land at rear of 39-53 honor oak road ... etc ... decision notice

Appeal Decisions Inquiry held on 23, 24, 25 and 26

February 2010

Site visit made on 8 March 2010

by Ava Wood DIP ARCH MRTPI

The Planning Inspectorate

4/11 Eagle Wing

Temple Quay House 2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

� 0117 372 6372 email:[email protected]

ov.uk

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

for Communities and Local Government

Decision date:

22 April 2010

Appeal A Ref: APP/C5690/A/09/2114257

Land off Tyson Road and Honor Oak Road, Forest Hill, Lewisham, London

SE23 3AA (Scheme A)

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Loromah Estates Limited against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham.

• The application Ref: DC/08/70207, dated 28 October 2008, was refused by notice dated 16 April 2009.

• The development proposed is demolition of existing residential buildings and general industrial buildings and redevelopment for residential development; including open

space provision, car parking and associated infrastructure.

Appeal B Ref: APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

Land off Tyson Road and Honor Oak Road, Forest Hill, Lewisham, London

SE23 3AA (Scheme B)

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Loromah Estates Limited against the decision of the Council of

the London Borough of Lewisham. • The application Ref:DC/09/71953, dated 6 July 2009, was refused by notice dated 6

October 2009.

• The development proposed is demolition of existing buildings on land to the rear of 39-53 Honor Oak Road and 15-17A Tyson Road and construction of 9 blocks comprising up

to a maximum of 71 apartments; together with associated landscaping and infrastructure.

Decisions

1. I dismiss Appeal A and allow Appeal B in the terms set out in the attached

Schedule and subject to the conditions listed.

Preliminary Matters

2. Appeal B concerns an outline application with landscaping reserved for

subsequent approval. All other matters of detail are to be determined as part

of the appeal.

Main issues

3. The two issues common to both appeals is whether the proposals would

achieve high quality housing in the terms set out in Planning Policy Statement

3 (PPS3), and whether the living conditions of existing local residents would be

Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

2

harmed, notably by loss of privacy, loss of outlook or increased risk of

crime/anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

Design Quality

4. PPS3 recognises that good design is fundamental to the development of high

quality new housing. Paragraph 16 sets out a range of matters to be

considered in assessing design quality. These include relationship to

surroundings and to neighbouring buildings, accessibility, quality of the layout,

bio-diversity, amongst others. The aspects of design listed in PPS3, to which I

add standard of living accommodation and quality of the architecture,

correspond with the subjects considered at the inquiry.

5. Policy 3A.3 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations, February 2008)

(LP) urges boroughs to achieve maximum intensity of use compatible with local

context, design principles of Policy 4B.1 and public transport capacity. Policy

4B.1 reiterates the need for developments to respect local context, character

and communities. In a similar vein, Policy HSG8 of the Lewisham Unitary

Development Plan (UDP) looks for backland development to respect the

character of the area, while Policy HSG5 expects all new residential

development to be attractive and to meet the functional requirements of its

future inhabitants. UDP Policy URB3 sets out an extensive list of factors that

contribute to achievement of high standards of urban design.

6. The appeal schemes share similar design principles and there is much that is

common in the layout and appearances of the 9 blocks proposed. Therefore, I

have considered the proposals together, but differentiating between them on

matters of detail that eventually bear on my decisions.

Relationship to surroundings and to neighbouring buildings

7. The area in the vicinity of the appeals site has been variously described as

urban, suburban and even semi-urban. When looked at in terms of the LP

definitions (paragraph 3.23 of the LP), elements of both urban and suburban

prevail. In my view, there is little to be gained from categorising the area in

such absolute terms, given the disparity in densities and development patterns

locally. What matters is how the developments proposed respond to the site

and their relationship with different parts of the neighbourhood.

8. The most obvious changes would occur at Tyson Road. In both cases, Blocks 8

and 9 would consciously herald a departure from the Edwardian/Victorian style

of individual houses that mostly characterise the northern side of Tyson Road.

The new access road would break the continuity in street frontage but that is

inevitable, given the lack of access options and the Council’s acceptance in the

Statement of Common Ground that the site is suitable for residential

development. The 1992 permission allowed on appeal does not have as much

a bearing on the site’s suitability for development as the Council’s current

thinking informing the recent Local Development Framework process and the

housing capacity study.

