employment academy, and the applicant has provided with the application evidence of benefits for the borough (including cost benefits) that would result from assisting the long-term unemployed back into work, and this is described in further detail below. It is accepted that the use of the building as an employment academy as described by Thames Reach would negate the need for contributions to employment projects, and that the community use of the building would also negate the need for a contribution to community facilities. Transport for London and the Councils Transport Group have not identified any areas that would require a contribution from this proposal to improve the local transport network, due to the small uplift in staffing numbers as a result of the proposal, which means there is no significant increase in strain upon the local transport network. With relation to other obligations, it is considered that the scheme provides significant benefits to the community and that this is a material consideration when considering the scale and nature of any other benefits which might otherwise be expected.

78 The proposed use of the building as an Employment Academy reflects the origins of the building as the headquarters for the Poor Law Guardians of Southwark and the proposal would be capital funded by the Homes and Communities Agency to address the ongoing issue of long-term unemployment. This is of particular importance in Southwark and our neighbouring borough Lambeth, where there is a significant problem with generational unemployment with second and third generations of unemployment in the same family. The scheme proposes to assist a number of local homelessness facilities whose clients will benefit from the services provided, as well as functioning as an important employment generator through staffing of the premises and creating opportunities for service users to gain employment.

79 The applicant is Thames Reach, an organisation that has worked with homeless and vulnerable people in Southwark since 1980. They provide a range of services aimed at helping these people to find a home, sustainable work, and to develop stable relationships. Thames Reach is also responsible for additional inward investment to the borough through their participation in initiatives such as the Social Exclusion Taskforce – Adults facing Chronic Exclusion (ACE) pilots, and their Employment Project attracted around £600,000 of additional central government funding and has helped around 70 people from this hard to reach group toward and into work between April and December 2009. Thames Reach provide these services on a not-for-profit

basis.

80 81

As well as offering services that would support many of Southwark’s unemployed who are from the most disadvantaged and excluded groups, the building would also provide facilities for the wider local community. The imposition of additional section 106 requirements on a scheme that has been developed by a charity specifically to provide social benefit to vulnerable and socially excluded people in Southwark would put the investment at risk. In conclusion the specific benefits to residents from Southwark’s and Lambeth’s most disadvantaged and excluded groups, along with the proposed community use of the building, provides sufficient benefit for the local community and wider Southwark community, without the need for additional contributions. It is recommended that conditions be attached to personalise any grant of consent for this development to Thames Reach alone, in order to ensure that the benefits that the Employment Academy will generate under Thames Reach are secured. Furthermore, the community use of the scheme will also provide an additional benefit, and as described above can be secured through the approval of a Community Use Strategy required by way of condition.

Sustainable development implications

82 Sustainable Design and Construction The incorporation of energy efficient technologies is limited to the new build elements of the proposal, the existing building being Grade II listed and therefore exempt from certain requirements under Building Regulations if works would harm the historical architectural features of the building. The glazing system throughout the new build element is to be of a very high insulation value improving heat retention and related energy efficiency, and the creation of a central courtyard area also takes full advantage of its southerly outlook and associated solar gain to both the courtyard and the proposed buildings which look out onto the courtyard area.

83 A green roof system is proposed on top of the first and second floor areas of exposed flat roof space. The system is likely to be an extensive, light weight system constructed using low maintenance sedum planting (succulents) that provide excellent cover, increased protection to the waterproofing system and increased insulatory performance. The selection of a green roof system is also beneficial to the views of these roof areas from adjacent residential properties.

84 Renewable Energy An Energy Statement has been submitted with the application, but it contains a number of errors, including the assertion that the required reduction from carbon emissions from renewables is 10% rather than the 20% required under the London Plan. The statement also indicates that photovoltaics and solar water heating are the most appropriate options for the proposal, however the statement goes onto explain that air source heat pumps have been chosen to support the energy requirements of the scheme.

85 Air source heat pumps are not a renewable energy source in the strict sense, however they maybe appropriate where the site specific circumstances of the site make other renewable energy forms inappropriate or too costly. It maybe the case that the Listed status of the building makes some renewable energy forms inappropriate and it is also relevant that the new roof areas are proposed to accommodate living roofs; however the Energy Statement does not clearly explain this. It is also not clear from the statement if the small amount of electricity required to operate the air source heat pumps in the first instance have been included in the calculations of carbon emissions resulting from the site. The 20% reduction needs to take account of the required

energy to run the air source heat pumps themselves. It is also not clear where the pumps would be sited on the site / building. They can appear bulky and unsightly, and there is a concern that they could impact upon the quality of appearance of the new extensions or the original Listed Building.

