Town Planning Statement For: 219-223 Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU Prepared by: DaviesMurch April 2020

1

Contents

1. Introduction…………………………………………………....………………………………………………………………….Page2

2. SiteandSurroundings...……………………………………………………………………………………………………….Page4

3. PlanningHistory………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………….Page5

4. PlanningPolicyContext...........................................…..……………………………………………………….Page9

5. DescriptionoftheProposals……………………………………………………...........................................Page11

6. ResponsetotheReasonsforRefusalofthePreviousApplication………................................Page12

6. OtherPlanningConsiderations…………………………………………………………………………………….…….Page16

7. SummaryandConclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………..Page22

Appendix1………………..Photographsoffitoutof1-5HintonRoad

Appendix2………………..LetterfromAvisonYoungdated31stOctober2019

2

1. Introduction

1.1 This TownPlanning Statement is submitted in supportof a full planningapplicationonbehalf of

Coldharbour Lane Limited, for the redevelopment of the site at 219-223 Coldharbour Lane,

LoughboroughJunction,SW98RU.Theproposalwillprovideamixed-usedevelopmentcomprising

commercialfloorspaceatgroundandpartfirstfloorandeightresidentialunitsonpartfirsttofourth

floor.

1.2 Thedescriptionofdevelopmentisasfollows:

“Retentionoftheexistingbuildingandupwardextensionstoprovideamixed-useschemeoverfive

floors compromising eight residential dwellings (C3UseClass), retentionof 205sqm shop (A1use

class)and/or cafe (A3use class)and339sqmofbusiness floorspace (B1UseClass) including the

provisionofa35cycleparkingspaces,amenityspaceandancillaryfacilities.”

1.3 Thisapplicationseekstoaddressthereasonsforrefusaloftwopreviousapplicationsonthissiteref:

16/03749/FULand19/02623/FULfollowingdetaileddiscussionswithofficers.

1.4 Thisstatementconsidersthevarioustownplanningaspectsoftheapplication,whichissupportedby

anumberofotherdocumentswhicharelistedbelow:

• ApplicationFormsandCertificates;

• DesignandAccessStatement;

• ApplicationDrawings;

• AccommodationSchedule;

• CGI’s;

• DaylightandSunlightReport;

• TownPlanningStatement;

• CrimePreventionStrategy;

• NoiseImpactAssessment;

• Phase1EnvironmentalReport;

• AirQualityAssessment;

• AirQualityTechnicalAddendum;

• TransportStatement;

3

• DeliveryandServicingManagementPlan;

• OutlineConstructionTrafficManagementPlan;

• EnergyandSustainabilityStatement;and

• AddendumViabilityStudy.

1.5 Thisstatementisbrokendownintothefollowingchapters:

• Introduction;

• SiteandSurroundings;

• PlanningHistory;

• PlanningPolicyContext;

• DescriptionoftheProposals;

• ResponsetotheReasonsforRefusalofthePreviousApplication;

• OtherPlanningConsiderations;and

• SummaryandConclusions.

4

2 SiteandSurroundings

2.1 The site is located at the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Hinton Road within Loughborough

Junction.ItiscurrentlyoccupiedbyatwostoreybuildingfrontingColdharbourLaneandsinglestorey

building frontingHintonRoad. It is amixed-useareaand locatedapproximately50meters from

LoughboroughJunctionovergroundstation.

2.2 ThesiteisusedforretailatgroundandfirstfloorfrontingColdharbourLane.Theremainingpartof

thesite,alongHintonRoadisrecentlyvacanthavingpreviouslybeenusedforcarrepairs/carwash.

2.3 Thesiteis0.065hectares(ha)insize.ThesiteisborderedtothenorthbyColdharbourLane,tothe

westbyHintonRoad,totheeastby215-217ColdharbourLaneand1-9HintonRoadtothesouth.

Buildingheightsinthearearangepredominantlybetweenonetofourstoreys,withcommercialuses

atgroundfloorandamixofcommercialandresidentialonupperfloors.

2.4 Thebuildingat215-217ColdharbourLane,hasrecentlybeencompleted.

2.5 ThesiteliestothenorthoftheLoughboroughParkConservationArea.

2.6 Thesite ishighlyaccessibleborderingona locationthathasaPublicTransportAccessibilityLevel

(PTAL)ratingof5/4/3.TherearevariousbusstopsinthelocalareawithroutestoShoreditch,Kings

Cross and Peckham. Very nearby is Loughborough Junction station providing Thameslink and

overgroundservicesintoCentralLondon.

2.7 Theexistingbuildingaccommodatesa229sqmfurnitureshop(A1useclass),splitovergroundand

first floor fronting Coldharbour Lane. The remainder of the site, fronting Hinton Road,

accommodates314.5sqmofsuigenerisspace,thatwaspreviouslyusedasgarageservicing/repair

andcarwashandhasrecentlybecomevacant.

5

3 PlanningHistory

3.1 Thesitesrecentplanningissetoutinthetablebelow.

Application

Ref:

DescriptionofDevelopment Decision

16/03749/FUL

Demolition of existing 2 storey building and rear extension and

erectionofpart2-,part5-storeymixedusebuildingcomprisingof

approximately 145sqm commercial floorspace on ground floor

(Use Class A1/A3), 209sqm (Use Class B1(a)) floorspace on first

floor,268sqmflexibleworkshop/creativeunits (UseClassB1)on

groundandfirstfloors,nineClassC3residentialflatsonremaining

upper floors (4 x no1 bedroom, 5 x no2 bedroom); including

provisionofbalconies,communalroofgarden,binstoresandcycle

parking;andotherancillaryworks.