9. The scale, footprint and heights of the two frontage blocks would be

comparable to the domestic scale of individual buildings nearby, thus neither


3

dominating nor appearing out of scale in this residential environment. In the

context of the marked visual and physical changes that would occur on the

Tyson Road frontage, I consider that the effects of stepping Blocks 8 and 9

forward of the established building line are overstated. In any case, there is

townscape logic to the proposed infringement, insofar as the two blocks would

mark the entrance to the development, and in so doing would provide natural

points of surveillance.

10. While recognising the desire to preserve a familiar and well loved style, the

architectural language of the two blocks facing Tyson Road would appropriately

reflect the style of buildings within the body of the site. Views into the site

between the two street fronting blocks would reinforce the contemporary and

distinctive nature of the new development.

11. I agree the layouts would mark a clear departure from the grain and pattern of

development on Fairlie Gardens and northern side of Tyson Road. However,

the backland nature of the site justifies a different approach. The concept of

“pavilions within a mature landscape” and informal arrangement of blocks

within a landscaped setting would, in my view, represent a unique but

appropriate response to this contained site.

12. Plans submitted to the inquiry demonstrate relative heights of existing houses

on Fairlie Gardens and the proposed 3-4 storeys of Blocks 4, 5, 6 and 7. The

site’s topography would accentuate the differences. Such differentials of height

and scale are not uncommon in the area, as evidenced by the elevated

properties on Honor Oak Road to the west. With distances of between 15.5m

and over 30m from houses on Fairlie Gardens, oblique positioning of the

buildings at the eastern end of the site and separated in the way proposed, the

blocks would not be perceived as “walls of development”, nor would they

dominate or visually oppress the existing properties.

13. Provided the design is of a high enough quality, I see no harm in the

development being visible. Save for views into the site from the opening on

Tyson Road, public views would in any case be limited to glimpses between

existing buildings. There would be ample scope to soften the effects of the

new buildings with new and existing planting on the site’s boundaries.

14. Taken overall, I consider that both schemes demonstrate that a development

of such unabashedly modern themes and concept has the capacity to relate

well to the immediate and wider surroundings without impacting adversely on

the character or appearance of the area.

Accessibility, density and layout

15. The site’s accessibility to local facilities and amenities by a range of sustainable

means is not in question. Entrance into the site would be clearly delineated by

Blocks 8 and 9. Access within the development would comprise a logical

arrangement of a single driveway linking the blocks.

16. The layout of Appeal Scheme A, however, troubles me for the extent to which

the site would be dominated by hard surfacing and engineering works. The

vehicular route to Block 7 in particular appears tortuous but more significantly

would mean the loss of protected trees and a layout unacceptably

compromising open space about buildings. Scheme B overcomes those


4

shortcomings by eliminating the undercroft parking to Block 7 and is a better

scheme for that.

17. The proposals would fall within the scope of the LP Density Matrix for either

urban or suburban settings, albeit towards the higher end of the suburban

range. Effective use would be made of a site cast as previously developed.

While the scheme forming the subject of Appeal A would not achieve this

without compromising on trees and open space, the layout of the second

scheme shows ingenuity in the way the development would be integrated with

existing trees and vegetation. The degree to which the layout has been

designed with the natural and new landscaping is key to its success. The

appellant’s commitment to a management plan is further indication of the

importance attached to landscaping as an integral part of the design concept,

as required by UDP Policy URB12.

18. On layout I conclude that Scheme B would achieve a good balance of openness

and built development. There would be sufficient high quality, open and

supervised space about buildings for future residents to enjoy, without feeling

hemmed in or overshadowed. The scheme would comply with the

Government’s recent response to concerns about the treatment of previously

developed land.

Standard of accommodation

19. Provision of 100% Lifetime Homes on developments is a policy aspiration not a

mandatory requirement (LP Policy 3A.5 and text to UDP Policy HSG5).

Nevertheless, material submitted to the inquiry adequately demonstrates that

both schemes are capable of accommodating that standard. The proposals are

therefore pre-empting policy requirements. Furthermore, the 10% wheelchair

accessible housing secured by condition would go some way to meeting policy

goals.

20. The designs may not comply fully with the quantitative requirements of UDP

Policy HSG7 in terms of private amenity space. A combination of terraces,

balconies and some private amenity spaces would however ensure satisfactory

residential environments for occupiers of either proposal. The quantity and

quality of shared open space would add to that environment and the

acceptability of either scheme.

