- 43 -

Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (A) ItemNo. 5

Report Title NEW CROSS RESERVOIR, JERNINGHAM ROAD SE14 5NJWard Telegraph HillContributors Julia RobinsClass PART 1 Date: 11 NOVEMBER 2010

Reg. Nos. (A) DC/10/74731 & DC/10/74731B(B) DC/10/74732

Application Dated (A) 25.6.10, completed 20.7.10, revised 2.9.1015.10.10 & 27.10.10

(B) 25.6.10

Applicant Judith Ashton Associates on behalf of St JamesUrban Living.

Proposal (A) Planning Application: Demolition of theexisting reservoir and the construction of 9four and five bedroom detached and semi-detached, three storey houses, together withassociated car parking, new pedestrian andvehicle access points and hard and softlandscaping works, together with thereconstruction of the boundary wall at NewCross Reservoir, Jerningham Road SE14.

(B) Conservation Area Consent: Demolition ofthe front boundary wall.

Applicant’s Plan Nos.

0855 – S01, 2, 3, 4 & 5, 0855 /P100/D, P110/E – 114/E, P120/G, P121/C, P122/A, P123/A,0855 – C100D, 0855 - C101C, D1759.L.200 Rev. B and Landscape Design Statement Rev.A, Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement, Transport Statement, Foul andStorm Water Drainage Appraisal, Phase 1 Ecological Assessment and ProposedMitigation Strategy, Arboricultural Development Report, Heritage Asset Assessment, Codefor Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment, Daylight and Sunlight Report, Energy Statement,Air Quality Assessment, Structural Engineers Report on Boundary Wall, ConstructionManagement Strategy, Site Waste Management Plan, Phase 1 Environmental andGeotechnical Study, Market Review, Statement of Community Involvement, PlanningObligations Statement, Table regarding carbon dioxide Emissions from Mendick Waring(received 27/10/10)

Background Papers

(1) Case File – DE/57/D/TP(2) Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) – ‘Saved’ policies(3) Draft Lewisham Core Strategy (submission version published February 2010)(4) Telegraph Hill Conservation Area Appraisal(5) London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004) (February 2008)(6) Draft London Plan (October 2009)

- 44 -

(7) Planning Policy Statements - PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (January2005); PPS 1: Planning and Climate Change –Supplement to PPS1 (December2007); PPS 3: Housing (June 2010); PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable EconomicGrowth (December 2009); PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (August2005); PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (July 2005); PPS 12:Local Spatial Planning (June 2008); PPS 22: Renewable Energy (August 2004);PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control (November 2004)

(8) Planning Policy Guidance - PPG 13: Transport (April 2001); PPG 17: Planning forOpen Space, Sport and Recreation (July 2002); PPG 24: Planning and Noise(October 1994);

(9) Mayor of London’s Housing Design Guide (August 2010)(10) Mayor of London’s SPG ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and

Informal Recreation’(11) Mayor of London’s SPG ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’(12) Mayor of London’s SPG ‘Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment’(13) Mayor of London’s SPG on ‘Housing’ and ‘Interim Housing' SPG(14) Mayor of London’s BPG on ‘The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction

and Demolition’(15) Mayor of London’s BPG on ‘Wheelchair Accessible Housing’(16) Mayor of London’s strategies on Biodiversity, Energy, Transport, and Economic

Development(17) Mayor of London’s strategies on Air Quality, Biodiversity, Economic Development,

Energy, and Transport(18) Planning for Equality and Diversity in London(19) By Design (CABE/DETR 2000)(20) South East London Housing Partnership's 'Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines'

(August 2009)(21) Lewisham Draft Planning Obligations SPD (February 2010)(22) Lewisham Residential Development Standards SPD (August 2006)(23) Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM 2003)(24) Circular 5/2005 - Planning Obligations(25) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (April 2010)(26) The Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 (Sources of Energy and

Technologies) Order 2008(27) Homes & Communities Agency good practice note 'Investment and Planning

Obligations Responding to the Downturn' (August 2009)

Zoning The site is zoned Housing/Existing Use and falls within the Telegraph HillConservation Area. It has a PTAL rating of 4

1.0 PROPERTY/SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 The site is located at the south end of Jerningham Road within the Telegraph HillConservation Area which mainly comprises large Victorian terraced and semidetached houses with relatively large rear gardens. The area is predominantlyresidential. Many of the properties have semi basements and some retain the frontboundary walls and railings enclosing a small front garden.

