Site address The Livity School, Mandrell Road, London, SW2 5DW.

Ward Brixton Hill

Proposal Re-development of the site comprising the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of part 3 part 4 storey development to provide 51 residential units (15 houses and 36 flats)

Application type

Full Planning Application

Application ref(s) 12/03539/RG4

Validation date 16.10.2012

Case officer details Sarah Lowes Tel: 020 7926 1248 Email: Slowes@lambeth.gov.uk

Applicant Genesis Housing Association

Agent Mr Ben Thomas c/o Savills

Considerations/constraints None

Approved plans 1123(PL)001 Rev A, H2311-T, H2311-E (S1), H2311-E (S2), 1123(PL)100 Rev G, 1123 (PL)101 Rev E, 1123 (PL)102 Rev E, 1123 (PL)103 Rev E, 1123 (PL)104 Rev B, 1123 (PL) 201 Rev D, 1123 (PL) 203 Rev D, 1123 (PL)202 Rev D, 1123 (PL) 204 Rev C, 123 (PL)205, 1123 (PL) 206, 1123, Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment (Sept 2012), Arboricultural Survey (May 2012), Statement of Community Involvement (September 2012), Transport Assessment (August 2012), Energy Strategy Report (September 2012), Daylight/Sunlight Report (September 2012) Planning Statement (September 2012) and Design and Access Statement (September 2012).

Recommendation(s) Grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Report Review

Department(s) or Organisation(s) Date consulted

Date response received

Comments summarised in para

Governance & Democracy (legal)

14/03/2013 18/03/2013 N/A

For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing democracy@lambeth.gov.uk or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy

Consultation

Department(s) or Organisation(s) Consulted? (y/n)

Date response received

Comments summarised in report? (y/n)

Internal

Highways & Transport Y 29/10/2012 Y

Conservation & Urban Design Y 13/12/2012 Y

Tree Officer Y 04/02/2013 Y

Crime Prevention Design Advisor Y 20/11/2012 Y

Housing Officer Y 26/11/2012 Y

Planning Implementation (S106) Y 19/11/2012 Y

Sustainability Y 22/01/2013 Y

Education Y 05/02/2013 Y

External

TFL Y 31/10/2012 Y

Brixton Society Y N/A

Brixton Business Forum Y N/A

Blenheim Gardens TMO Y 23/11/2012 Y

Arlington Lodge Residents Ass Y N/A

Background Documents Case File (this can be accessed via the Planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020 7926 1180)

1 Summary of Main Issues

1.1 The main issues involved in this application are: -

• The principle of the change of use;

• The acceptability of the land swap in securing replacement education land within the borough;

• The role of the development in meeting housing needs in the Borough;

• Whether the affordable housing tenure and dwelling mix is suitable for the location;

• The acceptability of the standard of internal accommodation for future occupiers;

• Whether the scale, layout, appearance and landscaping of the development shown would relate satisfactorily to site, local context and surrounding area;

• The acceptability of the tree felling necessary to facilitate the development and other landscaping and tree implications;

• The sustainability of the development;

• The impact of the development upon the amenity of neighbouring residential properties;

• The implications of the development on the function of the surrounding road network, conditions of on-street parking, highway safety and public transport capacity;

• The ecological implications of the development;

• Planning Obligations;

• Whether the development would include suitable measures to minimise opportunities for crime.

2 Site Description

2.1 The application site is a school site (Use Class D1) currently hosting a

Special Educational Needs School called the Livity School. It should be noted that the school will be relocating to a newly built facility on Adare Walk in Streatham. The site consists of two attached single storey octagon shaped buildings with a central courtyard. In addition there is a single storey extension sited within the northwest corner of the application site. The site area is 0.44 hectares. The site is located on a prominent corner situated at the junction of Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road within the Brixton Hill ward.

2.2 The site is located within a residential area. The site is bound to the north by Mandrell Road, to the east by Strathleven, Lambert and Granville Roads, to the south by Prague Place (a pedestrian accessway to Blenheim Gardens) and to the west by Ashby Mews a converted Victorian School building and new mews development. The buildings within the local area are between 2-4 storeys in height with architectural styles from early Victorian to post war development. In addition to some more recent development to the west of the site.

2.3 The southern part of the site is 1.7m lower than the adjoining ground level on Prague Place. This southern elevation presents a 1.5m brick wall with

1m high mesh fencing on top to the pedestrian walkway on Prague Place. Fourteen trees are located along the southern boundary of the site, 3 large mature trees are sited within the north eastern corner of the site and a group of 4 trees are located on the pavement to the north of the application site.

2.4 The main access to the site is from Mandrell Road for both pedestrians and vehicles however there is a secondary vehicle access off at the junction with Lambert Road. This is due to Strathleven Road been closed to through traffic by bollards at the junction with Mandrell Road which only allow cyclists to pass through.

2.5 To the east of the site is Brixton Hill and to the north of the site is Acre Lane. To the south and west of the site is the Blenheim Gardens Estate and further south is Windmill Gardens and Brixton Windmill.

2.6 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 4 along Strathleven and Lambert Road and PTAL of 2 from Mandrell Road and Prague Place. Clapham Common, Clapham North and Brixton underground stations within the local vicinity along with a large number of bus routes accessible from Brixton Hill and Acre Lane.

2.7 The application site is not located within a Conservation Area and none of the buildings in or adjoining the application site are listed.

3 Planning History

3.1 Planning Application (07/02425/RG3) for the ‘Partial demolition, rebuilding and refurbishment of the school, involving the demolition of the existing extension to the western side of the site, removal of a portakabin, internal and external alterations and erection of a first floor extension with green roof, incorporating solar panels to upgrade the school facilities and increase the capacity from 69 pupils to 80 pupils, together with reconfiguration of car parking to provide 15 car parking spaces, provision of one visiting amenity drop off and 6 bus spaces, plus alterations to boundary walls and fences and landscaping’ GRANTED on 19 October 2007.

3.2 Planning Application (09/01326/RG4) for the ‘Removal of existing temporary classroom and the erection of a temporary single storey building with covered walkway and the installation of three solar/weather covered areas’ on 17 July 2009 was REFUSED for the following reasons:

1 In the absence of necessary detail in terms of the overall height of the proposed walkway it has not been fully demonstrated that this proposed structure would be in accordance with policies 33 and 36 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).

2 In the absence of necessary detail in terms of the overall height of the proposed canopies it has not been fully demonstrated that this proposed structure would be in accordance with policies 33 and 36 of the Unitary

Development Plan (2007).

3.3 Planning Application (09/02417/RG4) for the ‘Replacement of existing modular building with a new single storey ground floor modular building and replacement of existing ramp with a new ramp to the side elevation for a temporary period of 3 years, formation of a covered walkway between the existing school and the new modular building and installation of 3 solar/weather covered areas’ on 15 September 2009.

Adare Walk – Planning Permission for the replacement Livity School

3.4 Planning Permission (10/02642/RG3) for the Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site involving the erection of a part 2 part 3 storey building to provide a primary school (Use Class D1) the works include the erection of a refuse and recycling store, cycle storage and enclosures for a generator, substation and air handling unit; the provision of solar panels at second floor level; provision of external play space with the installation of a canopy to create a covered play area; 7 visitor car parking spaces with separate bus, car/taxi and delivery drop off points and associated landscaping and erection of boundary treatment. The development would also include the installation of a gate and works to the footpath fronting Leigham Court Road and the realignment of footpath, highway and boundary fencing at the junction of Adare Walk and Mountearl Gardens was Approved on 19 November 2010.

Land to the rear of 47-49 Acre Lane (Acre Lane Land Swap Site)

3.5 Planning Application (10/04260/FUL) was Refused on 21 March 2011 for the ‘Redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of existing warehouse buildings and the erection of a 3 storey building to provide 21 self contained flats and a part 2 part 3 storey terrace to provide 7 houses which would be accessed from Sudbourne Road, along with associated landscaping, two disabled car parking spaces and cycle and refuse and recycling storage’ for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development would, by reasons of the height and

proximity of blocks A and B to adjoining residential boundaries, create an unacceptable sense of enclosure and overbearing development to the rear gardens and for the occupiers of neighbouring properties in Sudbourne Road, in particular Nos. 55 and 57 and 63 and 65 Sudbourne. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies 31, 33 and 38 of Unitary Development Plan: policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

2. The proposed development would, by reason of the balconies at first

and second floor level of Block A adjacent to the boundaries with adjoining residential properties on Sudbourne Road, create elevated viewing platforms which would result in undue overlooking to the rear gardens and rear elevations of nos. 57, 59 and 61 Sudbourne Road to the detriment of privacy levels. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies 31, 33 and 38 of Unitary Development Plan: policies as

saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

3. The proposed access route, by virtue of its narrow width and dog leg

formation, presents an inappropriate and unsafe vehicular route. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate emergency access strategy is in place. As such, the proposal would be contrary to saved Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)

4. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation under s106 of the

Act, the application fails to provide the affordable housing proposed in perpetuity; fails to include commitments to a car club membership and contribution to a car club bay, a permit free scheme and fails to secure financial contributions to mitigate its potential impacts would result in an increase in demand on Council provided initiatives and services within the location to their unacceptable detriment. In the circumstances the development would be contrary to policies 9, 14, 16, 23, 31, and 50 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010, Policies S2, S4, S5 and S10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document on s106 obligations (2008)

3.6 The refused application was appealed (APP/N5660/A/11/2151244) on 26

April 2011 the appeal was heard at an Informal Hearing on 3 August 2011. The appeal was allowed subject to conditions.