86 The Energy Statement concludes that a reduction of 18.1% is achieved through the inclusion of the air source heat pumps, however it is not clear that this takes into account all the energy required to run them in the first place. It is clear that the intention is to meet the 20% reduction, or as close to this figure as possible taking into account the Listed status of the original building on the site. Therefore it is not considered reasonable to refuse the application on this point; however a revised Energy Statement will be required in the event of approval by way of condition. This should clearly explain the renewable energy options and choices for the site as well as indicate where the technology would be located and how it will appear on the site.

Other matters

87 Construction Management Plan A Construction Management Plan has been prepared and submitted with the application. It provides details of phasing of the construction, lorry routing and potential numbers of and transport arrangements for construction workers. The plan gives a commitment to produce a more detailed plan to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on the site, and this could be secured by way of a condition attached to any grant of permission for the proposal.

Conclusion on planning issues

88 The applicant for the proposal is Thames Reach, an experienced charity in providing social assistance to homeless and excluded sections of society, including the unemployed. The scheme seeks to provide extensive benefits to residents of Southwark and Lambeth to remove barriers to employment.

89 The proposal also provides wider community benefits through the restoration of this Listed Building and use of the building by the local community. The design of the extension is to a high quality contemporary finish, and provides a contrasting but complimentary style in its attachment to the listed building. It will be necessary to condition the finer details of the design and material finish to ensure the success of the scheme, however it is considered to be an appropriate addition to the building.

90 As described above, there are not considered to be any significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers as a result of the proposal. The proposal details the construction of new built forms close to the boundary with properties in Havil Street, however the extensions are of a discreet height and the proposal does not result in any loss of outlook, daylight, sunlight or privacy to adjoining occupiers. Therefore there are no adverse impacts upon amenity that would warrant a refusal of the scheme.

91 In conclusion the scheme is considered to complement the design of the Listed Building and the character of the Sceaux Gardens Conservation Area, while providing significant benefits for the local community. Therefore it is recommended that the application be granted planning permission subject to conditions and approval of further details.

Community impact statement

92 In line with the Council's Community Impact Statement the impact of this application has been assessed as part of the application process with regard to local people in

respect of their age, disability, faith/religion, gender, race and ethnicity and sexual orientation. Consultation with the community has been undertaken as part of the application process. In addition to this, the applicant has undertaken their own consultation prior to lodging the application. This consultation is described in the applicants ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ which accompanied the application.

93 A public consultation meeting was held on 27th January 2010 at Southwark Town Hall between 5pm and 8pm. All Camberwell and Peckham councillors were invited, 250 letters were hand delivered to local residents and flyers were distributed at Camberwell, Nunhead and Peckham libraries.

94 There were 18 attendees in total, with representatives in attendance from SE5 Forum, Southwark Council, South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLAM), Peckham Space, Labour Party Members & Local Ward Councillors, Beyond Boyle, The People’s Coalition Party, The Peckham Society, The Camberwell Society, Centrepoint Service Users and Local Residents.

95 The applicant has summarised the response to the event in the submitted statement. The feedback was consider to be positive, specifically:

− support for restoration of local landmark building; − opportunity for use by local community out-of-hours well received – due to

scarcity of local venues for community group meetings, events, classes etc; − support for proposed public café; − interest in wider possibilities of coordination with other local services; − proposed development to rear of building well received.

96 Thames Reach have also set up an Employment Academy website where proposal

information, drawings and images are freely accessible and comments welcomed www.employmentacademy.org.uk

97 Consultations

Details of consultation and any re-consultation undertaken in respect of this application are set out in Appendix 1.

98 Consultation replies

Details of consultation responses received are set out in Appendix 2.

Summary of consultation responses

No objections received from internal or statutory consultees.

6 letters of objection received from adjoining occupiers which raised the following main areas of concern: - that the use would attract ‘undesirables’ into the area; - noise from visitors; - additional car parking strain; - height and location of extension close to properties in Havil Street. 2 letters received in support of the proposal commenting on the good purposes of the proposal.

99 Human rights implications

This planning application engages certain human rights under the Human Rights Act

2008 (the HRA). The HRA prohibits unlawful interference by public bodies with conventions rights. The term ’engage’ simply means that human rights may be affected or relevant.