1.2 The site comprises a covered reservoir built in the late 19th century which is partiallyabove ground and covered in grass. The top of the reservoir is around 2m above thesurrounding ground level. The reservoir was decommissioned in 1984. Around theedges of the reservoir, where it slopes down to the site’s boundaries there are anumber of semi mature trees on top/within the reservoir structure.

- 45 -

1.3 The site is approximately 0.37 hectares in size and is located at the southern end ofJerningham Road.

1.4 The area is reasonably well treed with mature London Plane and Lime trees alongthe streets as well as within gardens.

1.5 The site has easy access to New Cross Gate, Brockley and Nunhead railwaystations and is approximately half a mile from New Cross district centre.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 In July 2006 an application was submitted for 13, three storey, five bedroom townhouses at the reservoir site. This application proposed a contemporary style terracewhich was not well received by local residents and was withdrawn due to officerconcerns.

3.0 PRESENT APPLICATION

3.1 The current application is for the removal of the reservoir structure and theconstruction of 9 four and five bedroom dwellings with parking, landscaping andpartial removal/replacement of the front wall. The development comprises of 4 pairsof semi detached houses and one detached house, all of which are arranged over 3floors – semi basement, raised ground floor and first floor. The houses areproposed in a traditional design with stock brickwork elevations, pitched roofs andtimber sliding sash windows. To the rear narrow balconies are proposed at upperground floor level (first floor level at the rear). In terms of materials, yellow stockbricks are proposed, with white render to the lower ground floor.

3.2 To the front of the properties a new 5m. wide vehicular access is proposed whichwould lead to a courtyard area containing parking and turning areas, refuse/recyclingbin collection points and landscaping. The access arrangements have beendesigned to accommodate 7.5 tonne vehicles.

3.3 Two pedestrian entrances would be provided at either end of the development.

3.4 Each property would have a parking space directly located in front of the propertyand as such the development provides 9 spaces.

3.5 All of the dwellings would meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and the solarthermal panels and photovoltaics would provide 14% of the site’s energyrequirements.

3.6 An application for conservation area consent has also been submitted for theremoval of the front boundary wall.

Application Supporting Documents

3.7 A number of supporting documents have been submitted with the application:

Planning Statement

3.8 This document assesses the principle of development, the accommodationproposed , density, possible under-development of the site, form, layout and design,the merits of the existing structure and impact of the proposals on the Telegraph HillConservation Area,

- 46 -

impact on local views, impact on residents, transport, ecology, the site’s suitabilityfor residential development, flood risk, air quality, renewable energy, demolition offront wall, Secure by Design, access for all, sunlight and daylight, Building for Life,waste management, contamination/remediation, archaeology, statutory services andinfrastructure

Design and Access Statement

3.9 The statement sets out the site’s context then undertakes a historic appraisal. It thenexplains the site’s constraints and opportunities and the previous iterations of thescheme. It looks in detail at design, layout, appearance, views, sustainability,construction, waste and, parking. The statement also contains a response to theBuilding for Life criteria and contextual images.

Daylight and Sunlight and Report

3.10 This report provides an assessment of the daylight and sunlight to existing andproposed residential buildings as a consequence of the construction of the proposedscheme as well as examining the daylight and sunlight which the windows in theproposed buildings would receive. The neighbouring properties assessed are: 16 to152 (even), 159 and 163 Jerningham Road, 38 Reservoir Road and 46 to 56 (even)Vesta Road. The report finds that all of the windows and rooms within theneighbouring properties would meet the BRE guidelines so are BRE compliant. Interms of the scheme, it also complies with BRE and British Standards guidelines fordaylight and sunlight.

Transport Statement

3.11 This statement undertakes an assessment of the site and its connections and theimpact of the development on the highway network and whether the amount ofparking proposed is acceptable. It notes that the site is in close proximity to 3stations and there are 2 bus routes within 150m giving the site a PTAL 4 rating(good level of public transport accessibility).

