gla stage two report

8/2/2019 GLA Stage Two Report

1/32

page 1

p la nnin g re por t P D U / 2404 a / 02

15 D e c em be r 2010

40 -46 W e s ton S t ree t , Londo n B ridg e in t he Londo n B oro ugh o f S ou thwa rk

p la nnin g a pp lic a t ion no . 10 -A P -2754

S t ra t e g ic p la nnin g a pp lic a t ion s t a ge II re fe rr a l (ne w po w e r s )

Town & Countr y Planning Ac t 1990 (as am ended); Gr eate r London Author ity Ac ts 1999 and2007; Town & Countr y Planning (Mayor of London) Or de r 2008

The propo s a l

De molition of Capital Hous e , and e r ec tion of a 21 and 31- s tor ey building (108.8m AOD),topr ovide 470 s tudent acc omm odation units with ancillar y bar , gym and libr ar y. Thr ee r e tail / cafe units (286 sq.m .) at gr ound floor leve l. The pr oposal include s 261 cycle par king space s , twoacce ss ible car par king space s , one s e r vice bay at the bas e m ent leve l and ass ociated r e fus e andr ec ycling and an a r ea of public open space .

The a pp lic a n t

The applicant is Inv e s t re a m , and the ar chitec t is S PP A R C .

S t ra t e g ic iss ue s S tr ategic matt e r s r egar ding s t ude n t hou s in g , u rb a n de s ign , in c lu s iv e de s ign , c lim a t e c ha nge and t ra n s por t have now bee n addr ess ed.

The Coun c ils de c is ion

In this ins tance , Southwar k Counc il has r e solved to gr ant pe r m iss ion.

R e c omme nda t ion

That Southwar k Council be advis ed that the Mayor is content for it to de te r m ine the cas e its e lf,subjec t to any ac tion that the Sec r e tar y of S tate may take , and does not the r e for e wish to dir ec t r e fusal or dir ec t that he is to be the local planning author ity.

Con t ex t

1 On 30 Septe mbe r 2010 the Mayor of London r ece ived docum ents fr om Southwar k Council notifying him of a planning application of potential s tr ategic impor tance to deve lop the above s ite for the above us e s . This was r e fe rr ed to the Mayor unde r Categor y 1C of the Schedule to the Or de r 2008:

D e v e lo p m e n t w h i c h c o m p r i s e s o r i n c lu d e s t h e e r e c t io n o f a b uil d i n g o f o n e o r m o r e o f t h e f ollo w i n g d e sc r i p t io n s t h e b uil d i n g i s m o r e t h a n 30 m et r e s h ig h a nd i s ou t s i d e t h e C i t y o f Lo nd o n.


2/32

page 2

2 On 4 Novembe r 2010 Simon Milton, Deputy Mayor and Chie f of S taff, ac ting unde r de legated author ity, cons ide r ed planning r epor t PDU/2404a/01, and subs equently advis edSouthwar k Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the followingr easons :

S t ude n t hou s in g : The pr oposal br oadly complies with London Plan Policy if anappr opr iate S106 agr ee m ent claus e , which r e s tr ic t the us e of acc omm odation for

full tim e

highe r

edu

cation

stud

ent

sonly and that th

ea

cco

mmodation

will b

e l

et at a r ent no gr eate r than r ents for compar able s tudent hous ing is agr ee d.

Urb a n de s ign , t a ll buil d in g s a nd v ie w s : Whils t the exte r nal appear ance of the building r emains of the highe s t or de r and consis tent with the LVMF, the impac t of the change s to the inte r nal layout, acce ss to lifts for disabled people andacce ss ible laundr y facilitie s and gene r al cir culation space is poor and should be r ec ons ide r ed be for e the application is r e fe rr ed back to the Mayor for final de te r m ination.

In c lu s iv e de s ign : The pr oposal doe s not comply with London Plan Policie s 4B.5

or

3A.5. Clim a t e Cha nge m it iga t ion a nd a da p t a t ion : Fur the r infor mation is r equir ed

to de te r m ine whe the r the application complie s with London Plan Polic ies 4A.3-4A.7 The application br oadly complie s with London Plan c limate change adaptation policy.

Tr a n s por t : Fur the r infor mation is r equir ed and a numbe r of iss ues mus t be addr e ss ed for the pr oposal to comply with London Plan tr anspor t policy.

3 But that the following poss ible r e m edie s could addr e ss the s e de ficienc ies :

S t ude n t hou s in g : An appr opr iate S106 agr ee m ent claus e , which r e s tr ic t the us e of acc omm odation for full tim e highe r education s tudents only and that the acc omm odation will be le t at a r ent no gr eate r than r ents for compar able s tudent hous ing should be attached to any pe r m iss ion.

Urb a n de s ign : The de sign team should r evisit the curr ent arr ange m ent for disableds tudents r egar ding acce ss to lifts and laundr y facilitie s , and the natur e of cir culationspace on typical floor s above leve l 6.

In c lu s iv e de s ign : Genuine ly acce ss ible laundr y facilitie s should be pr ovided oneve r y floor with an acce ss ible r oom . As discuss ed above , the s ingle aspec t nor thfacing r oom could be los t to acc omm odate such fac ilitie s . Fur the r mor e , acce ss ible r oom s should be located on floor s that have acce ss to both nor th and south lifts .

Clim a t e Cha nge m it iga t ion a nd a da p t a t ion : The applicant should pr ovide the r egulated car bon dioxide e m iss ions in tonne s pe r annum afte r the cumulative e ffec t of ene r gy e fficiency, CHP and r ene wable ene r gy and the cumulative annual CO2savings , in tonnes and pe r ce ntage points , r e lative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant deve lopm ent should also be pr ovided. The applicant should comm it tor educe wate r us e to le ss than 105 litr e s pe r pe r son pe r day.

Tr a n s por t : The applicant should pr ovide additional tr anspor t infor mation as s e t out in par agr aphs 81 to 91.

4 A copy of the above -m entioned r epor t is attached. The e ss entials of the cas e with r egar dto the pr oposal, the s ite , cas e his tor y, s tr ategic planning iss ue s and r e levant policie s and guidance ar e as s e t out the r e in, unle ss othe r wis e s tated in this r epor t. Since then, the application has bee n


3/32


4/32


5/32

page 5

e xcee d 2010 Building Regulations compliance thr ough ene r gy e fficiency alone . In r e spons e to this the applicant has subm itted the following infor mation:

The applicant has comm itted to additional ene r gy e ffic iency impr ove m ents r e lating to air pe r m eability, heat r ec ove r y, lighting, contr ols and air conditioning. Thes e additional m easur e s ar e pr edic ted to br ing the deve lopm ent within 3% of achieving 2010 BuildingRegulations compliance thr ough ene r gy e fficiency alone . In this cas e , the applicant cont

end

s that th

e sc

ope fo

r

fur

the r

en

e rgy

effi

cien

cy i

mp

r

ove m e

nts i

s con

st

r

ained du

e toothe r aspec ts of the alr eady agr ee d de s ign of the building. This is acce pted. The

deve lopm ent will e m it 569 tonne s of r egulated CO2 e m iss ions pe r annum afte r ene r gy e fficiency m easur e s . No fur the r infor mation is r equir ed in this r egar d.

The ene r gy s tr ategy has conside r ed how the r is k of ove r heating will be m inim is ed thr oughpass ive de sign m easur e s . The applicant has also confir m ed that the r e s idual ac tive coolingload, for e xample in the gym and r e tail units , willbe pr ovided by e lec tr ic chille r s with highcoe fficients of pe r for mance .

The applicant has pr ovided fur the r de tails r egar ding the location of the PV pane ls . A

dr

awi

ngsho

wing

th

e spa

ce fo

r

200m

2 of P

V pane ls

onth

e Sou

th

e rn

fa

cad

eo

f th

e deve lopm ent has bee n pr ovided, along with e s timates of the amount of e lec tr ic ity that will

be gene r ated. This will r educe car bon e m iss ions by 10.5 tonnes pe r annum . No fur the r infor mation is r equir ed.

The applicant e s timate s that afte r the combined e ffec t of the diffe r ent e le m ents of the ene r gy hie r ar chy, the deve lopm ent will e m it 339 tonne s of CO2 pe r annum . Regulatedcar bon dioxide e m iss ions will be r educe d by 215 tonne s pe r annum compar ed to a 2010Building Regulations compliant deve lopm ent, equivalent to a r educ tion of 39% .