Refused 25th

October2016

19/02623/FUL Alterations and extensions to the existing building and upward

extensions to provide mixed-use scheme up to 7 storeys high

comprising 13 residential dwellings (C3 Use Class), 208sqm of

flexiblefloorspaceconsistingofretail/café/restaurant(useclasses

A1 and A3), and 207sqm of business floorspace (B1 Use Class),

includingtheprovisionof22cycleparkingspaces,amenityspace

andancillaryfacilities.

Refused 6th

March2020

3.2 Thedecisionnoticeforthefirstscheme(ref:16/03749/FUL)confirmspermissionwasrefusedforsix

reasons,whicharelistedbelow:

1. Theproposedresidentialaccommodationwouldfailtoprovideanappropriateandbalanced

mixofunitsizes,includingfamily-sizedaccommodationtomeetcurrentandfuturehousing

needscontrarytotheLondonPlan(MALP)2016Policies3.5and3.8,andLambethLocalPlan

(2015)PoliciesH1,H2,H4andD4;

2. Theproposeddevelopment,byreasonoftheabsenceofanyprovisionbywhichtosecurean

appropriatecontribution towarddeliveringaffordablehousing,would fail tocontribute to

6

balancedandsustainablecommunitieswhichiscontrarytoLondonPlan2016Policies3.10,

3.11and3.12andLambethLocalPlan(2015)PoliciesH2,H4andD4;

3. Theproposeddevelopment,byvirtueofitsdetaileddesignwouldresultinanincongruous

form of development, which would be visually intrusive in the streetscene. As such the

developmentwouldfailtointegratewithinthesurroundingcontextandwouldbeharmfulto

thecharacterofthearea,localdistinctivenessandthevisualamenitiesoftheneighbouring

occupiers.TheproposalisthereforeconsideredtobecontrarytocontrarytoParagraphs17

and56oftheNPPF,LondonPlan(2016)Policies7.4,7.5,7.6and7.7;andLambethLocalPlan

(2015)Policies:D1,Q2,Q5,Q7,Q8,Q16,Q17andPN10;

4. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, height and design would result in an

unneighbourly formof development,whichwould result in unacceptable loss of outlook,

increased sense of enclosure, loss of privacy and loss of daylight to the occupiers of the

adjoiningsitescontrarytoLambethLocalPlan(2015)PolicyQ2;

5. The application fails to adequately accommodate andmitigate against the highways and

parkingimpactsoftheproposalbywayoflegalagreementstosecureadequatehighwaysand

pedestrianimprovementsincludingsafeaccesstothesiteandtosecurecarclubbaysand

membershipforthefutureoccupiersofthebuildingcontrarytoLambethLocalPlan(2015)

PoliciesT2,T6,T7andT8;and

6. TheapplicationfailstodemonstratethataSustainableUrbanDrainageSystem(SUDS)would

beemployedtoresultinanetdecreaseinboththevolumeandrateofrun-offleavingthe

sitebyincorporatingSUDSinlinewiththeLondonPlandrainagehierarchyandNationalSUDS

Standards,contrarytoLondonPlan(MALP)2016Policy5.13andLambethLocalPlan(2015)

PolicyEN6.

3.3 Thedecisionnoticeforthesecondrefusal(ref:19/02623/FUL),confirmspermissionwasrefusedfor

eightreasonswhicharelistedbelow:

1. Theproposeddevelopment,byvirtueofitsscaleandheightwouldresultinanunneighbourly

formofdevelopment,whichwouldresultinunacceptablelossofoutlook,increasedsenseof

7

enclosure,andlossoflighttotheoccupiersoftheadjoiningsiteat215-217ColdharbourLane,

contrarytoLambethLocalPlan(2015)PolicyQ2.

2. Theproposalwouldresult inanunacceptable lossofemploymentgenerating land, to the

detrimentoftheLambethandwiderLondoneconomyandtherangeoflocalbusinessand

jobopportunities.AssuchtheproposaliscontrarytoPolicyED2oftheLambethLocalPlan

(2015).

3. In the absence of clear and robust information which demonstrates that the proposed

schemehasbeendesignedtomitigatetheimpactoftheadjoiningnoisegeneratinguseson

the future occupiers of the proposed building (external amenity space), it has not been

demonstratedthattheproposedschemecomplieswiththeagentofchangeprinciplesand

willnotprejudicethelong-termviabilityoftheadjoiningcommercial.Assuchtheproposalis

contrarytoDraftLondonPlan(2019)PolicyD13.

4. Intheabsenceofsufficientinformationtodemonstratethattherequisitecycleparkingfor

thedevelopmentcanbeaccommodatedonthesite,theproposalsfailstofullyincorporate

sustainablemodesoftransportandtheapplicationcontrarytoPoliciesQ1,Q13andT3ofthe

LambethLocalPlan(2015)andPolicies6.3,6.9,6.10and6.12oftheLondonPlan(2016)and

PolicyT5oftheDraftLondonPlan(2019).