3.12 Each house would have one parking space and a side entrance leading to thegardens where sheds would be located providing space for at least two bicycles.Trip generation from the site is considered to be small and as such would have anegligible impact on existing transport infrastructure and services.

Heritage Asset Assessment

3.13 This report assesses the reservoir structure’s significance and the effect ofdemolition and redevelopment on the character and appearance of the TelegraphHill Conservation Area.

3.14 An assessment of the covered reservoir concludes that it is a heritage asset of lowto very low significance - it is of medium evidential value, medium to low historicalvalue, very low communal value, and very low aesthetic value. Given this it is placedtowards the lower end of the significance to be attached to heritage assets withinPolicy HE8 of PPS5. The report finds that there should be no presumption in favourof its preservation, and that it makes very little contribution to the character orappearance of the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area.

- 47 -

3.15 The report also finds that demolition of the reservoir and front wall would beconsistent with s.72 of the Act and relevant policies and it may be appropriate toundertake building recording prior to demolition. They consider the new developmentto have a positive design and therefore to preserve the character and appearance ofthe conservation area,

Energy Statement and addendum and table showing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

3.16 The report sets out the energy strategy for the proposed development anddemonstrates the steps considered to address the recommendations of the LondonPlan and the Energy Hierarchy in the Mayor’s Energy Strategy. The table explainsthe total number of PVs needed to meet the CO2 emissions from the development.

Landscape Design Statement

3.17 This document contains a landscaping concept plan and masterplan. The proposedlandscaping would include tree planting around the boundaries at both the front andrear with a paved area at the front with areas of native planting.

Arboricultural Development Report

3.18 The report includes an arboricultural assessment on the implications of developmentand advises on preliminary tree protection measures. This report combines theabove tree survey with the arboricultural impact assessment for ease of referenceand provides an analysis of the potential impact of the proposals on existing trees,based on tree protection measures.

Ecological Assessment

3.19 This assessment contains the findings of a field survey which identified habitatspresent on the site and an evaluation of the site’s potential to support protectedspecies. The habitats found on site covered small areas and there was not a highdiversity of plant species and those found were widespread and common in the UK.The main features of interest are the ivy scrub in the south east and north westcorners of the site as they have potential to support nesting birds. Bats were notfound on the site although the report requests caution during the constructionprocess as there might be bats within the reservoir structure. Japanese knotweedwas found on the site and prior to any prospective work at the site, appropriatemeasures must be taken to ensure the successful containment or eradication of it.The report concluded that in terms of habitat the site has a low ecological value.

Market Review

3.20 This document uses research from local estate agents to establish current marketneeds of the area thus indicating the most appropriate type of dwellings for the site.

Statement of Community Involvement

3.21 This document contains details of how the applicant has engaged with the planningdepartment through pre application discussions and the local community, theirapproach to community engagement and consultation, what feedback was receivedand how they responded to it.

- 48 -

Structural Engineer’s report on boundary wall

3.22 This report found that it was possible for the wall to remain standing for many yearsdespite its many defects but it would need regular repair, inspection and urgentimprovement. The report questions its stability especially as it is adjacent to a publichighway and notes that seasonal thermal changes will cause on-going movementand cracking The report concludes that the demolition of the wall and reconstructionto modern standards, perhaps with re-use of materials, is recommended.

Site Waste Management Plan

3.23 This report sets out how the applicants propose to minimise waste and reduce theimpact on the environment.

Foul and Storm Drainage Appraisal

3.24 This assessment looked at if and how the development’s foul water could drain intothe public sewer system. The reports looks at the 2 possible options that have beenexplored and both will be subject to further on site investigation and discussion withThames Water. The report concludes that the foul water can be drained satisfactorilyinto the public sewer system.