4 Proposal

4.1 The application involves the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of part 3 part 4 storey development to provide 51 residential units (15 houses and 36 flats).

4.2 The development would involve the erection of three blocks of residential dwellings. A terrace of 11 three storey houses facing onto Mandrell Road (Block A) all of which would be private market housing. A part three part four storey building sited on the corner of Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road which would provide 36 residential flats, 18 of which would be split level (Block B) and a three storey terrace of 4 houses fronting onto and accessed via Prague Place (Block C).

4.3 The development would result in 39 or 76.5% of the units being of an affordable housing tenure, of these 39 units 64% would be shared ownership and 36% would be affordable rent. 12 units would be private market housing.

4.4 The development would provide ground floor private amenity spaces for all the houses (15) and for all ground floor flats (10). All of the ground floor units would be accessed directly from the street, communal entrances on

Strathleven and Mandrell Roads would provide access to the upper floor units. In addition all of the upper floor flats would be provided with balconies. Communal amenity space would be provided centrally within the development with children’s play space, raised planters and miniature allotments along with hard and soft landscaping and seating features. This area would be accessed via an undercroft off Mandrell Road and would be secured with steel railings and a pedestrian gate. Cycle parking in the form of 14 Sheffield stands would be provided within this area.

4.5 No off street car parking is proposed within the development, it is proposed that the 15 family sized houses on Mandrell Road and Prague Place would benefit from resident parking permits however the remaining development would be car free to be secured through a S106 planning obligation. All the houses would be provided within individual cycle parking storage for between 2 and 4 cycles and two communal cycle storages areas are proposed for the flats. A total of 91 cycle parking spaces would be provided within the development.

4.6 The development would result in the loss of 15 trees within the application site, 14 trees along the southern boundary of the site and one within the north eastern corner. The development proposes a full landscaping scheme inclusive of planting of trees within and around the application site to compensate for the loss of trees.

4.7 The development is proposed to be constructed mainly of orange bricks, with lead cladding to the fourth floor of block B. In addition the rear elevations of block A would be constructed in grey brick. The windows and doors are proposed to be grey aluminium/timber framed windows and doors.

Details of Land Swap Agreement

4.8 A land swap forms part of the submitted application, the application site is current owned by the Local Education Authority. The proposal would see the applicant swap a site they own ‘The land to the rear of 47-49 Acre Lane’ (Acre Lane Land Swap Site) for the application site. This would allow the Council to construction an extension to the Sudbourne Road Primary School on the Acre Lane Swap Site which access directly onto Sudbourne Road. This would be secured by way of a S106 legal agreement.

5 Consultations and Responses

5.1 Letters were sent to 249 neighbouring properties within the vicinity of the site. The addresses are as follows: All addresses including flats at: 1-4 Ashby Mews All addresses including flats at: 1-12 and 154-169 Glanville Road All addresses including flats at: 1-16 and 20-30 (evens) Mandrell Road All addresses including flats at: 1-78 Prague Place All addresses including flats at: 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 106, 108, 109, 110,

111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129 and 131

Strathleven Road All addresses including flats at: 54, 56, 56, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73,

75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87 and 89 Lambert Road All addresses including flats at: 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30

and 32 Mauleverer Road All addresses including flats at: 63, 89 and 91 Lyham Road

5.2 A site notice was erected and a press advert was published in the Lambeth Weekender on 22 October 2012.

Internal consultation

5.3 Conservation and Urban Design – No objections to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to the detail of the development.

5.4

Transport and Highways – No objections to the proposal subject to S106 obligations and compliance with conditions.

5.5

Crime Prevention Officer – No objections to the development subject to conditions

5.6

Trees – No objections subject to tree protection and replacement conditions

5.7 Housing – comments received in support of the application with regards to

the affordable house provision, tenure and mix.

5.8 Parks and Open – No objections to the proposal.

5.9 Environment Health (Noise and Pollution) – No objections to the proposed development.

5.10 Planning Implementation – Comments received in regards to required planning obligations

5.11 Streetcare - No comments received.

5.12 Education – Responded in support of the land swap and the provision of an extension to Sudbourne Primary School on the Acre Lane Site.

5.13 Planning Policy – No comments received on the application

External consultation

5.14 The Brixton Society, Brixton Business Forum, Arlington Lodge Residents Association and Blenheim Gardens Tenant Management Organisation have been consulted on the application. The Blenheim Gardens TMO has objected to the proposal.

5.15 Transport for London has been consulted and raised no objections to the proposal.

5.16 14 objection letters from neighbours have been received. A petition with

179 signatures was submitted to the Council in response to the proposed land swap agreement, a copy of this was submitted to the Local Planning Authority with the objection to the proposal from the Livity Action Group. The details of the objections are outlined below:

No. of Letters sent

No. of Objections No. in support Comments

249 14 0 0

Issue raised by Objector Officer response

• Impact on parking within surrounding streets

• The parking survey submitted with the application indicates that local parking stresses are calculated to be approximately 58%.

• The proposal does not include any off street car parking and there would be a parking permit cap on the one and two bedroom units. The Council’s Transport Planner has reviewed the submission and considers that the proposal would not unduly impact on the local area in regards to parking stresses. The additional cars which may generated by the larger 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings could be accommodated on street and would not result in parking stresses above the 90% threshold. In addition all eligible residents would benefit from two years of car club membership and two car club bays are sited on Mandrell Road. These measures are considered appropriate mitigation to ensure that the proposal would not unduly harm the local highway network or unacceptably increase parking stress within the local area.

• Noise and disturbance from the construction of the development

• Construction of the development should not cause undue harm through noise and disturbance. In order therefore to ensure minimum disturbance or nuisance to local residents it is recommended that a condition of this consent be the submission of a Construction Management Plan. The Plan would include details regarding the hours of construction; parking, deliveries and storage (including details of the routing if delivery vehicles to and from the site and the accommodation of all site operatives’, visitors’ and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site during the construction period); dust mitigation measures and; measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway.

• The proposal would result in a loss of light and privacy to Ashby Mews to the southwest corner of the site.

• With regards to the impact on daylight/sunlight a BRE compliant daylight/sunlight study has been submitted with the application and officer consider that the proposal would not cause significant harm to light levels to warrant a reason for refusal. This is discussed in further detail in section 11 of this report.

• There are no windows proposed in the side elevation of block C which would overlook Ashby Mews and all of the windows within the front elevation would serve non habitable rooms. Officer considered there would not be any significant harm to the privacy levels of occupiers. This is discussed in detail in section 11 of this report.

• Lack of recreational space within the development and the surrounding area.

• Communal amenity space around the application development is proposed and the amenity space provision would comply with the Council’s Guidance. In addition the applicant would be required to provide a planning obligation of £75,925.20 towards parks and open space which would enhance the environment and open spaces within the local area.

• The density of the development is out of keeping with the local area

• The development would comply with the London Plan standards in regards to housing density. The development would provide 419hr/hectare and 114units/hectare in the urban area with a good to poor PTAL rating. The urban design of the development is considered to be appropriate and proposal would not result in significant harm to residential amenity to warrant a reason for refusal. The development is considered to appropriately respond to the urban context of the application site.

• The proposal would have impact on property values

• This is not a material planning consideration

• Prague Place will become more dangerous as it would be enclosed and dark.

• The introduction of additional dwellings along Prague Place would provide more active and passive surveillance for this pedestrian access way along with additional light spillage. This is considered to be a positive contribution to the local area and is considered to enhance community safety. The route would be more actively used by the occupiers of the proposed dwellings increasing the footfall. Whilst the pathway maybe more enclosed its use would be increased and additional light from the proposed dwellings along with active surveillance is considered to positively contribute to the public realm and enhance community

safety. A condition would secure details of external lighting within the development should planning permission be granted.

• Loss of shared community facilities provide by the school like the swimming pool.

• The existing school on the application site is to be relocated to a new purpose built facility on Adare Walk in Streatham. The relocation of the Livity School pre dates any proposal for the development of the application site. Within the existing School there is a small swimming pool. This was used once a week for a baby group, the Council’s Education department has indicated that this use has ceased and that the pool was never available for general hire. The new Livity school would provide a replacement swimming pool for use by the school.

• Given the limited community use of the swimming pool it is considered that there would not be a significant loss of community facilities.

• Loss of education use on the site.

• Firstly it should be noted that the Livity School will relocate to the new purpose built facility on Adare Walk in Streatham which would allow an increase in pupil numbers from 69 to 80.