5. In the absence of a S106 legal agreement to ensure that local people are providedwith

employmentduringthecourseofthedevelopmenttheproposalfailstomitigatetheimpacts

ofthedevelopmentintermsofemploymentandtrainingwhichiscontrarytoPolicy3.1of

theLondonPlan(2016)andPoliciesED14andD4oftheLambethLocalPlan(2015)andthe

EmploymentandSkillSPD(2018).

6. IntheabsenceofaS106legalagreementtosecureaffordablehousingprovisiontosupport

the scheme, which has been deemed viable by the local planning authority by way of a

viabilityappraisal, theproposalwould fail toprovidethemaximumreasonableamountof

affordablehousing.ThisiscontrarytoPoliciesD4andH2oftheLambethLocalPlan(2015),

Policy3.12oftheLondonPlan(2016),Lambeth'sDevelopmentViabilitySPD(2018andthe

Mayor'sAffordableHousingandViabilitySPG(2017).

8

7. IntheabsenceofaS106legalagreementtopreventfutureoccupiersfromobtainingparking

permitsandtosecurecarclubmembershipsforoccupierstheproposalwouldnotpromote

sustainable modes of transport and less private car ownership, and fails to mitigate the

impactsofthedevelopmentontheadjacenthighways.Theproposalisthereforecontraryto

LondonPlan(2016)Policies6.3and6.12andPoliciesT1,T6andT7oftheLambethLocalPlan

(2015).

8. IntheabsenceofaS106legalagreementtoprovideacarbonoffsetfinancialcontribution,

theproposalwouldfailtominimisecarbondioxideemissionsinaccordancewithPolicy5.2of

theLondonPlan(2016)andPolicyD4oftheLambethLocalPlan(2015).

9

4. PlanningPolicyContext

4.1 Section 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework, February 2019, states in relation to

determinationofplanningapplications:

“Planninglawrequiresthatapplicationsforplanningpermissionbedeterminedinaccordancewith

thedevelopmentplan,unlessmaterialconsiderationsindicateotherwise.Decisionsonapplications

shouldbemadeasquicklyaspossible,andwithinstatutorytimeframesunlessalongerperiodhas

beenagreedbytheapplicantinwriting.”

4.2 TheDevelopmentPlanconsistsof:

• TheLondonPlan(2016);and

• LambethLocalPlan(2015).

4.3 Considerationisalsogiventothefollowing:

• TheNationalPlanningPolicyFramework;and

• PlanningPracticeGuidance.

4.4 Regardisalsohadtoregionalandlocalsupplementaryplanningguidancewhererelevant.

4.5 Atthetimeofwriting,anewdraftLondonPlan,isatanadvancedstageofprogression.Itislikelyit

will be adopted prior to the determination of this application. Given its advanced status,

considerableweight isgivento itspoliciesandthereforewehavereferredtothembelow,where

relevant,alongsidethepoliciesofthecurrentLondonPlan.

SiteSpecificPolicies

4.6 TheLambethLocalPlan-PoliciesMap2015,confirmsthatthesitedoesnotbenefitfromanysite

specificpolicies.However,itisadjacenttoanallocationforaLocalCentreandtotheNorthofthe

LoughboroughParkConservationArea.

10

4.7 Consideration is given to the schemes compliance with the relevant planning policies within

section5and6below.

LoughboroughJunctionMasterplan

4.8 TheCouncilhavebeenprogressingconsultationoftheLoughboroughJunctionMasterplanwhichwas

duetobeadoptedinlate2017,butweunderstandhasstalledandnotprogressed.Whilstitdoes

notandwillnothaveanyformalpolicystatus,it’sintentionistoguidefuturedevelopmentcoming

forwardintheLoughboroughJunctionArea.

4.9 Thelatestversionofthisdocument(Stage4), identifiesthesitewiththepotentialforafour/five

storey buildingwith the potential for providingmixed use development including retail fronting

ColdharbourLane,commercialandresidentialontheupperfloors.

11

5. DescriptionoftheProposals

5.1 Theproposalistoretaintheexistingbuildingandprovideupwardextensionsforamixed-usebuilding

comprisingeight flats,205sqmof retail (A1useclass)and339sqmofemployment space (B1use

class).

5.2 Atgroundfloorlevel,115sqmofretailfrontingColdharbourLaneand260sqmofemploymentuse

frontingHintonRoadisproposed.Plant,refuse,35cycleparkingspacesarealsoprovidedatground

floor,ofwhich20areprovidedforresidentsand15areprovidedonstreetforvisitors.Accesstothe

residentialaccommodationontheupperfloorsisprovidedviaanewentrancecoreoffHintonRoad.

5.3 Atfirstfloortheschemecomprises90sqmofretainedretailspace(A1useclass)frontingColdharbour

Lane. An89sqmcommunalroofgardenisprovidedforthebenefitoftheresidentsfrontingonto

HintonRoad,whichisaccessedfromtheresidentialcoreatgroundfloor.

5.4 Onetwobedflatisprovidedatfirstfloor.Theremainingsevenflatsareprovidedatsecondtofourth

floors.

5.5 Theschemesunitmixisasfollows,fouronebedunits,threetwobedunitsandonethreebedunits.

5.6 Alltheunitsbenefitfromprivateamenityspaceranginginsizebetween5sqmand8.2sqm.

5.7 Theschemehasbeendesigned to tier/ stepaway fromtheneighbouringpropertyat215 to217

ColdharbourLane.AdetaileddescriptionofthebuildingdesignisprovidedwithinsectionDandEof

theDesignandAccessStatementthataccompaniestheapplication.