21. While there may be pockets of the site that are not overlooked, I am satisfied

that openings are positioned and the blocks arranged to encourage active

supervision of public spaces. Scheme B additionally includes fenced and gated

measures to prevent misuse of the undercroft parking areas, which would be

naturally lit and ventilated to lessen the feeling of insecurity normally

associated with such spaces.

22. I share some of the concerns about internal space standards, legibility and the

inconvenience of parking arrangements for the occupiers of Block 7. However,

in the context of the design merits of the scheme as a whole, such

shortcomings are overcome by the overall quality and merits of the schemes,

which would generally provide good quality accommodation.


5

Quality of the architecture

23. In order to assess the quality of the development, it is necessary also to take a

view on the architectural merits of the buildings. The architects have striven to

respect and draw from the natural aspects of the site, but not at the expense

of compromising the modernity of the designs. Elevations are devoid of

unnecessary decoration, with clean, uncluttered lines adding to their appeal.

The wooded setting would be reflected in the rich timber surfaces with smooth

and textured finishes differentiating between open and closed facades. The

bulk of the 3-4 storeys buildings would be tempered by cut outs at upper

levels; terraces, balconies and green roofs creating points of interest. In my

view, options for reducing the accommodation at Blocks 1, 3 and 7 in Scheme

B would unbalance the composition of the individual buildings concerned and

unacceptably compromise the designs. For that reason, I endorse the option

that would bring forward 71 units.

24. The Design and Access Statements, Sustainability Strategy and Energy

Assessment Reports demonstrate a commitment to achieving Codes for

Sustainable Homes Level 3, reducing energy demands and compliance with

principles of sustainable construction. The means by which the schemes seek

to reduce the impact of climate change add to their design success. Using

good quality materials and high standards of execution, Schemes A and B

promise to deliver architecture of a high quality, though the former fails on

other grounds.

Biodiversity of the site

25. The arboricultural statement supporting the Council’s case largely focuses on

the screening properties of the trees on site, reflecting on adverse impact on

public and private views as a consequence of the loss of trees. The fact that a

development is visible does not inevitably point to its unacceptability. Provided

that they were of high quality, properly integrated with their surroundings and

not harmful to neighbours’ residential environment, I see no reason to reject

the proposals on the basis of exposure to views – public or private.

26. It has to be said that both schemes would radically alter the character of the

land through removal of trees and vegetation within the body of the site. Many

of the trees likely to be removed are self seeding or in poor condition, but

valued by local people. The losses and changes would be compensated to a

large extent by the comprehensive replacement planting scheme and

management plan proposed for Scheme A, and potentially replicated in Scheme

B. Furthermore, many of the trees to be removed have small crown masses

whereas the crown mass of taller trees to be retained have the greater visual

significance within and from outside the site.

27. Appeal A, however, would have the unacceptable effect of removing a number

of protected trees, including those forming part of Groups G3 and G4. Setting

aside the Grade B or C classification accorded to these trees, their amenity

value to the area cannot be underestimated. The grouped and individual trees

along the western boundary of the site are important markers, while the group

of four trees (white poplar, copper beech, sycamore and oak) towards the

north eastern part of the site is an attractive focal point and worthy of

retention. Loss of these important trees adds to the unacceptability of Scheme


6

A, in addition to which removal of Group G3 would unacceptably diminish the

site’s amenity value.

28. Appeal B, on the other hand, has been designed with the protected trees in

mind, and responds effectively to this element of the site’s biodiversity.

Existing boundary screening, to be retained and reinforced, would soften the

visual impact of the new blocks. Images presented to the inquiry show how

the dense planted boundaries would provide the separation valued by residents

of Fairlie Gardens. Trees at the northern and western edges of the site would

similarly shield existing residents at Montgomerie Mews and Honor Oak Road

from the full impact of the new blocks.

29. The evidence demonstrates a considered and thoughtful approach to

safeguarding trees during construction and in the long term. I am confident

that the measures proposed are workable and could be secured by conditions.

Examples locally (Walters Way) and in London demonstrate the capacity for

trees to healthily co-exist close to houses. Pressure to have trees removed

may not be as commonplace as feared.

30. Objectors point to the site’s contributions to biodiversity – as a habitat and in

preventing habitat isolation. Surveys establish a total of 39 different bird

species. Numerous sightings of stag beetles have emerged in local residents’

records, the credibility of which cannot be doubted.