• In addition this application involves a land swap (between the Council’s Education Department and the Applicant) which would result in the Council swapping the application site for a replacement site (the Acre Lane Swap Site) which could only be used for educational purposes. This would be secured by way of planning obligation and is required to make this application policy compliant in land use terms. The application site 0.44 ha and the Acre Lane Land Swap Site is 0.38 ha. So whilst there would be some overall loss of education land, it is considered that the provision of land within 200m of the existing Sudbourne Road Primary School to facilitate its enlargement and provision of additional educational facilities, on balance would outweigh this overall reduction in site area.

• The proposal would result in a loss of trees

• The proposal would result in a loss of a number of mature trees specifically along the southern boundary of the application site. Whilst any loss of trees is regrettable the proposal would include an extensive landscaping scheme which would be secured by way of condition. The condition would also ensure that replacement trees are proposed as part of the wider landscaping of the development.

• The proposed design, scale and height of the development and use of materials is out of keeping with the surrounding area

• The proposed development is considered to reflect the surrounding pattern of development. The Council’s Urban Design Officer has reviewed the submission and raises no objections. The use of materials is considered to reflect the character and appearance of the local area. This is discussed in detail within section 9 of this report.

• There would be overlooking from the proposed balconies to the detriment of the privacy of neighbouring and surrounding residential properties.

• Balconies are proposed within Block B which fronts onto Mandrell, Strathleven, Lambert and Glanville Roads. Block B would be sited between 15-17m from properties on Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road. Balconies would be inset with 1.1m high privacy screens at first and second floor levels. The number, insert nature of the balconies and the distance is considered to be sufficient in order to limit any potential impact from overlooking to properties on Mandrell and Strathleven Roads.

• In regards to 89-91 Lambert Road the proposed development would be sited 12.5m from the side elevation of this property, only two windows within the elevation of the rear return are habitable. The balconies would be inset and a 1.1m high screen would be provided. Whilst this does represent an ideal relationship it is considered that the proposal would not result in significant harm to warrant a reason for refusal. There is a similar relationship to the rear of the site within the Blenheim Garden Estate; 161-162 Glanville Road has rear balconies within 10m of the rear boundary of the 89-91 Lambert Road.

• The proposal would result in undue noise and disturbance within the local area harmful to the living conditions of existing local residents.

• The proposed development is for the change of use of the application site from an education use to residential to provide 51 dwellings. The surrounding area is residential and the proposal would result in a conforming use. The provision of additional residential units within this location would not result in undue harm to the residential amenity through noise and disturbance of existing occupiers.

6 Planning Policy Considerations

6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires

planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (July 2011), the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy (January 2011)’.

6.2 Other material considerations include national, regional and local planning policy documents and guidance.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

6.3 Central Government guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was published on the 27th March 2012. This replaced all Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) that preceded it and, sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

6.4 The NPPF reinforces the Development Plan led system and, does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The NPPF must now be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans and, is a material consideration in planning decisions.

6.5 It should be noted that the NPPF requires local planning authorities to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development when assessing and determining development proposals. The following sections are of specific relevance to this application: Chapter 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Chapter 7 – Requiring good design Chapter 8 – Promoting healthy communities

The London Plan 2011

6.6 The London Plan was adopted in July 2011. The London Plan is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region.

6.7 The key policies of the plan considered relevant in this case are:

Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments Policy 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation

facilities Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities Policy 3.10 Definition of affordable housing Policy 3.11 Affordable housing targets Policy 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds Policy 3.16 Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure Policy 3.18 Education Facilities Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 5.7 Renewable energy Policy 5.21 Contaminated land

Policy 6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s Neighbourhood and Communities Policy 7.2 An Inclusive Environment Policy 7.3 Designing out Crime Policy 7.4 Local Character Policy 7.5 Public realm Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes Policy 7.21 Trees and woodlands Policy 8.2 Planning obligations Policy 8.3 Community infrastructure levy

Local Planning Policies

6.8 Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 Policy 9 Transport impact Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 16 Affordable Housing Policy 26 Community Facilities Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out Crime Policy 33 Building Scale and Design Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential / Mixed Use Areas Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design

6.9 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy January 2011 Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 – Housing Policy S4 – Transport Policy S5 – Open Space Policy S7 –Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 – Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment Policy S10 – Planning Obligations

Supplementary Planning Guidance

6.10 The Council has adopted the following Supplementary Planning Documents,

which are considered to be of relevance to this application:

• SPD: Safer Built Environments

• SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction

• SPD: S106 Planning Obligations

6.11 The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements:

Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006).

7 Land Use

7.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.’

7.2 London Plan Policy 3.18 sets out that development proposals which enhance education and skills provision will be supported and those which address the current projected shortage of primary schools places will be particularly encouraged.

7.3 Policy 26 of the UDP seeks to protect community facilities (which include education facilities) and states that the loss of community facilities within the D1 use class will be resisted unless: (i) A facility of equivalent functionality is replaced locally, or adequate planning obligations are secured to mitigate against its loss. This would require securing or improving facilities of equivalent functionality in the area and ensuring their long-term viability; and (ii) Both the site and any buildings are unsuitable and/or unviable for redevelopment for community uses for which there is a local shortage or deficiency.

Principle of the change of use from Education (Use Class D1) to Residential (Use Class C3)

7.4 The proposal seeks permission for the change of use of the application site from education use to residential. National, Regional and Local planning policy seek to enhance existing education provision. Saved Policy 26 of the UDP seeks to protect community facilities within the D1 use class and any loss is resisted unless is meets the exceptions. The application site is currently a school within the D1 use class. Part (i) of the policy sets out that a facility of equivalent functionality should be replaced locally, the Livity School who currently occupy the site are moving (within this school year) to a newly constructed school on Adare Walk in Streatham, which would allow an increase in pupil numbers from 69 to 80. In addition to this a land swap which would be secured by a Section 106 agreement would provide the Local Education Department with land to facilitate additional educational facilities.

7.5 A land swap agreement between the Council’s Education Department and the applicant (Genesis Housing Association) forms part of this application. The application site which is currently in the ownership of the Council is proposed to be ‘swapped’ for a site Land to the rear of 47-49 Acre Lane (Acre Lane Swap Site) (currently owned by Genesis). The Acre Lane Swap Site has access onto and is in close proximity to Sudbourne Road and Sudbourne Primary School. The application site (currently occupied by the Livity School (who will move within the current school year to a newly constructed school in Streatham)) was earmarked as a site for an extension to the Sudbourne Road Primary School.

7.6 Sudbourne Road Primary School is 700m from the application site. The Acre

Land Swap Site is approximately 200m from Sudbourne Primary school and has been considered by the Council’s Education Department as a more appropriate location for an extension to the School. The land swap agreement would allow the extension of Sudbourne Road Primary School on the Acre Lane Swap Site which is sited within 200m of the existing school site. An outline application is current running concurrently with this application for a school extension to Sudbourne Primary allowing the school to move from 1.5 forms of entry to 3 forms. The Council’s Education Department has progressed the Sudbourne Road School extension at the Acre Lane site through Cabinet and has applied to the Secretary of State for permission to go ahead with the Land Swap (no response has been received to date). The draft local plan identifies the Acre Lane site as a site for the extension of Sudbourne Road Primary School.

7.7 The existing Livity School is a Special Educational Needs (SEN) school and the school building would not be suitable for reuse for as part of the Sudbourne Road Primary School given the nature of the existing SEN schools use. The site would need to be completely redeveloped to be used for non SEN pupils. The land swap agreement would allow a new education provision to be provided on the Acre Lane Swap Site which has direct access onto Sudbourne Road and is within 200m of the existing School. In this regard it is considered that the proposal would comply with the spirit of Saved policy 26 of the UDP.

7.8 The application site is 0.44 hectares and Acre Lane Swap Site is 0.38 hectares. The replacement land proposed for educational purpose is smaller than the existing site however given the proximity to the existing school (500m closer than the Livity School site) it is considered that this benefit outweighs the small overall loss in land. In addition given the industrial nature of the area surrounding the Acre Lane site there are less constraints with regards to the potential impacts on residential amenity than the Livity School site.

7.9 On balance the principle of the change of use of the application site from an education use to residential is considered to be acceptable given that a replacement provision of land would be given to the Council’s Education department for educational purposes through the land swap agreement and would be secured by a section 106 legal agreement. The proposal would allow an existing school within the borough to expand and enhance its facilities within 200m of the existing school site. This is considered to be in the spirit of national, regional and local planning policies and would enhance the provision of primary school places within the borough and in addition provide fifty one residential units of which 76% would be affordable.

Suitability of the site to accommodate an additional housing

7.10 The NPPF promotes the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. The application site is considered to be previously developed land and not of high environmental value.

7.11 London Plan Policy 3.3 set out borough housing targets, and in line with this

the Council’s LDF Core Strategy Policy S2 states ‘ The Council will meet the borough’s housing needs to 2025 by the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwelling across the borough between 2010/2011 and 2016/2017 in line with London Plan targets’.

7.12 The proposal would provide 51 residential units within an existing residential area. The surrounding area is made up of a number of different housing styles and tenures and the provision of 51 additional units (76% affordable Housing Units) is considered to be appropriate for the application site. The site has a PTAL of 4 indicating a good level of public transport accessibility.

7.13 The site is previously developed land and is located within an established residential area it is considered the site is suitable for the provision of residential dwellings subject to compliance with other land use policies as discussed above.

