1

2

3

Location Bondway Commercial Centre 69 - 71 Bondway London SW8 1SQ Ward Oval Proposal Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a 42 storey building plus 2 basement levels below ground to provide a mixed use development comprising commercial units (flexible use class A1, A2, A3 and A4) at ground floor level, subsidised employment commercial units (use class B1) at first, second and third floor levels and residential units at fourth to fortieth floor levels. Together with 25 car parking spaces and 22 motorbike parking spaces located in the basements, 568 cycle parking spaces (360 located in the basements, 156 located in storage units on floors 4-16 and 52 at street level), refuse storage, public realm improvements/landscaping at street level and the formation of new vehicular access from Bondway/realigned vehicular access from Parry Street. Application Type Full Planning Permission Application No 09/01520/FUL/DC_JFU/42238 Applicant Vauxhall Bondway Ltd Agent Mr Nick Taylor

Capital House 85 King William Street London EC4N 7BL Date Valid 18 May 2009 Considerations Environment Agency Flood Zone (Dec 2006) Environment Agency Flood Zone 2 Thames Policy Area Thames Policy Area

Approved Plans A0990; A0999; A1000 -1005 inc; A1010 -A1013 inc. A0601; A2000 rev 01; A2001-2043 odd inc; A2100 -A2104 inc; A2110 -A2112 inc. A2200 -A2201 inc; A2205 -A2208 inc. VBD0901_L001-L003 inc. Supporting Planning Statement; Design and Access Statement; Heritage, Townscape and Visual impact Assessment; Transport Assessment; Sustainability Strategy; Statement of Community Involvement inc. Exhibition Report; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Statement; Sustainability Assessment Open Space and Childrens Playspace Strategy;

4

Economic Viability Assessment; Local Car Parking Issues Statement. Recommendation MINDED TO GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

AND A S106 AGREEMENT

5

Officer Report 09/01520/FUL 1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1 This application was reported to the Planning Applications Committee A on 25 November 2009 for a formal “steer” to seek Members’ comments and resolutions on issues arising from the proposed development. Following that meeting, the applicant sought to address the concerns raised by officers. The responses to the various concerns were in turn reported back to both Committee and Ward Members at a briefing on 11 January 2010. Whereas progress appeared to have been made on areas of concern, the applicant lodged an appeal against non-determination on 3 March 2010. The grounds of appeal are appended to this report. Following that meeting and subsequent dialogue between officers and the applicant on these key areas of contention, the application is now reported back to the Planning Applications Committee A for determination.

1.2 This report, therefore, addresses all the various considerations raised

following the “steer” report and weighs the impacts of this development both in the London-wide and local contexts.

1.3 The original report and the accompanying published minutes are appended to

this report. The key issues for consideration may again be summarised as those below.

1.4 the acceptability of total demolition of the existing buildings on site;

1.5 the principle of a tall building on this site; 1.6 the acceptability of a tall building 149m tall on this site; 1.7 the acceptability of the height, scale, bulk and design and impact on views

across London, river views, the World Heritage Site of the Palace of Westminster the impact on listed buildings, local conservation areas and Vauxhall Park;

1.8 the regeneration benefits of the proposed development for the Vauxhall area;

1.9 the acceptability of the mix of landuses within a residentially led development

and in particular the proposed quantum of employment generating floorspace and affordable housing within the development;

1.10 the level of private amenity and children’s play space within and outside the

development;

1.11 the significance of incorporating the adjoining plot into the scheme to provide additional open amenity space for future residents of this and other proposed schemes;

6

1.12 the impact of the development on the amenity of occupiers of the residential properties in the area, including the loss of daylight and sunlight, overshadowing and a sense of overbearing;

1.13 the acceptability of the highways proposals and public realm improvements;.

1.14 the level of s106 Agreement obligations and financial contributions to mitigate

the impact of the development at local and wider levels. 2. Site Description

2.1. The site lies immediately to the south of the Vauxhall Cross transport interchange. It is bounded to the north by Parry Street and to the west by Bondway. The elevated mainline railway line into Waterloo Station forms the eastern boundary of the site. A parcel of land, currently used as storage space and parking for commercial premises in the arches under the railway line, forms the southern boundary of the site. The site extends to 0.29 of a hectare (2,873m²).

2.2. The main building on the site is a late 19th Century warehouse. It comprises

approximately 6,317m² Gross External Area (GEA). The original building was built in approximately 1885 and the building was then altered and extended over the course of the last century, to include a three storey wing to the north, fronting Parry Street (built, c.1950s) and a new sixth storey roof level and five storey additional east wing (built c.1960s)., between the existing building and railway viaduct The roof was reconstructed in the post war period, including the additional sixth storey. The forecourt canopy structure, fronting Parry Street, was built c.1970s.

2.3. The building is currently used for storage (Use Class B8) and general office

space available in the form of a business centre for small businesses (Use Class B1). At present, not all of the space is occupied and it is understood that owing to the nature of the small businesses using the business centre, it has never been fully occupied.

2.4. The surrounding area is mixed in use and character, reflecting the changing

nature of Vauxhall and its history. The north of the site is dominated by the main Vauxhall transport interchange (including buses, London Underground and mainline railway services), alongside a row of buildings to the east of Bondway, used for office, retail and residential purposes. The area to the west consists mainly of employment uses, notably those at Market Towers and the CLS site on the other side of Bondway. A mix of uses is also found to the south, including offices, storage and distribution, a Sainsbury’s superstore and residential, including the Wyvil Road Estate opposite.

2.5. The area on the opposite side of the mainline railway, to the east of the site, is

predominantly residential in character and scale, although some employment and retail uses are located along South Lambeth Road and Miles Street. Vauxhall Park, a 20 acre park which provides a large area of local amenity space with a children’s play area, is located approximately 200m to the east, accessed via Miles Street.

2.6. Other notable local landmarks in close proximity to the site include St George

Wharf, the Oval Cricket Ground, Covent Garden Market (within the London

7

Borough of Wandsworth) and the River Thames, which is a 5 minute walk to the west. The site lies approximately 1.9km (1.1 miles) upstream from the World Heritage Site comprising the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including St Margaret’s Church.

2.7. The site is highly accessible due to its position next to a key transport node in

Central London. London Waterloo is approximately 10 minutes by train and London Victoria is also approximately 10 minutes away by London Underground. The site benefits from a range of public transport choices, which include the Vauxhall mainline railway station, which serves London Waterloo to the north and the entire south west overland railway network, Vauxhall Underground station, which directly connects to the Victoria Line, and Oval Underground station, which directly connects to the Northern Line of London Underground, and both stations provide indirect connections to the remainder of the London Underground network. Also, there is the Vauxhall bus terminus, which connects a total of 11 bus routes across London (including 3 which operate as 24 hour services); as well as pedestrian and cycle links across in the immediate area.

2.8. The accessibility of the site is reflected by its high Public Transport

Accessibility Rating (PTAL) rating of 6A “Exceptional”, which is the highest accessibility band.

2.9. With regard to the designation of the site, it is identified as a ‘Major

Development Opportunity’ site (MDO 81 “Parry Street East”) within the adopted Unitary Development Plan and forms part of a designated Key Industrial and Business Area It is also an area within the draft Vauxhall Area Supplementary Planning Document as suitable for redevelopment and within the northern part of a comprehensive regeneration area defined in the draft Vauxhall / Nine Elms / Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework, as designated by the Greater London Authority.

2.10. It is neither in a conservation area nor does it immediately adjoin any listed

buildings, although Brunswick House, which is a Grade II* listed building is approximately 200m to the west, adjacent to St George Wharf. Vauxhall conservation area does however lie to the east, beyond the railway line, and does contain a number of listed buildings.

2.11. These designations, together with the obligation to consider the impact on the

World Heritage Site, form a crucial basis for the assessment of the proposals as the site is clearly a key strategic site within the northern part of the Borough.

2.12. There have been no material changes to the site or its immediate locality since

the “steer” report was considered. 3. Planning History

3.1. The planning history for this site and that of neighbouring sites was set out in the “steer” report.

3.2. Reference was made in the original report to an adjoining site at 143-161

Wandsworth Road, known as “Vauxhall Sky Gardens”. The “steer” report

8

makes reference to planning permission having been granted for the redevelopment of the site for a residentially led mixed use scheme within a part three storey, part six storey and part thirty five (plus basement) new building. That scheme was granted planning permission on 5 November 2008.

3.3. Subsequent to that “steer” report, a revised planning application for the

”Vauxhall Sky Gardens” site has been submitted. On 29 December 2009 an application was submitted for the redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a part one storey, part eight storey and part 36 storey plus basement building. This would provide a mixed use development comprising 257 square metres commercial units (flexible Use Classes A1, A2, A3 and D1) at ground floor level, 4722 square metres of office floorspace (Use Class B1), 239 residential units, 3220 square metres of amenity space and landscaped amenity areas. It is also proposed to provide 23 car parking spaces, 278 cycle parking spaces, refuse storage, public realm improvements at street level and the formation of new vehicular access from Wyvil Road.

3.4. At the time of writing, this new revised application is under consideration

although it is anticipated to be reported to the Planning Applications Committee on 16 March 2010.

3.5. On 3 March 2010, solicitors acting on behalf of the Bondway scheme applicant

lodged an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, to be heard at a public inquiry against the Council’s non-determination of the application within the statutory period. The appellant contends that planning permission should be granted for a number of reasons. Members’ attention is drawn to these, which are appended in full to this report, as they may help to inform their opinions and conclusions on the scheme prior to resolving what decision they would have taken if the appeal had not been lodged. These grounds will form the basis of the appellant’s appeal and are issues that the Council will have to address in its statement of case. The grounds may be summarised thus.

3.6. Firstly, it is contended that the development will “help deliver important

strategic policy objectives” within national policy guidance, Council adopted and emerging policy, the draft Vauxhall SPD and the recently published draft Vauxhall / Nine Elms / Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework.

3.7. Secondly, reference is made to the GLA, who in a report 13 May 2009, stated

that the proposed mix of uses in the development meets the London Plan objectives for providing high quality office space and new residential accommodation in the Central Activities Zone. It is further contended that the development will make an important contribution to London being identified as an exemplary , sustainable world city making an efficient use of brown field land and that it will act a catalyst for wider regeneration and investment; that the development will make effective and efficient use of a currently underused brownfield site; that the principle for a tall building on this site is firmly established; that the site is sustainably located, one which will deliver a planning obligation package to benefit public transport; that the development will also deliver 276 new residential units, with a significant proportion being affordable units and that it will deliver flexible and below market rent office / business support for a local mixed –use community.

9

3.8. The appellant also contends that is of “a high quality architectural design” and reference is made to the fact that CABE has called the development is “an exciting and interesting scheme”.

3.9. It is also alleged that the developer has fully assessed the impacts of the

scheme on the environment, including the historic environment and that it would enhance the London skyline.

3.10. The grounds of appeal are concluded by stating that the scheme is an

exemplary sustainable development which assists the delivery of strategic policy objectives in a high quality scheme on previously developed land.

3.11. At the time of writing, no date for the public inquiry has been confirmed. It is

however scheduled for 8 days. 4. Scheme Details

4.1. The proposal involves the demolition of all existing buildings on site and the erection of a 42 storey building plus 2 basements to provide a residential-led mixed use development. The building would be 149m at its maximum height.

4.2. This would comprise commercial units (flexible Use Class A1, A2, A3 and A4)

totalling 288m² GEA at ground floor, subsidised start-up commercial units (Use Class B1) of 5,564m² GEA at first, second and third floor and 376 residential units at fourth to fortieth floors. The residential accommodation provides a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom flats and would be in both private and affordable tenures.

4.3. The scheme would also provide 671m² internal residential amenity space at

thirty-sixth floor as a dedicated “amenity floor”. The building form allows for winter gardens and generously sized protected terraces where it tapers in alternate directions.

4.4. Also proposed are 25 car parking spaces and 22 motorbike parking spaces

located in the 2 basements, 568 cycle parking spaces (360 located in the basements, 156 located in storage units on floors 4 to 16 and 52 at ground floor level. There would be two levels of plant at forty-first to forty-second floors.

4.5. Public realm improvements / landscaping at street level together with

refuse/recycling provision and the formation of a new vehicular access from Bondway, with realigned vehicular access from Parry Street are also proposed. In brief, the public realm improvements would include refurbishment and visual improvements to the adjoining footways and railway arches in Parry Street and Miles Street together with tree planning both on and off site (along Bondway).

4.6. The application has not been amended since members considered the “steer”

report. As such the size and physical expression of the building remains as originally considered and there have been no changes to the quantum of mix of uses within the building.

5. Consultation Responses

10

5.1. As was reported to Members in the “steer”, the applicant undertook extensive pre-application consultation with officers of the Council and those of the Greater London Authority (GLA). The scheme has twice been presented to the design review panels of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), and also to English Heritage and the City of Westminster.

5.2. In conjunction, the applicant carried out extensive consultation and

engagement with the local community. The applicant, Vauxhall Bondway Ltd., held a public exhibition to present the submitted proposals to the local community on 15 and 16 June 2009 at the Parco Café in Vauxhall Park. It is a highly accessible venue to all members of the public and is approximately 200m from the application site. Approximately 10 days prior to this exhibition, a newsletter was distributed to residents and commercial occupiers in a large catchment area extending from the river to The Oval, along the Embankment to Kennington Lane and south as far as Wilcox Road, off Wandsworth Road. This consultation area also extended into LB Wandsworth. It covered approximately 2,000 local residents, business and key stakeholders. The Statement of Community Involvement, submitted with the application states that 120 local residents attended the exhibition over the 2 days, including members of Viva Vauxhall. Questionnaires were available for residents to comment and offer feedback and all responses have been incorporated into the evolution of the scheme through to its formal submission

5.3. Following the submission of the planning application on 18 May 2009, the

Council undertook an extensive consultation exercise to include all relevant statutory bodies, external agencies as well as local residents and occupiers and their representative groups. In excess of 4,100 letters of notification were sent to local residents and occupiers and 6 site notices were posted on and around the site. The application was also advertised in the local press. A breakdown of the representations received is set out below.

5.4. Ward Councillors

5.5. Councillors Banks and Sawden have both raised concerns to the overall

height, scale and bulk of the development and are equally concerned about the impact on local roads and public transport.

5.6. With these concerns in mind, Councillors Banks, Sawden and Gray consider

that a comprehensive and full s106 agreement is negotiated to mitigate against these impacts.

5.7. Councillor Aktar considers this to be a very positive scheme but only if there is

a very good provision of affordable housing for low income families.

5.8. Local Occupiers and Residents

5.9. In excess of 120 objections from local residents and commercial occupiers have been received. In addition, 10 letters of support and observations have been received.

5.10. The range of objections received are summarised as set out in the table

below.

TOWNSCAPE, HERITAGE AND OFFICERS RESPONSE

11

DESIGN OBJECTIONS Loss of existing building which is considered to be a architectural merit;

The existing building is neither listed nor within a conservation area. The Council’s Conservation and Design team consider the building to be of little architectural merit and throughout discussions with the developer at both pre-application and application stage the team has not resisted the principle of its demolition. These views are supported by officers of the GLA, its design panel and the Commission for Architecture (CABE) and the Built Environment. Also, the site is recognised in the UDP (Policy 77, MDO 83) as being one appropriate for redevelopment. As such the principle of its demolition and thus re-development of the site are considered to have been established.

Excessive height, scale and bulk;

Again, both the GLA and the Council have identified this location to be one appropriate for tall buildings. The GLA’s Opportunity Area Planning Framework identifies an appropriate height of 150m for this site. The proposed scheme is 149m. Both the GLA and the Council acknowledge that the impact of a tall building both on the London skyline and locally can be successfully mitigated against by high quality architecture. CABE supports the design of the building. It is considered that the wider impact on the London skyline and heritage assets is broadly acceptable. Officers acknowledge that there would inevitably be the greatest impact locally, including on Vauxhall Park, local conservation areas and listed buildings. However set within the OAPF framework and with the support of CABE, it is considered that the impact of the building would be sufficiently mitigated by its high

12

quality design.

Over-domination of local residential properties

Similarly, it is acknowledged the development would have an obvious impact when seen from its residential hinterland set away from Vauxhall Heart. Equally, it is acknowledged that the scale of the residential hinterland is domestic and therefore significantly lower and of smaller scale than the more commercial development surrounding the application site. However, mindful of a recent appeal decision (81 Black Prince Road) where the Inspector concluded that the elevated railway line running through Vauxhall formed a demarcation point between these character zones, it is considered that the relationship of the site as proposed to be developer and the residential streets to the west and south is sufficiently disconnected and distant to justify the overall scale of development as proposed.