31. Planning Policy Statement 9 reiterates the Government’s emphasis on using

previously developed land, in the interest of sustainable planning. Where such

sites have significant biodiversity or geological interest of recognised local

importance, it goes on to urge retention of this interest or incorporate it into

any development. Even in the face of sightings of stag beetles, the site’s

interests cannot be categorised as significant; its ecological characteristics are

typical of a large garden. Stage beetles are protected species but the appeal

schemes provide a suitable means for accommodating the beetles on the site.

Furthermore, with scope for enhancing habitats for birds, the site’s biodiversity

interests would be protected by either of the two developments.

32. In concluding on the first issue I turn to Mr Grace and Mr Ridgewell’s eloquent

assessment of their neighbourhood around Fairlie Gardens. They describe it as

“enchanting”, “desirable, safe and secure family environment” and refer to the

“backdrop of trees” that helps create a “sense of place”. Given my views

above, these qualities can be ascribed to the scheme forming the subject of

Appeal B. The density, style of architecture and form of accommodation may

be very different to the pattern of development or buildings on Fairlie Gardens,

but Scheme B would similarly provide a comfortable, attractive and safe

environment for future residents, with the added advantage of increasing the

Borough’s stock of affordable homes. While the shortcomings of Scheme A

would render it unacceptable against the policy requirements of LP Policy 4B.1

and UDP Policies HSG5, HSG8 and URB13, Scheme B in the form of option 1

(i.e. with 71 residential units) would be compliant.

Effect on the Living Conditions of Neighbours

33. The “open and closed facades” approach to design of the blocks is an ingenious

device to reduce overlooking to neighbouring properties. Windows serving

habitable rooms would be orientated to face into the site. With adequate


7

separation distances between windows, as illustrated on plans, I am satisfied

that existing and new residents would maintain good levels of privacy.

Conditions preventing access on to flat roofs and obscured glazing to particular

openings would assist with securing the privacy measures intended. To my

mind, the overlooking feared by the occupiers of Montgomerie Mews would be

no more intrusive than under current circumstances of existing houses

positioned with oblique views into neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the

way the new blocks would be modelled and separated, lead me to conclude

that they would not appear overly dominant or oppressive to the neighbours at

Fairlie Gardens, Montgomerie Mews or Honor Oak Road. The sunlight and

daylight assessments demonstrate how the layout and modelling of the blocks

have been designed to mitigate overshadowing of existing properties.

34. Many of the representations made in writing and at the inquiry raise the

prospect of the developments creating conditions to exacerbate anti-social

behaviour and crime in the area. The concerns centre mainly on the undercroft

parking areas. However, as naturally lit, fenced and gated spaces, their

potential for harbouring or attracting unwanted behaviour or activities would be

limited. Many of the public spaces would be overlooked with defensible areas

created to enable supervision, or landscaped specifically to discourage

unwanted entry.

35. I find that the proposed developments have been designed with neighbours’

residential amenity and security in mind, and therefore comply with Policy 4B.1

of the London Plan as well as UDP Policy HSG5. Nevertheless, for the reasons

given earlier, the deficiencies of Scheme A would not be overcome by the

matter of acceptable impact on neighbours. In allowing Scheme B, I turn to

look at the planning obligation submitted and conditions to be imposed.

Planning Obligations

36. The Community Infrastructure Regulation 2010 came into force on 6 April 2010

and I have considered the planning obligation submitted in the form of the

unilateral undertaking against the tests under Regulation 122.

37. The affordable housing units would be secured with the level of contributions

commensurate with the total of 71 residential units to be delivered by Scheme

B. The unilateral undertaking also provides contributions towards education,

health, transport and play space facilities to mitigate the impact of the

development in those areas. The sums calculated are based on specific local

shortfalls. The need for employment/training is supported by an evidence base

of the Lewisham Sustainable Community Strategy and specific programmes are

identified. I am satisfied that these provisions of the undertaking are

necessary to make the development acceptable, related to the proposed

development and commensurate with its scale and kind.

38. However, the relevance and specifics of the public art contributions are less

clear cut. Furthermore, the sustainability measures and refuse bins

management strategy can be covered by conditions. The monitoring and

professional fees contribution is for the authority to perform its general

statutory duty of ensuring compliance with planning controls rather than it

taking on some liability which will lead to it incurring extra costs. While it may

be a charge imposed by the local planning authority on all S106 planning


8

obligations, its validity in terms of the Regulation tests is questionable. The

matters addressed in this paragraph do not satisfy the Regulation 122 tests

and I am unable to take them into account in determining Appeal B.