12

6. ResponsetotheReasonsforRefusalofthePreviousApplication

6.1 Theschemeseekstoaddressthereasonsforrefusaloftheprevioustwoplanningapplicationswhich

havebeensubjecttodetaileddiscussionwithCouncilofficersandtheiradvisors. Thisapplication

followstheadviceprovidedbyofficers.

6.2 Below,wehaveidentifiedthereasonsforrefusalofthepreviousapplicationandexplainedhowthey

havebeenaddressedbythecurrentproposal.

Reason1–Scaleandheightandassociatedimpactonoutlook,senseofenclosureandlossofoutlook

6.3 Paragraph7.59oftheofficer’sreportfortherefusedscheme,confirmstheproposedheightofthe

refusedschemeatsevenstoreyswasacceptable,insofarastheproposalrelatestoitscontextand

thesiteoccupiesaprominentpositionataspaciousjunction.Paragraph7.66goesontoconclude:

“Thescale,heightandmassingisappropriateforthissite,andwouldcreateamarkerforthisjunction

withoutvisuallydominatingotherattractivebuildingsinthevicinity,specificallyGreenMan.”

6.4 Thedetails behind this reason for refusal are explainedwithinparagraphs7.102 to7.109,which

relate todaylight and sunlight impacts and7.121,which relates tooverbearing impact/ senseof

enclosure. In both instances, it is the impact to 215-217 Coldharbour Lane that is considered

unacceptable.

6.5 Daylightandsunlightandsenseofenclosureareaninter-relatedissue.Inplanningterms,asarule

ofthumb,ifdaylightandsunlightimpactsareconsideredtobeacceptable,thesenseofenclosureis

alsolikelytobeconsideredacceptable.

6.6 Toaddressthisreasonforrefusal,Point2havecontinuedtoworkwiththeCouncil’s independent

consultanttoagreeamassingenvelopefortheschemewhichwouldallowmeaningfuldevelopment

tocomeforward,balancedagainsttheimpactson215to217ColdharbourLane.Theresultofthat

dialogueistherevisedapplication,whichreducestheheightofthebuildingfromsevenstoreysto

fivestoreys.Theschemehasalsobeendesignedtoslopeawayfrom215-217ColdharbourLaneasit

13

stepsup.Thiswillsignificantlyincreasetheviewofskyfromtheunitswithin215-217Coldharbour

Lane,particularlyforthoseonthelowerlevels.

6.7 Furthermore,theschemehasbeendesignedtoincreasethedistancebetweentheproposedbuilding

asitstepsupandawayfrom215-217ColdharbourLane.

6.8 Inrespectofdaylightandsunlight,theconclusionoftheupdatedreportfromPoint2isasfollows:

“Giventhelowlevelofmassingcurrentlyoccupyingthesite,proportionateVSCreductionsthatexceed

theBREGuidanceare inevitable. Nevertheless, theonly3propertiesexperiencesomederogation

fromdefaultguidance,namely:209a,225and215-217ColdharbourLane.

Inrelationto209a,whenconsideringVSCandNSLholistically,theoverallchangestothesitefacing

roomisassessedasbeingofminorsignificance.Inrelationto215-217and225,whilsttheremaybe

somehigherproportionatereductionswhichcouldbenoticeable, itmustberememberedthatthe

existingsitecomprisesaverylowrisewarehouseandtheBREGuiderecognizesthatagreaterlevel

ofobstructionmaybeunavoidableifnewdevelopmentsaretoallowmeaningfulredevelopmentof

neightbouringsites.Nevertheless,theretainedlevelsofdaylightareconsideredtobecommensurate

withatypicalurbanlocality

Wefullysupportthisplanningapplicationintermsofdaylightandsunlightamenity.”

6.9 TheCouncil’sdaylightandsunlightadvisorshavepreviouslyreviewedthemassingfortheproposed

scheme.AcopyoftheirletterisattachedatAppendix2.Theyspecificallyconsideredtheimpactthe

proposalwouldhaveontheflats2and4within215-217ColdharbourLane.Theirconclusionwas

thattheimpactwouldnotresultintheflatsbeing‘poorlylit’andthattheimpact,asrestrictedto

thesetwoflatslivingareas‘mightbeacceptable’.

6.10 Taking account of the above, it is considered that the proposed scheme strikes an appropriate

balancebetweenprotectingtheimpactsofneighbouringresidentswithin215-217ColdharbourLane

andallowingmeaningfuldevelopmenttocomeforwardonthiscornersite.

14

Reason2–Lossofemploymentgeneratingland

6.11 Theofficersreportnotesthatthisreasonsforrefusalrelatestothelossinemploymentgenerating

usesfrom314sqmofexistingsui-generisuseto107sqmofproposedB1(a)officefloorspace.Itgoes

ontonotethatthisiscontrarytoLocalPlanpolicyED2andintheabsenceofatleastoneyear’sworth

ofmarketing evidence to demonstrate no demand for alternative employment uses itwould be

unacceptable.

6.12 Thisapplicationproposestorespondtothisbyre-providingtheemploymentspaceonalikeforlike

basis.Itisthereforeproposedtoreplacetheexisting314.5sqmofsui-generiswithaslightupliftof

339sqmofB1(a)officespace.