Out of character and scale of the area

As above, this is a site which has been designated for one being appropriate for a tall building, one which according to GLA analysis may be 150m tall. This approach is permissive for a scheme such as this and has been established.

Proposed height would set an unwelcome precedent for the area

This application should not be regarded in isolation as simply a one off speculative development. It has to be seen in the context of the GLA’s OAPF and the Council draft emerging Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document. Both of which draw on detailed analysis of zoning clusters of tall buildings in Vauxhall and beyond into Wandsworth. This site lies within an area identifies as the Vauxhall Heart which, as stated above, may have buildings rising to 150m. Moreover, it is not the first application for a tall building in this locality. Planning permission has also been granted (on appeal) for the approx. 180m tall St George’s Vauxhall

13

Tower and the approx. 120m tall “Vauxhall Sky Gardens” on Wandsworth Road. The principle of a tall building in this location is therefore established.

Proposed architecture and detailed design is poor quality

The proposed development has been reported to 2 design panels at the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Similarly it has been reported to the Mayor of London. These reviews have informed the evolution of the design approach for the development and the scheme has the support of both CABE and the GLA. Similarly, the Council’s Conservation and Design team support the application. No objection is raised therefore to the architectural quality of the building or detailed design.

Prejudicing the future development of adjoining site (CLS site).

Whilst it is acknowledged that the CLS site immediately adjoins the application site and as such would have a significant impact upon it, the application scheme is considered to be acceptable, on balance, on its merits and any future scheme opposite which may come forward would have to account for the constraints posed by this development when built out, as would be the case anywhere.

Detrimental impact on Vauxhall Park, Vauxhall Grove and Bonnington Square.

Officers acknowledge that the development would have a marked visual impact on the Park and beyond, notably by reason of its width as well as its height. Whilst its dimensions are not contested and it is acknowledged that the proposed building would effectively fill the site, officers are mindful of the opinions raised by CABE and the GLA that impact is not necessarily harmful if it can be mitigated against by high quality design. As the site is appropriate for a 150m tall building, it is considered that an argument for the development being

14

a high quality landmark building is also applicable.

High level living and terraces are not appropriate for families.

The scheme proposes a total of 187 x 2-bed, 44 x 3 bed and 6 x 4 bed units in both private and affordable tenures. It is acknowledged that there would be a significant amount of family sized accommodation within the building. All units would however be designed to meet Lifetime Homes standards and the Council’s room size guidance; all would have private amenity space in the form of winter gardens or balconies. Regardless of the elevated location, all these units would be built to a high quality of internal amenity. Also, the flats at the higher levels would enjoy views across London which may be regarded as a positive amenity in its own right.

AMENITY RELATED OBJECTIONS

OFFICERS’ RESPONSE

Loss of daylight and sunlight; The applicant has submitted an analysis of the impact on sunlight and daylight affecting adjoining properties. This follows the Building Research Establishment’s guidelines “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight”. In brief, it concludes that there are two residential properties which would suffer a loss of daylight, 56 Parry Street and Hilden House. The analysis demonstrates, however, the level of retained light will be sufficient for these properties in this central urban location as not to justify refusal. The BRE analysis concludes that there would be no loss of sunlight to any property.

Overshadowing of nearby residential properties;

This BRE study also took into account any overshadowing of neighbouring properties and community gardens.

15

This issue was of concern when the “steer” report was considered. The BRE report demonstrated that there would be no undue overshadowing of either the Park or local residents. It is understood that further studies have been carried out which support the original contention that there would no material harm in this respect.

Loss of view;

Whilst loss of view in its own right is not strictly a material planning consideration, it is considered that the change in views from adjacent streets and squares in the locality is not so adverse as to warrant the refusal of planning permission.

Influx of more residents and workers would generate more noise and pollution;

The submitted Environmental Statement includes an assessment of potential noise and other environmental impacts. The development could generate external noise attributable to the increase in people in the area using the proposed retail/commercial facilities. Any potential for noise and pollution emanation could be adequately mitigated against by imposing conditions regarding opening hours, restriction on amplified music etc. Internally, sound and vibration measures have been incorporated into the design of the building in accordance with the relevant Building Regulations and Codes of Practice .

Inappropriate residential environmental environment due to poor air quality;

The Council and GLA’s expectation for the regeneration of the Vauxhall envisages that the hat future developments incorporate significant levels of residential accommodation in both private and affordable tenures. Whilst it is acknowledged that this scheme is residentially led, it should be considered in the context of the other approved scheme in the vicinity

16

including St George Wharf development which will ultimately contain approximately 1400 dwellings when complete. St Georges Wharf is approximately 100m to the north east of the application site and adjoins the gyratory. It is considered that the appropriateness of this area for residential accommodation is therefore established.

Wind tunnelling will create a poor residential environment

The submitted Environment Assessment has also considered this impact. Accordingly the building has been specifically designed, particularly at street level to ensure that it would not result in a significant wind tunnelling effect; rather it has been designed to dissipate wind turbulence down Bondway, along Parry Street and beyond.

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION RELATED OBJECTIONS

OFFICERS RESPONSE

Increased on street car parking pressure on local streets;

The scheme proposes a total of only 25 parking spaces for the residential units, 12 of which would be for disabled users, and none for the office or retail facilities. This is response to the site’s “excellent” Public Transport Accessibility Level (Level 6a) given its extreme proximity to the Vauxhall Cross transport hub. Moreover, the site is located within the “Kennington K” Controlled Parking Zone. The development would not generate any additional parking demand on the surrounding highway network as it is proposed to be permit free, secured by the s106 Agreement, thereby denying the future occupiers the ability to park on street. Any increase in on-street parking in the vicinity of the site would therefore be negligible.

Existing transportation infrastructure would not be able to cope with such an increase in

A Transport Assessment has been submitted with the application and extensive negotiations have taken

17

residents and workers within the development;

place at both the pre-application and application stage with officers of both TfL and the Council. Officers recognise that there is a recognised capacity issue at Vauxhall underground Station and that TfL are seeking a significant financial contribution towards this and other measures to increase public transport capacity in the Vauxhall area.(Section 12 of this report refers). The proposed improvements to pedestrian accessibility in particular to the crossing on Parry Street would also improve public transport accessibility.

Need for additional car parking spaces within the development

As stated above, the site benefits from an “excellent” Public Transport Accessibility Level. UDP Policy 14 states that the aim of the Council’s parking standards is to reduce the level of off-street parking provision and to lower congestion and reliance on private vehicles as a means of travel. These standards are expressed as a maximum allowance and Vauxhall falls within an Area of Strict Traffic Restraint. The scheme which has been the subject of extensive negotiation with both the Council and TfL and these meetings have informed the submitted level of car parking provision. Both TfL and the Council are satisfied that the proposed level of provision is acceptable and any more would be an overprovision contrary to Policy 14.

Increased pressure and overcrowding on local public transport;

As above, the scheme has been the subject of extensive negotiations with TfL as well the Council to ensure that the scheme is satisfactorily mitigated having regard to transport related matters. Financial contributions have been sought and agreed to for physical improvements to the station complex and the wider streets to

18

ensure free flow of the road network to avoid congestion and to increase capacity of the station to improve the free flow of pedestrians through it.

The increase in population would increase the number of cars in the area which in turn would increase the risk to pedestrian and highway safety

The scheme would be effectively car free with only 25 car parking spaces proposed. Also the site and its surrounding area are covered by a CPZ preventing both future occupiers and their visitors being able to park on street. Given the high PTAL rating, it is considered therefore that the increase in the number of occupiers within the development would not result in a concomitant increase in the number of vehicles entering the area.

Increase in the number of servicing vehicles would also be detrimental to pedestrian and highway safety;

The TA includes a servicing strategy and includes a calculation of the estimated number of servicing movements along with servicing requirements, un/loading bays, and delivery routes to and from the service area and a swept path analysis for all likely delivery vehicles. In order to accommodate the estimated number of servicing movements (46 per day), 2 loading bays are proposed, one 10m in length and the 6m long. Vehicles will access the loading bays from the crossover in Bondway and exit via Parry Street. Given the proposed managed one-way circulation, turning and manoeuvring will be kept to a minimum and allow service vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forwards direction. Moreover, a dedicated loading bay manager is proposed to be stationed on site who will be responsible for managing deliveries and directing drivers etc. A Delivery Management Plan would be recommended on any subsequent permission.

Reliance on the use of bicycles is The scheme proposes a total of 568

19

“ludicrous” given the nature of Vauxhall Cross and its gyratory;

secure and sheltered cycle storage spaces within development. The proposed number is in excess of both the minimum requirements of the London Plan and the UDP. However, cycling is a sustainable form of transport and parking spaces should be provided in line with GLA and Council requirements.

OTHER OBJECTIONS OFFICERS’ RESPONSE

A lack of affordable housing It is acknowledged that is a shortfall in affordable housing within the development when set against Policy 16 of the UDP – 30% as opposed to 50% assuming a public subsidy or 40% without. However the policy states that a lower level of provision maybe acceptable if it can be “demonstrated and independently validated that a scheme would not be economically viable unless there is a lower level of provision…” The applicant submitted a confidential financial appraisal to justify the level of provision. This has been independently assessed and it has been agreed that assumptions made regarding viability of the scheme are reasonable are fair and as a consequence any further increase in affordable housing would render the scheme not viable. On this basis, it is considered that the proposed level of provision is acceptable.

Disruption during the demolition and construction phase;

The ES includes a Construction and Environmental Management Plan to control and mitigate against this disruption within restricted operating hours. Had Members been minded to grant planning permission, conditions would have been recommended to control these matters by the submission of and approval in writing of a management plan.

The development would be Whilst this objection is not qualified

20

dangerous (not specified why).

as to why the development would be dangerous, it would be built to all relevant Regulations and Code of Practice to ensure that both during construction and upon completion and occupation it would be secure and safe for future occupiers and the wider community.

5.11. Comments in Support of the Scheme

Q The redevelopment would regenerate Vauxhall; Q This location is very suitable for a cluster of tall buildings; Q The scheme will bring Vauxhall up to standard of Zone 1; Q Improve the opportunities for local inward investment; Q The scheme would enhance the local area; Q The provision of the subsidised start-up units is welcomed Q The area desperately needs more residents and restaurants/coffee

shops.

5.12. Observations on the Scheme

Q No objection subject to adequate traffic and car parking management; Q No objection provided that the scheme would not affect existing local

businesses. Q No objection subject to adequate traffic and car parking management; Q No objection provided that the scheme would not affect existing local

businesses.

5.13. The statutory bodies and external consultees were:

Q the Greater London Authority, Q English Heritage, Q the Commission for the Built Environment, Q Transport for London, Q London Underground, Q Network Rail, Q Highways Agency, Q LFCD Authority and Q Environment Agency.

5.14. The amenity societies and residents’ associations for both the Prince’s and

Stockwell wards were consulted, namely Q the Kennington Association, Q Regents Bridge Gardens Ltd, Q Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum, Q Vauxhall Society, Q Vauxhall Gardens Estate Residents and Tenants Association, Q Vauxhall St Peters Heritage Centre, Wyvil Tenants Association, Q Association of Waterloo Groups, Q Waterloo Action Centre, Q Waterloo Community Development Group, Q Fentiman Road, Richborne Terrace and Dorset Road Residents

Association and the

21

Q Mursell Estate Group.

5.15. The adjoining boroughs of Southwark, Wandsworth and Westminster City Council were also consulted.

5.16. Internally, the following department and teams were consulted:

Q Conservation and Design, Q Planning Policy, Q Performance Strategy and Regeneration, Q Transport Planning, Q Crime Prevention Unit, Q Regulatory Services (Noise and Pollution) Q Housing, Q Housing (Housing Association s106), Q Implementation Team and Parks and Open Space.

5.17. For following responses have been received.

5.18. The Greater London Authority

5.19. The GLA submitted its Stage 1 referral report in July 2008 and at that time

resolved that the scheme complied with some, but not all relevant London Plan policies but acknowledge that possible remedies could address the identified deficiencies. The GLA has resolved that the principle of a residential-led mixed use development in the central activities zone is compliant with the Plan. The principle of a 149m tall building has also been agreed. It is resolved that the proposal is of high architectural quality and its impact on strategic views broadly accords with policy. The provision of Lifetime Homes and wheelchair accessible units accords with London Plan policy. However, it has been identified that the scheme proposes no on-site children’s play space which does not accord with policy. Concern has been raised having regard to climate change adaption measures and some aspects of the transport assessment are insufficiently detailed to ensure compliance with the full range of London plan transport policies

5.20. The GLA has identified various changes which would remedy these

deficiencies to may make the scheme as a whole compliant with the London Plan. These are the need for more detailed design to demonstrate how the proposed shared surface will ensure the safety of all users; a children’s play space strategy should be submitted in line with GLA’s SPG; modelling work needs to be carried out to demonstrate the development’s baseline energy demand and CO2 emissions and that s106 financial contributions are sought towards pedestrian safety improvements and mitigation of the impact of the development on the local and strategic transport network.

5.21. The applicant has been working closely with officers at the GLA and TfL with

regard to addressing these Stage 1 concerns and developments in these areas, together with the level of affordable housing which this scheme may reasonable maximise (which remains under scrutiny by the Council’s viability consultants) will be reported at stage 2.

5.22. English Heritage

22

5.23. English Heritage welcomes the reduction in height of the building from 175m and state that it is supportive of good quality contextual modern architecture. However, there is significant concern about the impact of the proposed development on longer views towards Parliament Square from Whitehall. It is contended that the built form of the tower would be a significant visual entity in views from the Banqueting House and Cenotaph, changing the character of the view from an open aspect to an enclosed one by development. Also, concern is raised regarding the impact of the development when viewed from Hungerford Bridge in the winter.

5.24. At local level, English Heritage considers that the development would have a

significant impact on the setting of several conservation areas, in particular Kennington and Albert Square conservation areas in Lambeth and Pimlico conservation area in Westminster. Concern is raised to the alleged adverse impact on a number of local listed buildings Woodstock Court and St Stephen’s Terrace)

5.25. Concern is also expressed about the effect on the Grade II* listed Battersea

Power Station and the Grade II* registered Battersea Park historic park and garden. The tower would appear between the iconic chimneys of the power station.

5.26. Concern is also expressed that the proposed tower will impact upon the

existing open view towards the abutment obelisks to Lambeth Bridge which is Grade II listed.

5.27. Finally, English Heritage are “disappointed” that the scheme has not

considered adaption of the existing building which is considered to still make a positive contribution to the streetscape and is one of the last vestiges of the past industrial landscape of Vauxhall.

5.28. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

5.29. In its formal response to the planning application, which followed to 2 design

panel review meetings held at pre-application stage, CABE consider this to be “an exciting and interesting scheme. The elegant massing and good proportions have produced a successful form and we are satisfied, in principle, that the proposed height could be appropriate”.

5.30. The principle of a cluster of tall buildings in this location is supported, but

CABE considers that this scheme must be of excellent quality to justify its impact on local and distant views. Despite some reservations about the form-driven design and the potentially wall-like appearance of the east and west elevations, CABE is of the opinion that the form and massing to be well considered. The stepped massing is considered to skilfully break down the scale of the building when viewed from the north and south.

5.31. CABE considers that the layout of the base of the tower and the surrounding

public realm has not been fully integrated. The Council is urged to ensure that the public realm is well designed, carefully integrated with adjacent new buildings and offers significant amenity to local residents. Disappointment is raised that it has not been possible to integrate the triangular plot of land immediately adjoining the site to the south to provide as this would have helped to contribute to amenity space for future residents.

23

5.32. Conditions are recommended to ensure a high quality of detailed design and use of appropriate materials.

5.33. City of Westminster

5.34. Objection is raised to the scheme by reason of its height and scale and as

such harm views from the City and in particular from a number of the City Council’s conservation areas including Whitehall, Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square, St James’ and Pimlico.

5.35. In particular, strong objections are raised to the impact on the setting of the

World Heritage Site in views from Parliament Square and Whitehall. It is also considered that to detrimentally impact upon the settings of the Buxton memorial (Grade II*), the terraced houses (Grade II) and Westminster Abbey (Grade I).

5.36. London Borough of Wandsworth

5.37. No objection is raised but wish to emphasise the importance of safeguarding

important views of Wandsworth and for a higher contribution to the much needed transport improvements locally to benefit the local area.