Phase 1 Environmental and Geotechnical Study

3.25 This study looks at the range of potentially contaminative activities carried out on thesite and in the immediate vicinity, and any obvious potential sources of groundcontamination. It looks at the site’s history, hydrology, hydrogeology and geology. Itstates that currently the risks associated with the plausible pollutant linkages areconsidered to be low, although if redeveloped, receptors may be at greater risk dueto the more sensitive land use. The report therefore suggests some alleviationmeasures may be required to break the potential future pollutant linkages.

3.26 The most significant contamination issues are considered to be the JapaneseKnotweed.

Construction Management Strategy

3.27 The strategy contains arrangements that the applicant would put into place to ensurethe environmental issues regarding the building of the scheme would be managed toensure there is minimum impact on the surrounding environment by thisdevelopment. It includes a statement to use all best endeavours to minimisedisturbances, including noise, vibration, dust, smoke and plant emissions.

Air Quality Assessment

3.28 This report examines whether the levels of air quality at the site is suitable for newresidents and whether the development would cause a significant impact on airquality during the construction phase.

Code for Sustainable Homes – Pre Assessment

3.29 This document explains the Code and how this development would meet Code 3.

- 49 -

4.0 CONSULTATION AND REPLIES

Pre-application Consultation

4.1 A public exhibition was held on 10th May at the Telegraph Hill Centre, Kitto Road.Invitation letters were distributed to 233 homes locally. 20 people attended the publicexhibition. A meeting has also been recently held with the Telegraph Hill Society todiscuss their objections.

Consultation Responses

4.2 Letters of consultation were sent to the 152 properties in the surrounding areaadjoining the site as well as to the Ward Councillors.

4.3 In addition to those properties consulted, statutory notices were also displayedaround the site and in the local press on 4th August 2010.

Responses from Local Residents

4.4 13 responses were received from Flat 1, 130, 134, 141a, 143, 163, JerninghamRoad, 59 Pepys Road, 52 Vesta Road. The following is a summary of the mainpoints of objection (copies of which are available to view on the planning file):

Code for Sustainable Homes

� The proposed scheme barely meets a Code Level 3 with 58.36 points -questions why does the proposal not prioritise this issue in terms of conceptdesign and material.

� The Code for Sustainable Homes document for this application suggests thatthe design is unlikely to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes in terms ofmaterials. Why?

Renewables/Energy conservation

� whether any thought had been given to including micro-power generation(solar/wind)?

� it would be appropriate for this development to be genuinely progressive withregards to insulation, efficiency and micro-power generation & do more thanjust the 'minimum';

� Implementing a design that takes the floor level of the reservoir as the groundlevel of the proposed scheme - would avoid the import of a large cubic amountof infill material to level the site up to the existing street level ;

� Reuse of the bricks of the current reservoir structure as the facings of theproposed housing should be a requirement;

� Recycling the bricks of the reservoir for the facing bricks of the proposeddevelopment.

- 50 -

Design

� Design addresses 'Victorian Vernacular' with it's expression of social role in theseparation of entrances, server and served, raised entrance doors and lowerservants doors.

� Design is a naive attempt to replicate a set of values and aesthetic and doesnot in any way preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

� Prefer to see good modern design rather than a pastiche of the older houseslocally.

� The proposed elevations are different from the older houses anyway, somehouses being raised on full height basements.

� Very high steps will appear as an ugly, dominant feature in the final outcomeand the boundary wall will be vital to hide them from the street.

� The documents specify that decorative details will be simplified in comparisonto surrounding older houses –not surprising, given the cost of reproducing thelevel of detail.

� For an example of how not to do it, look at the houses that were built around 10years ago in Kitto Road.

� The front of the proposed houses are a pastiche no attempt at all has beenmade to keep the back of the properties in keeping at all.

� Appears modifications have been made to the plans that take into accountmany of the previous concerns.

� Approve the block layout as submitted.

� Proposed building form stays the same but the elevational treatment bechanged to plain and simple design, very good detailing and high qualitymaterials, rather than the pale neo Victorian approach of reactionaryconservationism.

� The set back signifies that it is not part of the original Haberdasher’s Estatelayout, but lead to an understanding that it is a replacement of a previous landuse.

� If elevations are pale copies of the existing adjacent elevations the proposedelevations will be further away from the street and their inadequacies slightlyless noticeable.