Density of development

7.14 Policy 3.4 of the London Plan states that development should optimise housing output taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 of the London Plan and public transport capacity. Reference is also made to indicative density ranges for different types of locations contained within Table 3.2 of the Plan.

7.15 Saved UDP Policy 33 states that 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. Proposals for higher densities than that prevalent in the surrounding area will be encouraged in appropriate locations, which include areas of good, very good or exceptional public transport accessibility. Schemes that under-develop a site will be refused. In all cases, however, development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding development or harm residential amenity. Illustrations of densities that can be achieved are given within the supporting text to the Policy. This indicates that densities of 300-450 Habitable Rooms per Hectare (HRH) are achievable in urban areas with good/poor levels of public transport accessibility.

7.16 Policy S2(g) of the Core Strategy seeks levels of residential density consistent with London Plan guidelines, having regard to the provision of other uses on the site, availability of local services, access to and capacity of public transport, urban design context, quality of design and impact on existing and future residents. The London plan Table 3.2 sets out in urban areas with good public transport accessibility 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha) should be provided and in urban areas of average to poor 200-450 hr/ha should be provided.

7.17 In this case the site lies within an urban location characterised by a mix of terrace housing, housing blocks and apartment block. The site is located

within an area of poor to good PTAL 2-4 and sited within 1km from Brixton Hill and Acre Lane. The proposed development would provide 114 dwelling per hectare or 419 habitable rooms per hectare. This would be in line with the guidance set out within the Lambeth UDP, Policy S2 of the Core Strategy and the London Plan and as such the density of the development is considered acceptable.

Affordable Housing

7.18 The NPPF defines affordable housing as ‘Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.’

7.19 Core Strategy Policy S2 states that on sites capable of accommodating 10 or more homes the provision of affordable housing should be sought. Further to this the policy states that at least 50% of housing should be affordable housing where public subsidy is available and 40% if not. The proposal would provide 76.5% affordable housing with 100% nomination rights for Lambeth.

7.20 The provision of 76% affordable housing is considered to be in line with Policy S2 of the Core Strategy and saved policy 16 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The acceptability of the dwelling mix and tenure of the proposed affordable housing

7.21 Core Strategy Policy S2 (d) seeks a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of the community including through applying Lifetimes Homes and Building for Life Standards and providing wheelchair accessible housing.

7.22 Saved policy 16 of the UDP states a range of unit sizes of affordable housing should be provided having regard for local circumstances, site characteristics and the aims of the boroughs annual Housing Strategy.

7.23 The dwelling mix proposed would reflect the local housing need and would provide a high percentage of larger family sized units. The mix is as follows: 1 Bedroom = 12 Units 2 Bedroom = 21 Units 3 Bedroom = 7 Units 4 Bedroom = 11 units

7.24 The proposal would provide 18 three and four bedroom units which would be 35 % of the total units; this is considered to reflect the need of the borough. Further to this the proposal also provides 21 two bedroom units which are also considered to be family sized. Therefore 76% of the proposed units within the scheme would be family sized and this is considered to meet the needs of the borough creating a mixed and balance community.

7.25 The proposal seeks to provide 76% of the units as affordable housing, with 25 units as shared ownership and 14 as Affordable Rent. The NPPF defines affordable rent housing as being let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).

7.26 Policy S2 of the Core Strategy states the tenure mix of housing should be 70% social rent and 30% intermediate. The proposal would provide 64% intermediate housing/shared ownership and 36% affordable rent. The proposal would not full comply with this part of the policy when assessed against the level of affordable housing proposed. For the application to be acceptable and policy compliant only 40% of the proposed dwellings would need to affordable, i.e. 20 of the units, therefore the 14 affordable rent units that are proposed would equate to 70% of a policy compliance affordable housing provision. The applicant is proposing 25 shared ownership units however only 6 of these are required to ensure that the proposal would comply with Policy S2. The additional 19 unit are additional affordable housing which is proposed by the applicant. This is considered to be a significant affordable housing offer and is considered to comply and exceed the expected levels of affordable housing as required by national, regional and local planning policies. The Council’s Housing Officer is in support for the application.

7.27 The rent levels proposed are considered to be line with the Council’s Policy of a blended approach, which seeks target rents (Social Rents), for three and four bedroom units and 1 and 2 bedroom units should be 60% of market rents. Within this scheme the 3 and 4 bedroom units are at target rents and the 1 and 2 bedroom units are at proposed at 60% of market rent levels within the local area. The council’s Housing Officer has reviewed these rent levels and are in support of the proposal as it is in line with the Housing Department policy.

7.28 In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development would be suitably located on previously developed land, providing 76.5% affordable housing and much needed larger family sized units which meet the local housing need. The affordable housing tenure is considered to be acceptable and appropriate for the application site. As such it is considered that the proposal would comply with Core Strategy Policy S2, Saved Policy 15, London Plan Policies and the NPPF.

8 Standard of Residential Accommodation

8.1 Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (2011) seeks a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community. Saved Policy 33 of the UDP states that all development should be of a high design quality that makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of potential residents. In terms of the quality of residential units to be provided, saved Policies 15 and 33 are also supplemented by the Council’s SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.

8.2 The SPD advises on requirements such as minimum unit and room sizes and space standards, amenity space requirements, daylight/sunlight provision, privacy and spacing between buildings and lifetimes homes standards.

Size and layout

8.3 Proposed accommodation should comply with the room size standards and ceiling heights as laid out in Supplementary Planning Document - Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions. All the proposed units have been considered against the Standards of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

8.4 The proposed 51 additional units would all meet the minimum overall floor areas as set out in the SPD and have been designed in line with the London Housing Design Guide. With the large three and four bedroom units exceeding the minimum standards. The generous floor areas within the units are considered to reflect well designed internal layout. This is further identified by each unit being provided with circulation space and storage space and additional pram and cycle storage is proposed at ground floor levels.

8.5 In addition to this all of the rooms within the units would meet and exceed the SPD minimums indicating that a good quality of accommodation is proposed for future occupiers.

Daylight/Sunlight, Privacy and Outlook

8.6 The majority of the units within the development would have a dual aspect. All habitable rooms would be provided with windows that are considered to provide a good level of outlook. The layout of the units is considered adequate in order to provide sufficient levels of light. A BRE daylight/sunlight study has been submitted with the application indicating that all of the proposed units would receive adqaute levels of daylight/sunlight.

8.7 In terms of privacy all of the proposed units would be provided with balconies or outdoor privacy amenity space. The layout of the development is such that there is no direct overlooking between habitable windows within the development. There would be a degree of overlooking from balconies to the communal amenity space and some rear gardens; however this is considered to be appropriate and reflective of the nature of urban developments. There is considered to be sufficient separate distances between the existing surrounding development and the proposal in order to ensure that future occupiers would benefit from a good standard of accommodation.

8.8 A number of private rear gardens and terraces within the development would back onto the proposed communal amenity space. The private rear gardens would be enclosed by 2m high brick wall, which is considered sufficient to protect the residential amenity of future occupiers. The terraces which are proposed at ground floor in Block B would have 1.2m high balustrades separating the terrace area from the communal space to provide defensible space; in addition this small area would provide a degree of natural surveillance over the proposed communal space.

Lifetime Homes/Wheelchair Accessible Housing

8.9 London plan policy 3.8 (Housing Choice), Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2

(d) of the Core Strategy provide guidance on Lifetime Homes and wheelchair accessible housing. This is further expanded on in Section 7 of the SPD ‘Guidance and standards for housing development and house conversions’. This requires Lambeth to ensure that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes. In addition, within a development, ten per cent of all new homes should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.

8.10 The applicant submitted a Design and Access Statement indicates that development would meet lifetime home standards. Five wheelchair adaptable units are proposed, two houses within block A, two three bedroom split level flats and a two bedroom flat within Block B. This is in accordance with saved Policy 33 of the UDP, Policy S2 (d) of the Core Strategy and the SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions. A condition of consent would be attached to secure this commitment.

Amenity Space

8.11 The requirement for amenity space provision as part of new residential developments is detailed both in the London Plan and the Council’s Local Plan policies within the Core Strategy and Saved Unitary Development Plan policies. Saved Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(h) of the Core Strategy requires that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by, where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity space.

8.12 This is expanded on in section 2 of the Council’s SPD (Guidance and Standards for Housing Developments and House Conversions) which seeks to ensure that new housing developments provide an appropriate standard of useable amenity space for occupiers, both private and communal space.

8.13 With respect to amenity space the SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions sets out that for new flatted developments, shared amenity space of at least 50m2 per scheme should be provided. A further 10m2 per flat should also be provided, either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated with the communal space. Communal gardens should comply with the following standards: (i) receive natural light; (ii) be screened from parking areas; (iii) be easily accessible to all occupants; (iv) be overlooked by habitable rooms to ensure safety and surveillance; and (v) have a landscape, management and maintenance plan. In addition the SPD sets out that new build houses should have at least 30m2 of amenity space.