5.38. Additional External Response

5.39. The Metropolitan Police Authority have commented that it is essential that the

scheme makes appropriate provision for police facilities (in the form of a safer neighbourhood office) which should be secured either by condition or as part of the s106 Agreement. It is requested that provision of 90msq be made available at a peppercorn rent for a minimum period of 25 years and that it complies with the security standards detailed in the Secure by Design Scheme.

5.40. Internal Consultee Responses

5.41. Conservation and Design team: offer the following comments:

Principle of Development The site is recognised in the UDP (Policy 77, MDO 83) as being one for redevelopment. The policy states that the retention of the mid-Victorian building on the site will be addressed in the “Vauxhall Area Action Plan”. The draft emerging Vauxhall Area SPD has not, in fact, addressed the issue, but I am aware that in pre application discussions the fact that the warehouse is not listed nor in a conservation area, helped lead to the conclusion that the existing building can be demolished. That is not to say, of course, that the existing building does not have merit.

Policy context The policy context here is wide. The more local policy context is the emerging draft Vauxhall Area SPD as well as the UDP, in particular policies 40, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41, 45, 47. Without being comprehensive, the wider context is the emerging draft Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area Framework, London Plan (the revised draft has just been published), Westminster World Heritage site Management Plan, LVMF (the revised version has been out to consultation) CABE/EH guidance on tall buildings.

24

Assessment The OAPF, London Plan and Vauxhall SPD identify Vauxhall as a location for a cluster of tall buildings. The latest proposed revisions to the LVMF have also acknowledged this. For instance in the River Prospect 17A : 300 Incremental change to development in the background of the river frontage is acceptable provided each addition to the view contributes positively to the composition. 301 It should be noted that new clusters of tall buildings may emerge at VNEOA. Tall building proposals in that area should be designed to relate to and strengthen the composition of the emerging cluster of tall buildings.

The background study to the emerging draft Vauxhall SPD favours an approach of graduating the emerging skyline from east to west towards the high point of the consented St George’s Vauxhall tower (approx. 180m). The consented Sky Gardens is approx 120 metres and will be between this Bondway proposal and St George’s tower.

However, the draft recognises that a scheme of architectural and design quality could be an exception to this aspiration to graduate the heights.

Height The application has provided a visual assessment which has gone through a variety of views from the protected vistas to local views. My view is that the long distance views of the proposal are acceptable, but that some of the more local ones are problematic and could be considered to be likely to cause harm subject to the issue of design quality.

In terms of listed buildings within Lambeth, Woodstock Court, Newburn Street, which is grade II*, will, I consider, be adversely affected by the scheme. The applicants have a wire line of this at view M29 and their conclusion is slight adverse effect.

In views M33-M35 more of the potentially harmful impact becomes apparent on the Vauxhall, St Mark’s and Albert Square conservation areas. There are impacts on other streetscenes and conservation areas (for instance M38 shows the impact on Lansdowne Gardens conservation area).

View M23 shows the position from LVMF view 15A.2, and please note that it appears immediately behind the London Eye, although the London Eye is not a “building” protected under the LVMF.

The effect on Vauxhall Park and environs is shown L58 – L61 which are the other views in the Visual Impact Assessment to which I wish to draw attention. There will be a considerable impact on the park, in my view, from the width and the height of the proposal.

Having looked at these areas of concern, my conclusion is that they are not sufficient to warrant a reason for refusal. There is clear policy, plan-led support for tall buildings in this location and there will necessarily be a significant impact from the arrival of a tall building in this location. The viaduct though has been recognised as a demarcation point for character zones (see draft Vauxhall SPD) and mentioned too by an Inspector. The design quality of the proposal has been recognised by CABE. Potentially harmful impacts can be mitigated by good design and the stepping of the proposal and its vertical divisions are a clever design response to the width of the site. My preference

25

would have been for a less tall building and one that was less wide (which would also have had a public realm benefit – see below), but the policy framework is permissive and the potentially harmful impacts have been mitigated by good design.

There is an impact on the Westminster World Heritage site with a view down Whitehall of the top of the tower. However, I am mindful of the Inspector’s conclusion about a proposal’s distance behind the World Heritage site, and consider that this would appear to be too distant to be harmful. Also the internationally known skyline and Big Ben’s clock tower would not be affected.

Public Realm The emerging draft SPD sets out emerging guidance for the public realm and organisation of routes. Please see the section on the Vauxhall Heart, and at QA.4, all tall building proposals will be expected to provide sufficient high quality public realm and amenity space. It is good that active ground floor uses are being proposed here, but it would have been better had new public open space been offered as part of the scheme. A lateral link across the wider site (i.e. including the Spacia land) is aimed for in the emerging SPD. This would need to be provided in this scheme immediately to its south on Spacia land.

5.42. Policy team: offer the following comments:

The site is located to the south of Parry Street, to the west of the railway line and to the east of Bondway on a triangular plot of land identified as MDO 81 in the UDP. The site is within the Central London Activities Zone and in the London Plan Opportunity Area of Vauxhall. The site is within a Key Industrial Business Area (KIBA) and MDO 81 identifies it as a Mixed Use Employment Area.

Policies 2, 3, 20 and the Vauxhall specific policies and Draft SPD support large scale mixed use development in this area. Policy 40 relates to tall buildings and sets out the locational criteria for tall buildings. From the criteria the site appears to be a suitable location for a tall building.

The proposal is for the erection of a 42 storey building with basement car parking, two retail units, refuse storage and entrance lobbies at ground floor level, subsidised employment floorspace on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors, social housing for rent on the 4th, 5th and 6th floors, a mix of social housing for rent and private housing on the 7th to 10th floors, a mix of intermediate housing and private housing on the 11th to 16th floors, private housing from the 17th to 40th floor with an amenity floor at floor 36 and plant space on the 41st and 42nd floors.

As the site is identified as a Mixed Use Employment Area by MDO 81 the development of the site for a mix of uses is considered to be acceptable by Policy 22. The supporting text to MDOs 80 to 83 advises that at least 1/3rd of each site should be for employment use. The 3 floors proposed for employment use would not equal 1/3 of the buildings total floorspace. In the circumstances of a 42 storey tower it is considered that there could be some relaxation in the floorspace requirement. 1/10th of the overall floorspace would be employment floorspace. This is significantly less than specified by MDO 81. It should also be noted here that Policy 22 normally requires at least 50% of floorspace in Mixed Use Employment Areas to be in employment use unless otherwise specified by an MDO and as such MDO 81 is already offering a

26

reduction in employment floorspace above the norm by specifying 1/3rd. Therefore it is considered that material considerations would need to be identified that could justify the level of employment floorspace proposed before this reduced percentage could be considered acceptable.

Policy 15 advises that residential use is an appropriate use in all locations where a satisfactory residential environment can be achieved unless another use is specifically protected by the UDP. Subject to the developments providing sufficient employment floorspace in line with Policy 22 and MDO 81 no objection is raised to residential development on this site. Policy 16 advises that the maximum reasonable proportion of affordable housing will be sought.

Policies 4, 19, 75, 76 and 77 all relate to the proposed ground floor uses and how the proposal integrates with the surrounding area, increases, vitality, improves transport links, improves the public realm and supports the regeneration of Vauxhall. The case officer should examine how the development supports these aims.

Obviously regard will also need to be had to transport impact, sustainability, public realm, residential amenity, urban design, character and appearance of the area, cycle parking, refuse storage, s106 contributions and other issues associated with the development of tall buildings.

5.43. Parks and Greenspaces: support the application subject to conditions. 5.44. Planning and Implementation: confirm that negotiations on the s106

Agreement are well advanced.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1 The “steer” report sets out in detail the policy context for this scheme. Section 6 entitled “Policy Context” refers to the relevant national Planning Policy Statements, The London Plan and the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan together with its accompanying Supplementary Planning Documents.

6.1.2 These national, regional and local policies are still directly applicable to

the consideration of this application. The only material amendment is the deletion of PPS 4 and PPS 6 and their replacement with a new PPS 4 entitled “Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth”. Whilst this new PPS should be taken into account when considering this application, it is considered that its introduction does not create a material change in emphasis as to how this application should be considered.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The application proposes the demolition of the existing buildings on

site and the erection of a 42 storey building (149m tall) with 2 basements to provide a mixed use development comprising:

27

o commercial active ground floor frontage units (Use Classes A1/A2/A3 and A4) at ground floor level (288msq Gross External Area (GEA)),

o commercial units (Use Class B1) at first, second and third floors (5,564msq GEA) and

o 376 residential units from fourth to fortieth floors of mixed size and tenure.

6.2.2. The 2 basements would accommodate the 25 car parking spaces, 22

motorcycle spaces, some of the bicycle racks and the servicing arrangements for the building. There would also be a residential amenity space on the thirty sixth floor (671msq) and the top two floors would be for the plant to service the building.

6.2.3. Ground Floor Uses

Policy 20 of the UDP refers to mixed use development and states that a mix of compatible land uses should be retained and enhanced in the development of all sites in the Central Activities Zone, the Thames Policy area, in town centres, and all major sites. Particular attention is also paid to the design, disposition and servicing of mixed-use developments, which should achieve a satisfactory relationship between individual units and uses in terms of their layout, stacking and protection of the amenity of adjoining and proposed residents.

6.2.4. Similar requirements are reiterated in Policy 3, which requires the promotion of activities that contribute to London’s role as a World and Capital City and an active Central London Activity Zone.

6.2.5. Policy 19 also requires active frontage uses within the Thames Policy

Area. The appropriate mix of uses in an active frontage is defined as A and D class.

6.2.6. At street level, activity would be achieved by combining the

commercial units with the residential entrance and commercial lobbies to ensure that the frontage is animated at all times, not just when the commercial units are open. There would be two A classes units (A1/A2/A3/A4) which would be located at the northern and southern end of the building. These would help in activating the street level frontage along Parry Street and Bondway. The servicing arrangements and storage provision for these commercial units would be at the rear of the development set towards the railway viaduct to ensure that the more public areas of the ground floor are not compromised by utilitarian dead frontage.

6.2.7. Officers are of the opinion that the proposed ground floor uses

together with their layout, arrangement and interaction with the entrance lobbies for the other occupiers are well considered and compliant with the above policy. As such it is considered that this element of the overall landuse provision within the building is acceptable.

6.2.8. Employment Generating Uses (Floors 1-3)

When the “steer” report was considered, Members were aware that the site is within the designated MDO 80 (Parry Street West). This

28

designation requires at least one third of the floorspace on the site should be provided for employment needs, unless it can be demonstrated that this can be provided for on MDO sites 80, 82 and 83 (which immediately adjoin the application site). Although the site is also within a Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA), the requirements are less relevant in this case, as Policy 22, which outlines the requirements for KIBA’s, states that MDO designations take priority. It is however important to note that development within KIBA’s should improve land in employment uses and increase employment levels and access to employment, through such measures as the provision of incubator or start-up increases as these increase the opportunities for small businesses.

6.2.9. In addition, Policy 22 permits the provision of Use Class B1 premises

for small to medium enterprises providing that it is appropriate to the character of an area and sufficient servicing arrangements can be provided that do not conflict with residential amenity.

6.2.10. The existing building is currently used for storage (Use Class B8) and

general office space available in the form of a business centre for small businesses (Use Class B1).This provides a total of 6,316msq of existing employment generating floorspace.

6.2.11. It is proposed to provide 5,852msq of Use Class B1 accommodation

within the proposed building on first to third floor levels. This would therefore result in a net loss of 464msq of employment generating floorspace.

6.2.12. Following the “steer” report, Members have expressed their concerns

that this shortfall is highly contentious given the size of the development set within the MDO designation of the site. Officers acknowledge these concerns and would concur that without adequate justification there would be grounds to refuse planning permission on the lack of provision of employment generating floorspace within the development. The applicant is equally fully aware of Members’ views on this element of the scheme and has sought to clarify these reasons for this level, and nature, of provision.

6.2.13. Firstly, not all the space in the existing buildings is occupied. It is

understood that owing to the nature of the small businesses using the business centre, the numbers of workers operating from the business centre fluctuates. The storage accommodation although large in area generates very few employees given the inactive nature of its operation.

6.2.14. Secondly, the application proposes to provide subsidised start-up

office floorspace. It is not therefore speculative office accommodation available for corporate occupation. With a dedicated ground floor public entrance on Bondway and a separate service entrance accessed via from the building’s main servicing arrangements, located facing the railway viaduct, the subsidised accommodation would provide a self-contained working environment able to accommodate a variety of unit sizes and configuration dependant on individual occupier requirements. It is envisaged that that the occupants of the accommodation would be small start-up workshop

29

type businesses on a relatively short term lease and sharing common facilities. It is anticipated that this form of office floorspace would attract local businesses within Lambeth, rather than from beyond the borough.

6.2.15. The applicant has employed English Partnership’s guidance note on

employment densities for offices and storage space (one job per 19msq and 80msq respectively). The number of people that could be permanently employed on the site at the present time works out as approximately 180. The applicant has been in discussions with the centre manager who considers this figure to be broadly correct for current occupancy levels. However, it was considered that the number of office employees might be higher than estimated owing to the offices being used as a business centre, rather than conventional offices, and the number of employees associated with the storage business might be lower.

6.2.16. Applying English Partnership’s guidance with regard to the potential

number of jobs that could be created on site by this development, the full time employment potential works out as 262 jobs; an increase of 62 jobs beyond the existing potential maximum.

6.2.17. Therefore, on the one hand, by providing only 10% of the proposed

floorspace for B1 use, the scheme fails the MDO requirement of seeking one third employment generating floor area. Yet on the other, there would be net increase of 62 jobs in full time jobs being available.

6.2.18. There are other factors which Members should be mindful of when

apportioning weight to these mitigating factors and ultimately reaching their decision of the acceptability or otherwise of the proposed level of provision. It is alleged that, as the design of the proposal for a tall building has evolved, significant practical issues of accommodating the requisite amount of employment floorspace within the building have been experienced. These include the provision of necessary servicing and lift cores, resulting in an inefficient building that was ultimately unviable. Furthermore, the type of accommodation that is proposed replaces and increases the serviced business accommodation that presently exists. What is proposed is in the form of small business suites that can be increased or decreased in size to meet the specific needs of future businesses which would assist in supporting local businesses in the accordance with the Council’s employment objectives. Moreover, further Use Class B1 floorspace would be expected to be provided on the remainder of MDO 80, and on MDO’s 82 and 83 upon their redevelopment which would further boost the employment floorspace in this part of Vauxhall. This justification for the acceptability the 10% level of provision is further reinforced by the increase in jobs that would be derived if the scheme as proposed is brought forward.

6.2.19. That said, following Members’ resolution after the “steer” regarding

the shortfall in employment generating floorspace, officers have pursued means by which the quantum may be increased or mitigated against. For a variety of reasons, the applicant has been resistant to increase the quantum - which fundamentally comes down to matters

30

of financial viability to deliver the scheme. Indeed the case has been put that to increase the amount of B1 floorspace within the building would be at the expense of some of the affordable housing units on the floors above. Means to mitigate the level of B1 provision, as proposed, have also been discussed with the developer. On 23 February 2010, officers advised the appellant that the amount of financial contribution offered for local training in construction together with employment and training be reconsidered. Members will note that proposed contribution offered to local training in construction is £50.000. At the time of writing, no such contribution has been offered for employment and training although a response from the applicant/appellant is awaited. The Council’s adopted s106 SPD toolkit indicates a total financial contribution of £426,615.48 for training and construction and for employment and training. (£357,500 and £69,115.48 respectively). It is considered that an agreement to provide this level of contribution would help to ease the level of contention surrounding a 10% provision of employment generating floorspace given the MDO designation of the site. Any further developments on this point will be set out in an addendum report for Members’ attention.

6.2.20. Members’ attention is also drawn to the fact that this level and nature

of provision has been the subject of much discussion between the developer and officers. Officers consider that the flexible subsidised start-up accommodation as proposed would be more attractive to local business and as such would assist in meeting the goals of Lambeth’s Economic Development Strategy (2070-2010) (2007) in respect of increasing investment in Lambeth, tackling worklessness and supporting enterprise within the borough. Equally, the English Partnership’s modelling which identifies that there would be an obvious increase in the number of full time jobs available on site is acknowledged.