The applicant has confir m ed that the r e is no appr opr iate fully func tioning dis tr ic t heatingsys te m s adjace nt to the s ite . Howeve r , the heating infr as tr uc tur e can be de signed andins talled to inc lude connec tions adjace nt to the site boundar y to allow futur e connec tion tosuitable dis tr ic t heating sche m e s if r equir ed.

The applicant has confir m ed that all bedr oom s will be linke d to the ce ntr al CHP / Boile r plant, the major ity of othe r ar eas willalso be linke d to the ce ntr al plant, including the gym .

19 All of the outs tanding climate m itigation iss ue s have now bee n r e solved and the applicant now complie s with London Plan Policie s 4A.3-4A.7.

Climate change adaptation

20 At the consultation s tage the applicant was as ke d to comm it to r educe wate r us e to le ss than 105 litr e s pe r pe r son pe r day to br ing the proposal in line with London Plan Policy 4A.16. The applicant has agr ee d to this to this and the application now br oadly complie s with London PlanPolicy climate change adaptation policy.

Tr anspor t

21 At consultation s tage , TfL highlighted a numbe r of iss ue s . The s e included the pr opos edpede s tr ian c r oss ing along We s ton S tr ee t, the nee d for a Pedes tr ian Envir onm ent Revie w Softwar e (PERS) audit, a lar ge r cycle hir e dock ing s tation, a planning obligation pr ohibiting car owne r shipfor r e sidents and de tails of the Tr ave l Plan.

22 Analys is of the impac t of a pede s tr ian c r oss ing on tr affic flow along Wes ton S tr ee t has bee npr ovided by the applicant. Due to the on-going r edeve lopm ent of the London Br idge ar ea and


6/32


7/32


8/32

page 8

The pr oposal doe s not acc ount for how vehicular tr affic should be handled at the beginning of te r m ; the junc tion of S t. Thomas S tr ee t and We s ton S t would bec om e a r outine bottleneck .

The pavem ents ar e too narr ow to acc omm odate the ne w r e s idents ; the r e is not enough public space or s e r vice acce ss .

The pr oposal ignor e s the London Br idge and Guys Hospital Campus Char ac te r Ar ea Appr aisal. The S106 agr ee m ent is vague , m isleading and lar ge ly unenfor ce able . The pr oposal is a badly de s igned blight on the ar ea which has bar e ly bee n consulted on. It was pushed thr ough the planning pr oce ss in a dishone s t and incompe tent manne r .

Office r r e spons e to mate r ial planning matt e r s

37 The matt e r r egar ding the pr inciple of tall buildings , s tr ategic vie ws and ar chitec tur e is s e t out in r epor t PDU/2404a/01, par agr aph 31-49. Whils t the r e r e mains ongoing wor k by the Council in discuss ion with the GLA r egar ding a r evis ed SPD, the application has to be conside r ed on its own m e r its having r egar d to e s tablished planning policy. Should othe r pr oposals be br ought for war d, in this ar ea, the s e would also be conside r ed on the ir own m e r its in light of planning policy at that tim e . The ar ea of s ens itivity r egar ding tall buildings , in par ticular the impac t on vie ws has bee n te s ted at s tr ategic and local leve l. It is cons ide r ed that the pr oposal will contr ibute to what is an e m e r ging clus te r of tall buildings at London Br idge , that is identified in the London Plan and is within the Oppor tunity Ar ea. The te s ts r egar ding scale of deve lopm ent in its conte xt was cons ide r ed at the consultation s tage as r e fe r ence d above , in par ticular the impac t on the s tr ategic vie ws and the adjace nt cons e r vation ar ea. The r e is a clear contr as t in scale fr om som e of the local vie ws , but this is in the back dr op to othe r s ignificantly tall s tr uc tur e s , spec ifically the Shar d andGuys Hospital Tow e r . Given the exis ting conte xt, the har m to the char ac te r and appear ance of the local cons e r vation ar ea is not cons ide r ed to be subs tantiated.

V i e w t o w a r d s S t Paul s C a t h e d r al f r o m Pa r lia m e n t H ill (2A.1)

38 The GLA has r ece ived an alte r native view analys is pr ovided by BVAG which challenge s the

vie ws ass ess m ent pr ovided by Mille r Har e on behalf of the applicant. The GLA has conside r ed the mate r ial pr ovided by BVAG and the r e spons e pr ovided by Mille r Har e and is satis fied the applicants appr oach is acc ur ate and in line with the m e thodology s e t out in the London View Manage m ent Fr am e wor k.

O t h e r p oli c y m a tte r s

39 Matt e r s r egar ding CAZ andloss of e mploym ent ar e s e t out in the Mayor s r espons e to the consultation s tage (PDU/2404a/01 par agr aph 15-25). Mic r oclimate and ove r shadowing matt e r s ar e cons ide r ed by the Council (Office r r epor t par agr aph 98-107) and a r e acce pted. TfL cons ide r s the s tr ategic tr anspor t matt e r s ar e cons ide r ed acce ptable .

R e pr e s e n t a t ion m a de t o S ou t hwa rk Coun c il

40 A consultation exe r cis e was conduc ted in Septe mbe r 2010 with 670 le tt e r s s ent to near by occ upie r s and local gr oups which we r e acc ompanied by site and pr ess notice s . The r e we r e ar ound220 r e spons e s fr om local r e s idents , gr oups and ke y s take holde r s , of which s even we r e in suppor t,one was for comm ent and the r e s t we r e objec tions . The r e spons e s ar e as summ ar is ed be low .

De s ign

The pr oposal has no de sign integr ity, cohe r ence or longevity. Pr opos ed building is out of conte xt and will damage char ac te r of the cons e r vation ar ea. Conce r ns of the de sign of the building, par ticular ly the spike d e le m ent of r oof. No objec tion to he ight, us e or loss of e xis ting building but pr opos ed ar chitec tur e is poor ;

squande r s oppor tunity to r egene r ate S t Thomas S tr ee t.


9/32

page 9

Scale and intens ity of the pr oposal is e xce ss ive . High-r is e buildings will m enace the gene r ally sympathe tic , human scale deve lopm ent that has

genuine ly impr oved the ar ea in r ece nt dec ade s . It is unacce ptable to place a mode r n building that doe s not complem ent the e xis ting London

Br idge r ailway ar che s The building is not a suitable tr ansition fr om the othe r buildings of We s ton S tr ee t and S t

Thomas S tr ee t to the Be r monds ey cons e r vation ar ea. The pr oposal is ove r deve lopm ent of the s ite . The ar chitec t is tr ying to squee ze too many ideas into too cons tr ained a site . The r e ar e s e r ious

pr oblem s with the buildings ar ticulation.

41 Office r r e spons e : GLA office r s ar e satis fied with the de s ign and the tes ting unde r takingr egar ding s tr ategic and local vie ws . The impac t in te r m s of scale and building he ight r emains acce ptable in the conte xt of the e xis ting tall buildings and willbe lar ge ly be vie wed fr om within the Cons e r vation Ar ea in the back dr op of the e xis ting lar ge -scale deve lopm ent in the ar ea. It is evident on walking ar ound the adjace nt Cons e r vation Ar ea that the pr oposal will be visible fr om ce r tain vie ws , but that on the whole the spec ial char ac te r will be pr es e r ved. As pr evious ly r epor tedin r epor t PDU/2404a/01, that char ac te r is mainly fine gr ain and enc los ed, and thos e expe r iencingthe Cons e r vation Ar ea will mos tly view the pr oposal e ithe r as a glimps e or in the conte xt of e xis tingtall buildings . The Council addr e ss e s the matt e r at par agr aph 83-90 o f its r epor t includingcons ide r ation of the near by lis ted s tation building and the impac t on the Quee ns Hous e fr om the vie w within the Towe r of London. The Councils comm ents and analys is of the de s ign, vie ws andhe r itage impac ts ar e br oadly concurr ed with.

Public space

Inadequate public space at gr ound leve l and the pave m ents ar e not wide enough for any additional capac ity.

42 Office r r e spons e : Office r s ar e br oadly satis fied that the public r ealm will be succe ss ful andwill bene fit fr om ac tive us e s including a po tential TfL cycle hir e dock ing s tation.