This application has the legitimate aim of providing an Employment Academy to aid in the removal of barriers to employment for the unemployed. The rights potentially engaged by this application, including the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private and family life are not considered to be unlawfully interfered with by this proposal.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS Background Papers Held At Contact Site history file: TP/2282-29 Application file: 10-AP-0873 Southwark Local Development Framework and Development Plan Documents

Regeneration and Neighbourhoods Department 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2TZ

Planning enquiries telephone: 020 7525 5403 Planning enquiries email: planning.enquiries@southwark.gov

.uk Case officer telephone:: 020 7525 5597 Council website: www.southwark.gov.uk

APPENDICES No. Title Appendix 1 Consultation undertaken Appendix 2 Consultation responses received

AUDIT TRAIL Lead Officer Gary Rice

Report Author Rachel Gleave

Version Final

Dated 16/6/2010

Key Decision No

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER OFFICERS / DIRECTORATES / EXECUTIVE MEMBER Officer Title Comments Sought Comments included

Strategic Director of Communities, Law & Governance

No No

Strategic Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods

Yes Yes

Strategic Director of Environment and Housing

Yes Yes

Date final report sent to Constitutional / Community Council / Scrutiny Team

18/6/2010

APPENDIX 1

Consultation undertaken

Site notice date: 29/04/2010

Press notice date: 22-04-2010

Case officer site visit date: Various, most recent on 04-06-2010

Neighbour consultation letters sent: 15-04-2010 Internal services consulted:

Economic Development and Strategic Partnerships

Design and Conservation Team Transport Group

Environmental Protection Team Access Officer Arboriculturalist Ecology Officer

Statutory and non-statutory organisations consulted:

The Camberwell Society

The Peckham Society English Heritage

Transport for London Neighbours and local groups consulted:

Properties on Havil Street, Gables Close, Peckham Road, Sceaux Gardens, Vestry

Road and St Giles Road Map of Consultation Area:

Re-consultation:

N/A

APPENDIX 2

Consultation responses received

Internal services

Environmental Protection Team:

No objections subject to conditions requiring that noise from any plant be controlled and that a supplementary acoustic report be submitted to demonstrate what mitigation will be used to control noise from plant.

Transport Group: Cycle Storage – The minimum secure parking standard for a B1 use is 1 cycle space per 250sqm (a minimum of two spaces) the site has 1871sqm of B1, which equates to 8 secure cycle stands. The application has proposed 25 secure cycle parking spaces. Details of the cycle storage should be required by condition. Car Parking – The proposal site is situated in a Controlled Parking Zone. Therefore in order to prevent possible overspill parking from the development, the applicant should be informed that a planning condition will be required preventing any occupiers of this development being eligible for on-street parking permits. In order that the TMO can be changed, a sum of £2,750 must be secured from the applicant for the costs associated with amending the TMO, either through a s106 agreement, unilateral undertaking or Grampian condition. Disabled Parking – The development proposes to provide wheelchair accessible accommodation. It is therefore requested that this development also provide at least one wheelchair accessible parking bays. Servicing – Due to site constraints (and the need to provide an off street disabled parking space) off street servicing facilities could not be accommodated within the development. At present there is a service entrance, however many service vehicles using this entrance can not enter and exit in a forward gear. It is considered that the development will generate a maximum of eight service vehicle movements a week. This level of service vehicle movement can be managed via a service management plan. This can be required by condition.

Access Officer: The proposal incorporates good access provision. This has been done without compromising the architectural or historical integrity of the Grade II listed building. A new platform lift is to be provided at the Havil Street entrance to serve the ground floor and lower ground floor. A new 8 person passenger lift is being provided to serve all floors. Internal ramping is to be introduced to overcome internal level changes. Wheelchair accessible WC is provided. A disabled persons parking space is to be located at the north of the site, accessed off Havil Street. All access improvement work is in accordance with the requirements of Part M (Access to and within buildings) of the Building Regulations.