6.2.21. It is considered that whilst the proposals do not comply with the

policy requirements pursuant to the MDO designation of 33% of the floorspace of the development being made available for employment generating uses, there are a number of cogent factors which do weigh heavy in the balance to justify this proposed level of provision. Whilst it is a decision for Members to take as to whether these mitigating factors are of sufficient weight to justify a departure from the MDO designation, Officers are of the opinion that, notwithstanding Members concerns regarding the lack of provision in a building of this size, there is a case to be made, on balance, to support this limited level of provision particularly so when set in the context of the regeneration benefits that would accrue from the granting of planning permission and the potentially catalytic effect that this high quality development would have for Vauxhall as a whole.

6.2.22. Provision of a “Safer Neighbourhood Office”. 6.2.23. Members will recall that the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) have

continually requested a “safer neighbourhood office” within the proposed building. Initially, it was requested that this office should be located at street level within one of the retail units. Officers were

31

resistant to this given the need to ensure an animated and active ground floor frontage of the building. Given the nature of operation of a “safer neighbourhood office”, it was considered that such a use could be to the detriment of the viability and vitality of the site at street level. Following this decision, the MPA then requested that the requisite floorspace within the office floors be made available. However, given that “safer neighbourhood office” is not employment generating and the acknowledged shortfall in employment generating floorspace within the building, as currently proposed, it is considered that a further erosion would result in an unacceptably low level of employment generating floorspace. It is recommended therefore that the scheme should not be so amended as to include a “safer neighbourhood office”

6.2.24. Residential Accommodation (Floors 4 to 40)

6.2.25. The Mayor’s and the Council’s housing targets and policies which

seek to secure the maximum amount of both private and affordable housing are set out in detail in the “steer” report (paras. 7.22 – 7.2.24).

6.2.26. This scheme is residentially led. It proposes a total of 376 units of

which 60% (265no.) would be private and 30% (111no) would be for affordable housing. The affordable units would be split between 59% (65no) social rented units and 41% (46no) Intermediate units.

6.2.27. The affordable units would be located on the fourth to sixteenth floors

and the private units would be between seventh to fortieth floor levels. With the affordable mix, the social rent units are located from fourth to tenth floor levels with the Intermediate units being on the eleventh to sixteenth floors. The tenures have their own dedicated entrances and servicing strategies. The scheme has two residential cores with the northern core serving the private units with 4 lifts and the southern core serving the affordable flats with 3 lifts. All units are designed to the same standards and there would be no visible differentiation between the different tenures within the building.

6.2.28. In order to achieve a balanced residential community within the

development, a wide mix of units is proposed for both the private and affordable elements of the scheme. The units range from 1 to 4 bed units. It is not possible to provide any separate dwelling houses on site and no studios proposed. For ease of reference the table below sets out the overall unit mix.

Private Affordable Total 1 bed 88 (33%) 51 (46%) 139 (37%) 2 bed 153 (58%) 34 (31%) 187 (50%) 3 bed 24 (9%) 20 (18%) 44 (12%) 4 bed - 6 (5%) 6 (2%) TOTAL 265 (100%) 111 (100%) 376 (100%)

32

6.2.29. The London Plan and the UDP regard family sized accommodation as being 2 bed and larger units. This scheme would bring forward 63% of such accommodation.

6.2.30. Internal layout/Room Sizes

The residential units of the scheme have been designed to comply with the Supplementary Planning Document for Housing Development, which sets out guidance and standards for new build developments such as this.

6.2.31. Each floor will have a mixture of accommodation types from 1-bed

units to 4-bed family homes, to encourage a diverse grouping of residents. Each residential floor is grouped around the central lift core which also serves residents with important amenities of refuse and recycling facilities and bicycle stores. Individual flats are designed to maximise space, views and natural daylight. All units would be dual aspect – there would no single aspect units – with many being triple aspected.

6.2.32. The units are stacked according to their room type and the plans

suggest compliance with the minimum overall floor areas and room sizes set out within the SPD guidance. The internal layout also complies with minimum room size standards and sizes as a satisfactory internal layout can be provided.

6.2.33. Lifetime Homes/Wheelchair Standards

Policy 33 makes reference to the London Plan and states that all new housing should be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standard and that 10% of new housing be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. The scheme is compliant with this expectation.

6.2.34. Affordable Housing: Viability Assessment of Provision

6.2.35. Policy 16 of the UDP states that the maximum reasonable proportion of affordable housing will be sought and secured from housing developments. The normal expected level of provision will be 50% of habitable rooms or 40% with no public subsidy “unless it is demonstrated and independently validated that a scheme would not be economically viable unless there is a lower level of provision, having regard to transport and other significant planning obligations necessary for the scheme to go ahead and the level of subsidy to the affordable housing proposed by the developer”.

6.2.36. The developer submitted a financial appraisal to justify the level of

affordable housing within the scheme. This has been submitted confidentially and has been referred to independently commissioned financial appraisers to determine whether the affordable housing offer as proposed has been optimised.

6.2.37. The developer has used the GLA’s 2008/09 “Development Control

Toolkit Model” (DCTM), commonly known as the Three Dragons Toolkit, to appraise the scheme. This is an accredited and widely used methodology. This toolkit allows the user to define costs or

33

provides costs benchmarks for specific London boroughs. The DCTM is regularly used on a site specific basis to attempt to identify the level of affordable housing that a particular development proposal might be able to sustain, whilst providing an adequate level of profitability to the developer and a sufficient value to landowners that will encourage them to bring forward the scheme.

6.2.38. Using the toolkit the developer has compared the residual value of

the proposed scheme with the existing use value of the site and assessed a number of toolkit scenarios which demonstrate that the scheme would be unable to support a policy compliant level of affordable housing (i.e 50% affordable housing split 70%/30% social rented to Intermediate housing). Using the toolkit, the developer alleges that the submission establishes that the scheme is viable on the basis of a 23% affordable housing provision (by habitable room) split 70%-30% social rented and Intermediate housing. However, the developer is confident that the residential market will recover in the short to medium term and, with the support of Social Housing Grant for the affordable housing, is seeking planning permission for a scheme which will set a target for a 30% affordable housing provision split 59%-41% social rented to intermediate housing. The developer is proposing the inclusion of an Affordable Housing Review Mechanism which, on agreement with the Council, would seek to determine the level of affordable housing that the scheme could actually support at the point when development commences.

6.2.39. The Council’s independently commissioned consultants have

considered submitted financial appraisal, and whilst negotiations between the developer, the Council’s independently commissioned consultant, together with the Council’s Housing officers and those from the GLA, have been extensive, two key conclusions have been reached.

6.2.40. Firstly, with regard to the viability of the scheme, it is considered that

the assumptions made by the developer in the submitted appraisal are fair and reasonable, including the choice and level of viability benchmark. However, concern was raised in early negotiations regarding the private residential sales values and an RSL’s offer for the affordable housing element. Following further negotiations, the Council is satisfied that the scheme is viable. It is also concluded that the review mechanism is a sensible and reasonable approach given the uncertainty in the market at present. Indeed, should the market recover sufficiently it may result in the Council receiving considerable additional affordable housing provision by way of commuted payments. However, the Council’s consultants consider that a bottom line guarantee of provision should be included to protect the Council’s position. It is also considered that the review mechanism allows for the entire appraisal to be reviewed rather than a limited number of the variables within the appraisal.

6.2.41. When the “steer” report was considered Members requested that the

entrance for the affordable units was shared with the private core. Following this resolution, the applicant have had further negotiations with RSL’s who have indicated that should entrances be shared, the financial offer for the affordable units would be revised downwards, or

34

future affordable residents would be priced out of the development. The applicant has stated that it is preferable to maintain the highest level of affordable housing and as such has not amended the scheme to provide only the one shared core. Officers acknowledge this argument to be a fair one and do not oppose the separation of the entrances particularly as they are tenure blind having regard to specification and materials to be used. If Members are minded to resolve that they would have sought to grant planning permission, a condition requiring such details to be submitted and approved could then be imposed.

6.2.42. Provision of Amenity Space, Open Space, Playspace and

Landscaping.

6.2.43. The amenity space provision within the building falls into 2 forms; an “amenity floor” and terraces/winter gardens for each flat.

6.2.44. It is proposed to dedicate the 36th floor as an “amenity floor” which

would provide recreational facilities available to all residents in the development. This floor would be externally articulated with a deep band of horizontal glazing which would maximise the panoramic views across London as well as externally visually defining this floor.

6.2.45. Members will recall from the meeting to consider the “steer” report

that concerns were raised regarding the functionality and accessibility of the floor. The applicant has confirmed following the “steer” that although not fully worked up as yet, the proposed facilities may include a games room containing equipment including table-tennis and snooker tables, a gym, a business centre (for residents’ management meetings etc) and a function room with direct access to a large roof terrace. It has also been confirmed that the floor will be available to everyone in the building. Private residents will be covered through their service charge in the normal way. The applicant has gone back to the RSL’s but it has been re-confirmed that that they would not wish to cover this cost through a service charge. It is instead proposed that if affordable residents want access, they would have to pay to use the space, as one would for a local gym. The option of using the service charge of the private residents to subsidise the access for the affordable residents has been pursued, however private residents could seek to challenge this cross subsidy under current service charge legislation. This is not considered to be a feasible option therefore. Officers are of the opinion, therefore, that the operation of the amenity floor has been satisfactorily clarified and is acceptable.

6.2.46. All the residential units would have a winter garden. These range in

size from 6msq to 12 msq. These spaces are divisible from the main living space and have been designed to ensure that residents have a space specifically available for the enjoyment of additional amenity. In addition, the majority of the larger, 3 bed units also benefit from an external terrace which for all such units benefits from a south facing aspect. These terraces range in size from 12msq to 30msq and provide a significant amenity space for those occupiers. The terraces are an integral part of the building structure, protected from the wind, and have been designed to accommodate external furniture and

35

planting, creating a meaningful, attractive and useable external amenity space for residents.

6.2.47. In total, this provision of external amenity space equates to 2,436msq

of winter gardens and 835msq of terraces, totalling 3,271msq.

6.2.48. The Council’s SPD on amenity space provision within developments requires that a minimum of 10msq per flat is provided be that in the form of a balcony, terrace or consolidated within communal space. Exclusive of the amenity floor, this level of provision works out as approximately 9msq per flat. When the amenity floor is included (an additional 671msq) the level of amenity space provision is comfortably in excess of the SPD’s requirements. This nature of amenity space is therefore considered to be acceptable.

6.2.49. Amenity and Open Space outside the Building

6.2.50. Both the GLA’s SPG and the Council’s SPD regarding amenity and

open space require the provision of children and young person’s play space ideally on site. Off site provision may be considered acceptable in certain circumstances dependant on the age of the children occupying the development and proximity of any local parks for example. In order to calculate the requisite amount of play space to be provided, it is necessary to estimate the number of children that would live in the development. This is done by using the formula contained in the GLA’s SPD on Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation. The Council’s SPG follows this methodology. The developer has employed this formula and derives a child yield of 117 children that could live in the development. This is not contested.

6.2.51. Both the GLA’s SPG and the Council’s SPD require 10msq of play

space per child. This therefore generates a total play space requirement of 1,170msq or 0.11 of a hectare.

6.2.52. The application site extends to 0.29 of a hectare, so the requisite on

site provision would therefore cover a third of the site. The developer argues that if this requirement had to be adhered to, a redevelopment scheme such as that proposed would simply be neither feasible nor viable.

6.2.53. However, mindful of this requirement and in attempt to go some way

to providing on site play and open space on site, the developer had been in negotiations over many months with Network Rail/Spacia prior to formally submitting the application to use the storage/car park immediately adjoining the site to provide a “pocket park” serving both the development and the wider community. Unfortunately, notwithstanding a substantial financial offer having been made, it has not been possible to reach an agreement with Network Rail/Spacia and as such the provision of this open amenity space has not been realised.

6.2.54. For these reasons, the developer has sought to maximise the level of

amenity space for children and young persons within the

36

development, hence the generously sized terraces, winter gardens and the provision of the amenity floor.

6.2.55. It is on the basis that the developer has offered within the s106

Agreement to fund open space improvements in the area, as elected by the Council, totalling £800.000. The Council could then allocate the money towards a broader fund which could then be used in the future to acquire land in Vauxhall Heart and lay it out as public open space. Alternatively, if the Council so chose, it could use the money towards compulsorily purchasing this specific plot of land.

6.2.56. Officers are aware of the significance of this plot of land in providing

quality open amenity space for the future occupiers of this and other new re-development schemes in this vicinity. Officers consider that a case could be made to use the Council’s powers to assist in the assembly of the land to provide a local pocket park. This would only be on the basis of such a proposal being cost neutral to the Council. This avenue of investigation is, however, at a very early stage of development.

6.2.57. Moreover, in a further attempt to mitigate the impact of the

development in relation to open play space, reference is made to the proximity of Vauxhall Park which is 200m to the east and is easily accessible from the development. It is proposed to offer a financial contribution to be used to improve facilities in the park. Whilst negotiations on the contributions to be agreed for the s106 Agreement remain on-going, the Council’s s106 Toolkit derives a sum of £103,711.50 which the developer is willing to meet. Whilst the package of financial contributions is still being negotiated, there is the expectation that the developer will be obliged to significantly financially contribute in lieu of on site provision, a point which is fully acknowledged by the applicant.

6.2.58. Turning to the public realm around the building, the proposals step

the building back significantly from the pavement edge to create a generous pavement width which would allow pedestrians and occupiers of the building to enjoy an increased public realm around the entire boundary of the site. It is also proposed to the road surfaces on Bondway and, subject to on-going negotiations with TfL and our highway engineers, to include improvements to Miles Street in order to improve the public realm of the setting of the site.

6.2.59. Additional improvements under discussion include the upgrade of the

railway arches at Parry Street and Miles Street thereby improving the public experience of these spaces which are currently unwelcoming and unsightly.

6.2.60. In conclusion, it is considered that the provision of active ground floor

would both animate and positively contribute to vitality and viability of the site and its immediate area. The provision of only 10% of employment generating floorspace is contrary to policy and is therefore of particular concern. Whilst acknowledging this, it is considered that there are mitigating factors which when, considered having regard to the scheme as a whole and what it would bring forward for the regeneration of this part of Vauxhall, officers are

37

satisfied that these benefits weigh heavier than this one consideration alone. On balance, therefore, this element of the scheme is considered to be acceptable.

6.2.61. 376 residential flats would go significantly contribute to ensuring that

the Council meets it housing targets. Similarly, the quantum of affordable housing within the development is welcomed and the strategy to justify the level and tenure split of it is considered to be acceptable, particularly so having regard to the viability issues this scheme raises.

6.2.62. It is considered that the level of on site private amenity space within

the development is acceptable and given the impracticalities of this site, the land adjoining together with the proximity of Vauxhall Park, there has been sufficient levels of financial contribution sought by officers and met by the development to adequately mitigate the against the lack of on site open space provision.

6.2.63. In landuse terms, therefore, the scheme is considered to be

acceptable.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. The “steer” report set out in comprehensive detail the heritage, conservation and design considerations with regard to tall buildings. Members will recall from the resolutions reached following the “steer” report that these considerations were contentious and were the subject of objection from English Heritage, City of Westminster as well the local community.

6.3.2. Given the number and strength of the objections and concerns

raised, it is considered necessary again to set out the national, regional and local policy and guidance in order to justify the acceptability of a tall building, measuring 149m in height in this location.

6.3.3. it is proposed to firstly place the development in the context of

national policy and guidance having regard to the principles relating to the siting and design of tall buildings and then distil these principles to the London–wide context before then considering the impact of this development on this part of Lambeth, its affected conservation areas, listed buildings and wider townscape, including Vauxhall Park.

6.3.4. National Policy and Guidance

6.3.5. PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) cites sustainable

development as the core principle underpinning the planning system. Promoting good design is also cited as a central aim of the planning system. It acknowledges the importance of good design, adding that ‘design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character or quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted’. It continues by stating that good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere.

38

6.3.6. PPS3 (Housing) seeks to promote good quality housing. This is a

90% residentially led scheme. PPS3 notes that good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing. When assessing the quality of proposals, it asks if the proposals are well integrated with and complement neighbouring buildings and the local area in terms of scale, density, layout and access; and seeks to create or enhance a distinctive character.

6.3.7. PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) states that the

objective of the planning process should be to reconcile the need for economic growth with the need to protect the natural and historic environment. In exercising conservation area controls, Section 72 of the Act requires the local planning authority to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas and their setting when a scheme lies adjacent to a conservation area.

6.3.8. The Guidance goes on to state that “the desirability of preserving or

enhancing the area should also, in the Secretary of State's view, be a material consideration in the planning authority's handling of development proposals which are outside the conservation area but would affect its setting, or views into or out of the area”, which is the case here.