SPD and s e tting pr ece dent for tall buildings

Objec t to BBLB SPD. The pr oposal will s e t a pr ece dent for othe r tall buildings , which willhar m the pr e s e r vation and

futur e char ac te r of the ar ea The pr oposal is an att e mpt to pr e -e mpt tall buildings policy within the dr aft Bor ough

Banks ide / London Br idge SPD. The pr oposal pr e -e mpt an alte r native vis ion for the Bor ough Pr oposal would ac t as a catalys t to futur e planning applications High-r is e zone as s e t of in SPD will make it imposs ible to r egene r ate the r ailway ar che s along

S t. Thomas S tr ee t.

43 Office r r e spons e : The SPD is unde r going a s epar ate consultation pr oce ss led by Southwar k Council. The pr oposals have bee n conside r ed on the ir own m e r its and ass e ss ed agains t s tr ategic policy in par ticular the s tr ategic vie ws as s e t out in the London Vie w Manage m ent Fr am e wor k,which ar e par ticular ly r e levant to tall buildings . In this par ticular cas e the appr oach is suppor ted.Othe r futur e applications in the ar ea willnee d to satis fy planning policy on the ir own m e r its as r equir ed at the tim e .


10/32

page 10

He ight

De sign should be scaled down to fit ar ea. Too tall and will c r eate an ove r bear ing canyon e ffec t on We s ton S tr ee t. Conce r ns r egar ding the s tyle and size of the pr oposal which is out of char ac te r with the

surr ounding buildings . A tall building zone of S t. Thomas S tr ee t would be anathe ma to ar tis tic and independent

char ac te r of the ar ea

44 Office r r e spons e : The pr opos ed he ight is cons ide r ed acce ptable . The he ight and impac t of the pr oposal on s tr ategic views and the cons e r vation ar ea has bee n conside r ed above and in r epor t PDU/2404a/01. Southwar k Council has also conside r ed the s e matt e r s at par agr aph 66-90 o f the office r r epor t

Feasibility Pr oposal is a pape r e xe r cis e to inc r eas e value of s ite and was the applicant has no intention of

building. Pr oposal cannot be built tec hnicallyor ec onom ically.

45 Office r r e spons e : Office r s have not comple ted a tec hnical analys is or ec onom ic r evie w of the sche m e , but have no r eason to be lieve it is not buildable . It has bee n ass e ss ed in te r m s of its planning m e r its and it is cons ide r ed acce ptable in the s e te r m s .

Light, nois e and wind Conce r ns r egar ding loss of light and the r e flec tion of nois e off the glass building back into the

cons e r vation ar ea. Conce r ned about nois e impac t on local r e s idents . The r e should be no cons tr uc tion dur ing at

night. It willdevalue pr ope r ty and ne ighbour hood bec aus e it will block out light, it willblight the

cons e r vation ar ea and mor e s tudents will c r eate nois e dis r uption. Conce r ned about cons tr uc tion nois e and dis r uption.

46 Office r comm ent: Cons tr uc tion manage m ent impac ts will be dealt with by condition(Condition 10 of the dr aft dec ision notice ). The othe r m ic r oclimate matt e r s have bee n cons ide r edby Southwar k Council at par agr aph 98-107 and a r e br oadly acce pted. The GLA also conside r ed the nois e implications in de tail as s e t out in r epor t PDU/2404a/01 (par agr aph 72-76).

Tr affic , par king and pub lic r ealm One s e r vice par king bay and two disabled par king bays ar e insufficient. Insufficient pr ovis ion for s e r vicing and de live r ie s , which will put s tr ain on near by r oads . The Shar d will r e sult in thousands of ne w wor ke r in the ar ea and s tr ee ts mus t be planned in a

way that willbe able to cope with this and enable local bus ine ss to ope r ate and thr ive . The public space at gr ound leve l is inadequate to suppor t the volum e of r e sidents . Surr ounding pave m ents ar e not wide enough for additional capacity. Dis r upts s tr ee t patt e r n and is contextualy inappr opr iate . High-r is e buildings r e move life fr om the space s be low the m . The plans do not pr ovide sufficient conside r ation of the loading and s e r vicing nee ds for the

sche m e . Alr eady los t one dir ec tion of tr affic due to Shar d, this will caus e unacce ptable leve l of

dis r uption to the ar ea.

C

once r

ned about t

r

affic i

mpa

ct and

cong

e stion

s.


11/32

page 11

47 Office r comm ent: TfL conside r s the pr ovision of two disabled par king space s to be in line with the r e levant London Plan policie s and also r e flec ts the leve l of pr ovis ion ass oc iated withs im ilar s tudent acc omm odation schem e s in Centr al London. In addition, the s ite will be car fr ee and r e s idents will be e xe mpt fr om applying for par king pe r m its . The par king pr ovision m ee ts London Plan par king s tandar ds and the r e for e confor m s with London Plan policy 3C.24 Par kings tr ategy and the consultation dr aft r eplace m ent London Plan policy 6.13 Par king.

48 I

nr e l

ati

onto

th

e s e r vici

ng of th

ed

eve lop

m en

t,

it is

pr

opos e

dtha

t th

e site

con

tain

sa

sing

le s e r vicing bay. It is TfLs vie w that this leve l of pr ovision is acce ptable given the daily tr ip

gene r ation char ac te r is tics of this deve lopm ent (i.e . 28 s e r vice vehicle tr ips ove r a typical week day).

49 It is also pr opos ed by the applicant and agr ee d by TfL and the council that the day-to-day s e r vicing of the building will be managed thr ough a Se r vic ing and Manage m ent Plan, this combined with a Se r vice Ope r ations Coor dinator , aim s to manage and m inim is e s e r vice vehicle conflic ts by us e of a booking sys te m , m inim is e any dis r uption to gene r al tr affic movem ent andmonitor the pr oce ss and implem ent impr ove m ents acc or dingly. The applicant has also pr epar ed acompr ehens ive s tudent move in/out s tr ategy, to ensur e that even at the busie s t of tim e s (i.e . s tar t and end of te r m ) the s e r vic ing and the ass ociated tr affic gene r ation will be managed and will m inim is e any potential de tr im ent to the local r oad ne twor k. In r e lation to s e r vicing of the site it is the r e for e TfLs vie w that the combination of m easur e s pr opos ed by the applicant and s ec ur ed by the council is sufficient and will m inim is e the impac t of the local highway ne twor k.

50 The council have s ec ur ed a r ange of impr ove m ents to the local pede s tr ian envir onm ent have bee n thr ough the Sec tion 106 ag r ee m ent. TfL conside r s that the pr ovision of public r ealm is sufficient and appr opr iate to the numbe r of r e s idents on site . TfL is the r e for e satis fied with the pr opos ed public r ealm pr ovision and impr ove m ents s ec ur ed by the council.

Inte r nal Layout The r oom s ar e too small and the building doe s not have an adequate numbe r of lifts / size of

lift to s e r vice the building. The r oom s ar e too e xpens ive .

51 Office r comm ents : The Mayor r ais ed sim ilar conce r n r egar ding som e of the contr ived r oom layouts and acce ss to lift facilitie s for disabled r e sidents . The s e matt e r s ar e cons ide r ed in the de sign and inclus ive acce ss s ec tion of this r epor t and ar e br oadly acce pted in this ins tance .

Comm unity and housing

The r e is no affor dable housing contr ibution Doe s not m ee t nee d for ne w hous e s Inte r national s tudents will not bene fit the local comm unity. Willdamage comm unity and local ec onomy

52 Office r comm ents : In the cir cum s tance s the r e is curr ently no r equir e m ent for affor dable housing. The pr inciple of s tudent acc omm odation with som e m inor r e tail pr ovis ion is suppor ted as s e t out in the consultation r e spons e r epor t PDU/2404a/01 par agr aph 15-30.

Consultation Consultee s have bee n fals e ly notified that the ir oppor tunity to comm ent will have pas t pr ior to

the e xpir y of the ir legal r ight to do so.

53 Office r comm ent: This is a matt e r for Southwar k Council. The Counc il identifies the scale of consultation in Appendix 1 of its r epor t.


12/32

page 12

Vie ws Disagr ee s with the deve lope r s vie w fr om Par liam ent Hill and be lieve s the deve lopm ent will

obscur e the vie w of S t. Pauls .

54 Office r r e spons e : This matt e r is conside r ed at par agr aph 37 above .

Kings College r e lationship to the deve lopm ent.