Statutory and non-statutory organisations

English Heritage: This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

Design Review Panel: The proposal was presented to the Southwark’s Design Review Panel on March 8th 2010. The formal comments from the Panel were welcomed and led to improvements in the design proposals included in this current application submission. A description

of the changes / additional information produced as a result of the feedback from the Design Review Panel is detailed below: More information required from the client about the amount of space that they require and about the way the space was to be used. - The design brief for the Employment Academy is for a building which provides flexible space and is as open plan and public as possible. The Panel acknowledged that the architect was discovering this historic building as they were developing their design and that, through this process of discovery, the architect was working with a new relationship between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’. These two buildings would be inextricably linked going forward and they felt the elevations of the courtyard and the geometry of the main building should inform the arrangement and organisation of the new building more directly; - The design team have now refined and regularised the elevation design both by increasing glazing at ground floor and creating a calmer arrangement of windows to the new courtyard elevations, which work well in the context of the rear areas of the building.

The Panel questioned the practical issues of servicing the development. It was felt that the garage on Havil Street was unfortunate, located as it was at the base of the tower – the most visible element of the design. This corner of the site is where the design needs to engage with the street and offered the visitor a unique opportunity to look into the new courtyard form the street; - The plan layout of the courtyard has been rearranged to allow views into the courtyard directly form the Havil Street passageway. There is limited scope for locating the required disabled parking space but the design team have recognised the opportunity for a well designed ‘large-door’ to the parking space which can become a design feature in its own right. The panel felt that further information on the cost of the proposal should be established, as the success of the project would lie in how the design marries the functional and cost requirements within the required quality; - The Thames Reach Finance Director is informed and engaged on the project to guarantee build costs remain in line with budgetary constraints. The Panel raised a question over the tower, they acknowledged the efforts of the designers to compliment the existing varied roofscape but also noted that the tower was located at a very sensitive site immediately adjacent t residential properties and requested a sunlight and daylight analysis of these properties to inform their design of the scheme and ensure that it did not impact unnecessarily on the amenity of its neighbours; - A sunlight and daylight analysis was carried out to assess the impact of the design presented at the Design Panel Review session, which concluded that there is no impact on the amenity of adjacent occupiers. The design and massing of the ‘feature building’ on Havil Street have also been refined further, with the height reduced to 3 storeys and the footprint reduced to create a more slender picturesque addition to the Havil Street elevation which respects its setting adjacent to the Listed Building and neighbouring houses. In conclusion, the Panel felt this scheme had the makings of a fantastic project which offered the client and their architect an extraordinary opportunity to shape the future of this historic building. They encouraged the architect to develop their ideas with the clarity and rigour that they had shown elsewhere.

Neighbours and local groups

6 letters of objection to the proposal. No address: There is no evidence that such initiatives are beneficial to tackling long term unemployment, such initiatives may be counter productive.

No address: Have to put up with loitering opposite my home in Havil street and in the grounds of the car park where drugs are exchanged openly and grown men urinate up the walls day and night; The hours of opening are of concern; Smoking is of concern and its associated rubbish and pollution; Will security be 24hrs a day? I have already experienced attempted break ins and strangers climbing over my back wall; Concerned about our parking facilities, we currently pay for our parking space but there has been many episodes of people illegally parked in our bays although there are signs for all to see very clearly; Concern that Lucas Gardens will become a place for down and outs and drunkenness again.

142 Havil Street: As a Hyde tenant disappointed that Hyde did not contact its tenants in housing surrounding the site, even though Hyde knew of the development.

136 Havil Street: The building is mainly in Havil Street and will bring disruption, noise, especially as it looks as if the six Hyde houses are joined to the development it is so close. The Training Academy sounds ‘fishy’ if the building has bathing facilities is this a guise for something else, to be open every day! 8.30 – 21.30 it’s an invasion which will have a negative impact on my life. All ready tolerating noise, I object strongly.

140 Havil Street: The 3 storey turret building to be built on the existing car park site is overbearing. It also appears that it may create overshadowing to the front of my property; The flat roof design of the 3 storey turret building concerns me, as it could possibly provide access to the rear of my property. Security is paramount for my household as well as my neighbours; Streetshine Offices ([sic] plans refer to sunshine offices) have a terrace area which appears to have a clear view of the back of my property. Due to its close proximity I feel that this will invade my privacy; The proposed hours of opening are excessive and it does not even take into account that there are residential properties in close proximity; The Academy expects to have anything between 100-150 people accessing it on a daily basis, 7 days a week including Bank Holidays. A cafe will also be opened. Once again the effect on the residential properties and the surrounding area has not been taken into consideration; The noise pollution and disturbance will increase considerably, the amount of rubbish will increase, there will be loitering, smoking will be conducted outside the building on the pavement causing obstructions, there will be disturbances form the people arriving and leaving and there will likely be an increase in anti-social behaviour; The targeted client group who will access the Academy will impact on my daily life greatly. I feel that this application is not transparent and i bring to question the motivation and integrity in relation to this matter.