6.13 ThischangewilladdresstheCouncil’sreasonforrefusal.

Reason3–Mitigationoftheimpactofadjoiningnoisegeneratinguses

6.14 Paragraph7.84oftheofficer’sreportstatesthatthisreasonforrefusalrelatestodraftLondonPlan

PolicyD13,AgentofChange,andthepotentialimpactoftheadjoiningMOTcentreontheexternal

amenityspacewithintheproposeddevelopment.WeunderstandthatthisrelatestotheMOTcentre

at1-5HintonRoad.

6.15 WehadpreviouslyclarifiedwithofficersthattheMOTusehasceasedandthatconversionofthe

groundfloorfromB2toB1(a)wasintheprocessoftakingplace.Photographsofthefrontofthe

buildingisprovidedatAppendix1.

6.16 Weunderstandthatthischangehasbeenachievedfollowingtheownersestablishingthelawfuluse

of thebuilding asB2 via application ref: 19/00977/LDCE. Theownershave then carriedout the

conversionusingpermitteddevelopmentrightswithinClassI,Schedule2,Part3,ofTheTownand

CountryPlanningUseClassesOrderasamended.

6.17 BasedontheabovethereisnolongeranMOTusenexttothesiteandthereforetheissuefallsaway.

15

Reason4–CycleParkingProvision

6.18 Paragraph 7.149 of the officer’s report stated that officerswere not convinced that the refused

schemecouldaccommodatethenecessarycycleparkingspacesrequiredbythedevelopmentand

Q13oftheLocalPlan.

6.19 TheTransportAssessmentsubmittedwiththeapplicationconfirmsthattheproposedschemewill

require35cycleparkingspaces.20spaceswillbeprovidedincoveredstorageareaforresidents.

Theother15,willbeprovidedforvisitorsonthepublicfootway,adjacenttothebuilding.Further

detailisprovidedwithinsectionDoftheDesignandAccessStatement.

Reasons5to8

6.20 Reasons5to8allrelatetotheabsenceofalegalagreementtosecurethefollowing:

• Employmentoflocalpeopleduringconstructionofthedevelopment;

• Affordablehousing;

• Preventionoffutureresidentsapplyingforparkingpermits;and

• Carbonoffsetcontribution.

6.21 Theapplicantishappytoagreeappropriatelywordedobligationswithinas106agreementinrelation

tothefourpointsabove.Onthisbasis,itisunderstoodthatthesereasonsforrefusalwouldfallaway.

Wehavethereforenotcommentedonthemfurtherandlookforwardtodiscussingthedetailsofthe

obligationsinduecourse.

16

7. OtherPlanningConsiderations

7.1 This section of the Town Planning Statement considers the various other town planning issues

associatedwiththedevelopmentthathavenotalreadybeenconsideredinsection6above.Noneof

theseconsiderationsformedreasonsforrefusalofthepreviousapplication.

LandUse

7.2 Wehavealreadydealtwiththelanduseissuesrelatingtotheexistingsui-generisandproposedB1(a)

officeusesinsection6above.

LandUse-Retail

7.3 TheofficersreportfortherefusedschemesupportstheprovisionofA1(shops)andA3(restaurants

andcafes)onthesite,whichisconsistentwithPolicyED7andED10oftheLocalPlan.Itisproposed

to replace the existing 229sqm on sitewith 205sqm,which is a slight reduction of 24sqm. The

reductionisasaresultofremovingthesiteawayfromtheboundarywith215-217ColdharbourLane

toaccommodatethedesignchangesrequestedbyofficers.

7.4 The refused schemeproposeda similar, slight reduction,whichofficers confirmedat7.6of their

reportwasacceptable.

LandUse-Residential

7.5 Theprovisionofresidentialusesonthesiteissupportedbypolicyatalllevels,includingPolicyH1of

theLocalPlanandLondonPlanPolicies3.3and3.4.Paragraph7.13oftheofficer’sreportconfirms

thattherearenoobjectionsinprincipletoprovisionofresidentialaccommodationonthesite.

AffordableHousing

7.6 Therefusedschemewassupportedbyaviabilityassessmentthatwasreviewedbyanindependent

consultantonbehalfoftheCouncil.Theconclusionofthatreviewissetoutinparagraphs7.20to

7.46oftheofficer’sreportfortherefusedscheme.

17

7.7 Thatreviewprocesshelpedtofixmanyofthemovingpartsassociatedwiththedevelopment.The

ViabilityStudyhasbeenupdatedtakingaccountoftheinputspreviouslyagreedwiththeCouncil’s

advisors.Theconclusionisthatthedevelopmentcannotaffordtoprovideanyaffordablehousing.

7.8 WhilstitisunderstoodthattheprovisionofaffordablehousingisapriorityfortheCouncil,inthis

instance,theCouncilhasprioritisedtheimpactofthedevelopmentonneighbouringproperties.This

hassignificantlyconstrainedthelevelofdevelopmentthatcanbeboughtforwardonthesiteand,

consequentially,itcannotaffordtoprovideanyaffordablehousing.

7.9 Furthermore,theCouncilwillbeawareofthecontentsofAnnexeAoftheSecretaryofState’sletter

totheMayorofLondondated13thMarch2020andspecificallyDirectionDR3.Thisclearlystatesthat

affordablehousingandtariffstylecontributionsshouldnotbesoughtondevelopmentsof10units

orless.