8.14 All of the proposed units would have some form of private amenity space, the houses would have private rear gardens, ground floor units would have either private rear garden or terrace areas and the upper floors would have balconies. All of the rear gardens for the houses within blocks A and C would be over 30m2, all of the ground floor gardens within Block B for the flats would

be over 10m2 and the majority of the balconies would be between 5-7m2. An area of 235m2 of communal amenity space would be provided centrally within the site.

8.15 The SPD sets out that 860m2 of amenity space should be provided, this include 30m2 for each of the proposed houses, 50m2 of communal space and 10m2 for each of the proposed flats. The proposal includes 235m2 of communal amenity space, 582.5m2 of private amenity space in the form of balconies within block B and 750m2 which is proposed at private rear gardens for the houses (blocks A and C). The level of amenity space proposed is considered to be acceptable and in compliance with the SPD guidance. The communal amenity space would be centrally located within the development allowing all occupants easy access; the space would be overlooked by units within all blocks and would receive natural light. This amenity space is considered to be positive contributor to the development and would add to the level of amenity that would be experienced by future occupiers.

Children and Young Peoples Play Space

8.16 In respect to Children’s Play space, Saved UDP Policy 50 (i) and the SPD relating to Housing Development set out 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, or on sites of 0.1 Ha or more, or in large mixed use developments. Play areas should be easily accessible, overlooked by habitable rooms and enclosed either through fencing, railings or other safety features. Further guidance on the amount of provision is provided in the GLA’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (adopted March 2008). This indicates that new residential development generating more than 10 children (as determined by the application of child occupancy assessments) should provide suitable play space as part of the development scheme. It states that provision should be based on 10sqm per child and that the provision should be considered as part of the overall open space provision rather than ‘over and above’ the requirements for private or shared amenity space as set out above. The Child Yield expected from this development is 34, therefore 340m2 of play space should be provided within the development.

8.17 The proposal does not include a defined play area and the communal amenity space has been designed to accommodate children’s play equipment. The GLA’s guidance states that play space should be incorporated as part of the overall amenity space provision. All of the proposed houses would have over and above 30m2 of rear amenity space which indicates that children within these dwelling would have adqaute play areas outside of the communal play provision. In addition the communal amenity space includes some play equipment and would promote play for children and young people. Details of play equipment would be secured by way of condition should the application be granted approval. Therefore the level of communal play space when considered with the level of private amenity space that would be provided for the houses and ground floor units of block B, it is considered that an adequate quantum of play space for children and young people would be provided on site

8.18 In summary the level and nature of amenity space is considered acceptable

and would not prejudice the aims of the SPD. In line with Policy requirements officers advise that a landscape management and maintenance plan for the communal amenity space and further details of play equipment and play space should be secured by condition should planning approval be granted.

9 Design

9.1 NPPF states that ‘Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.’

9.2 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP is relevant in as far as it sets out that all development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area. Saved policy 33 goes further to state that Major development should relate satisfactorily to adjacent townscape taking into account its scale, character, historic street layout and uses; improve the sense of place and legibility, and define edges by retaining characterful buildings, appropriate building lines and extending frontages; and provide servicing and parking that is sensitively sited and designed.

9.3 Saved Policy 31 of the UDP adds to this further by stating development should respond to and enhance the architectural character of the area, having regard to its overall urban or suburban characteristics, particularly in conversation areas and other areas of townscape of significant quality

Siting/Layout

9.4 The application site has a number of street frontages therefore the development has been designed to address this. The proposal would have a perimeter block layout with the three blocks fronting on to the existing streets.

9.5 Block A which fronts onto Mandrell Road would consists of 11 terraced houses along Mandrell Road and has a continuous street block, narrow plot widths and regular entrances along the street which reflects the fine urban grain within the area and promotes active frontages. Block C which fronts onto Prague Place would also have a continuous street block and regular entrances along the street.

9.6 Block B has two main elements separated by a glazed communal core. Both elements address the street and turn the corner successfully. Whilst the block has a different urban grain and massing to the rest of the proposed development and the residential hinterland, regular entrances along the street, the form of the building and the set back of the upper floor result in a development which has a very residential and domestic quality responding to the character of the area.

9.7 The layout of the development is considered to be appropriate and would successfully integrate into the local area. The perimeter block layout is considered to be the most appropriate way to redevelop the site and is

considered to respect the historic pattern of development within the locale.

Scale/Bulk/Height

9.8 The scheme proposes a development which is between two and four storey in height. Block A (terraced houses) would be three storeys, Block B (flats) along Strathleven Road would be part three, part four storeys and Block C (terraced houses) along Prague Place would be part two part three storeys. The general height of development within the area is between two and three storeys with a relatively fine urban grain. As such the proposed scheme being a maximum of four storeys is considered not to be significantly taller than neighbouring properties and as such would not dominate or overbear surrounding development.

9.9 The three blocks of different housing types would break up the overall mass of development, the housing on Mandrell Road (Block A) reflects the existing pattern of development, the flatted block (Block B) has a greater height and mass however this broken up by set back top floor and Block C is smaller housing which reflect the adjacent pattern of development at Prague Place. The bulk scale and mass of the development is considered to be appropriate to the application site.

9.10 The height, scale, bulk and massing of the proposed buildings are considered to be acceptable and would reflect the streetscape. Officers are of the opinion that the proposal would reflect the character and appearance of the application site and surrounding area and the development would integrate well within the local area.

Form and Appearance

9.11 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has been consulted on the application and has provided comments in regards to the detailed design of the proposal and does not have any in principle objections. Samples of the material proposed have been submitted and officers have agreed that these would be suitable within the local context, given the strong historic use of orange brick within local area. The development would mainly be constructed of an orange brick, the rear elevations of the houses constructed in a grey brick with lead cladding panels proposed for the upper floor of the flatted block and grey aluminium/timber framed windows and doors.

9.12 The proposal would also include a number of feature elements; at the two entrance cores to the Block B Terracotta relief feature panels are proposed which would include the Genesis Housing Association Logo. This is considered to reflect the historic architectural styles of the properties on Lambert and Strathleven Roads and would be a positive contribution to the visual amenity within the local area.

9.13 The detailed design and external appearance of the proposed development would provide buildings which would reflect the character and appearance of the surrounding area with contemporary design. It is officer opinion that the proposal would enhance the local environment and the detailed design would

be appropriate to the context of the existing site.

9.14 Overall, the proposed development is considered an appropriate response to the constraints of the site. The building would add to the existing variety in built form in the immediate and wider townscape.

10 Trees/Landscaping

10.1 Saved Policy 39 of the UDP sets out that as much attention should be paid to the design of the areas between buildings as to buildings themselves. Development should provide or enhance an uncluttered, consistent, simple, accessible and co-ordinated public realm, with robust and appropriate materials and landscape design which enhances the setting, connections and spaces between buildings. Trees of high amenity value will be protected.

10.2 The proposal involves the removal of the fifteen (15) trees within the site. T17 (Silver Maple) and T15 (Sycamore) sited within the north eastern corner of the site are proposed to be removed. In addition 13 trees along the southern boundary of the site are proposed to be removed in order to facilitate the proposed development.

10.3 The loss of trees to facilitate the development is accepted by officers however it is felt that the applicant should compensate for this loss. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has commented on the application and suggests that a comprehensive soft landscape scheme is secured to mitigate the tree removal and that the scheme concentrates on softening and greening the front boundaries of the site as a whole. In addition this should include appropriate structural planting and replacement of trees where appropriate.

10.4 Further to this it has been recommended that all trees to be retained on site should be subject to tree protection measures for the duration of the construction of the development. If permission is granted a condition would require further details to be submitted in regard to the tree protection measures that would be undertaken on site.

10.5 Subject to compliance with the suggested conditions it is considered that the proposal would comply with saved Policy 39 of the UDP and Policy S5 of the Core Strategy.

11 Residential Amenity

11.1 Saved Policies 33 and 38 of the UDP are relevant with regards to the impact of the development upon residential amenity.

11.2 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP sets out that building scale and design should

protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by having an acceptable standard of privacy; having an acceptable impact on levels of, daylight and sunlight; not creating unacceptable overlooking; not creating an undue sense of enclosure; and where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity space.

11.3 The application site faces onto or is adjoined on all boundaries by residential

properties. To the north of the site the application site faces onto two storey terrace properties on Mandrell Road. To the east of the site the development would face onto two/three storey residential properties on Strathleven Road and Lambert Road. To the south the development would face on two storey residential properties on Prague Place within the Blenheim Gardens Estate and to the west the site adjoins Ashby Mews, which include a mix of three storey apartment block and two storey mew houses.

Daylight/Sunlight

11.4 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP seeks to protect residential amenity which includes levels of daylight and sunlight received in existing and proposed residential units. The supporting paragraphs to this policy states in addressing daylight and sunlight regards will be had to the BRE (British Research Establishments) guide to good practice.

11.6 The applicant has submitted with the application a Daylight and Sunlight

Report in accordance with the British Research Establishment Guidance detailed within the document ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight A Guide to Good Practice’.