The client is m i

s rep

re

sented a

sKing

s College . Kings College have bee n m is r epr e s ented by the applicant as comm itting to leas ing the

building. The owne r ship of the s ite lies with a company in J e r s ey.

55 Office r r e spons e : The r e lationship of Kings College to the site is conside r ed in par agr aphs even of this r epor t and in par agr aph 47 to 51 of the Southwar k office r s r epor t.

Sus tainabilityand biodive r s ity Not ambitious enough r egar ding sus tainabilityand biodive r sity. The deve lopm ent should

include gr ey wate r sys te m .

56 Office r r e spons e : a summ ar y of the ene r gy s tr ategy is s e t out above in this r epor t. The natur e of the de s ign pr opos e s lim ited oppor tunity for gr ee n and br own r oofs . The applicant has confir m ed that the us e of gr ey wate r r ec ycling is not feasible . London Plan policy 4A.16 s eek s pr oposals to maxim is e r ainwate r har ve s ting oppor tunitie s . Whils t the r ainwate r har ve s ting has bee n r e jec ted, the applicant has comm itted to m ee ting the maximum wate r us e tar ge ts of 105litr es pe r pe r son pe r day.

Indigo planning on behalf of Thr eadnee dle Inve s tm ents (owne r s of Becke tt Hous e)

Mis r epr e s entation in applicants S tate m ent of Comm unity Involve m ent of conve r sations be twee n Indigo Planning and Dr ive r s Jonas De loitte and m is r epr e s entation of Thr eadnee dle Inve s tm ents vie w of the schem e .

Willpr e judice the r edeve lopm ent of the Becke tt Hous e s ite . The pr oposal doe s not ass e ss the combined impac t of the pr oposal and Becke tt Hous e . Pr opos ed schem e should be s e t back fr om the boundar y. Cumulative impac ts of the two deve lopm ents including daylight impac ts . Too much we ight att r ibuted to the BBLB SPD. The ability to imple m ent is que s tionable in r e spec t of building r egulations and par ty wall

agr ee m ents . Lack of EIA.

57 Office r r e spons e : the r e lationship to the adjace nt site is a matt e r cons ide r ed in r epor t PDU/2404a/01 (par agr aph 36). Whils t a joint appr oach to the site is pr e fe r able office r s cons ide r that r easonable conside r ation has bee n given to allow deve lopm ent of the adjace nt s ite .

Team London Br idge Gene r ally suppor tive ; pleas e to s ee pave m ent widths have bee n widened; pleas ed to s ee r e tail

space and ac tive fr ontage s - would we lcom e compar ison r e tail as oppos ed to coffee shopchains ;

Conce r n r egar ding ove r shadowing of r ailway ar che s would like to s ee ar ches r e s tor ed;conce r n ove r wind tunne lling; ar ea is curr ently poor ly lit- thought should be given to amount and quality of lighting.


13/32

page 13

Reques t that deve lope r s liais e with the Council about linking gr ee n space s; deve lope r shouldcomm it to legible London s ignage s tr ategy; deve lopm ent should pr ovide for comm unity facilitie s ; s tr e ss the impor tance of the ne w s tation entr ance pr opos ed onto S t. Thomas S tr ee t.

In s uppor t

Local r es idents

The de s ign is outs tanding and will comple m ent the Shar d; will be anothe r iconic building. S tudent acc omm odation will hope fully lend much nee ded suppor t to the local ec onomy. Pos itive to s ee deve lopm ent in the r ece ss ion when the cons tr uc tion indus tr y is suffe r ing; High quality de s ign which is be tt e r than the or iginal which will wor k we ll with surr oundings Good site for s tudents of Kings college and will br ing young people with spending powe r to

the ar ea.

Guys and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Tr us t

The tr us t r egis te r s its br oad suppor t; w e lcom e s the r egene r ation of the site and cons ide r s

pr opos ed high quality s tudent acc omm odation will enhance the ar ea; they ar e wor king with the deve lope r r egar ding the impac t of the deve lopm ent dur ing the de molition and cons tr uc tionphas e ; Inve s tr eam has acce pted a S106 c laus e to addr e ss the Tr us ts conce r ns .

Pr es ident of Connaught Halls Re s idents Comm ittee 2008-2009

It is r e fr e shing to s ee a ne w appr oach to s tudent acc omm odation Avoids comm on pr oble m of s tudent acc omm odation lack of pr oxim ity to college s . Inte r nal layout, comm unal ar eas and choice of r oom type pr ais ed. Pr ovide safe and s ec ur e envir onm ent. Cr eation of ne w e xte r nal public space is we lcom ed. Exte r nal appear ance should be pr ais ed for its ar chitec tur al e xce llence .

Se llar deve lopm ents : Pr oposal is in acc or dance with aspir ations for m ixed-us e r egene r ation for this par t of London. De sign and for m will complim ent the m ixed-us e natur e ar ound London Br idge . Suppor t the us e , as it will pr ovide s tudent acc omm odation on the e xis ting campus

Kings College The College curr ently leas e the building fr om Inve s team ; it has an ur gent and pr e ss ing nee d for

s tudent acc omm odation to suppor t the College s S tr ategic Plan and this application will ass is t inde live r ing this .

Kings College will continue to wor k with Inve s tr eam as the sche m e com e s for war d. We have not s tated that the pr oposal willneve r be built as alleged by BVAG.

S umm a ry o f re pr e s e n t a t ion s

58 The r epr es entations r ece ived by Southwar k Council and the Mayor do not r ais e any mate r ial planning iss ue s of s tr ategic impor tance that have not bee n conside r ed by the Mayor at the consultation s tage and/or in this r epor t. Som e of the objec tions r ais ed in r e lation to pr oce dur al matt e r s conce r n iss ue s that ar e beyond the Mayor 's s tatutor y planning r em it and ar e be s t cons ide r ed by the appr opr iate s tatutor y bodie s .


14/32

page 14

A r t ic le 7 : D ire c t ion tha t the Ma yor is to be t he lo c a l p la nnin g a u t hor it y

59 Unde r Ar ticle 7 of the Or de r the Mayor could take ove r this application pr ovided the policy te s ts s e t out in that Ar ticle ar e m e t. In this ins tance the Council has r e solved to gr ant pe r m iss ionwith conditions and a planning obligation, which satis fac tor ily addr e ss e s the matt e r s r ais ed at s tage I, the r e for e the r e is no sound planning r eason for the Mayor to take ove r this application.

Le ga l c on s ide ra t ion s 60 Unde r the arr angem ents s e t out in Ar ticle 5 of the Town and Countr y Planning (Mayor of London) Or de r 2008 the Mayor has the powe r unde r Ar ticle 6 to dir ec t the local planning author ity to r e fus e pe r m iss ion for a planning application r e fe rr ed to him unde r Ar ticle 4 of the Or de r . He also has the powe r to iss ue a dir ec tion unde r Ar ticle 7 that he is to ac t as the local planningauthor ity for the pur pos e of de te r m ining the application and any connec ted application. The Mayor may also leave the dec is ion to the local author ity. In dir ec ting r e fusal the Mayor mus t have r egar d to the matt e r s s e t out in Ar ticle 6(2) of the Or de r , including the pr inc ipal pur pos e s of the Gr eate r London Author ity, the e ffec t on health and sus tainable deve lopm ent, national polic ies andinte r national obligations , r egional planning guidance , and the us e of the Rive r Tham e s . The Mayor m

ay dir ec

t r e

fusal if h

e con

sid

e r s that to g

r

ant pe r m

iss

ionw

ould be cont

r

ar

y to goodst

r

ategi

c planning in Gr eate r London. If he dec ide s to dir ec t r e fusal, the Mayor mus t s e t out his r easons ,

and the local planning author ity mus t iss ue the s e with the r e fusal notice . If the Mayor dec ide s todir ec t that he is to be the local planning author ity, he mus t have r egar d to the matt e r s s e t out inAr ticle 7(3) and s e t out his r easons in the dir ec tion. The Mayor mus t also have r egar d to the guidance s e t out in GOL cir cular 1/2008 when dec iding whe the r or not to iss ue a dir ec tion unde r Ar tic les 6 or 7.