Conditions

39. Where necessary I have changed the wording of conditions suggested by the

parties to accord with advice in Circular 11/95 or in the interest of clarity1.

40. The time limit conditions for the outline application are standard. Landscaping

is the only reserved matter and to which the 3 year time limit for submission of

its detail would apply. Otherwise than is set out in this decision and the

conditions, it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt, and in the

interest of proper planning. A condition is included and the approved plans

listed in Schedule B. As landscaping is a reserved matter, the illustrative

layout plan (PS.FH.DR01.RevC ) and remaining landscaping plans

(PS.FH.DR02.RevC; PS.FH.DR03.RevC; PS.FH.DR04.RevD;P S.FH.DR05.RevD;

PS.FH.DR06.RevB; PS.FH.DR07.RevC, PS.FH.L01 (08.06.09)) do not form part

of the approved list and I have not included these plans in Schedule B.

41. Conditions are imposed to exercise control over elements crucial to the success

of the design. These include: external materials of constructions, exterior

fittings, living roofs, external lighting, landscaping and management of the

landscaping scheme. The sustainability strategy, as an important element of

the design concept, is secured through conditions specifying the Code Level,

20% energy reduction and provision of a sustainable drainage system. For

reasons given earlier, it is important to secure proper protection of trees to be

retained during and after construction. Planting of new tress is also an

important part of the landscaping and design principles. Conditions are

imposed accordingly.

42. In the interest of protecting existing and new residents’ living conditions,

obscure glazed windows on closed facades, limited access to roof areas and

sound proofing of plant are secured by conditions. To ensure compliance with

policy standards on Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible homes,

conditions are imposed accordingly. Conditions covering vehicular access,

parking arrangements (including parking for disabled users) for cars and

cyclists are necessary, in the interest of highway concerns and for reasons of

proper site management. Equally, storage and management of refuse facilities

need to be controlled by conditions to prevent random placing of such facilities

to the detriment of the site’s appearance. A condition is also included to bring

forward details of security measures and operation of the undercroft car

parking, which would help overcome concerns about safety on site.

43. To safeguard the site’s ecological assets, I have included conditions allowing for

protection of stag beetles and bird habitats, details of which would need to be

submitted and agreed. I am substituting two conditions in place of suggested

conditions 20, 24-27, in the interest of brevity and to allow for appropriate

schemes to be submitted and agreed. A Construction Method Statement is

1 The conditions list was modified in the light of my observations and following discussion at the inquiry. The list

was circulated to all parties by email on 22 March 2010.


9

necessary to protect the amenities of local residents, and would be forthcoming

as part of the condition imposed.

Conclusions

44. I have taken account of all other matters raised but find nothing in the

representations made to alter the balance of my conclusions or my decision to

dismiss Appeal A and allow Appeal B.

Ava Wood Inspector


10

Schedule A

I allow Appeal B, and grant outline planning permission for demolition of existing

buildings on land to the rear of 39-53 Honor Oak Road and 15-17A Tyson Road and

construction of 9 blocks comprising 71 apartments; together with associated

landscaping and infrastructure, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref

DC/09/71953, dated 6 July 2009, and subject to the following conditions:

Time Limits and Plans

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years

from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matter to be

approved.

2) Details of the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved

matter") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority before any development begins and the development

shall be carried out as approved.

3) Application for approval of the reserved matter shall be made to the local

planning authority not later than three years from the date of this

permission.

4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance

with the approved plans listed in Schedule B

Design and Construction Details

5) The development hereby permitted shall not commence on site until

details of all facing materials have been submitted, including sample

panels of facing brickwork and wood cladding showing the proposed

colour, texture, facebond and pointing have been provided on site, and

approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development

shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

6) Before the development hereby approved commences, a detailed scheme

for the fixing of external plumbing, pipework and plant shall be submitted

to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The

development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved

scheme.