11.7 The report has identified a number of local residential properties which could

be affected by the proposed development and therefore requiring further analysis. These are as follows: 2-28 Mandrell Road (Evens) 108 Strathleven Road 125-127 Strathleven Road 129-131 Strathleven Road 60-62 Lambert Road 89-91 Lambert Road 68-77 Prague Place 1 Ashby Mews

11.8 Block A: The proposed terrace of houses on Mandrell Road would have a maximum high of 10m and would be sited 17m from the front elevation of existing properties on Mandrell Road. The submitted report follows the BRE guidance and assesses the Vertical Sky Component of windows which may be affected; the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) is the amount of skylight falling on a vertical wall or window. The optimum value for the VSC is 27% and any reduction below this level should be at a minimum. If the VSC, with the new development in place, is both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value, then it is considered that the occupants of the existing building will notice the reduction in the amount of daylight.

11.9 The report shows that all the windows, within properties on Mandrell Road, would have a VSC value of 27% or more which would not be reduced by less than 0.8 times its former value and would not have a detrimental impact on the daylight levels received.

11.10 Block B: The development of Block B on the corner of Mandrell Road,

Strathleven Road and Lambert Road would be a maximum of 12.6m high at 4 storeys. The proposed development on this site would be located approximately 10.2m from 89-91 Lambert Road, approximately 14m from the side elevation of 108 Strathleven Road and 17m from 60-62 Lambert Road. The Daylight/Sunlight report indicates that proposed development would not unduly impact on the daylight levels received to 60-62 Lambert Road. The report indicates that one ground floor window within the south facing elevation of 108 Strathleven Road, window W2/70, with the development in place would have a VSC of less than 27% and less than 0.8 times it former value. However this room is served by two windows, the second window would meet the BRS guidance in regards to the VSC and as such this is considered to indicate that adequate light levels would be provided.

11.11 With regard to 89-91 Lambert Road the daylight/sunlight report shows that all the windows tested within the western elevation of the property facing onto the development would fail to meet the BRE guidance in regards to the VSC. Further testing has been carried out and the room uses have been identified. This has indicates that out of these five windows only two are habitable W2/40 at ground floor and W2/41 at first floor. The other three windows are considered to be bathrooms and one is a solid door. The additional Average Daylight Factor (ADF) test has been carried out in line with the BRE guidance. The BRE indicates that the ADF should be 1% for bedrooms and 1.5% for living rooms. From the case officer site visit W2/41 appears to be a bedroom and would have an Average Daylight Factor of 1.84% and W2/40 appears to either be a living room or bedroom and has an ADF of 1.7%. These further tests are considered to indicate that whilst the development would have some impacts on the light levels received within these windows this would not be significant to warrant a reason for refusal.

11.12 Block C: Block C of the development would face onto Prague Place and would have a maximum height of 9.3m. The proposed development would sited approximately 10m from the rear elevations of 68-77 Prague Place. In addition Block C would 3.2m from 1 Ashby Mews at its closest point. The daylight/sunlight report submitted by the applicant indicates that the ground floor rear windows (large glazed panels and glazed rear door) within 73-77 Prague Place would fail the VSC, which indicates that the development would have some impact on the daylighting of these properties. Further testing has been carried out for these windows, with respect to the Average Daylight Factor. The BRE guidance ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight A Guide to Good Practice’ sets out that ADF for Kitchen there should be 2%, 1.5% Living Rooms and 1% for Bedrooms. The ADF for all of these ground floor windows would be at least 3%, thereby in line with the BRE guidance. This is considered to indicate that whilst there would be some impacts on the daylight received by the ground floor windows of 69, 73-77 Prague Place that these impacts would not result in significant harm to the living condition of the existing occupiers.

11.13 Block C would be sited within 3.2m of 1 Ashby Mews contained nine self contained flats. The daylight/sunlight report indicates that one window within the eastern elevation which would face onto the development would fail the VSC, window number W3/20 at ground floor level. For this window the existing

VSC would be 35% and would reduce down to 24%. It should be noted that the BRE guidance states that these standards should be applied flexibly. The ADF for this window is 1% and in this regard the proposal would comply with the BRE guidance. So whilst there would be some impacts on the daylight levels received within this window it is considered that the proposal would not result in significant harm so far as to warrant a reason for refusal.

Privacy and overlooking

11.14 Block A: The development at Block A would be located approximately 17m from the properties on Mandrell Road and would face onto the existing terrace of housing. Block A would be a similar terrace of properties and 17m is considered to be sufficient separation distance to ensure that the no significant overlooking would occur resulting in harm to the privacy levels of existing occupiers. This is similar to the relationship of the properties on Mauleverer Road to the north of Mandrell Road and the application site.

11.15 The rear of Block A would back onto the proposed development and there would be a distance of 17m between the rear elevations of blocks A and C.

11.16 Block B: The flatted block would be sited on the corner of Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road extending along to meet Prague Place. Insert balconies with 1.1m screens would be provided within the front elevation of Block B. There would be a distance of between 15-17m between the properties on Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road and the proposed development; this distance is considered to limit any harmful overlooking and detrimental impacts on privacy levels of existing occupiers. With regards to 89-91 Lambert Road there would be a minimum distance of 10m between the proposed developments however this would be a flank elevation with no window. The rear return would be 12.5m away from the proposed development and the elevation facing onto the development would host five windows of which two are habitable. Whilst this does not represent an ideal relationship, the proposed balconies would be inset within the development and screened by a 1.1m high balustrade, helping reduce any direct views of nos. 89-91. A similar relationship has been identified to the rear of this property within the Blenheim Garden Estate. 156-162 Glanville Road which backs onto 89-91 Lambert Road has rear balconies within 10m of the rear boundary of no.89-91. As such it is considered that the proposal would not result in significant harm to the privacy levels to warrant a reason for refusal.

11.17 Block C: Block C would face onto Prague Place and 1 Ashby Mews, there is a distance of 10m between the front elevation of the proposed Block C and the rear elevation of Prague Place. None of the windows proposed to the front elevation of Block C would serve habitable rooms in addition the upper floor windows within the rear elevation of Prague Place are high level narrow windows in this regard it is considered that the siting of block C within this location is considered would have a minimal impact on the privacy levels of residents of Prague Place.

11.18 The flank (west) elevation of block C adjacent to Ashby Mews would be blank and no windows are proposed facing onto Ashby Mews. As such in regards to privacy it is considered that the development of Block C would not give rise to unacceptable levels of overlooking detrimental to the privacy levels of existing occupiers.

Sense of enclosure and overbearing impact

11.19 Block A: The distance between the existing properties on Mandrell Road and the proposed terrace of housing of 17m is considered acceptable and the development would not result in any undue sense of enclosure nor would the development appear overbearing or visually intrusive to the properties on Mandrell Road.

11.20 Block B: The flatted block is the largest building within the development sited on the corner of Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road. The distances between the existing properties on Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road and the proposed development are considered to be sufficient in order to limit any potential harmful sense of enclosure. With regards to the relationship of the proposed development with 89-91 Lambert Road there would be a distance of 10m and the maximum height of the development would be 12m. The flank elevation of this property that would face onto the development is blank, the rear return is set back a further 2m, as previously discussed two of the windows within this elevation would be habitable. The ground floor window would be enclosed by a 2m high boundary wall and the upper floor window would serve a bedroom. Whilst the proposed development would be sited closer to 89-91 Lambert Road than any of the existing building, it is considered that the development would not result in an undue sense of enclosure or development which would appear overbearing which would detrimental harm to the living conditions of existing residential occupiers.

11.21 Block C: Block C would be a part 2 part 3 storey development (with a lower ground floor level), given the change in land level the application site is 1.7m lower than Prague Place resulting in Block C appearing as a two storey property along Prague Place. The maximum height of the houses above ground level of Prague Place would be approximately 7.2m and the first floor would be set back from the main frontage by 1.7m. Given this and the distance of 10m between the rear elevation of the Prague Place properties and the front of Block C it is considered that the proposal would not result in an undue sense of enclosure nor would the development appear overbearing resulting in harm to the living conditions of existing occupiers within Prague Place.

11.22 Ashby Mews would be located 3.2m from the side of Block C. Whilst the development would be sited closer to Ashby Mews than any existing buildings it is considered that this would be significant to cause considerable harm. There is an existing retaining wall around the application site given the change in land level, which acts as the boundary between the existing Livity School, Prague Place and Ashby Mews. This retaining wall is adjacent to a number of windows within Ashby Mews; therefore it is considered that the proposed development would not result in additional enclosure which would significantly harm the living conditions of existing occupiers.

Noise and Disturbance

11.23 The development would result in additional residential units within an existing

residential area. The proposal would not create any harmful or undue additional noise and disturbance that is likely to be detrimental to existing residential amenity.

Amenity Conclusion

11.24 In summary it is considered that the development proposed would not detrimentally impact on neighbouring residential properties to such a degree that would contradict the objectives of saved policies 7 and 33 of the UDP.

12 Transport and Highways

12.1 Saved Policy 9 of the UDP states that planning applications will be assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts on highway safety; on the environment and the road network; and on all transport modes, including public transport (in particular, the impact on demand for and the operation of public transport), walking and cycling.

12.2 Policy S4 of the Core Strategy seek to ensure that on-site car parking at new developments is the minimum necessary and that there is no over-provision that could undermine the use of more sustainable non-car modes of travel.