Fin a n c ia l c on s ide ra t ion s

61 Should the Mayor dir ec t r e fusal, he would be the pr incipal par ty at any subs equent appeal hear ing or public inquir y. Gove r nm ent guidance in Cir cular 03/2009 ( C o s t s Aw a r d s i n App e al s a nd O t h e r Pla nn i n g P r o c ee d i n g s ) e mphas is e s that par tie s usually pay the ir own expens e s ar isingfr om an appeal.

62 Following an inquir y caus ed by a dir ec tion to r e fus e , cos ts may be awar ded agains t the Mayor if he has e ithe r dir ec ted r e fusal unr easonably; handled a r e fe rr al fr om a planning author ity unr easonably; or behaved unr easonably dur ing the appeal. Amajor fac tor in dec iding whe the r the Mayor has ac ted unr easonably willbe the extent to which he has take n acc ount of e s tablishedplanning policy.

63 Should the Mayor take ove r the application he would be r e spons ible for holding ar epr e s entation hear ing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be r e spons ible for de te r m ining any r e s e r ved matt e r s applications (unle ss he dir ec ts the counc il to do so) andde te r m ining any appr oval of de tails (unle ss the council agr ee s to do so).

Con c lu s ion

64 The application will pr ovide we lcom e pr ovision of s tudent acc omm odation as par t of the Kings College campus in a highly acce ss ible ar ea. The pr oposal is br oadly consis tent with the London Plan.


15/32

page 15

for fur the r infor mation, contac t Planning Dec is ions Unit:Co lin W ils on , S e nior Ma na ge r P la nnin g D e c is ion s 020 7983 4783 email colin.wilson@ london.gov.uk J u s t in Ca rr , S t ra t e g ic P la nnin g Ma na ge r (D e v e lop me n t D e c is ion s ) 020 7983 4895 email jus tin.carr @ london.gov.uk Gemm a Ke nda ll, Ca s e O ff ic e r 020 7983 6592 email gemm a.ke ndall@ london.gov.uk


16/32

page 16

p la nnin g re por t P D U / 2404 a / 01

4 N ov em be r 2010

40 -46 W e s ton S t ree t , Londo n B ridg e in t he Londo n B oro ugh o f S ou thwa rk

P la nnin g a pp lic a t ion no . 10 -A P -2754

S t ra t e g ic p la nnin g a pp lic a t ion s t a ge 1 re fe rr a l (ne w po w e r s )

Town & Countr y Planning Ac t 1990 (as am ended); Gr eate r London Author ity Ac ts 1999 and

2007; Tow

n&

C

ountry Planning (Mayo

r

of London) Or

de r

2008The propo s a l

De molition of Capital Hous e , and e r ec tion of a 21 and 31- s tor ey building (108.8m AOD),topr ovide 470 s tudent acc omm odation units with ancillar y bar , gym and libr ar y. Thr ee r e tail / cafe units (286 sq.m .) at gr ound floor leve l. The pr oposal include s 261 cycle par king space s , twoacce ss ible car par king space s , one s e r vice bay at the bas e m ent leve l and ass ociated r e fus e andr ec ycling and an a r ea of public open space .

The a pp lic a n t

The applicant is Inv e s t re a m , and the ar chitec t is S PP A R C . S t ra t e g ic iss ue s

The main iss ue is whe the r the pr inc iple of the deve lopm ent to pr ovide a s t ude n t hou s in g -ledm ixed-us e deve lopm ent is acce ptable in s tr ategic planning policy te r m s given that is will r e sult ina loss of B 1 a o ff ic e s pa c e in an ar ea whe r e such loss should be r e s is ted.

The de sign is br oadly consis tent with the London Plan de sign polic ies r egar ding s t ra t e g ic v ie w s but not with policy r egar ding in c lu s iv e de s ign . Fur the r infor mation is r equir ed r egar dingc lim a t e c ha nge m it iga t ion a nd a da p t a t ion and t ra n s por t .

R e c omme nda t ion That Southwar k Counc il be advis ed that the application doe s not comply with the London Plan,for the r easons s e t out in par agr aph 91 o f this r epor t; but that the poss ible r e m edie s s e t out inpar agr aph 92 o f this r epor t could addr e ss the s e de ficiencie s .

Con t ex t

1 On 30 Septembe r 2010 the Mayor of London r ece ived docum ents fr om Southwar k Council notifying him of a planning application of potential s tr ategic impor tance to deve lop the above s ite for the above us e s . Unde r the pr ovis ions of The Town & Countr y Planning (Mayor of London) Or de r 2008 the Mayor has until 10 Nove mbe r 2010 to pr ovide the Council with as tate m ent s e tting out whe the r he conside r s that the application complies with the London Plan,


17/32

page 17

and his r easons for taking that vie w. The Mayor may also pr ovide othe r comm ents . This r epor t s e ts out infor mation for the Mayor s us e in dec iding what dec ision to make .

2 The application is r e fe r able unde r Categor y 1C of the Schedule to the Or de r 2008:

D e v e

lo p m e

n t w

h i c

h c

o m

p r

i s e s

o r

i n c

lu d e s

t h

e e r e c t

io n o f a b uil d i n g o

f o n

e o

r

m

o r e

o f t h

e f ollo w i n g d e sc r i p t io n s t h e b uil d i n g i s m o r e t h a n 30 m et r e s h ig h a nd i s ou t s i d e t h e C i t y o f

Lo nd o n.

3 Once Southwar k Council has r esolved to de te r m ine the application, it is r equir ed to r e fe r it back to the Mayor for his dec ision as to whe the r to dir ec t r e fusal; take it ove r for his ownde te r m ination; or allow the Council to de te r m ine it its e lf.

4 The Mayor of Londons s tate m ent on this cas e will be made available on the GLAw ebs ite www .london.gov.uk.

S it e de s c rip t ion

5 The 0.0912 hec tar e r ec tangular s ite is located oppos ite London Br idge S tation. It is withinthe London Br idge and Bankside Oppor tunity Ar ea, as identified in the London Plan, and the Centr al Ac tivitie s Zone (CAZ). It is bound to the nor th by S t Thomas S tr ee t, to the we s t by We s tonS tr ee t and to the south by Me lior S tr ee t. The r e is a m ix of m edium and high-r is e buildings in the ar ea, of par ticular r e fe r ence is the 34-s tor ey Guys Hospital towe r and the e m e r ging Shar d of Glass , curr ently unde r cons tr uc tion.

6 S t. Thomas S tr ee t is par t of the Tr anspor t for London r oad ne twor k. The s ite has a public tr anspor t acce ss ibility leve l (PTAL) of 6 on a scale of 1 to 6, whe r e 6 is mos t acce ss ible . LondonBr idge mainline r ail and unde r gr ound s tation, s e r ved by the J ubilee and Nor the r n line s , is locatedwithin 100 m e tr e s of the site . The near e s t bus s top, adjace nt to the deve lopm ent, is s e r ved by twobus s e r vice s . London Br idge s tation is also s e r ved by a numbe r of bus s e r vice s .

7 The site compr is es of Capital Hous e , a 1960s 10-s tor ey building with a total floor space of 4,079 sq.m ., and a small ar ea of public space . The building is occ upied by Kings College Londonand hous e s its educational suppor t office s which pr ovide ass is tance in conjunc tion with the maineducational ac tivitie s which take place ac r oss the diffe r ent campus e s be longing to the unive r sity.219 people ar e e mployed within the building.

D e t a ils o f t he propo s a l

8 Full planning pe r m iss ion is sought for the de molition of Capital Hous e and the cons tr uc tion of a 21 and 31- s tor ey building with 14,738 sq.m . of floor space , to pr ovide 470s tudent acc omm odation units with an ancillar y gym , bar and libr ar y. At gr ound floor leve l the r e will be 286 sq.m . of r e tail / cafe space split into thr ee s epar ate units . The entr ance lobby and r ece ptionfor the s tudent acc omm odation willalso be located on the gr ound floor .

9 At bas e m ent leve l the r e will be 261 cycle space s , two blue badge par king space s and as e r vice bay to be acce ss ed via Me lior S tr ee t us ing a car lift or fr om the main lift cor e to the nor thof the building. The pr opos ed schem e also include s the c r eation a ne w public open space fr ontingWe s ton S tr ee t.


18/32

page 18

Ca s e hi s tor y

10 On 27 Mar ch 2009 a p r e -application m ee ting was he ld with GLA office r s to discuss the r edeve lopm ent of the s ite . A follow-up m ee ting was he ld on 30 July 2009 to discuss des ign, acce ss and tr anspor t iss ues in mor e depth.