6.3.9. With respect to the setting of listed buildings, the guidance states that

in “considering applications for planning permission or (listed building consent) for works which affect a listed building to have special regard to certain matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the building”. In paragraph 2.17, the guidance states that “a proposed high or bulky building might also affect the setting of a listed building some distance away, or alter views of a historic skyline.”

6.3.10. With specific regard to World Heritage Sites it makes the point that

comprehensive management plans are needed for each site and that one of the things that should be covered is protecting the site and its setting from damaging development. It points out that the sites have been designated for their outstanding universal value and local planning authorities should place great weight on the need to protect them for the benefit of future generations as well as our own.

6.3.11. DCLG’s Protection of World Heritage Sites Consultation Paper (2008)

6.3.12. This draft planning circular recognises, in national policy, the

Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Sites and the need to protect and enhance these sites and their settings. It reminds readers that World Heritage Sites’ interest is defined by UNESCO as “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and of importance for present and future generations of all humanity. Such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate”.

6.3.13. DCLG/CABE’s ‘By Design: urban design in the planning system:

towards better practice’ (2000),

39

6.3.14. This guidance promotes higher standards in urban design and

provides sound practical advice to help implement the Government’s commitment to good design as set out in PPS1. It states that the scale, massing and height of proposed development should be considered in relation to that of adjoining buildings and the general pattern of heights in the area. The character of a skyline is composed of the massing of blocks and the shape of roofs, as well as by the height of buildings. A building should only stand out from the background if it contributes positively to views and vistas as a landmark. There is also the reminder that urban design is often a matter of adopting good manners, recognising that every building is part of a greater whole and not seen in isolation.

6.3.15. English Heritage/CABE Guidance on Tall Buildings (2007)

6.3.16. This document provides good practice and criteria for evaluating tall

buildings. Some of the criteria include the relationship to context, including topography, scale, height, urban grain, streetscape and built form, open spaces, rivers and waterways, important views, prospects and panoramas, and the effects on the skyline.

6.3.17. The Guidance continues. “The effect on historic context, including

the need to ensure that the proposal will preserve and/or enhance historic buildings, sites, landscapes and skylines. Tall buildings must address their effect on the setting of, and views to and from historic buildings, sites and landscapes over a wide area including;

- World Heritage Sites - Scheduled ancient monuments - Listed buildings - Registered parks and gardens; and registered battlefields - Archaeological remains - Conservation areas.

6.3.18. The Guidance states that with regard to the effect on World Heritage Sites, the Government has an international obligation to protect the outstanding universal value of world heritage sites as set out at the time of inscription in the statement of significance. Part of this obligation is the adoption of a management plan for each world heritage site by stakeholders, including if necessary a buffer zone or equivalent to protect the setting. The statement of significance and the management plan are material considerations in the planning process”.

6.3.19. Furthermore, it says that the architectural quality of the building

including its scale, form, massing, proportion and silhouette is a criterion for evaluating a proposal. It says that the design of the top of a tall building will be of particular importance when considering the effect on the skyline. The design of the base will have a significant effect on the streetscape and near views.

6.3.20. Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan (2007)

40

6.3.21. This document is a material planning consideration and sets out the Outstanding Universal Value and the reason for the UNESCO inscription. Its significance here is architectural (as well as political, religious and symbolic). It explains: “The 19th Century Palace of Westminster is also a masterpiece of Victorian Architecture, with its internationally recognised form and skyline. The use of the Victorian Gothic style for these buildings had an international influence on the architecture and taste of their day and therefore on the history of the architecture and the decorative arts”.

6.3.22. The document deals with views of the form and skyline and states

that there are important views beyond the World Heritage Site (WHS). Particularly famous views of features include ‘Big Ben’ from all angles and in particular from…Trafalgar Square and when travelling south down Whitehall.

6.3.23. It explains that it is important to understand something of the

immediate environs of the WHS because this helps inform considerations of protecting its setting. Whitehall is one such area. It goes through the pressures on the setting and views which are part of the architectural significance of the WHS. It states that “There is currently no buffer zone….which would help to sustain the special qualities of the setting of the WHS. Without appropriate consideration of the sensitivities of the WHS and its setting, development beyond the boundary of a large scale may pose risks to this key element of the Outstanding Universal Value. Any changes to the style or backdrop of the WHS from many angles, must be carefully balanced against the need to preserve the iconic value of the site”.

6.3.24. London-wide Policy and Guidance

6.3.25. The London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) was

published by the Mayor in February 2008.

6.3.26. This following section seeks to expand on the relevant policy references referred to above with specific reference to the Mayor’s consideration of tall buildings and the impact they have both across London, the World Heritage Site, river views and within boroughs.

6.3.27. Policy 4B.2 ‘Promoting world-class architecture and design’; The

Mayor will seek to promote world-class high quality design, by collaborating with partners to encourage contemporary and integrated designs for the built environment.

6.3.28. Policy 4B.9 ‘Tall buildings – location’; states that the Mayor will

promote the development of tall buildings where they create attractive landmarks enhancing London’s character, help to provide a coherent location for economic clusters of related activities and/or act as a catalyst for regeneration and where they are also acceptable in terms of design and impact on their surroundings.

6.3.29. Policy 4B.10 ‘Large scale buildings – design and impact’; Boroughs

should ensure that all large-scale buildings including tall buildings should be of the highest quality design.

41

6.3.30. Policy 4B.11 ‘London’s built heritage’; states that the Mayor will work with strategic partners to protect and enhance London’s historic environment.

6.3.31. Policy 4B.12 ‘Heritage conservation’; states that Boroughs should

ensure the protection and enhancement of historic assets.

6.3.32. Policy 4B.14 ‘World Heritage Sites’; refers to the implementation of management plans for World Heritage Sites, in order to protect their historic significance and safeguard, and where appropriate enhance their settings.

6.3.33. Policy 4B.16 ‘London View Management Framework’; (see below)

says that the Mayor will designate a selection of strategically important views which will be managed in accordance with Policy 4B.17 and assessed against Policy 4B.18 (see below). These designated views are classified in four ways; London Panoramas, Linear Views, River Prospects and Townscape Views.

6.3.34. Policy 4B.17 ‘View management plans’; it is the Mayor’s responsibility

to prepare and review management plans for designated views identified under Policy 4B.16. The management plans should seek to enhance and protect views by identifying Strategically Important Landmarks and other landmarks, preventing damage to the view by intrusive and overly dominant development that detracts from identified landmarks.

6.3.35. Policy 4B.18 ‘Assessing development impact on designated views’;

states that if new development falls within the assessment areas of a designated view the development should be assessed against general principles of good design set out within the London Plan, local urban design policies, and the management principles in Policy 4B.17.

6.3.36. GLA’s London View Management Framework (2007)

6.3.37. This is Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Mayor’s London

Plan. Policies 4B.16, 4B.17 and 4B.18 of the London Plan establish the London View Management Framework (LVMF), which seeks to designate, protect and manage twenty-six views of London and some of its major landmarks. The principal role of the LVMF is to preserve and enhance London’s character and built heritage. It outlines the policy framework for managing the impact of development on designated views. It states that regard should be had to the appropriate World Heritage Site Management Plan for further visual management guidance in views including a World Heritage Site. It states that all new development which impacts on any of the views designated in the London Plan must form attractive features in their own right and their bulk and their shape should not be based solely on the parameters set by the Geometrically Defined view protection. Otherwise this could have the undesirable consequence of producing a proposal that is irregular or odd in shape and a roofline that does not relate to its context. One of the key messages of the document is strengthening the protection of the World Heritage sites (WHS) and

42

other landmark views. It does however acknowledge that a cluster of tall buildings above 80-90m may emerge at Vauxhall.

6.3.38. Lambeth Policy and Guidance

6.3.39. The Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan

6.3.40. Turning now to specific reference to the Council’s adopted policies

regarding tall buildings, their location and impacts, the following policies are of direct relevance.

6.3.41. Firstly, Policy 40 “Tall Buildings” states that tall buildings should

enhance and not detract from London’s character, and should enhance the skyline, respecting its historic character. A tall building should carefully relate to its surroundings and should not be located where it would harm the character or setting of:

- Conservation areas - Listed buildings - Riverscape and Townscape - Strategic views and locally significant views - The Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey World -- Heritage site. (plus other categories).

6.3.42. Policy 40 goes on to state that the proposal will need to enhance the

skyline through profile and use of materials. 6.3.43. Policy 41 “Views” states that permission will not be granted for

developments which detract from important views, backdrops or settings of, listed buildings, conservation areas, landmark buildings and the Thames, its embankments and bridges. It continues that in assessing visual impact on views and whether the impact detracts from it, regard will be had to the degree to which the proposal blocks clear sky against which landmark structures are seen.

6.3.44. Policy 45 “Listed Buildings” states at criterion (f) that development

which adversely affects the setting of a listed building, or significant views of a listed building, will be refused.

6.3.45. Policy 47 “Conservation Areas” Development outside conservation

areas should not harm the setting of the area or harm views into or from the area.

6.3.46. v Policy 33 “Building Scale and Design” is also relevant in that it

requires development to be of high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area. Infill development should be compatible with ;

i. the site, context and historic development of the area; ii. existing topography, landscaping and boundary treatments; iii. prevailing building lines and plot sizes; iv. the height, massing and scale of neighbouring buildings, v. roof profiles and silhouettes of adjoining buildings; vi. colour, type, source and texture of local materials;

43

vii. architectural compositions including patterns and rhythms and set pieces of townscape; and

viii.established gaps and open spaces, views and skylines.

6.3.47. It continues that in all cases development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding development……. For development affecting conservation areas or listed buildings (or their setting), protecting or enhancing their character and appearance takes precedence.

6.3.48. The UDP identifies this site a Major Development Opportunity site

(MDO80 – Parry Street West) which, together with 3 immediately adjoining sites that it can be developed comprehensively.

6.3.49. Draft Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) 2008

6.3.50. The emerging draft SPD sets out an overall vision and approach for the future development of the Vauxhall Area supported by area specific proposals and development principles. The draft SPD was approved for consultation on 28 July 2008 and was out at public consultation from October to December 2008. Whilst the emerging draft SPD remains a work in progress, it is held in abeyance pending the development of the GLA’s OAPF and at this time has very little weight for development control purposes. The emerging draft SPD identifies four character areas known as quarters, each with their own unique identity and qualities. This site is located within the “Vauxhall Heart” quarter. The emerging draft SPD states that for this quarter, opportunities for intensification will be promoted to deliver a cluster of high quality taller buildings and that development contributions will be sought at a reasonable level to ensure that a step change is delivered in the quality of the public realm in the heart of Vauxhall. The methodology employed in the emerging draft SPD to establish appropriate building heights within the tall buildings cluster identifies this site has having a maximum height of 80m with heights rising on sites closer to the river reaching a maximum of the already consented Vauxhall Tower at 180m. Notwithstanding this methodology, the emerging draft SPD does recognise that there could be an exception to this aspiration should a scheme be submitted which is considered to be of such high architectural and design quality.

6.3.51. Detailed consideration of the application set in this policy framework

6.3.52. The proposals have been the subject of extensive negotiations with

Council officers, the GLA and have been to 2 CABE design review panels for consideration. Members will note that CABE support the application. In order to integrate best into the local landscape, the developer has sought to design the scheme to have a different outline from each direction which then responds to its relative surroundings. The scheme, which has been reduced from an initial 177m tall, has resulted in a stepped profile with the tallest sections being centrally located to assist in addressing the future cluster of other tall buildings then stepping down to the north and south to relate more sympathetically to the existing local townscape. This has resulted in a tower rising from 83m at the northern end of the site

44

(Parry Street and facing Vauxhall Cross transport hub) to a maximum height of 149m in the centre of the site before stepping down to 46m to the south (Miles Street).

6.3.53. The design concept has been developed from an interpretation of

Lambeth terraces into a stepped high rise arrangement and adjusted, for a quality residential environment, to ensure that the quiet spaces of one flat are adjacent to similarly sensitive spaces of the adjoining unit. This linking of similar functions allows a broader expression of the façade which, to address issues of bulk and massing, has been broken down into 8 façade units which are read as 4 pairs. At the top of the building, the building profile is further articulated by the incorporation of the dynamic slope to each terrace unit. Alternating between an easterly and westerly direction, the development seeks to combine the city outline with the paired façade units to soften the stepped profile and create a cascade down into the small-scale parts of the adjoining townscape to the south. The application is accompanied by a comprehensive Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment which provides a thorough and skilled analysis of this impact. A significant number of these visualisations will be incorporated into the presentation for Members’ consideration to assist them in forming their opinions on the scheme as a whole. These visualisations have also been presented to CABE as part of the applicant’s presentation to its design panel review meetings.

6.3.54. Cutting across the terrace units and the façade expression is the 36th

floor which is a dedicated amenity floor for future occupiers. This is expressed a single horizontal band, visible and legible from all directions. The start-up B1 floorspace is located on the lower floors and is articulated as a single texture. This texture reflects the intended flexibility of function inside and helps to create a base to the building above.

6.3.55. At street level, entrance canopies indicate the front doors to the uses

above, assist in providing shelter from the wind and the rain and help in further articulating the building at ground level. The plane of the canopy which is angled to reflect the design of the top of the building slopes and rises to up to 5 floors above.

6.3.56. Turning to the public realm around the building, it is acknowledged

that the building occupies most of the site and that as a consequence ground level amenity space is limited. The developer acknowledges this and in an attempt to mitigate it, it is proposed to carry out various improvements in the immediate vicinity which would serve to contribute to the step change in the local public realm as required by the emerging draft SPD as well as to enhance the setting of this development. At present the site is bounded to the north by a fence and to the west by a building line. Closed roller shutters and a blank wall comprise the ground level Bondway façade. The proposed scheme would be set back at ground level to create a new pedestrian arcade populated by the entrances to the residential and commercial accommodation above as well the 2 proposed active ground floor uses units. A new service road would be created from Bondway to Parry Street which serves to separate all servicing from the main public realm. This would also allow for the public to move along the

45

eastern façade between it and the railway viaduct thereby improving the permeability on and around the site. This space would then be re-landscaped accordingly to reflect its improved public use.

6.3.57. Beyond the application site, the developer is proposing additional

improvements to the public realm. These include an upgraded pedestrian crossing between Bondway and Vauxhall station, a new shared surface along Bondway and Miles Street leading from Parry Street to South Lambeth Road, new tree planning planting to Parry Street and the shared surface and enhancements to the Parry Street and Miles Street railway arches.

6.3.58. Similarly, landscaping possibilities within the site are limited and

restricted to new paving around the base of the building and to the planning of a small cluster of ornamental cherry trees to the north-east corner of the site i.e. between the building and the railway viaduct. The developer is also proposing to plant a further line of trees along the Bondway frontage, down into Miles Street, through the railway tunnel to the junction with South Lambeth Road. This additional tree planting would be secured via the s106 Agreement.

6.3.59. Detailed Assessment

6.3.60. The site is recognised in the UDP (Policy 77, MDO 83) as being one

appropriate for redevelopment. The policy states that the retention of the mid-Victorian building on the site will be addressed in the “Vauxhall Area Action Plan”. The draft emerging Vauxhall Area SPD has not, in fact, addressed the issue, but in pre-application discussions with the developer it has consistently been acknowledged that the warehouse is not listed nor in a conservation area. Officers are of the opinion that, whilst it has some intrinsic merit, it is not of sufficient architectural value to justify its retention (especially given the raft of regeneration benefits that would be derived from its comprehensive redevelopment). As such the principle of its demolition and thus re-development of the site are considered to have been established.

6.3.61. With regard to an assessment of the principle of a tall building on this

site, officers recognise that the London Plan and the GLA’s Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) identify Vauxhall as a location for a cluster of tall buildings. The latest proposed revisions to the GLA’s Local View Management Framework have also acknowledged this. For instance in the River Prospect 17A : 300 states that incremental change to development in the background of the river frontage is acceptable provided each addition to the view contributes positively to the composition. The LVMF states that it should be noted that new clusters of tall buildings may emerge at Vauxhall, Nine Elms Opportunity Area. Tall building proposals in that area should be designed to relate to and strengthen the composition of the emerging cluster of tall buildings. The background study to the emerging draft Vauxhall SPD also favours an approach of graduating the emerging skyline from east to west towards the high point of the consented St George’s Vauxhall tower (approx. 180m). The consented Sky Gardens is approx 120 metres and will be between this Bondway proposal and Vauxhall Tower. However, as stated

46

above, the emerging draft SPD recognises that a scheme of architectural and design quality could be an exception to this aspiration to graduate the heights. Officers are of the opinion that the principle of a tall building on this site is therefore also established.