Effect on Infrastructure

� Local school is one of the most oversubscribed in the country.

� Car parking is increasingly difficult on Jerningham Road – especially since thecouncil installed large concrete islands all along it.

- 51 -

� There’s also some anxiety about the effect of the building on our foundations.Cracks have already appeared in our house since the speed bumps wereinstalled on a road used by buses.

Construction Process

� Building process will be very loud and dirty for at least a year.

� Affect on baby’s hearing is a great worry.

� 'Considerate construction' must be enforced, to ensure minimum disruptionduring the construction period.

Front wall

� In a visual sense I’d be sorry to see the existing boundary wall lost - it adds tothe character of the street. But I am inclined to agree with the assessment thatthe condition is poor and even if it can be saved, the cost of long termmaintenance will be a burden to occupants of the new houses and may leaveus all with an eyesore. If there is a risk of the wall blowing over in high windsthen the decision is clear.

� These air raid signs are increasingly rare and should be preserved by re-usinga section of the painted brickwork in the new wall.

� Require that the wall be reinstated to match the existing brick boundary wall inall respects, height, coping and pier detailing etc.

Layout

� Layout of the buildings is as good as can reasonably be achieved on the site,so long as a wall of similar appearance is built to replace the existing wall.

Ecology

� Bats: they are regular features of our garden and can be seen most evenings.

� A bat expert being present during the demolition is inadequate - someoneshould go inside the structure to check demolition began.

� Stag beetles are endemic to the area. They live in several gardens in PepysRoad and I have seen them in Telegraph Hill Upper Park this year.

Loss of Trees

� The trees on the site are of very great visual amenity, regardless of the ratherdismissive technical perspective of the author (of the arboricultural report) ontheir physical defects.

� If they are to go, the number and quality of their replacements are importantconsiderations to ensure that the detriment to the street is only temporary.

� If St James are planning to remove all trees on the site and replant, themaintenance of the replacement trees is vital to their success.

- 52 -

� Protection of nearby trees during works should be monitored.

� Require that there are an abundance of proposed trees on the site directlyadjacent to the Jerningham Road brick boundary wall.

Water run off

� The development involves the paving over of a considerable area. The Councilshould ensure that paving surfaces are permeable to allow groundwater to gointo the soil.

Statement of Community Involvement

� As stated, only 20 people attended the exhibition. I object to the small numberof households invited.

S106

� I also note the vague promise to give S106 money to “local schools,recreational facilities, health facilities, libraries, and community centres/ halls”and would want to see something more of a commitment. There is a thriving butcash-strapped community cafe project in Telegraph Hill (part of Bold Vision)and a busy community centre in the church hall, both of which are only a fewyards away from the reservoir and I hope some definite commitment can bemade to both of these.

Social / affordable housing.

� I am disappointed to see that plans for affordable housing have been removedfrom the development. Telegraph Hill should not be an island of wealth.

A gated community?

� The worst thing that St James could create would be a gated community ofprivilege, separated from the rest of the area.

Overlooking

� The numerous rear-facing balconies which will overlook our house and gardenare not in any way in keeping with the area and will also negatively affect ourproperty.

Sunlight/daylight

� The bedroom at the side of the house overlooking the reservoir already haslimited direct sunlight - the proposed buildings will limit the light further: andaccording to the plans, the end-terrace buildings will be positioned where theywill have a maximum negative impact on our sunlight.

Refuse

� Unhappy that there will be a communal bin collection point immediately outsideour house. We are worried about the smell and the noise.

Loss of Green Space

- 53 -

� Space would be used more imaginatively to the benefit of the community.

� The proposed site is a beautiful haven for wildlife and open space, to destroythis would be an absolute crime.

Impact on Conservation Area

� The whole character of the Telegraph Hill area – an asset to New Cross as awhole and the wider area in South East London - depends on thecomprehensive protection of features such as the reservoir and the upholdingof the conservation area rules.

Local Meeting

A Local Meeting was held on 18th October 2010 in response to these objectionsbeing received. It took place at the Telegraph Hill Centre and was chaired byCouncillor Millbank. The notes of this meeting are on the case file. The main pointsdiscussed were:� The principle of redeveloping the site;

� Code for Sustainable homes – why is the scheme meeting only level 3?