11 On 22 Febr uar y 2010 the Mayor conside r ed a s tage I r epor t on an application for a s im ilar pr oposal: the de molition of Capital Hous e , and the e r ec tion of a 31-s tor ey building (114.15m ) topr ovide 525 s tudent acc omm odation units with ancillar y bar , gym , libr ar y and 371 sq.m . of comm e r cial space at gr ound leve l. The r epor t br oadly suppor ted the pr inc iple of the deve lopm ent and the de sign. The pr evious sche m e has bee n withdr awn and this application is e ss entially r evis ion of that pr evious sche m e .

S t ra t e g ic p la nnin g iss ue s a nd re le v a n t po lic ie s a nd guida n c e

12 The r e levant iss ue s and corr e sponding policie s ar e as follows:

Mix of us e s Lo nd o n Pla n Housing Lo nd o n Pla n; PP S 3; H ou s i n g S PG ; P r o v i d i n g f o r C h il d r e n a nd

Y ou n g P e o p l e s Play a nd I n f o r m al Re c r e a t io n S PG , H ou s i n g S t r a te gy ; r e v i s e d i n te r i m H ou s i n g S P ; H ou s i n g S P D E I P d r a ft

Ur ban de s ign Lo nd o n Pla n; PP S 1 Tall buildings / vie ws Lo nd o n Pla n; R PG 3A, Re v i s e d V i e w M a n ag e m e n t F r a m e w o r k S PG Inclusive de s ign Lo nd o n Pla n; PP S 1; Acc e ss i b l e Lo nd o n: a c h i e v i n g a n i n c lu s i v e

e n v i r o n m e n t S PG ; Pla nn i n g a nd Acc e ss f o r D i s a b l e d P e o p l e : a goo d p r a c t i c e gui d e (OD P M)

Climate Change Lo nd o n Pla n; PP S 1, PP S 3; PPG 13; PP S 22; t h e M ayo r s En e r gy S t r a te gy ; S u s t ai n a b l e D e s ig n a nd C o n s t r u c t io n S PG

Ambient nois e Lo nd o n Pla n; t h e M ayo r s Am b i e n t N oi s e S t r a te gy ; PPG 24 Tr anspor t Lo nd o n Pla n; t h e M ayo r s T r a n s p o r t S t r a te gy ; d r a ft r e p la c e m e n t

T r a n s p o r t S t r a te gy ; PPG 13;

13 For the pur pos es of Sec tion 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsor y Pur chas e Ac t 2004, the deve lopm ent plan in for ce for the ar ea is the Southwar k Unitar y Deve lopm ent Plan (2007), and the London Plan (consolidated with alte r ations since 2004).

14 The Mayor s consultation dr aft r eplace m ent London Plan (Oc tobe r 2009, the Southwar k Cor e S tr ategy Pr e fe rr ed Options docum ent and the Dr aft Banks ide , Bor ough and London Br idge Supple m entar y Planning Docum ent (SPD) ar e also mate r ial cons ide r ations .

Mix o f u s e s

15 As s tated above the Mayor cons ide r ed an application for a ve r y sim ilar , albe it s lightly lar ge r ,deve lopm ent on the sam e s ite in Febr uar y 2010 and h e was gene r ally suppor tive of the pr opos edm ix of us e s pr opos ed for the s ite . The r ationale for suppor ting the pr opos ed m ixed r e mains lar ge ly the sam e and is s e t out be low.

16 The site is located within the London Br idge and Bankside Oppor tunity Ar ea as identified inthe London Plan. London Plan Policy 5D.2 indicate s that deve lopm ents in oppor tunity ar eas inSoutheas t London should maxim is e r e s idential and non- r e sidential dens itie s and contain m ixedus e s . Sim ilar ly, the dr aft r eplace m ent London Plan s tate s that the r e is sc o p e t o d e v e lo p t h e s t r e n g t h s o f t h e a r e a f o r s t r a te gi c o ff i c e p r o v i s io n a s w e ll a s h ou s i n g .


19/32


20/32


21/32


22/32


23/32


24/32

page 24

att ended a s ite visit to walk this par ticular vie w and it is evident that the impac t willbe slight andthat the pr oposal would no longe r be visible once one appr oaches the gr ee n and app r ec iate s the Quee ns Hous e . The de s ign r ationale and m e thodology to suppor t this analysis is br oadly unde r s tood. The s e tting of the Wor ld He r itage Site is pr e s e r ved in this ins tance .

48 The

ass e ss m e

nt highlights that f

r

om

ke

y st

r

ategi

c vi

e wsand f

r

om

vie ws

fr

om

w

ithin the Wor ld He r itage Site , the impac t is slight, and has bee n managed in acc or dance with the visual

manage m ent guidance in the LVMF and the London Plan. On this basis the ass e ss m ent of vie ws suppor ts the appr oach adopted by the des ign team to pr e s e r ve the cons e r vation inte r e s ts ands tr ategic vie ws that ar e affec ted in this ins tance .

For m / ar chitec tur al appear ance

49 London Plan policy 4B.1 and 4B.2 unde r pin the Mayor s aspir ation to c r eate wor ld class ar chitec tur e that inspir e s , e xc ite s and de lights . The building r e mains s tr iking in te r m s of the form and ar chitec tur al appear ance . Notwiths tanding the implications to the layout, the intr oduc tion of acut within the mass ing at leve l 8 upwar ds and c r eations of br idge links pr ovide s fur the r inte r e s t into the for m of the building which br eaks the mass of the pr evious des ign when view ed fr om the eas te r n e levation in par ticular . The mate r ials , a m ix of s tee l and glass , extr ude fr om the pinnacle tailing off to for m the ar chitec ts des ign r ationale of the lace wor k of the quill which is contr astedwith the much mor e r obus t gr id s tr uc tur e for mation of the lowe r par ts of the e levation. The r esult is a building with a unique composition, with a s tr iking r oof for m and an a r chitec tur al appear ance of the highe s t or de r , consis tent with the aspir ations of the London Plan.

Figur e 1: View fr om Me lior Place within the Be r monds ey Str ee t Cons e r vation Ar ea of pr evious and new pr oposal


25/32

page 25

Figur e 2: View looking nor th-w e s t on St Thomas S tr ee t at night of the pr evious and new pr oposal

Figur e 3: View looking nor th fr om We s ton Str ee t of pr evious and new pr oposal

(Sour ce : SPPARC Ar chitec tur e de s ign and acce ss s tatem ent)

Layouts

50 The layout of the building r e mains be spoke but has significantly changed and consolidated

due to the intr oduc tion of a br eak in the for m fr om the or iginal proposals that cuts fr om leve l 8upwar ds . The building is linke d at leve l 12, 16 and 20 b y an enclos ed br idge link, which whils t s tr iking ar chitec tur ally, r e sults in a s ignificant r educ tion in floor space and potentially compr om ise s the func tions of the building in te r m s of its e fficiency and func tion.

51 In par ticular the r e ar e now two cor e s s e r ved by one pass enge r lift in each cas e and a muchtighte r arr ange m ent of r oom s with the intr oduc tion of a s ingle aspec t nor th facing, ve r y contr ivedr oom , (r e fe r ence d as r oom 7, 8, 9, 11, 26 and 27 on the floor plans) located in the nor th block .The c ir culation of the building was pr evious ly r easonably we ll conside r ed given the for m adopted,howeve r , the layout is now compr om is ed. The lim ited lift acce ss m eans that when one lift is be ingmaintained or has br oke n down, s tudents , in par ticular disabled s tudents may have to negotiate

thr ee floor s to cir culate the building. Disabled r oom s should be located on floor s that have acce ss to both nor th and south block s , and consolidated to ensur e this sce nar io is avoided. Fur the r mor e the laundr y space is inacce ss ible for disabled us e r s on the major ity of floor s above leve l 6. The


26/32


27/32

page 27

58 Howeve r , the significant r ede s ign of the inte r nal layout on the uppe r floor s has r ais ed anumbe r of ne w acce ss iss ues . As s e t out in mor e depth in par agr aphs 51 to 54 of this r epor t, the ne w cor e arr ange m ent will r equir e disabled s tudents to negotiate thr ee floor s to cir culate the building when lifts ar e br oke n or r equir e maintenance . Fur the r mor e , acce ss ible laundr y facilitie s ar e only pr ovided on floor s two to six of the building and all the des ignated acce ss ible laundr y facilitie s

ar e too small to be conside r ed r ealis tically acce ss ible . The floor space is lim ited to the m inimum space r equir ed for whee lchair us e r s to tur n, which would m ean that whee lchair us e r s would be unable to us e the facilitie s if othe r s tudents we r e us ing the laundr y or le ft be longings on the floor .The curr ent des ign is ne ithe r genuine ly acce ss ible nor inclus ive .