6.3.62. If the principle of a tall building is established, it then follows to

assess the impact of this tall building and what is considered to be an appropriate height, scale, bulk for this location as well as the quality of architecture.

6.3.63. The proposed building is 149m tall. The GLA’s OAPF analysis

identifies an acceptable height in this location as being 150m. it is crucial therefore to consider what additional harm, if any, created by a building 149m. tall as opposed to one at, say, 100m or 80m as suggested in the emerging draft SPD.

6.3.64. Turning firstly to the height, the Townscape and Visual Impact

Assessment acknowledges that there is an impact on the Westminster World Heritage Site with a view down Whitehall of the top of the tower. However, notwithstanding Westminster City Council’s objections, officers are mindful of a subsequent Inspector’s conclusion in a recent appeal at 81 Black Prince Road about a proposal’s distance behind the World Heritage Site, and consider that this would appear to be too distant to be harmful. Also the internationally known skyline and Big Ben’s clock tower would not be affected. Officers are of the opinion that the long distance views of the proposal are broadly acceptable, but that some of the more local ones are problematic and could be considered to be likely to cause harm subject to the issue of design quality.

6.3.65. Members will be aware that the impact on the local townscape,

conservation areas and Vauxhall Park has raised much objection from residents and their representative groups. These issues were comprehensively debated at the previous Committee when the “steer” report was considered. However, a tall building, enabled by GLA and Council policy and guidance, will always be visible. GLA and Council officers are of the opinion that Visibility does not necessarily result in harm, particularly if the building is of high quality architecture and detailed design, which this scheme is generally considered to be.

6.3.66. In terms of listed buildings within Lambeth, Woodstock Court,

Newburn Street, which is Grade II*, would be adversely affected by the scheme. The applicants have a wire line visualisation of this relationship within their Impact Assessment and their conclusion is that there would be a slight adverse effect. In other local views, the potentially harmful impact becomes apparent on the Vauxhall, St Mark’s and Albert Square conservation areas. It is acknowledged that there are additional impacts on other streetscenes and conservation areas, including the impact on Lansdowne Gardens conservation area.

6.3.67. This is a tall building that will be prominent in some views from

conservation areas, including the Vauxhall conservation area and within the setting of some listed buildings including the Grade II* listed Woodstock Court and St. Stephen’s Terrace within the Albert

47

Square conservation area. However, the proposed building is of world class design and will appear as a backdrop in these views. The building will cause a degree of ham to the conservation area and in the setting of these listed buildings but its excellent design will lessen this harm and, in officers’ opinion this harm would be slight. Officers further consider that the benefits of the scheme in terms of the regeneration of an under utilised site within a MDO where tall buildings are considered acceptable in principle, together with the accompanying provision of housing (including affordable housing) and jobs, outweighs the slight harm to heritage assets that would result.

6.3.68. It is clear that this building would be prominent in local views and

impact upon the setting of Vauxhall conservation area, Vauxhall Park and a number of listed buildings. It is acknowledged that in some views, this impact may be jarring or dominant; however it is also considered that the impact of a building is not necessarily harmful and officers consider that there are views and impacts which are indeed positive and contribute to the townscape of the locality. Officers are of the opinion that whilst there are certain impacts which give rise for concern, there are benefits to the scheme, especially when set in the wider context of the catalytic effect that this scheme would have for the regeneration of the Vauxhall area as identified by both the GLA and the Council.

6.3.69. For the reasons set out in the paragraphs above, principle of a tall

building in the location is established and acceptable. The impact of the building in terms its height and scale is, on balance, acceptable and is sufficiently mitigated by high quality architecture for officers to conclude that it is acceptable in heritage, conservation and townscape terms.

6.3.70. With regard to the public realm, the emerging draft SPD sets out

emerging guidance for the public realm and organisation of routes. The section on the Vauxhall Heart, and elsewhere within the document states that all tall building proposals will be expected to provide sufficient high quality public realm and amenity space. Officers consider that it is a positive aspect of the scheme that active ground floor uses are being proposed here and that the site would be much more permeable given the creation of the route between the eastern façade and the railway viaduct, which is in line with the emerging draft SPD. Significant improvements to the railway arches in Parry Street and Miles street are also proposed and welcomed. Members are asked however to consider whether the overall size and scope of the public realm improvements are sufficient both to mitigate the impact development and having regard to the wider strategy as set out in the emerging draft SPD.

6.3.71. In conclusion, it is considered important to repeat that there is clear

policy, plan-led support for tall buildings in this location; the policy framework is permissive. There would inevitably be a significant impact from the arrival of any tall building in this location. However, the viaduct though has been recognised as a demarcation point for character zones as stated in the draft Vauxhall SPD and mentioned too by an Inspector in a very recent appeal decision (81 Black Prince

48

Road). The design quality of the proposal has been recognised by CABE who support the scheme. A building of this height, indeed one at 80m as suggested in the emerging draft SPG will have an impact; in that it would inevitably be seen. The emerging SPD does clearly acknowledge that any potentially harmful impacts can be mitigated by good design and the stepping of the proposal and its vertical divisions are a design response to break down and articulate the width of the site.

6.3.72. Having regard to the heritage, conservation and townscape

considerations as a whole, officers consider the scheme is of high quality whose impact has been carefully assessed having regard to the London sky line and heritage assets. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are certain vantage points at local level such as those highlighted in the above paragraphs and raised by amongst others, English Heritage, City of Westminster and local residents and their representative groups, it is considered that these are sufficiently mitigated against by the generally accepted view (see CABE’s comments for example) that this is a scheme of high quality architecture. On this basis, officers conclude that the application is acceptable on conservation and design grounds.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. Daylight and Sunlight

6.4.2. Adopted UDP Policy 33 requires consideration of the impacts of new

developments upon the amenities of existing and adjoining residential occupiers. Policy 40 also requires consideration of sunlight and shadowing.

6.4.3. In assessing daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed

development upon existing residential neighbours, Policy 33 states that regard will be had to the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight Sunlight.'

6.4.4. The BRE has developed a series of quantitative tests for daylight,

which if all are failed, the development would be considered unacceptable in terms of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties. One of the tests used in this case is the Vertical Sky Component (VSC), which measures the amount of available daylight from the sky received at a particular window. It states that “If the Vertical Sky Component, with the new development in place, is less than 27%, and less than 0.8 times its former value, then occupants of the existing building will notice a reduction in the amount of skylight”. If the remaining vertical sky component (VSCs) is greater than 27% then enough skylight should still be reaching the windows of the existing building. The maximum VSC value obtainable at a flat window in a vertical wall is 40%.

6.4.5. If a development fails the VSC test, a 'Daylight Factor' (ADF) test

should be undertaken. The BRE guidelines suggest that a minimum daylight factor (df) of 2% for kitchens, 1.5% for living rooms and 1.0% for bedrooms should be achieved in order for satisfactory levels of

49

interior daylighting to be maintained in existing neighbouring properties.

6.4.6. The submitted Environmental Statement (ES) provides an analysis of

daylight, sunlight and shadow on nearby existing residential properties, and any overshadowing impacts to amenity areas and open space around the site.

6.4.7. A daylight and sunlight Report has been commissioned and forms

part of the submitted ES. In brief, it concludes that there are two residential properties which would suffer a loss of daylight, 56 Parry Street and Hilden House. The analysis demonstrates, however, the level of retained light will be sufficient for these properties in this central urban location as not to justify refusal. The BRE analysis concludes that there would be no loss of sunlight to any property.

6.4.8. Overshadowing

6.4.9. Members will recall from the “steer” that concern has been raised by

a number of residents and their representative groups that a building of this height, scale and bulk would result in significant overshadowing of their homes and gardens. Members equally had concerns on this point, especially so on Vauxhall Gardens. In response to these concerns and following the questioning of the veracity of the report, additional overshadowing analysis has been prepared. It examined the time sequence of the shadow cast over Vauxhall Park and the length of time the park, residential properties and community gardens would be in shadow in June. It is understood that the analysis supports that originally submitted and does not indicate any undue overshadowing to justify refusal of planning permission.

6.4.10. Privacy, Outlook and Sense of Enclosure

6.4.11. Policy 33 requires that development protect residential amenity of

future residents by ensuring acceptable standard of privacy and not creating an undue sense of enclosure

6.4.12. The closest residential accommodation is the properties on the

northern side of Parry Street, all of which have habitable rooms facing the application site. The separation distance between the existing and proposed building would be 18m across Parry Street, a distance typical across London streets. It is also a similar distance to the separation distance between the consented Vauxhall Sky Gardens development and residents in the Wyvil Road Estate opposite in Wyvil Road.

6.4.13. Given the analysis and consideration undertaken by the Council and

GLA that went into designating the site as appropriate for redevelopment for a tall building, the separation distances between the site, the closest residential properties in Parry Street and the wider area would have been taken into account and considered to be sufficient, subject to detailed design of a new building, to offset any harmful impact in this regard.

50

6.4.14. Noise Impact

6.4.15. The ES includes an assessment of potential noise and related vibration impact associated with the development. The assessment considers the suitability of the site for a residentially led mixed use development, The assessment considers the impact of noise on both adjacent occupiers who may be impacted upon by the development and given the location of site what measures need to be incorporated into the design to ensure that the future occupiers are not detrimentally affected by the proximity of the gyratory and elevated railway lines.

6.4.16. Externallly, noise generation could be attributed to the increase in

people into the area using the proposed retail/commercial facilities. Any potential for undue noise emanation could be controlled by condition should planning permission be granted (control on opening hours, no amplified music audible outside premises etc).

6.4.17. Internally, sound and vibration insulation measures have been

incorporated into the detailed design and specification of the building to provide future residents with peaceful domestic environment. The developer has confirmed that these measures would comply with all relevant British Standards.

6.4.18. There is also the potential for noise disturbance during the demolition

and construction phases. The ES also contains a Construction and Environmental Management Plan to control these works and to ensure that they are within restricted operating hours. Again, these matters can be controlled by appropriate conditions if Members resolve that the scheme is acceptable.

6.5. Transportation Considerations 6.5.1 The approved scheme Transport for London (TfL) is the public transport

authority and the Highway Authority for the major road network in the vicinity of the site. The Council is the local highways authority for Bondway and the immediately adjoining secondary roads.

6.5.2 Policy 9 of the UDP seeks to ensure that development proposals do not

have an adverse impact upon traffic safety and do not lead to an increase in parking stress and traffic congestion within the Borough. Policy 10 states that new developments should have full cycle access and facilities. Policy 14 sets out maximum car-parking levels and minimum cycling-parking levels.

6.5.3 In January 2002, the Council formerly adopted revised parking standards

which are now included within Policy 14 of the UDP. These standards have been drawn up in light of Government guidance, primarily PPG13. The aim of these standards is to reduce the level of off-street parking provision in Lambeth and lower traffic congestion and the reliance on private vehicles as a means of travel. The standards are expressed as a maximum allowance and Vauxhall falls within an Area of Strict Traffic Restraint. Therefore under the revised standards the proposal should provide a maximum of spaces for the site as a whole

51

6.5.4 The scheme has been the subject extensive negotiation over many

months with both Council highways engineers and officers of Transport for London (TfL) prior to the submission of the application. The outcomes from these meetings have informed the subsequent submission both in terms of the level of car parking provision, access and servicing etc on site and the nature and extent of improvements to the wider public realm. It is acknowledged by both the Council and TfL that the public transport infrastructure at Vauxhall Cross is nearing full capacity and given the increased numbers of residents and commercial occupiers that this scheme will create, together with the cumulative impact of additional trip generation when other schemes come forward, the negotiations have also sought to ensure an appropriate financial contribution via the s106 agreement to mitigate against this increase in capacity.

6.5.5 Highway Status

6.5.6 Bondway is a Borough road at this location although north of the junction

with Parry Street it is part of the TLRN network and Vauxhall bus terminal. Parry Street is also part of the TLRN which TfL are highway controlling authority over, and is a major four lane one-way westbound route linking South Lambeth Road with Wandsworth Road. The site is located outside the London Congestion Charging Zone (CCZ), the southern boundary of which runs along Vauxhall Bridge and Kennington Lane 200m north of the site.

6.5.7 Accessibility & Density

6.5.8 The site is located within an area of excellent public transport accessibility

(PTAL score of 6a). This PTAL score reflects the site’s extremely close proximity to Vauxhall Cross interchange, a 2 minute walk to the north of the site. Vauxhall Interchange provides high frequency Victoria Line Underground Services from Vauxhall Station, mainline rail services (South Western Trains) and interchange for many high frequency and night bus routes. As a result, the site is within an area where high density residential development is encouraged. Current peak time capacity constraints on both the Victoria Line and Mainline rail services are acknowledged as an issue however.

6.5.9 Vehicular Access

6.5.10 The scheme proposes separate ingress/egress and a proposed

northbound one-way route through the site. The current vehicular crossover is proposed to be stopped up and relocated to the southern end of the site further along Bondway, and will serve as the sole vehicle access point for both the residential basement car park and servicing area. The vehicle exit point is proposed to be relocated to the east of the current vehicle crossover on Parry Street, further away from the railway viaduct thus providing enhanced visibility for exiting vehicles. The proposed vehicle crossovers, access to the basement car park and servicing areas are discussed in more detail below.

6.5.11 Pedestrian Access and Movement

52

6.5.12 Numerous pedestrian entrance points are proposed at ground floor level, with access to ground floor retail premises proposed on both the Bondway and Parry Street frontages. The office and residential floors will be accessed from separate lobbies and will both have direct access off Bondway, with separate stairwells and lift cores for the office and residential uses. All pedestrian access points are proposed to be recessed from the property boundary thus providing substantial ground floor circulation space and ensuring there will be no overcrowding of the footway and proposed public realm within the curtilage of the site.

6.5.13 The footways along both Parry Street and Bondway are to be widened,

and a pedestrian forecourt area is proposed in front of the building along Bondway in conjunction with the office and residential lobbies.

6.5.14 The Transport Assessment (TA) submitted with the application states

improvements to the crossing facilities on Parry Street are proposed, and are based on the recent accident history and the increase in pedestrian movements across Parry Street associated with the scheme. Improvements will comprise improved signage, the removal of guard-railing, new markings and possible footway widening.

6.5.15 The TA also includes a ‘Fruin’ analysis based on pedestrian surveys of

pedestrian flows along Parry Street and the surrounding highway network, along with taking into account the pedestrian trip generation associated with the scheme. The analysis predicts that the scheme will generate 284 two-way pedestrian movements in the AM peak hour and 277 in the PM peak hour. Based on the proposed increased capacity of the footways and public realm there is considered ample capacity to cater for the expected increase in pedestrian movements, with an excellent level of service provided for pedestrians.

6.5.16 It is noted however that the surrounding footways are of poor quality and

are proposed to be upgraded to higher specification to ensure that the safety and amenity of the pedestrian environment is improved.

6.5.17 Cycling Networks

6.5.18 Access for cyclists to the cycle storage areas will be via cycle lifts on the

eastern side of the building, and will be accessible from both Parry Street and Bondway. As part of the proposed Bondway highway works, a contra-flow northbound cycle lane linking Parry Street with Miles Street is proposed and will improve the connection between South Lambeth Road and the established cycle route on Meadow Road with the Vauxhall interchange.

6.5.19 In addition, area wide improvements to the cycle network are required,

namely on Fentiman Road (which links to Miles Street) and Wheatsheaf Lane, and these would need to be secured via s106 agreement.

6.5.20 Trip Generation

6.5.21 (i) Residential Trips

6.5.22 The applicant has consulted the TRAVL database to determine trip

generation rates for the residential use. Sites with a similar PTAL score to

53

that of the application site have been selected as a basis for determining trip generation, however given the limited number of large mixed-use sites of this nature within the TRAVL database it is difficult to determine whether the scheme will have a similar trip generation rate to those selected. There are also a number of other contributing factors aside from PTAL that influence trip generation and modal split, namely:

- Parking availability and CPZ restrictions; - Socio-economic factors, including household income; - Ward vehicle ownership; - Bias towards certain public transport modes based on location; - Surrounding amenities, shops and community facilities;

6.5.23 The four sites selected for comparison however are considered to largely

reflect the local context, particularly the St George Wharf affordable housing scheme as it is also served by Vauxhall Interchange. The four sites from TRAVL providing base trip generation data and modal split are Coopers Court, Leathermarket Court, Putney Wharf and St George Wharf. The total number of two-way trips across all modes during the AM peak is estimated at 246 movements, with 231 movements expected during the PM peak. Given the very limited parking provision for the residential units (25 spaces for 376 units) and proposed permit-free nature of all units, total vehicle trips are estimated at less than10 during both the AM peak and PM peak. The residential trip generation figures are accepted.