7) Before the development hereby approved commences, details of the

green and brown roofs, including plans and cross sections, shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The

development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

8) Details of proposed lighting, including lux levels readings, to external

areas within the site, including the proposed parking areas, shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority

before any building work on the site is commenced. The proposed

lighting scheme should be designed to provide minimum lighting levels

needed for security and working purposes and minimise pollution from

glare and spillage. The scheme shall include details of light spillage into

areas identified as a bat habitat. The lighting scheme shall be fully

implemented on a phased basis to be agreed in writing with the local

planning authority, with each phase implemented prior to first occupation

of each building hereby approved and permanently retained thereafter.


11

Sustainability

9) The dwellings hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 3 in

accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes:

Technical Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for house

design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling shall be occupied until a

Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3

has been achieved.

10) No development shall commence until such time as a renewable energy

statement demonstrating that at least 20% of the site’s total predicted

carbon emissions will be reduced through implementation of on-site

renewable energy sources, has been submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall include the

total predicted carbon emissions in the form of an Energy Statement of

the development and shall set out a schedule of proposed on-site

renewable energy technologies, their respective carbon reduction

contributions, size specification, location, design and a maintenance

programme.

11) The approved renewable energy technologies shall be fully installed and

operational prior to occupation of any approved buildings and shall

thereafter be maintained permanently and remain fully operational in

accordance with the approved maintenance programme.

12) No development shall take place until details of the implementation,

adoption, maintenance and management of a sustainable drainage

system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The system shall be implemented and thereafter

managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those

details shall include a timetable for its implementation, and a

management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development

which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or

statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure effective

operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime.

Landscaping

13) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority. These details shall include :-

i. proposed finished levels or contours;

ii. means of enclosure;

iii. car parking layouts;

iv. other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;

v. hard surfacing materials;

vi. minor artifacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment,

refuse or other storage units, signs etc.);

vii. proposed and existing functional services above and below ground

viii. communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes,

supports.


12

Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications

(including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and

grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and

proposed numbers/densities where appropriate.

14) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with

the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the

occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a

programme agreed with the local planning authority.

15) A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives,

management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape

areas, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority

prior to occupation of the development or any phase of the development,

whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape

management plan shall be carried out as approved.

Trees

Retained Trees

Note: “Retained tree” means an existing tree which is identified in the plan and

particulars as being retained

16) No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until

a scheme for the protection of the retained trees (the tree protection

plan) and the appropriate working methods (the arboricultural method

statement) in accordance with Clause 7 of British Standard BS5837 -

Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations has been agreed in

writing by the local planning authority. These measures shall be carried

out as described and approved.

17) All tree work shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard

BS3998 - Recommendations for Tree Work.

18) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or

damaged in any manner within 5 years of the date of full occupation of

the development permitted, other than in accordance with the approved

plans and particulars, without the prior written approval of the local

planning authority.

19) If any retained tree is cut down, uprooted or destroyed or dies another

tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size

and species and planted, in accordance with condition 27), at such time

as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

20) No fires shall be lit within 10 metres of the nearest point of the canopy of

any retained tree.

21) No equipment, machinery or structure shall be attached to or supported

by a retained tree.

22) No mixing of cement or use of other contaminating materials or

substances shall take place within, or close enough to, a root protection

area that seepage or displacement could cause them to enter a root

protection area.


13

23) No alterations or variations to the approved works or tree protection

schemes shall be made without prior written consent of the local planning

authority.

Site Supervision

24) No works or development shall take place until a scheme of supervision

for the arboricultural protection measures required by condition 16) has

been approved in writing by the local planning authority. This scheme will

be appropriate to the scale and duration of the works and will include

details of:

a. Induction and personnel awareness of arboricultural matters

b. Identification of individual responsibilities and key personnel

c. Statement of delegated powers

d. Timing and methods of site visiting and record keeping, including

updates

e. Procedures for dealing with variations and incidents.

f. The scheme of supervision shall be carried out as agreed.

g. The scheme of supervision will be administered by a qualified

arboriculturist instructed by the applicant and approved by the local

planning authority.

Provision for Tree Planting

25) No works or development shall take place until a full specification of all

proposed tree planting has been approved in writing by the local planning

authority. The specification shall include the quantity, size, species, and

positions or density of all trees to be planted, how they will be protected

and the proposed time of planting.

26) A schedule of maintenance of the trees until successfully established is to

be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and implemented.

The schedule shall include provision for replacement planting should

establishment fail.