134 Havil Street: On the Thames Reach website I found that the introduction and brief of what the Academy intends to do vague. You could almost say it’s misleading to suggest that ‘the activities going on therein very likely to change during the course of the buildings use’. So today it’s an Employment Academy and tomorrow, what exactly? The plans show that the 3 storey Turret building will be built literally next door to my fencing and will be aligned to my front garden wall and continue past the length of my property. The effect is likely to be overbearing and claustrophobic; The assessment states that ‘assumptions’ were made with regards to light and as a

result it has been concluded that there will not be much difference to the light and overshadowing to my home. However I disagree. The height proposed will affect the light and therefore overshadowing to the front garden and further reduce any further daylight received through to the front of my property and kitchen. In addition light to my back garden, contrary to what has been stated will be affected. There will be overshadowing due to the height of the 3 storey turret building; The 3 storey turret build appears to run beyond the length of my property then drops to a lower level which appears to be the same height as the current wire fencing. The wire fencing allows for light to come through and the solid build will not allow for this; The lower part of the 3 storey turret building has a flat roof design which appears will be the same height as my fencing. I am concerned about the security and accessibility to the rear of my property as I feel that this will make my property vulnerable. Having experienced incidences involving myself, property and the Police you should understand my concerns; The terrace area within the 3 storey turret will result in visual intrusion and loss of privacy to the front and back of my property; Streetshine Offices have a terrace area which in the sketch appears to have a clear view of the back of my property and back bedroom window which will result in a loss of privacy; The opening hours for the training academy makes no allowance for respite for my household or my neighbours form the Academy and its activities; Various functions from ‘meeting to social events’ are intended to take place 7 days a week especially at the weekends and bank holidays. The general way in which ‘social events’ is used could mean anything; The café will generate noise, loitering and rubbish; There will be increased level of noise pollution and disturbance from the increased level of users, this could range from cars pulling up at inappropriate times of the night, shouting in the street, urinating against the walls and increased litter deposits regardless of signage, litterbins and warnings; The site is opposite Lucas Gardens which used to be a hub for anti-social behaviour i.e. people drinking alcohol around the fountain and taking drugs. It has now been cleaned up – what systems will be put inn place to prevent this situation from reoccurring? What provisions have been made for the smokers who will be accessing the Academy, as some of the previous occupants would smoke outside of the building; Taking into account the client groups that will have access to the site, will security be provided at ALL times to prevent antisocial behaviour? Or will the site be dependant on CCTV? Visitors to the site may drive and cause disturbance to traffic and associated car parking; If you are just a Training Academy as described in the proposals providing support in gaining employment why are there male and female showers? I am not against social development but this is ill conceived – it has been envisaged that the Academy will be a ‘bustling centre’ with between 100 to 150 people accessing the facilities on a daily basis. Camberwell is already a high-density area; It is stated that while the academy is based in Southwark it will also target the Lambeth – what if there are clients outside of those boroughs requiring assistance, will their needs not be catered for?

2 letters in support of the proposal. 30 Homeleigh Road - The proposed Employment Academy will be of great benefit to the local community and make a lasting impact on the local environment; - I have been aware of the good work done by Thames Reach for many years, and have been fortunate enough to create an award winning arts project with some of their clients. I was extremely impressed with the quality of their charitable work, and am

certain that the project will be developed with a high level of sensitivity to local needs; - I am familiar with the proposed site of the Employment Academy – a beautiful building and a shame to allow it to remain empty. Using this local resource to train unemployed people, and help to get them back into work, seems to me a very appropriate use for this building; - I am certain that both the architectural development of the building, and the running of the new community facilities will be carried out with imagination, energy, dedication, and focus on needs of local people.

St Giles Trust, 64-68 Camberwell Church Street - As a local organization working to assist some of the most vulnerable and excluded members of society, St Giles Trust welcome the fact that this local landmark will be brought back into use and will serve as a base to help all local residents with their training and employment needs; - Pleased to learn that space will be available in the building at reasonable rates for community groups; - The cafe is a very good idea, as there is little in the way of this type of facility in the immediate vicinity; - Trust the Council will assist Thames Reach to proceed with this undoubtedly worthwhile project which will provide enormous benefits to local residents and community groups.