� The design and appearance of the dwellings and copies vs contemporary;

� Whether St James have done enough to overcome concerns;

� Whether the buildings should be located on the building line or not;

� The front wall and the reuse of bricks;

� The build and it’s effects on local residents and roads;

� The process and timetabling

4.5 Telegraph Hill Society

� Overall principle –the development neither seeks to preserve nor enhance theConservation Area.

� The proposed development removes green space from an already highlydeveloped area - it is acknowledged as highly beneficial to residents’ well-being.

� It creates an open environment, allows flora and fauna to flourish, and generallyprovides for an attractive ambiance.

� Site potentially represents one of the few areas of land which could be used forcommunity use.

� Strongly in favour of a traditional development which blends in with the existing.

� Deviations from the design structure mean that, rather than producing anharmonious addition to the area, it produces a pastiche design which cannot besaid to be an enhancement when compared with the existing site.

� The design does not properly reflect the style of properties and should berejected on the grounds that it does not (a) comply with URB15 in that it doesnot respect the spaces, form and materials of the Conservation Area or (b)comply with URB2 in retaining important features of surrounding buildings.

- 54 -

Developments should reproduce as far as possible the design of existing propertiesacross Telegraph Hill.

� Would be best to respect the building line of the remainder of the road – doingthis would also address our concern over parking at the front of the propertiesand remove concerns that this development is going to appear isolated andseparate.

� Need to ensure that the floor levels were at the same height as the neighbouringproperties would overcome our concerns as to disproportionate height of theground floor.

� If it is accepted that the development does not need to replicate existingproperties we object to certain design elements which destroy the uniformity ofthe Conservation Area but also provides a precedent.

� Single individual unit in the middle of the layout would be highly inappropriateand contrary to URB15. A single free-standing, single-bay property such as thisdoes not appear elsewhere in the Conservation Area.

� The properties are wider than the existing properties and designed such thatthere is considerable spacing between the front doors in each of the semi-detached units;

� Positioning of steps with front balcony: In all original properties the front stepslead directly up to the front doors – here they lead up to one side of the frontdoor

� Basement door: Due to the inappropriate positioning of the stairs and maindoorway, the basement door on plot 1 (and 9) is 5/6th hidden below the stairs,that of plot 2 (and 8) fully visible, and those of plots 3 and 4 (and 6 and 7) are1/3rd hidden. Basement doors should be either fully beside or under or set intothe side of, the stairs.

� The need to include a wheelchair accessible unit (plot 2) means that there is adispleasing lack of symmetry between Units 1 and 2.

� Bay windows are narrower than those on existing properties and again.

� The height of the ground floors is higher up than surrounding properties and this,with the prominent steps and balconies distorts the overall balance of theproperties compared with the standard Haberdashers’ design.

� Strongly prefer the ground floors to be slightly sunken, as is common with mostproperties across the Hill (where they have a full storey basement level).

� Unclear what bonding style is to be used and this should be clarified - opposethe use of modern stretcher bonding as this type of bonding is not usedelsewhere in Telegraph Hill.

� The rebuilt elements of the reservoir wall facing Jerningham Road should berebuilt in English Garden bond replicating the existing bonding of the wall.

� Rear Elevation – is seen from Vesta Road and has impact on the public realm -we would welcome a more varied and interesting design & 2nd floor balconiesshould be deleted from the design.

- 55 -

� Landscaping and parking - deeply oppose the design of the front areas- shouldbe redesigned with communal parking, rather than individual parking outsideeach property, in order to ensure that as much green space is retained aspossible.

� The loss of the green space of the reservoir to parking is equally to be regrettedand the design - preferred solution is parking to be at the rear.

� The developer fails to introduce detailing around the windows and dooropenings, fish scale roof tiles or roof finials and crests (amongst others) into itsdesign.

� Side bay extensions - they confuse the appearance of the properties from thefront elevation particularly in respect of the chimneys which no longer appear tothe end of the buildings.