59 The pr oposal doe s not comply with London Plan Policie s 4B.5 or 3A.5Genuine ly acce ss ible laundr y facilitie s should be pr ovided on eve r y floor with an acce ss ible r oom . As discuss ed above ,the s ingle aspec t nor th facing r oom could be los t to acc omm odate such fac ilitie s . Fur the r mor e ,acce ss ible r oom s should be located on floor s that have acce ss to both nor th and south lifts .

Clim a t e Cha nge

Clim a t e c ha nge m it iga t ion

Ene r gy e fficiency s tandar ds

60 A r ange of pass ive de sign featur e s and de mand r educ tion m easur e s ar e pr opos ed to r educe the car bon e m iss ions of the pr opos ed deve lopm ent. Heat loss par am e te r s will be impr oved beyondm inimum r equir e m ents . Othe r featur e s include ene r gy e fficient lighting, heat r ec ove r y and us e of natur al ventilation whe r e appr opr iate .

61 The deve lopm ent is e s timated to e m it 705 tonne s of CO2 pe r annum afte r the applicationof ene r gy e fficiency m easur e s . Bas ed on the infor mation pr ovided, it doe s not appear that the

pr opos ed deve lopm ent willachieve any car bon savings fr om ene r gy e fficiency alone compar ed to a2010 Building Regulations compliant deve lopm ent.

62 Using 2010 Building Regulations compliance softwar e , the applicant should mode l, andcomm it to, additional m easur e s that can be adopted to enable the deve lopm ent to e xcee d 2010Building Regulations compliance thr ough ene r gy e fficiency alone .

63 The annual tonne s of r egulated car bon dioxide e m iss ions afte r all ene r gy e ffic iency m easur e s ar e applied, and at the othe r s tage s of the ene r gy hie r ar chy, should be pr ovided. The savings r e lative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant deve lopm ent fr om ene r gy e fficiency alone should also be pr ovided.

Dis tr ic t heating64 The applicant should inve s tigate whe the r the r e ar e any e xis ting or planned dis tr ic t heatingne twor ks within the vic inity of the deve lopm ent. Whe r e such a ne twor k is identified connec tionshould be pr ior itis ed. The applicant has confir m ed that pr ovis ion will be made within the de s ign toallow futur e connec tion to e xte r nal dis tr ic t heating ne twor ks .

65 The applicant should pr ovide fur the r de tails of the space heating and dom e s tic hot wate r sys tem s pr opos ed for the building. It should also be confir m ed that all bedr oom s and othe r building us e s will be connec ted to the s ite s heat ne twor k infr as tr uc tur e .

Co

mb

in

ed H

eat

andP

owe r

66 The applicant is pr opos ing the ins tallation of a 110kWe CHP unit m ee ting appr oximate ly 70% of the the r mal load of the s ite . This is pr ojec ted to r educe CO2 e m iss ions by 208 tonnes pe r


28/32

page 28

annum , to 497 tonne s of CO2 pe r annum . This equates to a r educ tion of 30% . The ins tallation of CHP should be s ec ur ed by condition.

Cooling

67 The applicant should pr ovide fur the r de tails of the pass ive m easur e s planned to r educe the nee d for ac tive cooling in the deve lopm ent, and how the r e sidual ac tive cooling load will be m e t.

Renewable ene r gy tec hnologies

68 The applicant has inve s tigated the applicabilityof var ious r enewable tec hnologie s and is pr oposing the ins tallation of 200 sq.m . of photovoltaic pane ls . The applicant should pr ovide fur the r de tails r egar ding the location of the pane ls , the e lec tr icity output and car bon savings . The m inimum amount of PV pane l ar ea should be s ec ur ed by condition.

69 Fur the r infor mation is r equir ed to de te r m ine whe the r the application complies with LondonPlan Policie s 4A.3-4A.7. The applicant should pr ovide the r egulated car bon dioxide e m iss ions intonne s pe r annum afte r the cumulative e ffec t of ene r gy e fficiency, CHP and r ene wable ene r gy andthe cumulative annual CO2 savings , in tonnes and pe r ce ntage points , r e lative to a 2010 BuildingRegulations compliant deve lopm ent should also be pr ovided.

Clim a t e c ha nge a da p t a t ion

70 The London Plan pr omote s five pr inciple s in policy 4A.9 to pr omote and suppor t the mos t e ffec tive adaptation to climate change . The s e ar e to m inim is e ove r heating and contr ibution to

heat is land e ffec ts , m inim is e solar gain in summ e r , contr ibute to flood r is k r educ tions , inc ludingapplying sus tainable dr ainage pr inciple s , m inim is e wate r us e and pr otec t and enhance gr ee ninfr as tr uc tur e . Spec ific policie s cove r ove r heating, living r oofs and walls and wate r . Chapte r 5 of the dr aft r eplace m ent London Plan conside r s climate change adaptation, spec ifically polic ie s 5.9thr ough to policy 5.15.

71 The pr evious s tage I ack nowledged that due the us e of photovoltaic pane ls and de sign of the r oof, it was not poss ible to include gr ee n r oofs in the deve lopm ent. Fur the r mor e , the applicant was as ke d to put wate r e fficient fittings into the deve lopm ent to lim it the maximum wate r us e to105 litr e s pe r pe r son pe r day. Due to the r ede sign of the pr oposal, the applicant has now bee n able to include a small gr ee n r oof be twee n the two e lem ents of the building. Fur the r mor e , the applicant

has

now

co

mmitt

ed to

r edu

ce w

ate r

us e

to le ss

than 110 litr e s

pe r

pe r s

on pe r

day.The application br oadly complie s with London Plan Policy 4A.9 but the applicant should comm it tor educe wate r us e to le ss than 105 litr e s pe r pe r son pe r day to br ing the pr oposal in line withLondon Plan Policy 4A.16.

Am b ie n t no is e

72 London Plan Policy 4A.20, the Mayor s ambient nois e s tr ategy and PPG24 Pla nn i n g a nd n oi s e pr ovide policy guidance that s eek s to m inim is e nois e and it impac ts . In par ticular , Policy 4A.20 r equir e s that nois e impac ts on of fr om deve lopm ents should be m inim is ed and that nois e s ens itive deve lopm ent should be s epar ated fr om major sour ce s of nois e wheneve r pr ac ticable .Separ ation can include locating habitable r oom s on quie te r facade s , with non-habitable place s onthe facade s adjace nt to the major sour ce .


29/32


30/32

page 30

pr opos ed bas e m ent cyc le par king should be we ll lit and cove r ed by CCTV, it should also not compr om is e inclusive acce ss . The pr oposal to r evie w the amount of cycle par king as par t of the tr ave l plan is suppor ted, how eve r , clar ification is r equir ed as to whe the r the r e is adequate space available for any futur e pr ovis ion of cyc le par king.

80 The saf

egua

r

ding of land on the

application

sit

e to a

cco

mmodat

ea 16-bi

cy

cle

dock

ings tation is we lcom ed. Howeve r , given the r ising demands for the cycle hir e sche m e ac r oss ce ntr al London, TfL r eque s t that a lar ge r dock ing s tation with a capac ity of 25 bicyc les is mor e suitable . Acontr ibution of 132,000 towar ds e s tablishing a cycle hir e facility to s e r ve this s ite is r equir ed.

81 The safeguar ding of this land and ass ociated contr ibution, in conjunc tion with the bas e m ent cycle par king s ec ur ity m easur e s would ensur e the pr oposal complie s with London Planpolicy 3C.22 I m p r o v i n g c o nd i t io n s f o r c y c li n g and dr aft r eplace m ent London Plan policy 6.9 C y c li n g .

82 The car -fr ee natur e of the deve lopm ent, with the exce ption of two disabled par kingspace s , is in line with London Plan policy 3C.24 Pa r k i n g s t r a te gy and the consultation dr aft r eplace m ent London Plan policy 6.13 Pa r k i n g . The dec is ion to pr ohibit car owne r ship as par t of the s tudent tenancy agr ee m ent is suppor ted. This should be s ec ur ed thr ough an app r opr iate planning obligation.