6.5.24 (ii) Office Trips

6.5.25 The total number of two-way trips across all modes during the AM peak is

estimated at 147 movements, 155 movements expected during the PM peak. Total vehicle trips are estimated at less than10 during the AM peak and PM peak reflecting proposed servicing vehicle trips. Again, this is accepted.

6.5.26 Total Trip Generation

6.5.27 The total number of two-way trips across all modes for both the

residential and commercial components of the scheme during the AM peak is estimated at 393 movements, with 386 movements estimated during the evening peak. The vast majority of trips will be by public transport and walking, and a smaller amount by cycling. The total number of vehicle trips during peak times is expected to be less than 20.

6.5.28 Given the retail tenancies will not be ‘destination’ stores, they will largely

serve demand generated by the office and residential uses. The majority of trips associated with retail uses will therefore be combined with trips already counted in association with the residential and office uses, and are therefore not considered to be in addition to these.

6.5.29 On-site Parking Provision

6.5.30 The scheme proposes 25 parking spaces in total for the residential use

and none for the office or retail facilities. The number of parking spaces equates to a ratio of 0.07 spaces per residential unit, which is well within the maximum standards of both the Lambeth UDP and London Plan. In

54

addition, all residential units will be permit-free, meaning owners and occupiers will not be able to apply for residential parking permits, making the scheme virtually car-free.

6.5.31 12 of the 25 parking spaces are laid out in accordance with disabled

parking standards, more than meeting the UDP minimum of 10% disabled parking provision.

6.5.32 Basement Car Park

6.5.33 The two-level basement car park will be accessed by a vehicle lift located

at the rear of the building and will be operated via a signalised lift system. A designated off-street waiting area will be provided ensuring vehicles accessing the basement car park will not be forced to queue on the highway. There is also sufficient circulation, turning and manoeuvring space in the basement car park to ensure vehicles will be able to enter and exit the basement lift in a forwards gear.

6.5.34 Overall, the basement car park layout allows for safe and convenient

vehicle circulation and is considered by officers to be acceptable.

6.5.35 Impact on Parking Stress

6.5.36 The scheme is situated within the ‘Kennington K’ Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The scheme will not generate any additional parking demand on the surrounding highway network as it is proposed to be permit free, secured by s106 agreement.

6.5.37 Traffic Impact

6.5.38 The TA includes a full summary of the current morning peak and evening

peak traffic flows along with Saturday peak hour flows. Combined with the trip generation data as set out above, this allows an accurate assessment of the likely traffic impact of the scheme. Given the scheme is virtually car-free, the number of additional vehicle trips on the surrounding highway network will be negligible and the scheme will have a minimal impact on the surrounding local and TLRN highway network in terms of traffic generation.

6.5.39 Public Transport Impact

6.5.40 The impact on public transport services has been assessed by TfL. It is

noted that there is a recognised capacity issue at Vauxhall Underground Station and that TfL will be seeking a contribution towards this and other measures to increase public transport capacity in the Vauxhall area. The proposed improvements to pedestrian accessibility in particular to the crossing on Parry Street will also improve public transport accessibility.

6.5.41 Servicing

6.5.42 Site servicing is proposed via two servicing bays located at the rear of the

building, accessed via the new proposed vehicle crossover on Bondway and exiting via the proposed realigned crossover onto Parry Street.

55

6.5.43 A servicing strategy is set out in the TA and includes a calculation of the estimated number of servicing movements along with servicing requirements, requirements for loading/unloading areas, delivery routes to and from the service area and a swept path analysis for all likely delivery vehicles. The servicing strategy also deals with the estimated waste generation, management regime and proposed storage facilities. The scheme is consistent with policy 14 (i) of the UDP, which states: “Servicing – Business premises should have proper servicing facilities. On-street servicing is discouraged where this would interfere with pedestrian or cycle movements or would lead to traffic or safety problems.”

6.5.44 The scheme is estimated to generate 46 servicing movements per day

including a total of 6 servicing movements between 9-10am weekday mornings. Deliveries are expected to be made by rigid vehicles up to 10m in length, and articulated lorries are not expected to service the scheme.

6.5.45 In order to accommodate the estimated number of servicing movements

two loading bays are proposed, one 10m in length and the other 6m in length. Vehicles will access the loading bays from the crossover on Bondway and exit via Parry Street. Given the proposed one-way circulation, turning and manoeuvring will be kept to a minimum and allow service vehicles will be able to enter and exit the site in a forwards gear.

6.5.46 The proposed servicing bays will also be located within very close

proximity to both the commercial and residential refuse storage areas thus ensuring there will be no refuse transfer outside of the designated servicing area.

6.5.47 A dedicated loading bay manager is proposed, or dockmaster, who will be

responsible for managing deliveries and directing drivers and courier staff to the relevant tenant. A Delivery Management Plan will also be secured via condition to ensure deliveries are co-ordinated and service vehicles do not end up queuing for the loading bays.

6.5.48 Cycle Storage

6.5.49 A total of 568 secure and sheltered cycle storage spaces are proposed.

Designated cycle storage areas are proposed on each of the two basement levels and in storage units on floors four to sixteen, providing a total of 516 cycle parking spaces for the residential units and employees. The proposed number of cycle storage spaces exceeds the minimum requirements of both the Lambeth UDP and London Plan.

6.5.50 Travel Plan

6.5.51 Preparation and implementation of a comprehensive travel plan for the

scheme (or any subsequent scheme) is required, and any travel plan should be prepared in accordance with TfL’s latest travel plan guidance or subsequent amendment, namely ‘Guidance for residential travel planning in London’; TfL, March 2008, and Guidance for workplace travel planning for development’; TfL, March 2008

6.5.52 A draft travel plan for both the residential and commercial components of

the scheme has been included within the TA and this set outs appropriate

56

objectives and targets, the management approach, the strategy for promoting sustainable transport modes, and monitoring and review measures. The Travel Plan will need to be further developed, submitted, and approved prior to occupation.

6.5.53 Streetscape and Public Realm Improvements

6.5.54 A comprehensive redevelopment of Bondway is proposed between Parry

Street and Miles Street, incorporating a ‘shared surface’ carriageway design, new footways and a contra flow cycle lane. This is considered necessary given the scale of the proposed scheme, and will greatly improve both the accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists and general amenity of the area. Improvements to the Miles Street and Parry Street railway arches are also proposed which will greatly improve amenity and connectivity with surrounding areas.

6.5.55 S106 Contributions

6.5.56 It is considered that there would have a series of mitigation measures and

appropriate financial contributions secured to mitigate the impact of the development on the local area. It is considered that the following matters/works would need to be included as part of any s106 agreement for the scheme or any subsequent scheme proposed for the site:

1. Given the scale of the scheme and the expected multi-modal trip generation, £1,000,000 is sought for the complete redevelopment of the section of Bondway between Parry Street and Miles St, incorporating a shared surface carriageway layout, new footways, a contra flow cycle lane, and changes to TMO’s, in addition to streetscape improvements along Miles St;

2. £246,000 is sought for the refurbishment of the railway arches on Parry Street and Miles Street;

3. £50,000 is sought for the upgrading of cycle routes on the surrounding highway network, namely Fentiman Road and Wheatsheaf Lane adjacent to South Lambeth Road;

4. All residential units will need to be permit free, meaning owners and occupiers will be unable to apply for residential parking permits;

5. Subject to negotiation, £900,000 is sought for public transport capacity and accessibility improvements at Vauxhall Underground Station and Interchange; and

6. A Travel Plan for both the residential and commercial component of the scheme.

7. Sustainability

7.1.1 Policy 4B.6 of the London Plan seeks to achieve sustainable design and

construction in accordance with the ultimate aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions set out in Policy 4A.1 of the London Plan. Alterations to this document include policies on reducing carbon dioxide emissions by

57

20% through the use of on-site renewable energy generation for new development. Policy 34 of the UDP requires all major development to incorporate equipment for renewable power generation so as to offset at least 10% of carbon production. Policy 35 states that development proposals should demonstrate how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles.

7.1.2 The applicant has sought throughout the project to comply with the

Mayor’s Energy Hierarchy and achieve at least a 20% reduction in carbon emissions. The design of the building is intended to be energy efficient and be fully Part L (Building Regulations) compliant. The applicant has prepared a comprehensive Energy Strategy which appraises a range of energy technologies as potential on site energy generation sources. In addition, an Eco-Homes pre-assessment has been carried out which confirms that with the energy efficiency measures proposed the scheme would be able to achieve a “Very Good” Eco-Homes rating which is considered to be acceptable. Any approval would be subject to a condition and/or a s106 obligation securing these provisions.

8. Secure by Design

8.1.1. Policy 32 of the AUDP seeks to ensure that proposed developments

enhance community safety and do not create opportunities for crime or result in an increase in the risk of public disorder.

8.1.2. The Design and Access statement addresses Secured by Design. It

states that integration of the buildings and landscape into their wider setting was considered at an early stage of the project.

8.1.3. There would be controlled access entry to the car park and the cycle

parking which would be secure and managed. Access to the commercial and residential uses would be from within the building and via secure lobbies at ground floor level, the frontage to which has been designed to avoid any recesses or unnecessary structures behind which people to hide or congregate. It is proposed to refurbish and upgrade to the 2 adjacent railway arches in Parry Street and Miles Street which are presently unsightly and somewhat intimidating. Given this and the overall improvements to adjacent public realm, it is reasonable to conclude that this scheme would bring forward significant improvements with regard to crime prevention.

8.1.4. The Crime Prevention Officer has been consulted and raises no

objection to the application.. If it were to be recommended for approval, a condition would be recommended requiring details of how the scheme would comply with Secure By Design principles.

9. Refuse and Re-Recycling

8.1.1 The application is accompanied by a detailed Environment Statement which seeks to identify, address and mitigate against all the environmental impacts that a scheme of this scale would generate. Whilst much of this document has been referred to above in the section on the

58

amenity related impacts of the scheme, there is also detailed analysis on refuse generation both during the demolition/construction phase as well as what measures would be necessary upon occupation of the building. This has been referred to the Council’s relevant departments (Streetcare and Regulatory Services) for their assessments and comment. The ES is to read in conjunction with the Design and Access Statement.

8.1.2 It is considered to be both reasonable and appropriate to impose

conditions to ensure compliance with policy 56 of the UDP and the Council’s guidance for “Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements” which is comprehensive guide to waste storage provision.

10. Archaeology

10.1.1. in accordance with PPG16, Policy 4B.14 in the London Plan and Policy 48 of the UDP, the application is accompanied by a desk-top archaeological assessment undertaken by the Museum of London Archaeology service. The site does not contain any nationally designated (protected) sites, such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings or Registered Parks and Gardens. The site lies within the London Borough of Lambeth Archaeological Priority Area, which includes the historic core of Lambeth village and the entire Thames foreshore environs within the Borough.

10.1.2. The proposed development includes basements, piles and

foundation beams. The 2 basements run across the site. Remains dating from the Mesolithic to the modern period could potentially remain although it is acknowledged that previous development would have had a seriously detrimental impact on the potential for artefacts to remain on site and at best on fragmentary remains are likely to be present.

10.1.3. English Heritage (Archaeology) have advised that a condition should

be attached to any planning permission that requires the applicant to implement a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a scheme for investigation prior to any development taking place.

11. Water Resource and Flood Risk

11.1.1. The submitted Environmental Statement considers the impact of the scheme in terms of flood risk and on surface water, groundwater and existing drainage.

11.1.2. In terms of flood risk, the site lies within Flood Zone 3, which

indicates a probability of flooding greater than 0.5% from tidal sources. In light of this and that the building would have 2 basements, the Environmental Statement has addressed what measures would be necessary to adequately mitigate this risk. The Flood Risk Assessment also addresses directly surface water runoff and foul drainage. This has been referred to Environment Agency but at the time of writing its comments have not been received. As with sustainability issues above, it considered that subject to what the Environment Agency and Thames Water conclude on the proposed

59

flood risk mitigation measures and drainage systems as a whole, conditions could be imposed to secure those provisions, should Members resolve to support the scheme.

12. Community facilities and planning Obligations

12.1.1 As set out in the body of the report, the complexity and scale of the application proposal results in various impacts of the development that need to be mitigated through a range of planning obligations. ODPM Circular 5/2005 states the intention of planning obligations is to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. It goes on to set out the appropriate tests for seeking planning obligations, as follows:

• relevant to planning • necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms • directly related to the proposed development • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, and • reasonable in all other respects.

12.1.2 Council UDP Policy 26 (D) Deficiencies in Community Facilities states that, in major developments, as here, where the development exacerbates an existing shortage of community facilities (such as by increasing the residential population) then new facilities, or contributions towards improving facilities, will be required. Such community facilities could include healthcare provision, library facilities and education (school places). In compliance with this policy, financial contributions will be secured via a legal agreement to ensure the provision of the community facilities detailed above.

12.1.3 Policy 57 Planning Obligations states at that in cases such as this, the

Council will enter into legal agreements (the s106 agreement) with developers and seek the attainment of planning obligations, having regard to current Government guidance.

12.1.4 The Heads of Terms of a S106 legal agreement have not as yet been

finalised and remain under active negotiation. The figures put forward by Council officers are derived from the formula approach in accordance with the adopted S106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and have been amended as appropriate following discussions with the applicant. Whilst negotiations are at an advanced stage, they have not been finalised The table below sets out the Heads of Terms and the level of contribution sought by the Council and the amount offered by the developer to date.

Head of Term

Amount of financial contribution sought by the Council

Amount of financial contribution offered by the developer

Education £729,605.00 £583,684.00

60

Health £337,833.50 £270,267.00 Libraries £56,558.06 £56,558.06 Indoor Sports and Leisure

£210,936.04 £210,936.04

Local Community Groups

Not formally identified £30.000.00

Public Realm: Parks and Open Space (General)

£488,866.60 £488,866.60

Public Realm and Open Space (Young Persons)

£103,712.00 £103,712.00

Public Realm (Streetscape)

Not formally identified £1,000,000,00

Public Art £300,000.00 £300,000.00 Public Realm (Revenues)

£279,857.81 £50,000.00

Public Transport

£790,000.00 £800,000.00

Travel Plans £1,000.00 £1,000.00 Local training in Construction

£357,500.00 £50,000.00

Employment and Training

£69,115.48 £0

Crossrail £488,960.00 £100,000.00 Sub Total £5,243,944,32 £4,045,024.00 Legal Fees £156,774.60 £20,000.00 TOTAL £5,400,718.92 £4,065,024.04

13. Conclusion

13.1.1 This application was reported to Members of this Planning Applications Committee for a formal “steer” on 25 November 2009. The developer then submitted a statement to clarify, amend or rebut as necessary the resolution reached at that meeting. These responses have in turn been reported back to members for their consideration.

13.1.2 On 3 March 2010, the developer appealed to the Planning

Inspectorate against the non-determination of this application within its statutory period.

13.1.3 This report addresses the resolutions reached on the “steer” report

and sets out materials consideration having regard to the lodged appeal.

61

13.1.4 The conclusion of the appended “steer” report a table the Considerations for Resolution. For ease of reference this is set below.

Paragraph Consideration for Resolution 7.1.61 The principle of a tall building in this location. 7.1.61 The quality of architecture and detailed design. 7.1.61 The acceptability of height, scale and bulk of this

149m tall building on both London-wide and local heritage assets and townscape.

7.1.65 The impact on Vauxhall conservation area and Vauxhall Park.

Various: Sections 7.1 & 7.7

The extent and quality of public realm improvements.

7.2.10 The principle of a Metropolitan Police base within the building.

7.2.21 The quantum and nature of provision of subsidised start up B1 floorspace.

7.2.43 The level and split of the proposed affordable housing provision.

7.3.13 The pursuit of the acquisition of the adjoining site for a public open space (“pocket park”).

7.3.17 The acceptability of the amenity and open play space provision.

7.4.10 The veracity and detail of the submitted daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing studies.

7.7.6 The acceptability of the overall level of financial contributions the Council should seek to mitigate the impact of the development and whether the applicant’s proposed offer is sufficient.