� Roof – lack of terracotta ridge ornaments and no finial on the bay roof, tiles overthe bay window are square rather than fishtail.

� Window Pillars and moulding -absence of decorative detailing on the windowsand around the doors on the elevations proposed. The setting of the propertiesalone, adrift from the existing building line, will distinguish old from the new –using simplified mouldings to do so is not necessary.

� Main floor windows - these should only have a vertical glazing bar on the topfloor bay windows;

� Rear elevation - French windows are exceeding ugly and should be redesignedto have period features.

� Rendering - Unconvinced by white rendering of the whole of the ground floor.Owing to the higher ground level the rendering has a much more significantimpact than it does on other properties.

� Building Materials – If the steps are to be white this would be unacceptable.Front steps across the Hill were originally left grey or stained red, but are nowmore generally bituminised and dark grey or black.

� Landscape materials - Harvest tone block paving is entirely inappropriate for thearea – suggest a material resembling granite sets.

� Heritage assets and demolition of the reservoir wall -The information providedwithin Appendix 5 of the developer’s Heritage Asset statement is in some placesconfusing and, in one instance wrong.

� We should be grateful should permission be allowed, that a full photographicsurvey of the structure (interior and exterior) be carried out is required through acondition of the planning permission to the Council’s satisfaction and depositedwith the Lewisham Local Studies Library archives.

� Would like to see retention of “S” shelter sign.

� There are demands from residents on the very limited facilities which exist - thereis not sufficient space allocated within the area for the demands of varying leisureactivities - the development of the reservoir site removes almost the last possiblesite.

- 56 -

� We therefore believe that the least the developer can do to acknowledge theproblems their development causes is to make a contribution towards localfacilities.

� Funding for the Telegraph Hill Centre would be one possible consideration fors106 funding or the provision of a play-area either on Somerville Estate or as partof a joint funding initiative with the development on the railway sidings offDrakefell Road

4.6 Applicants Response to objections (24/09/10)

� In response to the comments received above the applicant has responded with aletter explaining the changes that it is willing to make and where they considerchanges not to be necessary.

� The proposed changes being – alteration of bays to match closer adjacentproperties, variation of other window dimensions, removal vertical glazing bars toground and 1st floor windows, use of Flemish bond on front elevation, addition ofdrip detail and alteration to arch detail on front door, introduction of square fanlight to replace arch over front door, removal of detailing between ground and 1st

floor, amendment of detailing between 1st and 2nd floor, introduction of crest ridgetiles and finials on roof, increased roof pitch, amended piers detail to frontentrance steps and landing.

Highways & Transportation

4.7 Unobjectionable in Principle.

Environmental Health

4.8 The construction management strategy is satisfactory.

National Grid

4.9 Advice provided to applicant concerning construction activities in vicinity of gas mainand underground services in close proximity to the development.

Ecological Regeneration Manager

4.10 Development is attempting to be sensitive to it's immediate location and setting sowill not suggest the use of living roofs as these would seem a little out of character.Don't have any particular concerns apart from that the developer/contractor shouldbe made fully aware of that reckless disturbance to a bat roost is an offence and thatthe recommendations in the Ecological Assessment for a cautionary approach tothe demolition of the covered reservoir is sensible and desirable. Should bats bediscovered that work stops immediately and that a qualified and licensed ecologistshould advise. In terms of the bird and bat box ecological enhancements - minimumof 9 should be provided. Therefore, a bird or bat box for each living unit would beappropriate and that a sensible mix is sought. Please advise the client that thesuccess of the wildflower meadow will be greatly enhanced if they attempt to use alow nutrient substrate, crushed brick would be best but sub soil would be moreappropriate than top soil.

Metropolitan Police – Crime Prevention Unit

4.11 Advice provided to applicant in relation to possible Secure by Design application.

- 57 -

Thames Water

4.12 No response

Environment Agency

4.13 Please refer to Flood Risk Standing Advice for guidance on surface water drainage.

4.14 In terms of groundwater protection, the site is underlain by London Clay(unproductive strata) so there is no controlled water receptor present. As such, thesite is in a low risk area for groundwater and we have no specific requirements interms of protecting groundwater quality.