27) All trees shall be planted in accordance with the details and times stated

in the specification required by condition 25) and in accordance with

British Standard [BS4043 - Transplanting Root-balled Trees][BS4428 -

Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (excluding hard

surfaces)].

28) If within a period of 5 years from the date of planting the tree (or any

tree planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or

dies or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously

damaged or defective, another tree of the same size and species as that

originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first

planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of

the original tree unless the local planning authority gives its written

consent to any variation.


14

Residential Amenities

29) The roof areas, identified as green and brown roof types, shall not be

used as roof gardens, terraces or similar amenity areas.

30) The windows to be installed in the closed elevations of the buildings, as

identified within the Design and Access Statement and the approved

plans, shall be fitted and maintained permanently in obscured glazing.

31) No single building hereby permitted shall be occupied until:-

(a) Details of the plant and machinery to be used on the site have been

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning

authority:

(b) Details of a sound insulation scheme in relation to that plant and

machinery have been submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority: and

(c) The approved sound insulation scheme has been implemented for

that specific building.

The sound insulation measures shall be maintained permanently in

accordance with the approved scheme/s.

Residential Standards

32) All ground floor flats and flats with lift access shall be built to mobility

standards and maintained permanently thereafter, in accordance with the

adopted Lewisham wheelchair standards for Southeast London Housing

Partnership May 2007.

33) Details demonstrating how the residential units shall be constructed in

accordance with Lifetime Home Standards should be submitted and

approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the

development. The development shall be completed in accordance with

the approved details.

Roads and Parking

34) The buildings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicular

access from Tyson Road shown on plan no. 278.001.DR.PL.200. P19

(Masterplan Undercroft Level) has been constructed in accordance with

the permitted plan.

35) The vehicle car parking and associated access arrangements shown on

plan no: 278.001.DR.PL.200. P19 (Masterplan Undercroft Level) shall be

implemented prior to first occupation of each building.

36) The development hereby permitted shall include secure parking provision

for cycles, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority before any works on site are

commenced. The approved cycle parking arrangements shall be provided

prior to first occupation of each building and retained permanently

thereafter.

37) The car parking spaces designed in accordance with the local planning

authority's adopted car parking standards for people with disabilities and

shown on the permitted drawings shall be provided prior to first


15

occupation of each building and shall be maintained permanently

thereafter.

Refuse

38) Details of the construction, including facing materials, of the proposed

refuse storage areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority and the areas shall be constructed in accordance

with the approved details and implemented on a phased basis to be

agreed in writing with the local planning authority, with each phase

implemented prior to first occupation of each building hereby approved

and permanently retained thereafter.

39) Details of a refuse collection management plan shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority and such collection

points/plans shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved

drawings / details and implemented on a phased basis to be agreed in

writing with the local planning authority, with each phase implemented

prior to first occupation of each building hereby approved and

permanently retained thereafter.

Stag Beetles and Bird Habitats

40) Before the development hereby approved commences a report detailing

methods for recognition, management and translocation of stag beetles

and their larvae shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority. Construction on site and translocation measures

shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details of the

report.

41) Before the development hereby permitted begins a report detailing the

timing of tree and shrub clearance work and measures for introducing

bird nesting boxes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority. Clearance and construction on site shall take

place in accordance with the approved details.

Construction Method Statement

42) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until

a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved

in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall

be adhered to throughout the demolition and construction period. The

Statement shall provide for:

(i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

(ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials

(iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the

development

(iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including

decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where

appropriate

(v) wheel washing facilities

(vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during

construction

(vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from

demolition and construction works


16

Schedule B

Approved Plans and drawings

− Plans – Block 1 (278.001.DR.PL.100);

− Plans – Block 2 (278.001.DR.PL.101);

− Plans – Block 3 (278.001.DR.PL.102);

− Plans – Block 4 (278.001.DR.PL.103);

− Plans – Block 5 (278.001.DR.PL.104);

− Plans – Block 6 (278.001.DR.PL.105);

− Plans – Block 7 (278.001.DR.PL.106);

− Plans – Block 8 (278.001.DR.PL.107);

− Plans – Block 8 & 9 (278.001.DR.PL.108);

− Masterplan – Undercroft Level (278.001.DR.PL.200);

− Masterplan – Ground Floor Level (278.001.DR.PL.201);

− Masterplan – First Floor Level (278.001.DR.PL.202);

− Masterplan – Second Floor Level (278.001.DR.PL.203);