13.1.5 The following table cross references these considerations for

resolution with officers comments in this report.

Paragraphs Consideration for Resolution 6.3.60 - 61 The principle of a tall building in this location. 6.3.71 The quality of architecture and detailed design. 6.3.68 The acceptability of height, scale and bulk of this

149m tall building on both London-wide and local heritage assets and townscape.

6.3.67 - 69 The impact on Vauxhall conservation area and Vauxhall Park.

Various: Sections 6.3 – 6.5

The extent and quality of public realm improvements.

6.2.22 – 23 The principle of a Metropolitan Police base within the building.

6.2.12 – 21 The quantum and nature of provision of subsidised start up B1 floorspace.

6.2.27 – 28 The level and split of the proposed affordable housing provision.

62

6.2.53 - 54 The pursuit of the acquisition of the adjoining site for a public open space (“pocket park”).

6.2.42 - 63 The acceptability of the amenity and open play space provision.

7.4.10 The veracity and detail of the submitted daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing studies.

7.7.6 The acceptability of the overall level of financial contributions the Council should seek to mitigate the impact of the development and whether the applicant’s proposed offer is sufficient.

6.4.1 - 9 The veracity and detail of the submitted daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing studies.

12.1.1 - 4 The acceptability of the overall level of financial contributions the Council should seek to mitigate the impact of the development and whether the applicant’s proposed offer is sufficient.

13.1.6 To recap, this is a development of strategic as well as local

importance 13.1.7 The application is residentially led. It would provide a total of 376

flats of which 265 would be private units and 111 would be affordable housing units. This level of provision would significantly contribute towards meeting the Council’s housing needs targets. It would also provide over 5,500msq. of subsidised flexible start-up Use Class B1 floorspace which would be available for local businesses; this would positively contribute to the Council’s over-arching principle of reducing worklessness in the borough although this has to be weighed against the identified shortfall in the quantum of floorspace. The developer is proposing to undertake improvements to the local public realm and offer a raft of financial contributions to mitigate against the impacts of the development. It is considered that it is reasonable to conclude that this scheme would bring forward significant regeneration benefits for Vauxhall which justify the shortfall in employment generating floorspace.

13.1.8 It is a 149m tall building and as such has London-wide as well as

local impacts. GLA and Council policies and guidance have acknowledged this site as being one appropriate for tall buildings and the principle of such is established. The GLA’s OAPF identifies that in the heart of Vauxhall “buildings in the region of 150m” are appropriate. Notwithstanding the Council’s emerging draft SPD identifying a maximum 80m height, it does allow for exceptions if they are particularly high quality architecture. CABE’s support the scheme.

13.1.9 In amenity terms, it is considered that the living conditions of

existing residents in the local area would be adequately protected and that the proposed accommodation is of quality and would also be acceptable having regard to the amenity of future residents. The amenity space strategy with in the development is considered to be acceptable as is the raft of mitigation measures to offset the lack of on site amenity space provision.

63

13.1.10 Similarly, the scheme is considered to be acceptable on highways

planning grounds, both having regard to the impact of this scheme locally and that there would be appropriate mitigation to address the impact that this scheme would bring having regard to the cumulative impact of this and other future schemes in Vauxhall and beyond.

13.1.11 Whilst the s106 Agreement has not as yet been finalised, it is at

an advanced stage. Subject to the agreement of both the Council and the developer, it is considered that as a whole there would be a satisfactory level of financial contribution to offset the impact of the development on the wider area.

13.1.12 For these reasons, therefore, the application is considered to be

acceptable subject to the conditions below and a satisfactorily concluded s106 Agreement.

14. Recommendation

Had the appeal against non-determination of the application within its statutory period not be made, officers would have recommended that they were minded to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a s106 Agreement.

CONDITIONS

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2 Before any development commences, full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding: the notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures; details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; details regarding dust mitigation, details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, and other measures to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area. The details of the approved Method of Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process. Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway. (Policies 9, 31, and 48 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.). 3 Prior to the commencement of building works, a full design specification of the shopfronts to the commercial units of the scheme shall be submitted to and approved in

64

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The shopfronts shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies 33, 37 and 58 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 4 Notwithstanding the approved drawings and prior to the commencement of any building work, samples and a schedule of all materials to be used in the elevations, balconies, roofing and joinery of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies 33, 40, 58 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 5 Notwithstanding the approval, prior to commencement of building works, full details of the internal layout of each unit size and type shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of future occupiers (Policy 33 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 6 Prior to the commencement of building works, a Landscape and Public Realm Strategy for all external public realm areas within the curtilage of the site hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This Strategy is to include, amongst other things, details of proposed plant and tree maintenance, paving materials, pedestrian priority materials and shared surface treatments, plant species, ground levels and boundary treatments. The development shall be in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping areas are of a high quality and for consistent treatment of the public realm. (Policy 33 and 39 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 7 Prior to the commencement of building work, full details and layout of the “amenity deck” at 36th floor shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping areas are of a high quality and for consistent treatment of the public realm. (Policy 33 and 39 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 8 Prior to commencement of building works, a crime prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate how the development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, gates to the basement car park, CCTV provision, external lighting provision,

65

electronic access control, specifications of all external doors and all residential doors, windows and glazing. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 9 Prior to the commencement of building work, full details of a lighting strategy, including details of the lighting of all public areas and buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved lighting shall be installed before the commencement of the use and maintained thereafter. Development shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal. (Policy 32 and 33 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 10 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure, other than those shown on the approved plans shall be erected alongside the site frontage. Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off clear of the highway for the safety of highway users and ensure that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that the details of the proposal (Policies 9, 31 and 33 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 11 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of buildings. Reason: Policy 33 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 12 Prior to commencement of building works, full details of sound insulation for the residential units which shall show how the building has been designed to meet the following standards, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) for living rooms, 35 dB(A) LAeq 16 hour between 07:00 and 23:00 hrs; b) for bedrooms, 30 dB(A) LAeq 8 hour between 23:00 and 07:00 hrs; and c) 45 dB(A) max for any individual noise event (measured with F time weighting) between 23.00 and 07.00hrs The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future occupiers. (Policy 54 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.)

66

13 There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music system fixed, used, or audible outside any of the ground floor commercial premises. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policies 1, 7, 29 and 54 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 14 Prior to the commencement of building works, full details of the soundproofing of premises and insulation of premises (including ventilation) for all party walls and the ceiling/floor between the ground floor commercial floorspace (Classes A1, A2, A3, A4), and the offices above, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter be retained for the duration of the use, to prevent fumes, smell and noise permeating into adjoining accommodation. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future residential occupiers or of the area generally. (Policy 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers.) 15 Prior to the commencement of building works, full details of internal and external plant equipment and trunking, including building services plant, ventilation and filtration equipment, commercial kitchen exhaust ducting / ventilation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. All flues, ducting and other equipment shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing on site and shall be retained for the duration of the use. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future residential occupiers or of the area generally. (Policy 1, 7, 29, and 54 of the of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 16 Prior to the commencement of building work, a sound insulation scheme for the building services equipment and other approved mechanical plant, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme approved shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the details submitted. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future residential occupiers or of the area generally. (Policy 1, 7, 29, and 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 17 Noise from any mechanical equipment or building services plant shall not exceed the background noise level when measured outside the window of the nearest noise sensitive or residential premises, when measured as a L90 dB(A) 1 hour. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 1, 7, 29 and 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 18 All kitchen fume extraction systems shall be constructed to provide a minimum of thirty air changes per hour and / or a velocity of 0.2-0.5 metres / second across the canopy face (1.5 - 2.0 metres/second across the filter).

67

Reason: Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 1, 7, 29 and 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 19 No process shall be carried out or machinery installed which could not be installed in a residential area without detriment to the amenity of the area because of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke soot, ash, dust or grit. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 1, 7, 29 and 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 20 The hours of operation of the ground floor commercial floorspace (Class A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, D2) hereby permitted shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the relevant premises and shall not operate other than in accordance with the agreed hours unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 1, 7, 29 and 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 21 No deliveries shall be taken to, or dispatched from, the site other than between the hours of 08.00 and 23.00 Mondays to Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 1, 7, 29 and 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 22 All residential flats hereby permitted shall comply with the relevant Lifetime Homes standard. Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, in accordance with Policy 8 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan. 23 At least 10% of the residential flats hereby permitted shall be designed so that they can be easily adaptable to meet the Wheelchair Housing standard. Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, in accordance with Policy 8 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan. 24 Prior to the commencement of building works, a full BREEAM pre-assessment for all non-residential elements, and an Ecohomes or Code for sustainable homes pre-assessment for the development shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the prescribed performance levels. Reason: To ensure sustainable design and construction. (Policy 34 and 35 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.)

68

25 Prior to the commencement of development, impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority in consultation with Thames Water. The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with additional demand generated by the development (Policy 53 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 26 Prior to the commencement of buildings works, full details of the surface water drainage system, including details of discharge rates to sewer from both foul and surface water systems, as well as any proposed sustainable source control measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the local planning authority, in consultation with Thames Water. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding and improve water quality (Policy 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 27 No development shall take place until the applicant, their agent or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To allow adequate archaeological investigation before any archaeological remains may be affected by the development. (Policy 48 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 28 No development should commence before an Evacuation Plan for safe access from the car park to an upper level and a detailed flood warning system is supplied to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To reduce the risk to people using the basement levels in case of flooding due to breach or overtopping of the Thames tidal flood defences. (Policy 48(D) of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 29 Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this site investigation shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provision for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment. (Policy 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer).

69

30 Details of a waste management plan, incorporating provision for refuse storage and recycling facilities on the site, disposal of cooking oils, as well as litter management, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted. The refuse storage and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to commencement of the use and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the provision of recycling facilities on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area. (Policies 9, 33 and 56 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 31 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with measures indicated in the Sustainability Statement accompanying the application, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the environmental impacts of the development are acceptable (Policy 34 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers) 32 Prior to the commencement of building works, full details of measures to be taken to achieve at least a "very good" BREEAM Ecohomes/Code of Sustainable Homes rating (and other relevant codes for non-residential uses), shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The scheme shall achieve at least a "very good" or code level 3 rating for the residential flats. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development. Reason: In the interests of meeting government targets for reduction in carbon emissions (Policy 35 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 33 Prior to the occupation of the residential units hereby permitted, the ground floor commercial and employment generating floorspace on floors 1 to 3 shall be completed and available for occupation in accordance with the plans hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory provision of employment floorspace on the site (Policy 23 and 58 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 34 No other part of the development shall begin until visibility splays have been provided on both sides of the access between a point 2.4 metres along the centre line of the access measured from the edge of carriageway and a point 2.4 metres along the edge of carriageway measured from the intersection of the centre line of the access. The area contained within the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.9 metres in height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway. Reason: To provide adequate intervisibility between the access and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access. (Policies 9, 31 Adopted Unitary Development Plan (August 2007) refer.) 35 Prior to the 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

70

by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the building hereby permitted is occupied/the use hereby permitted commences and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use. Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport. (Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (August 2007) refer.) 36 Details of the proposed access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. No other part of the development shall be occupied until the new means of access has been sited, laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access. (Policies 9, 26 and 31 Adopted Unitary Development Plan (August 2007) refer.) 37 Details of parking, garaging, manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The parking, manoeuvring and loading/unloading area shall be laid out and made available for use in accordance with the approved scheme before the development hereby permitted is occupied and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose, or obstructed in any way. Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway (Policies 14 and 26 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (August 2007) refer.)

38 The development shall not begin until provision has been made to accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site during the construction period in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The loading, off-loading, parking and turning areas shall be provided so as to avoid any damage to trees on the site. Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users, and to avoid damage to trees (Policies 9, 31 Adopted Unitary Development Plan (August 2007) refer.) 39 No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 9, 31 Adopted Unitary Development Plan (August 2007) refer.) 40 No on-street servicing shall take place at any time, unless as agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the off-street servicing bay. (Policy 9 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers).

71

41 A Delivery Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing. The measures approved in the Plan shall be implemented prior to both the commercial uses commencing and the occupation of the residential flats above and shall be so maintained for the duration of the uses, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation. Reason: To ensure that the delivery arrangements to the building as a whole are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements (Policy 9 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers.) 42 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved and prior to the residential occupation of the building, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing to confirm that the access to the “amenity deck” at 36th floor shall be available to all the residents in the development. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory level of amenity for all occupiers of the development. (Policies 16 and 33 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 43 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this decision notice. Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved plans. Notes to Applicants: 1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. You are advised that this consent is without prejudice to any rights which may be enjoyed by any tenants/occupiers of the premises. 3. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer. 4. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division concerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food, Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-laws or regulations made thereunder 5. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division with regard to the extraction of fumes from the premises. 6. Your attention is drawn to the necessity to register your food business with the Council's Environmental Health Division, under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 before the use commences. Failure to do so may result in prosecution. 7. Your attention is drawn to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings

72

(B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at the building or premises who are disabled. 8. Your attention is drawn to Sections 7 and 8A of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings (B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at the building or premises who are disabled. 9. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Transport and Highways team within the Transport Division of the Directorate of Environmental Services, with regard to the amendments to the basement and ground floor layouts as well as any alterations affecting the public footway. 10. 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 11. You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display of illuminated 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. 12. 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 13. You are advised that permission will be required for the installation of a new shopfront at these premises. 14. In connection with the soundproofing condition, you should consult the Council's Building Control Section before carrying out any works. 15. 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 16. You are advised that under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the National Rivers Authority is required for any discharge of sewage

73

or trade effluent into controlled waters (e.g. watercourses and underground waters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such consent may be withheld. Contact Mr D DeCoster on 0181 310 5500 for details. 17. You are advised that under the terms of the Water Industries Act 1991, the prior written consent of the London Borough of Lambeth, Sewerage Contractor for Thames Water Utilities Ltd is required for any development works draining into, or connecting to, the public sewers. Contact Mr S K Bellehewe on 0171 926 7108. 18. 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. 19. 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 Rd London SW9 9SP 020 7926 2624 Dparry@lambeth.gov.uk 20. 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. 21. It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification. 22. You are advised of the necessity to consult Transport for London via email (centrallicensing@tfl.gov.uk), prior to the commencement of construction 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.

74

23. Any excavation or new groundworks at street or basement level associated with this development may expose or damage archaeological remains. Such works include the removal of the existing slab and/or foundations, construction of new foundations or floor slabs, lift pits, underpinning or service trenches. 24. The Local Planning Authority wishes to ensure that archaeological remains on this site are preserved in situ. The detailed proposals should include appropriate drawings, technical notes and method statements, showing how the objectives of in situ preservation are to be achieved. Particular attention should be paid to the design of foundations and new groundworks including piling, underpinning, new slab levels and slab construction, lift pits and new service trenches. You are advised to contact English Heritage's Archaeological Officers to discuss the submission of details required to discharge the archaeological condition(s). 25. The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. This design should be in accordance with the appropriate English Heritage guidelines. 26. To prepare the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan, we would refer the applicant to both the recommendations of the accepted FRA and Chapter 6, paragraphs 6.16 to 6.22 of the Government Guidance "Development and Flood Risk - A Practice Guide Companion to PPS25". 27. Piling or other penetrative methods of foundation design can cause unacceptable risks to groundwater. A risk assessment should be carried out as per our guidance 'Piling into Contaminated Sites'. This and other guidance on piling into potentially contaminated sites is available on our website (www.environment-agency.gov.uk ). Click on the publications and search for piling. 28. The water table is likely to be shallow at the site. It is therefore susceptible to pollution from oils and fuels from construction machinery. 29. The Environment Agency strongly recommends that the applicant consults our Pollution Prevention Guidance notes (PPGs). These are aimed at a wide range of industries and activities that have the potential to cause pollution. They can be downloaded from our website www.environment-agency.gov.uk . Type PPG into the search engine or paste this link into your browser: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444251/444731/ppg 30. The applicant shall demonstrate any reductions in CO2 emissions using building regulations-compliant software. The 10 % reduction should be from the Building Regulations Part L Target Emissions Rate + the CO2 emissions associated with other energy uses not covered by building regulations. 31. Your attention is drawn to condition 8 of this planning consent. Please contact the Council Crime Prevention Officer. Details below: - Pc Ann Burroughs. Crime Prevention Design Advisor. London Borough of Lambeth. Community Safety Unit.

75

205 Stockwell Road. Brixton. SW9 9SL. Mobile: 07974643842 Phone: 020 7926 2840 Email: Aburroughs@lambeth.gov.uk