12.3 The Council’s Transport Planner has undertaken an assessment of the planning application having regard to the information contained within the submitted Transport Assessment and to the objectives of saved Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the LDF Core Strategy. Transport for London (TfL) have also provided comments. Neither party has raised any ‘in-principle’ objections to the development.

12.4 The application site is located within an existing residential area, with the A23 Brixton Hill to the east of the site and Acre Lane to the north of the site. The site has a PTAL score of 2 to 4 (Strathleven and Lambert Road have a PTAL of 4 and Prague Place and Mandrell Road have a PTAL of 2), which is considered ‘poor to good’. Increased housing density is encouraged within areas of good public transport accessibility.

Access

12.5 Pedestrian access to all units except the 4 houses within Block C to the south of the site will be from Mandrell and Glanville/Strathleven Roads. Block C would be accessed from Prague Place via an existing pedestrian walkway. This runs along the back of dwellings on the Blenheim Gardens Estate.

12.6 There are two existing vehicular crossovers on Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road which currently provide access into the car park for the school. As part of the development these would need to be removed along with the two redundant bellmouths on Mandrell Road and the footways reinstated this

would be secured by way of condition.

Car Parking 12.7 2001 census data for the Brixton Hill ward has been used to estimate the

number of vehicles which could be generated by the 51 residential units. The proposed tenure mix and size of units could be expected to generate some 29 vehicles.

12.8 The Transport Assessment includes a parking survey and the average parking stress on surrounding streets is calculated to be approximately 54%. By removing the ‘School Keep Clear’ markings on Mandrell Road some 3 or 4 additional cars could be accommodated on-street. The removal of the redundant markings and replacement with on-street parking bays would require changes to Traffic Orders (which would be secured through the S106 legal agreement), and the cost of this would need to be met by the applicant.

12.9 The site is located within Brixton ‘E’ CPZ, which is operational Monday-Friday 08:30-18:30. It is proposed that the parking permits would be provided solely for the three and four bedroom houses give the low parking stress levels within the local area. It is considered that cars from these 15 units would be able to be accommodated within the local area. The remaining development would be car free. It is also proposed to provide car club membership for a minimum of two years for all eligible residents. Two car club bays are sited on Mandrell Road.

Traffic Impacts

12.10 The Transport Assessment includes a comparison of the traffic generated by the existing school on the site, and the expected trip generation associated with the proposed use. Given the significant number of parking bays on the existing school site, the proposed development is not expected to generate a significant net increase in traffic generation.

Cycle Parking

12.11 The proposal includes 91 cycle parking spaces. To meet TfL’s guidelines on cycle parking at least 72 spaces are required (1 per 1/2 bed unit and 2 per 3+ bed unit). 14 x Sheffield stands are shown in the communal courtyard area, which would accommodate 28 x cycles, and in the rear gardens of all the houses and ground floor split level units individual cycle parking storages would be provided. For the four bedroom units, 4 cycle parking spaces would be provided per unit and for the three bed units 2 cycle parking spaces would be provided. This provision of cycle parking storage is considered to be acceptable and would be in line with the London Plan standards.

12.12 In conclusion it is considered that the proposal would not significantly impact on the local highway network and highway and pedestrian safety. The mitigation measures proposed in the form of conditions and contribution secured by a Section 106 Agreement are considered to allow the proposal to be considered acceptable and in compliance with London Plan Policies, Core Strategy Policy S4 and saved Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development

Plan.

13 Other Matters

Sustainability and Renewable Energy Issues

13.1 Saved Policy 35 of the UDP states that all development proposals should show, by means of a Sustainability Assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. LDF Core Strategy Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction requires all major development to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emission in line with the London Plan targets.

13.2 London Plan Policy 5.2 sets a presumption that development will achieve a reduction in carbon emission the targets are expressed as minimum improvements over the Target Emission Rate (TER) outlined in the national Building Regulations. For 2010-2013 a 25% improvement on TER is required.

13.3 The applicant has submitted with the application, an Energy Statement and an assessment in regards to the Code for Sustainable Homes. The Council’s SPD ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ sets out that housing developments should aspire to meet Level 4 of the code for sustainable homes and at least meet a minimum of Level 3.

13.4 The submitted report carries out a pre-assessment of the development and indicates that the development would achieve a Code Level 4. This would be line with the SPD guidance and saved Policy 35 and Core Strategy Policy S7. Should the application be granted permission post construction assessments and certificates indicating the achievement of at least code level 4 would be secured by conditions. In addition to this the Energy Report states that there would be at least a 25% reduction in Carbon Emissions. The report suggests that there would be a 38% reduction in CO2 within this development.

13.5 The report goes onto say of the 38% Co2 reduction 21.42% of the reduction would be provided through the use of Solar PV arrays which would be sited on the flat roofs of the proposed development.

13.6 The proposal is therefore considered to comply with London Plan Policy 5.2, Policy S7 of the Core Strategy and Saved Policy 35 of the UDP.

Crime

13.7 Saved Policy 32 of the UDP sets out that development should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder.

13.8 The Crime Prevention Design Advisor was consulted on the scheme at pre-application stage prior to its submission and the current proposal. The CPDA has not objected in principle to the development and has required that Secure by Design Standards for New Homes are meet, this would be conditioned should the application be granted approval. In addition a scheme of external lighting would be secured by way of condition. On this basis no in-principle

objection has been raised and the development is considered to accord with saved Policy 32 of the UDP.

Waste

13.9 Core Strategy Policy S8 and NPPF seek to achieve sustainable waste management. The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) supplements Policy S8 and sets out that for development of more than 10 households 60 litres of refuse storage should be provided per bedroom and in addition 50% of this should storage capacity should be provided for recyclable materials.

13.10 The drawings indicate that refuse and recycling areas would be provided for each building and each house. All of houses along Mandrell Road and Prague Place would be provided with individual purpose built refuse storage areas, as would all of the ground floor units within Block B. Two communal refuse areas are proposed for the upper floor flats, one area is proposed outside the communal entrance area fronting onto Strathleven Road and one internally within the core area of the flatted block. The applicant has submitted details of a refuse management plan which includes details of how the movement of the bins would be managed. Notwithstanding this further detail in regards to refuse and recycling storage and sustainable waste management would be required, these details would be secured by way of condition should the application be granted permission.

Planning Obligations and Mayoral CIL

13.11 Policy S10 of the Core Strategy (January 2011), supplemented by the other policies of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and UDP and the SPD on s106 planning obligations, sets out the circumstances in which the Council will seek planning obligations from a developer to mitigate against the potential impacts of a scheme.

13.12 As already stated, the scheme proposes 76.5% affordable housing and 100% nomination rights would be afforded to the Local Authority. Such matters would need to be secured by way of s.106 legal agreement. Further to this, it is considered that financial contributions should be secured by way of s.106 to mitigate against its impact:

• Education - £137,537.20

• Health - £13,848.00

• Libraries - £3,804.94

• Sport & Leisure - £14,190.68

• Parks & Open Spaces - £75,925.20

• Revenue Contribution - £7592.52

• A contribution towards local public realm improvements required for improvements to the local pedestrian environment at the time of writing this is still being negotiated and will be report by way of published addendum.

• A further contribution of 2.5% of the overall financial contribution should be required to enable the Local Planning Authority to suitably meet the costs of monitoring the planning contributions.

13.13 Further commitment should be required by way of the s106 legal agreement

for the following measures:

• Provision of membership to a car club for all of the residential units for a minimum period of 2 years.

• Parking Permit cap on 1 and 2 bedroom units

• A clause preventing the implementation of the permission before the transfer of the freehold interest in the Acre Lane Site (land to the rear of 47-49 Acre Lane) to the Council for the purpose of Extended School Facilities

13.14 It is advised that the scheme may also be liable for Mayoral Community

Intrastate Levy payment towards Crossrail implementation. The final amount will need to be discussed with the Council’s CIL team due to the possibility of social housing exemption for some of the development. This contribution does form part of the Lambeth development plan policy obligations and, is to be secured and monitored by the Council on behalf of the Mayor.

13.15 In summary it is considered that the above provisions, once secured under s.106 of the Act, would appropriately mitigate against any potentially harmful impacts of the development in accordance with saved Policies 9, 14, 16 and 50 of the UDP, Policies S2 and S10 of the Core Strategy (January 2011), and with the Council’s associated SPD on s106 obligations.

14 Conclusion

14.1 The change of use of the application site from an education use (Use Class D1) to residential (Use Class C3) is considered to be acceptable subject to a planning obligation securing the ‘land swap’ for the site ‘Land to the rear of 47-49 Acre Lane’ to provide replacement land for education purposes.

14.2 The proposed redevelopment of the site is acceptable in that it would be of an appropriate design; it would provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers; it would not prejudice the amenity of neighbouring properties; it would not harm conditions of on-street parking or prejudice conditions of the free flow of traffic and highway safety; and, would not unacceptably impact upon local infrastructure.