7.10 TheViabilityStudyhasbeensubmittedwiththeapplicationforcompletenessandtodemonstrateto

officers that the development could not have provided any affordable housing in any event.

However,takingaccountoftheclearstatementfromtheSecretaryofState,myclientdoesnotexpect

tohaveanyfurtherdiscussionswiththeCouncilrelatingtoviability.

DesignandArchitecture

7.11 Commentaryinrelationtothebulkandmassingoftheproposedbuildingissetoutinsection6above.

Paragraphs 7.61 to 7.64 of the officer’s report sets out comments on the refused application in

respectofdesignandarchitecture.Itconfirmsthatthegeneralapproachisacceptable,includingthe

choiceofmaterials.

7.12 It notes the need for planning conditions to be used in respect of specific details, such as brick

specification,signageandscreeningfortheamenityspace.Theapplicanthasnoobjectiontotheuse

ofmaterialstoensureahigh-qualitydevelopmentwillbedelivered.

DaylightandSunlight

7.13 ADaylightandSunlightAssessmenthasbeensubmittedinsupportoftheapplication.Consideration

hasalreadybeengiveninsection5abovetotheresultsinrelationto215-217ColdharbourLane.In

18

respectofother surroundingproperties, it confirms that impacts from theproposed schemeare

consideredtobeacceptable.

7.14 It is therefore considered that the proposed scheme achieves acceptable standards in terms of

impactonsurroundingpropertiesandwithintheproposedaccommodationinaccordancewithPolicy

Q2oftheLLPandsection5.5oftheMayor’sHousingSPG.

Overlooking

7.15 Detaileddiscussionstookplacewithofficersaspartoftherefusedschemeinrelationtooverlooking

of 215-217 Coldharbour Lane. These discussions have informed the proposed design and the

proposedlayoutandorientationofwindowswithintheschemeremovethepotentialforoverlooking.

Wheretherearewindowswithinthefacingelevation,theyrelatetobathroomsorkitchensandwill

beobscured.

7.16 AllotheropportunitiesforoverlookingfromtheschemeareacrossColdharbourLaneorHintonRoad

whichprovidesmorethansufficientseparationdistancesandthereforenoconcernsareraisedinthis

regard.

7.17 Officersconfirmtheiragreementofthiswithinsections7.90and7.91oftheirreport.

FloorspaceStandards

7.18 Fulldetailsoftheresidentialfloorspacestandardsachievedbythisdevelopmentaresetoutinsection

paragraph1.3ofsectionDoftheenclosedDesignandAccessStatement,whichconfirmthatthey

complywiththeNationalHousingStandardsandtheMayor’sHousingSPG.

AmenityandPlayspaceStandards

7.19 PolicyH5oftheLLPrequiresthatflatteddevelopmentprovideatleast50sqmofcommunalspace

plusanadditional10sqmperflat intheformofabalcony,terrace,gardenofconsolidatedwithin

communityspace.

19

7.20 Theschemeprovidesatotalof139sqmofamenityspaceofwhich89sqmiscommunalamenityspace,

providedatfirstfloorrooflevelalongHintonRoad.Eachflatbenefitsfromitsownbalconywhich

meetsorexceedsthestandardssetout intheMayor’sHousingSPG. Atotalof50sqmofprivate

amenityspaceisprovided,whichwhencombinedwiththe89sqmofcommunalamenityspace(total

of139sqmofamenityspace)ismorethanthe130sqmrequiredbyPolicyH5oftheLocalPlan.

Aspect

7.21 Standard5.2.1oftheMayor’sHousingSPGrequiredthatdevelopmentsshouldavoidsingleaspect

northfacingdwellings,withparagraph2.3.31requiringthat,wherepossible,dualaspectdwellings

shouldbemaximised.

7.22 Sevenoftheeightproposedunitsaredualaspectanditisconsideredthattheschemewillprovidea

veryhighstandardofaccommodationinthisregard.

WheelchairAccommodation

7.23 TheenclosedaccommodationscheduleconfirmsthattwounitsaredesignedtomeetM4(3)ofthe

BuildingRegulations,whicharethethreebedandaonebed.AllotherunitsdesignedtomeetM4(2).

TransportConsiderations

7.24 Wehavealreadydealtwiththereasonforrefusalrelatingtocycleparkinginsection6above.

7.25 ATransportAssessmenthasbeensubmittedinsupportoftheapplication.Amongstotherthings,it

considerstheimpactthedevelopmentwillhaveonparkingonsurroundingstreets.Itconcludes:

“The parking survey has demonstrated that there is substantial vacant kerbside parking space

availableinthevicinityofthesiteevenwhenresidentialparkingisatitsheaviestovernight,which

would cater for any conceivable level of car ownership by residents of this developmentwithout

causingproblemsforothersinthearea.”

7.26 Inparallel,aDeliveryandServicingManagementPlanisalsosubmittedtominimisetheimpacton

trafficconditionsonthehighwayandwillbeoperatedforthelifetimeofthedevelopment.