− Masterplan – Third Floor Level (278.001.DR.PL.204);

− Masterplan – Roof Level (278.001.DR.PL.205);

− Masterplan – Bin Collection Points (278.001.DR.PL.207);

− Masterplan – Ground Floor Level Amendment Plan

(278.001.DR.PL.208);

− Sections 2 – PS.FH.SK02 (26.07.05);

− Sections 3 – PS.FH.SK03 (24.03.08);

− Sections 4 – PS.FH.SK04 (21.04.08);

− Sections 5 – PS.FH.SK05 (12.06.09);

− Sections 6 – PS.FH.SK06 (08.10.08);

− Sections 7 – PS.FH.SK07 (09.06.09);

− Block 1 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.300);



− Block 2 & 3 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.303);



− Block 4 & 5 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.306);



− Existing Elevation (278.001.DR.EL.309);

− Block 8 & 9 Front and rear Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.310);

− Block 8 & 9 Side Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.311);

− Sections AA, BB, CC, DD (278.001.DR.SEC.01);


17

− Sections (278.001.DR.SEC.02);

− Sections (278.001.DR.SEC.03);

− Sections (278.001.DR.SEC.04)

− Location Plan (278-001-DR-SP-400);

− Site Plan (278-001.DR.SP.401)

− Detail Section (278-BWA-DR-X-SEC-05);

− Proposed Estate Road & Pathway General Lighting Design – Drawing

No. E(90)100 (14/11/08);


18

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Daniel Kolinsky of counsel Instructed by Solicitor, London Borough of

Lewisham (LBL)

He called:

Mr Nick Edwards

BA(Hons) MA (UD)

Building Design Partnership

Ms Tessa O’Neill

BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI

Building Design Partnership

FOR THE FOREST HILL SOCIETY

Mr John Hutchinson

BSc(Hons) Dip Arch

RIBA MCIArb

Local Resident and member of Forest Hill Society

Mr Michael Abrahams Vice Chairman Forest Hill Society

Mr Andrew Wood Local Resident and Friend of the Devonshire

Road Nature Reserve

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Keith Lindblom QC Instructed by Mr Andrew Frost of Jones Lang

Lasalle Ltd.

He called:

Mr Richard Coleman

DipArch (Cantab) RIBA

Richard Coleman Citydesigner

Mr Paul Beswick

BA(Hons) Dip LA

Enzygo Limited

Mr Andrew Virtue

BSc(Hons) MSc MIEEM

Mr James Quaife

FArbor.A, DipArb(RFS)

CEnv

Quaife Woodlands

Mr Andrew Frost MA

MRTPI

Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Cllr John Russell Councillor, LBL

Mr Mark Ridgewell Local Resident

Mr Paul Amos Local Resident

Mr Paul Grace Local Resident


19

DOCUMENTS

1 Letter of notification of the inquiry

2 Mr Lindblom’s opening statement on behalf of the appellants

3 Mr Kolinsky’s opening statement on behalf of LBL

4 Mr Grace’s opening statement on behalf of the Forest Hill

Society

5 Extract from LBL’s Annual Monitoring Statement 2008-2009

6 a & b Draft Unilateral Undertakings

7 Cllr Russell’s statement and copy of objection to application

08/70207

8 Documents and plans demonstrating scope for compliance

with Lifetime Homes standards.

9 Mr Brown’s email of 23 February 2010, setting out his

objections to the proposals

10 Mr Grace’s written statement

11 Mr Ridgewell’s written statement

12 Note from LBL’s Senior Policy Officer, re: Core Strategy

Options report of February 2009

13 Note from LBL’s Planning Policy Manager, re: process for

2004 Housing Capacity Study

14 Note re: contributions towards affordable housing in Appeal

B

15 Mr Quaife’s Appendix 12 – Screening trees to be removed

16 Mr Quaife’s Appendix 13 – Height of retained trees adjacent

to blocks

17 Committee Report for 2006 application

18 Density ranges for Appeal B

19 LPA note regarding planning obligation contributions

20 Closing statement on behalf of the Forest Hill Society

21 Closing submissions on behalf of LBL

22 Closing submissions on behalf of appellants

23 a & b Completed Unilateral Undertakings

PLANS

A Spot Heights – Appeal A

B Spot Heights – Appeal B

C Bundle of Application Plans – Appeal A

D Bundle of Application Plans – Appeal B