14.3 The development shows sufficient commitment to sustainable design and construction, the provision of renewable energy technologies, promoting more sustainable modes of transport, the achievement of Lifetime Homes Standards and the achievement of ‘Designing Out Crime’ Standards. Provisions are to be secured under s.106 of the Act to secure contributions towards, education health, libraries, parks and open spaces, parking and highway conditions.

14.4 It is therefore considered that the development is compliant with the planning policies of the development plan and that no other material planning considerations of sufficient weight exist that would dictate that the application should nevertheless be refused.

15 Recommendation

A. Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Obligation (Heads of Terms set out in section 13.2 of this report) and the attached conditions; or

B. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the Heads of Terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a Section 106 agreement with the appellants in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

Summary of Reasons In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Policies were relevant: Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 Policy 9 Transport impact Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 16 Affordable Housing Policy 26 Community Facilities Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out Crime Policy 33 Building Scale and Design Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential / Mixed Use Areas Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design

Local Development Framework: Core Strategy January 2011 Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 – Housing Policy S4 – Transport Policy S5 – Open Space Policy S7 –Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 – Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment Policy S10 – Planning Obligations

Conditions

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Design

3 No development works shall take place until samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations within the scheme hereby permitted are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with saved Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

4 No development works shall take place until detailed drawings (scale of 1:20) to confirm the detailed design and materials of the: i) balconies and terraces ii) window and door systems (including, plans, elevations, cross sections and reveal depths) iii) front door entrances (including surrounds), iv) roof construction including roofing details and roof terraces, v) solar photovoltaic arrays to roofs (including sections), vi) rain water pipes (including material, colour and location). are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

5 Details of the siting and design of all walls and/or fencing at the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before any part of the development hereby approved is first brought into use. Such walls or fencing as may be approved shall be erected prior to first occupation unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority to any

variation has been obtained and thereafter permanently retained. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory resultant appearance and standard of amenity of the site, to prevent unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties and to minimise the opportunities for crime in accordance with policies 7, 32, 33 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

6 Notwithstanding the application drawings No works above ground shall take place until details of the refuse/recycling stores (details at 1:20) shall be submitted to and approved by in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation. Reason: In order to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the local area in accordance with policy 32, 33 and 24 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

7 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of the buildings. Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

Transport

8 No development shall commence until full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Demolition and Construction Statement, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Demolition and Construction Statement shall include details and arrangements regarding:

• the notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures;

• details regarding parking, deliveries and storage (including details of the routing if delivery vehicles to and from the site and the accommodation of all site operatives’, visitors’ and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site during the construction period);

• details regarding dust mitigation;

• details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway; and

• other measures to mitigate the impact of construction upon the operation of the highway and the amenity of the area.

The details of the approved Method of Demolition and Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process. Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and to avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway (Policies 7 and 9 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Lambeth Core Strategy (2011)).

9 Notwithstanding the approved drawings and prior to first occupation of any of the residential units hereby 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 and shall thereafter be retained and maintained solely for its designated use. Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport in accordance with Policies 9 and 14 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).

10 Within 3 months of the development being brought into use all existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb/removing the existing bellmouth/and reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary. Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users in accordance with Policies 9 and 14 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)

Secure by Design

12 The development shall be constructed and thereafter operated so as to achieve ‘Secured by Design; accreditation. Evidence of such shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months from the commencement of occupation of any of the buildings hereby approved, or within any other timetable agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To reduce opportunities for crime as far as is reasonable in accordance with Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).

13 No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until there has been submitted

to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a strategy for the exterior lighting of the site including the lighting of the car parking areas and all communal areas. The details shall include a specification of the lighting, location, lux, hours of operation, details of light spillage and details of shielding to neighbouring properties.The details approved shall be implemented prior to the commencement of use of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use, unless the written approval is received from the Local Planning Authority for any variation. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the security of the site. (Policies 7, 32 and 33 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 refer, Policies S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document, Safer Built Environments).

Landscaping

14 No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailed schemes of soft and hard landscaping showing the treatment of all parts of the site not covered by buildings, details of play equipment and raised planers. The proposals shall include the planting of specified trees, hedges, grass, shrubs, ground flora or climbers, and cover areas of communal and private open space within the development, including boundary features. The landscaping scheme shall include an indication of how the planting would integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to anticipated routine maintenance and protection. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 and current Arboricultural best practice. The landscaping scheme shall include full details of the proposed communal amenity space incorporating a designated Children’s Play space showing its layout, boundary and surface treatment and specifications for any play equipment. Reasons: In order to introduce high quality soft and hard landscaping in and around the site, in the interests of the ecological value of the site and to ensure a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers, particularly with regard to families and children (Policies 39 and 50(i) of the Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 5.3 of the London Plan (July 2011).

Waste Management

15 Prior to the occupation of the residential units as approved as part of the development, full details of a waste management plan (including arrangements for the collection, storage and disposal of general refuse, recyclables’2) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All provision associated with the waste management plan

shall be provided prior to the commencement of the relevant uses, and the use of the site shall not thereafter be operated other than in strict accordance with the details of the approved waste management plan, unless written approval is obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variations. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage, disposal, and recycling of waste on the site in the interests of the amenities of the area, in the interests of the provision of sustainable waste management and in the interests of minimising the impact of the development upon the function of the highway network and conditions of highway and pedestrian safety in accordance with Policies 9, 14, 33 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).

Sustainability

16 The solar photovoltaic cells to be installed on the flat roofs of the buildings approved as described in the applicant's Energy Strategy Report Appendix D and shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development and shall be permanently retained for the duration of the use hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of sustainable development in accordance with Policy 35 of the Unitary Development: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010, Policy S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 5.2 of the London Plan (2011).

17 Prior to first occupation of any of the buildings hereby approved, evidence (e.g. photographs, installation contracts and as-built certificates under the Standard Assessment Procedure) showing that the development has been constructed in accordance with Price & Myers Energy Strategy Report dated September 2012, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

18 The dwellings hereby permitted shall achieve at least Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) (or such equivalent national measure of sustainability which replaces that scheme). No dwelling shall be occupied until a Final Code for Sustainable Homes Certificate has been issued certifying that at least Code Level 4 has been achieved. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and achieve the agreed rating. The development shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy

January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

19 All residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of any of the units. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and permanently retained. Reason: In order that the development is made more accessible to all in accordance with Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010, Policy S2(d) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and the related Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (2008).

20 The residential accommodation hereby approved shall be constructed to include at least 5 of the units as wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users and permanently retained as such for the duration of the use. Reason: To ensure that an adequate proportion of units are wheelchair accessible or adaptable for wheelchair use in compliance with Policy 3A.4 of The London Plan, Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010, Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011), and the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (2008).

Trees

21 No trees other than those shown to be removed on the Approved Plan 1123 (PL) 100 G Proposed Ground Floor Plan shall be felled, pruned, uprooted, damaged or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

22 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Tree Protection Plan that accords with BS5837:2012 and relates to all retained trees on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Tree Protection Plan shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details and put in place before any machinery, demolition, materials storage or development commences on the site.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

23 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an Arboricultural Method Statement in accordance with BS5837;2012 relating to groundworks within the Root Protection Area of retained trees shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the Method Statement shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

24 A drawing showing the confirmed route of all service and drainage routes outside of all retained tree root protection areas (BS5837:2010) shall be submitted to and approved in writing before any part of the development commences. The development shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

25 The arboricultural method statement relating to the installation of parking bays using a 'No-dig' construction method around the retained trees T2, T3 & T6 as identified on the approved drawings shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Approved Document Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by David Brown Landscape Design Ltd dated August 2011. Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

Living Conditions

26 The areas of flat roof as shown on the drawings hereby approved, shall only be accessed for maintenance purposes, and shall not be used as a sitting out

area or be used for any other recreational purposes whatsoever unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and the surrounding area (Policies 7 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

27 Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B & C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of, or to, any dwellinghouse the subject of this permission shall be carried out without planning permission having first been obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority; nor shall any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of any said dwellinghouse as such be constructed or placed on any part of the land covered by this permission without such planning permission having been obtained. Reason: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, strict control is required over the form of any additional development which may be proposed in the interests of maintaining a satisfactory residential environment, to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 7, 31, 33, 38 and 47 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

Informatives

1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.

3 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

4 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities

5 You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display of advertisements at the premises and separate consent may be required from the Local Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

6 You are advised to contact Thames Water Utilities regarding mains/supply pipe connections for the development at Network Services Waterloo District, Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Waterworks Road, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1SB. Contact Mr D Kirk on 0645 200800 for details.

7 As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following: - name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below. Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: streetnn@lambeth.gov.uk tel: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9104

8 It is the view of Lambeth Council that the proposed development has scope for the provision of recycling and/or composting facilities. For advice on incorporation of such facilities please contact: Jason Searles/ Dean Parry, 3rd Floor, Blue Star House, 234-244 Stockwell Road, London SW9 9SP 0207 926 2624 Dparry@lambeth.gov.uk

9 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

10 You are advised that there is a Thames Water Main crossing the development site, which may/will need to be diverted at the Developer's cost, or necessitate amendments to the proposed development design so that the aforementioned main can be retained. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for maintenance and repair. Please contact Thames Water Developer Services, Contact Centre on telephone 08458502777 for further information.

__________________________