20

EnergyandSustainability

7.27 Inrespectofenergy,theEnergyandSustainabilityReportsubmittedwiththeapplicationconfirms

thatitcanachievean83%reductioninCO2emissionsoverthePartL2016baselinebyusingair

sourceheatpumpsandPV’s.Acarbonoffsetpaymentof£3,705willberequiredtoensurethe

schemecomplieswithPolicySI2,Minimisinggreenhousegasemissions,ofthedraftLondonPlan.

7.28 Inrespectofsustainability,section4oftheEnergyandSustainabilityReportdetailsthemeasures

includedwithintheproposaltomeetthehigheststandardsofsustainabledesignandconstruction.

StatementofCommunityInvolvement

7.29 Detailsof theconsultationundertaken inconnectionwiththissite issetout insectionB.5of the

enclosedDesignandAccessStatement.

NoiseImpact

7.30 A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The assessment

concludes:

"Measurednoiselevelsallowedarobustglazingspecificationtobeproposedwhichwouldprovide

internalnoiselevelsforallresidentialenvironmentsofthedevelopmentcommensuratetothedesign

rangeofBS8233.

Nofurthermitigationmeasuresshouldberequiredinordertoprotecttheproposedhabitablespaces

fromexternalnoiseintrusion."

7.31 Inlightoftheseconclusionsitisnotconsideredanyissuesareraisedinthisregard.

AirQuality

7.32 AnAirQualityAssessmentandAirQualityTechnicalAddendumhavealsobeensubmittedinsupport

of the proposalswhich considers the impact of construction activity on local air quality and the

suitabilityofthesitefortheintendeduse.Thisassessmentconcludes:

21

“Despitethechangeintheproposedschemedesign,theconclusionsandoutcomesreportedwithin

theoriginal2019submissionremainthesameandtherefore,basedontheassessmentresults,air

qualityissuesarenotaconstrainttoplanningconsentfortheproposeddevelopment.”

22

8. SummaryandConclusions

8.1 Section 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework, February 2019, states in relation to

determinationofplanningapplications:

“Planninglawrequiresthatapplicationsforplanningpermissionbedeterminedinaccordancewith

thedevelopmentplan,unlessmaterialconsiderationsindicateotherwise.Decisionsonapplications

shouldbemadeasquicklyaspossible,andwithinstatutorytimeframesunlessalongerperiodhas

beenagreedbytheapplicantinwriting.”

8.2 Theapplicationproposes:

“Retentionoftheexistingbuildingandupwardextensionstoprovideamixed-useschemeoverfive

floors compromising eight residential dwellings (C3UseClass), retentionof 205sqm shop (A1use

class)and/or cafe (A3use class)and339sqmofbusiness floorspace (B1UseClass) including the

provisionofa35cycleparkingspaces,amenityspaceandancillaryfacilities.”

8.3 Theproposeddevelopmentrespondstothereasonsforrefusalofthepreviousapplicationandwill

provideahigh-qualityscheme,includingnewhomesandemploymentspace.

8.4 Thedevelopmenthasbeenshapedwithsignificantattentiongiventotheimpactsoftheneighbours

at215-217ColdharbourLane.Themassingfortheschemehasbeentheproductofcollaborative

workingwiththeCouncil’sindependentdaylightandsunlightadvisor.Theoutcomeofthisprocess

istheproposedscheme,whichwilldelivermeaningfuldevelopmentoftheapplicationsite,whilst

protectingtheamenitiesofneighbours.

8.5 This Town Planning Statement considers the proposals against the policy requirements of the

developmentplan.Theproposalsfullyaccordwithdevelopmentplanpoliciesforthereasonsset

outabove.Italsotakesaccountoftheissuesidentifiedwithintheofficer’sreportoftherefused

scheme. We therefore consider the proposals to be acceptable and in accordance with the

developmentplan.Therewouldbenoreasonablebasisforrefusal.Wewouldrespectfullyrequest

thatplanningpermissionisgrantedwithoutdelay.

23

Appendix1

24

Photographsoffitoutof1-5HintonRoad

25

Appendix2

Our Ref: IA/02B905890 Your Ref:

31 October 2019

Jeni Cowan Senior Planning Officer Planning, Transport and Development London Borough of Lambeth PO Box 734 Winchester S023 5DG Dear Sirs Application 19/02623/FUL – Daylight and Sunlight Assessment Lambeth Council have appointed us to review the analysis of Daylight and Sunlight Impact as submitted by Point 2 Surveyors on behalf of the developer in June 2019.

In assessing this report no drawn analysis has been made and only three flats of 215-271 Coldharbour Lane have been inspected internally. We have relied on the accuracy of the submitted report and comment on the content and conclusions thereof.

The basis for this report is correctly stated as the BRE document “Site Layout planning for Daylight and Sunlight, A Guide to good Practice “.

This guidance advises that in terms of Daylight and Sunlight reductions of 20% or more will be noticeable by neighbours. This therefore means an assessment must be made of the existing levels of Daylight and sunlight and compared to the levels of Daylight and Sunlight left by the proposed development.

This is undertaken by building 3-D computer models of the two situations and running specialist software that analyses the percentages of Daylight and Sunlight under the BRE guidance.

As far as it is possible to check it appears that the above has been undertaken correctly using surveys and research for the information on the ground. We therefore rely on the figures shown within the report analysis.

Assessment

Daylighting

There are a number of surrounding buildings assessed but only two show impacts that would concern in terms of the level of reduction. These are 219a Coldharbour Lane and 215-217 Coldharbour Lane.