83 The applicants comm itm ent to pr oduce a cons tr uc tion logis tics plan in or de r to m itigate any adve r s e impac ts of additional cons tr uc tion tr affic on the Tr anspor t for London r oad ne twor k or local highway ne twor k is we lcom ed. TfL mus t appr ove all cons tr uc tion acce ss r oute s and acce ss de tails pr ior to the comm ence m ent of any wor ks . The subm iss ion of a s e r vicing manage m ent planas par t of this application is also we lcom ed.

84 The pr ovis ion of a s tudent move / move out s tr ategy is suppor ted. How eve r , the applicant is r eques ted to clar ify whe the r contingency plans ar e in place should arr iving s tudents arr ive on s ite late r or ear lie r than the ir allott ed tim e due to unfor e s ee n cir cum s tance s . The r e is conce r n as to the feas ibilityof the s tudents be longings be ing fully unloaded and for the ass ociated vehic le to have le ft the s ite within the allowed 20 m inute s . Fur the r mor e , whils t the us e local car par ks to move as am easur e to move s tudents /par ents on is we lcom ed, clar ification on whe the r the r e will be ince ntive s / discount par king for thos e par ents who nee d a longe r tim e pe r iod than the ir allocateds lot is r equir ed. The us e of mone tar y ince ntive s can encour age people to move away fr om the deve lopm ent mor e quick ly. It is r ec omm ended that the s e ince ntive s ar e included within the s e r vice manage m ent plan.

85 To ensur e the deve lopm ent complie s with London Plan policie s 3C.17 T a c k li n g c o n g e s t io n

a nd r e d u c i n g t r a ff i c

and 3C.25

F r e ig h t s t r a te gy

and the consultation dr aft r eplace m ent LondonPlan policy 6.14 F r e ig h t , the cons tr uc tion and logis tic plan and s e r vice manage m ent plan mus t be s ec ur ed by planning condition in consultation with TfL.

86 The applicant is r equir ed to make a numbe r of change s to the subm itted Tr ave l Plan. Anass e ss m ent, which identifie s r equir ed impr ove m ents , will be for war ded to the applicant s epar ate ly.The tr ave l plan mus t be s ec ur ed, enfor ce d, monitor ed, r evie wed and funded thr ough the Sec tion106 agr ee m ent.

87 Fur the r infor mation is r equir ed and a numbe r of iss ue s mus t be addr e ss ed for the pr oposal to comply with London Plan tr anspor t policy.

Lo c a l p la nnin g a u thor itys po s it ion

88 As ye t unknown.


31/32

page 31

Le ga l c on s ide ra t ion s

89 Unde r the arr angem ents s e t out in Ar tic le 4 of the Town and Countr y Planning (Mayor of London) Or de r 2008 the Mayor is r equir ed to pr ovide the local planning author ity with a s tate m ent s e tting out whe the r he cons ide r s that the application complie s with the London Plan, and his r easons for taking that view . Unle ss notified othe r wis e by the Mayor , the Council mus t consult the Mayor again unde r Ar tic le 5 of the Or de r if it subs equently r e solve s to make a dr aft dec ision on the application, in or de r that the Mayor may dec ide whe the r to allow the dr aft dec is ion to pr ocee dunchanged, or dir ec t the Council unde r Ar ticle 6 of the Or de r to r e fus e the application, or iss ue adir ec tion unde r Ar ticle 7 of the Or de r that he is to ac t as the local planning author ity for the pur pos e of de te r m ining the application and any connec ted application. The r e is no obligation at this pr e s ent s tage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions r egar ding a poss ible dir ec tion, and nosuch dec is ion should be infe rr ed fr om the Mayor s s tate m ent and comm ents .

Fin a n c ia l c on s ide ra t ion s

90 The r e ar e no financial conside r ations at this s tage .Con c lu s ion

91 London Plan polic ies on ar e s tudent hous ing, ur ban de s ign, tall buildings , vie ws ,acce ss , climate change m itigation and adap tation, ambient nois e , and tr anspor t ar e r e levant to this application. The applicant complie s with som e of the s e polic ies but not with othe r s , for the following r easons :

P rin c ip le o f de v e lop me n t : In this ins tance , the applicant has adequate ly jus tified the loss of the B1a office space on the s ite and the pr ovision of s tudent housing is acce ptable in

pr

incipl

e, giv

en th

e st

r

ategi

cn

eed fo

r

su

ch fa

ciliti

e s in th

e lo

cal a

r ea. Th

ep

r

oposal complie s with London Plan Policy 3A.25.

S t ude n t hou s in g : The pr oposal br oadly complie s with London Plan Policy if anappr opr iate S106 agr ee m ent claus e , which r e s tr ic t the us e of acc omm odation for full tim e highe r education s tudents only and that the acc omm odation will be le t at a r ent no gr eate r than r ents for compar able s tudent housing.

Urb a n de s ign , t a ll buil d in g s a nd v ie w s : Whils t the e xte r nal appear ance of the buildingr e mains of the highe s t or de r and consis tent with the LVMF, the impac t of the change s tothe inte r nal layout, acce ss to lifts for disabled people and acce ss ible laundr y facilities andgene r al cir culation space is poor and should be r ec onside r ed be for e the application is r e

fe rr e

d back

to the

Mayor

for

final dete r m

ination. In c lu s iv e de s ign : The pr oposal doe s not comply with London Plan Policie s 4B.5 or 3A.5 Clim a t e Cha nge m it iga t ion a nd a da p t a t ion : Fur the r infor mation is r equir ed to

de te r m ine whe the r the application complie s with London Plan Policie s 4A.3-4A.7 The application br oadly complie s with London Plan climate change adaptation policy.

A m b ie n t N o is e : The pr oposal br oadly complie s with London Plan Policy 4A.20. Tr a n s por t : Fur the r infor mation is r equir ed and a numbe r of iss ue s mus t be addr e ss ed for

the pr oposal to comply with London Plan tr anspor t policy.

92 On balance , the application doe s not comply with the London Plan Policy. The followingchange s m ight, how eve r , r e m edy the above -m entioned de ficiencie s , and could poss ibly lead to the application bec om ing compliant with the London Plan:


32/32

S t ude n t hou s in g : An appr opr iate S106 agr ee m ent claus e , which r e s tr ic t the us e of acc omm odation for full tim e highe r education s tudents only and that the acc omm odationwill be le t at a r ent no gr eate r than r ents for compar able s tudent hous ing should be attached to any pe r m iss ion.

Urb a n de s ign : The de sign team should r evis it the curr ent arr ange m ent for disableds tudents r egar ding acce ss to lifts and laundr y facilities , and the natur e of cir culation space on typical floor s above leve l 6.

In c lu s iv e de s ign : Genuine ly acce ss ible laundr y facilitie s should be pr ovided on eve r y floor with an acce ss ible r oom . As discuss ed above , the single aspec t nor th facing r oom could be los t to acc omm odate such fac ilitie s . Fur the r mor e , acce ss ible r oom s should be located onfloor s that have acce ss to both nor th and south lifts .

Clim a t e Cha nge m it iga t ion a nd a da p t a t ion : The applicant should pr ovide the r egulatedcar bon dioxide em iss ions in tonne s pe r annum afte r the cumulative e ffec t of ene r gy e ffic iency, CHP and r ene wable ene r gy and the cumulative annual CO2 savings , in tonne s and pe r ce ntage points , r e lative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant deve lopm ent should also be pr ovided. The applicant should comm it to r educe wate r us e to le ss than 105litr e s pe r pe r son pe r day.

Tr a n s por t : The applicant should pr ovide additional tr anspor t infor mation as s e t out inpar agr aphs 81 to 91.

for fur the r infor mation, contac t Planning Dec is ions Unit:Co lin W ils on , S e nior Ma na ge r - P la nnin g D e c is ion s 020 7983 4783 email colin.wilson@ london.gov.uk J u s t in Ca rr , S t ra t e g ic P la nnin g Ma na ge r (D e v e lop me n t D e c is ion s ) 020 7983 4895 email jus tin.carr @ london.gov.uk Gemm a Ke nda ll, Ca s e O ff ic e r 020 7983 6592 email gemm a.ke ndall@ london.gov.uk

gla stage two report

Documents