219a Coldharbour Lane

65 Gresham Street London EC2V 7NQ T: +44 (0)20 7911 2468 F: +44 (0)20 7911 2560 avisonyoung.co.uk

Avison Young is the trading name of GVA Grimley Limited registered in England and Wales number 6382509. Registered office, 3 Brindleyplace, Birmingham B1 2JB Regulated by RICS

31 October 2019 Page 2

avisonyoung.co.uk

This appears to have been incorrectly labelled in the analysis tables as 209a, however the rooms have been assessed without the benefit of internal survey and the assumption has been made that they are two bedrooms.

Losses of daylight are 38% and 44% respectively for these two rooms, reference to the table for the daylight distribution (NSL) shows that here is no impact on the daylight distribution within the room.

This is not a surprising finding as these two north facing windows face directly along the access way between the application site and 215-217.

On this basis I would agree with the conclusion that here is no harmful impact.

215-217 Coldharbour Lane

This is a development of flats on five floors with windows that run along the flank wall which faces the flank of the application site. Rooms vary from bedrooms to lounges to living/kitchen/dining areas.

The existing building on the application site is a low rise light industrial unit and the proposal is of a height that is taller than 215-217 albeit with some articulation of the rear elevation facing 215-217.

It is clear from any view that windows in the flank of 215-217 will see a significant alteration in their available daylight and sunlight.

The comparison of the existing levels to that proposed show that in terms of Daylight 15 of the 23 rooms that face the application site will see a reduction in excess of 20% of the light reaching their windows. In addition 9 of these 15 also see a loss of daylight distribution in excess of 20%.

Specifically to the Ground Floor the bedroom to Flat 1 has a 42% loss of daylight and a 36.9% loss of distribution , Flat 2 sees over 60% Daylight loss to both bedroom and living/kitchen diner with over 60% loss of distribution to both rooms . In this latter room inspection has noted that the size of room assessed in the report is incorrect with a much larger room noted than has been drawn. This will serve to increase the level of loss of light distribution.

To the first floor the bedroom to Flat 3 has a 71% loss with a 49% loss of distribution and flat 4 has a 60% loss of available daylight with a 27% loss of distribution.

To the second floor Flat 5 has over 70% losses to its two bedrooms and 30% and 40% reduction in distribution respectively. Flat 6 has 51% loss of available daylight.

Above this level flats 7 and 8 have daylight reductions of over 50% to bedrooms and living rooms respectively whilst flats 9 and 10 see reductions of between 20 and 30%.

In daylighting terms the impacts are significant, especially for the lower level flats which do enjoy reasonably high levels of light in the existing condition. This is especially so for Flat 2 where daylight is 21% in the existing condition (the ideal BRE levels is 27% ) and it is reduced to just 7% with a large loss of distribution within the flat, it will undoubtedly be a very dark flat.

Similarly flat 4 has its living room daylight reduced to 12.37% and again its distribution reduced significantly.

In an overall sense the impact on the living accommodation is major adverse impact.

Turning to Sunlight all the flats on the ground and first floors will see reductions on sunlight availability for the whole year and for the winter months reduced to below the BRE guidance levels of 25 Annual Probable Sunlight Hours with 5% in the winter and will see a reduction of more than 20% in both cases.

The sunlight is impacted to a major adverse degree for these flats.

In terms of mitigation, the report relies on the use of mirror massing , a test set out in the BRE guidance at Appendix F paragraph 5 . This suggests that where a building neighbouring a development stands

31 October 2019 Page 3

avisonyoung.co.uk

on or close to the boundary between the two sites, it has the potential to use more than its fair share of the light across that boundary. In other words, a development may be restricted in the height it can achieve because of the need to respect a neighbours Daylight and Sunlight.

In that case the BRE suggests testing the level of daylight available to the neighbour if, hypothetically, a building were on the development site that was the same height as the neighbour. This may then give an alternative target for the development to hit in terms of the retained levels of light in that neighbour.

In this case we do not believe there is a valid situation to apply this test. 215-217 sits 4.6 m back from the boundary with the development site, separated by a small roadway and pavement. In fact it is the development site buildings that sit exactly on the boundary. The report has built this hypothetical situation with a building of the same height as 215-217 directly on its own boundary and suggests that in impact terms it need only meet what they then find are every low daylight and sunlight figures.

If one were to accept this testing scenario, then the test has been incorrectly applied. The BRE states that the two buildings should be set equally astride the boundary and as such the hypothetical building on the application site should have been set 4.6 m back from the boundary, with 215-217 (its own flank wall lie) and then the analysis undertaken. It would seem clear that in that scenario a higher standard of retained light would have been found and that would have led to a lesser height proposal for the application site in order to create an equal situation in terms of retained daylight to 215-217.

Conclusions

The analysis correctly shows in its figures that there will be a very significant impact on the residents of 215-217 in terms of loss of daylight and Sunlight, its only mitigation to this is a mirror massing analysis which we do not believe is applicable and in any event has been incorrectly applied.

In terms of the other neighbouring buildings, we can see no reason why Daylight and Sunlight issues should be of any concern.

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further information.

Yours faithfully

Ian Absolon Principal, Rights of Light | Daylight & Sunlight | Party Wall 020 7911 2701 ian.absolon@avisonyoung.com For and on behalf of GVA Grimley Limited t/a Avison Young