Amenity Societies Panel

4.15 The Panel preferred the current scheme to earlier proposals which they had seen.However they would wish the applicant to address the following issues:-

(1) Instead of a central detached house with two semi detached pairs either side, aterrace of 5 with slightly wider spaces between the remaining houses would bemore in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area.

(2) The positioning of basement doors was haphazard whereas this feature is veryconsistent in Haberdasher Company houses within the Conservation Area.

(3) The bay windows should be the same width as existing properties in the street(i.e. wider).

(4) Architectural ornament on the building should have the same level of detail asexisting properties in the Conservation Area and should not be simplified.Accurate attention to detail has been a feature of recent planning permissionsfor in-fill development within the Conservation Area (e.g. 85 Arbuthnot Road).

(5) Ground floor front entrance doors should be paired, as in the case of traditionalperiod houses in the Conservation Area. There should also be no landings tothe side of the front entrance steps.

(6) Use of Flemish bonding for brickwork should be conditioned.

(7) Condition on recording the existing reservoir before removal also required.

(8) Existing reservoir wall to street should be retained if possible or rebuilt withsame appearance. Subject to this the Panel felt that the set back to thebuilding line of the scheme was acceptable.

5.0 POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 In July 2007 The Department for Communities and Local Government published itsGreen Paper entitled, Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable. Thisdocument sets out plans for delivering more homes in the UK. It sets a target forthree million new homes by 2020.

5.2 Planning Policy Guidance

PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Communities

- 58 -

5.3 The objectives of the guidance are wide ranging and some of its aims are to makesuitable land is available for development, to improve the quality of people’s livesand to contribute to sustainable economic development. The PPS states thatplanning should ensure high quality development through good and inclusive designand the efficient use of resources.

5.4 The PPS also advices that local planning authorities should not attempt to imposearchitectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation,originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certaindevelopment forms or style.

PPS 1: Planning and Climate Change –Supplement to PPS15.5 Published in December 2007, this sets out guidance on how development should be

planned to limit carbon dioxide emissions, make good use of opportunities fordecentralised and renewable or low carbon energy and minimise future vulnerabilityin a changing climate.

PPS 3: Housing5.6 PPS 3 sets out how the planning system supports the growth in housing completions

that are needed in England. It seeks to assist the delivery of the Government’sstrategic housing policy objectives and seeks to ensure that everyone can live in adecent home which they can afford and in a community where they want to live.

PPS 5 – Planning for the Historic Environment5.7 This document was issued in March 2010 and provides guidance on the

conservation, preservation and investigation of Heritage Assets. Heritage Assets aredefined in Annex 2 of PPS5 as a building, monument, archaeological site, place,area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meritingconsideration in planning decisions and as the valued components of the historicenvironment.

PPS 9 - Biodiversity5.8 PPS 9 provides guidance in relation to the maintenance, enhancement, restoration

or addition to the country’s biodiversity. It highlights the importance of the country’sbiodiversity, the need to protect protected species, and that decisions affectingprotected species should be based on up to date information and that adequatemitigation should be made for any loss of habitat.

PPG 13: Transport.5.9 The objective of this PPG13 is to promote more sustainable transport choices for

both people and for moving freight, to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisurefacilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and to reduce theneed to travel, especially by car.

PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk5.10 PPS 25 aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the

planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, andto direct development away from areas that hold the highest risk. The guidancerequires that Flood Risk Assessments accompany development proposals withinareas at risk.

Other PPGs and PPSs5.11 In addition there is guidance in other PPGs and PPSs that is of relevance in

considering the application, principally those relating to Renewable Energy (PPS22)and Planning and Noise (PPG24).

- 59 -

5.12 Other Guidance

The London Plan

5.13 The London Plan consolidated with Alterations since 2004 was published inFebruary 2008.

� 2A.1 Sustainability. This policy’s criteria requires the optimisation of the useof previously developed land and promotes a design-led approach tomaximise the potential of sites.

� 3A.2: Borough housing targets sets a strategic target of 9,750 homes to bebuilt in Lewisham for the plan period 2007/08 to 2016/17.

� 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites seeks to ensure that developmentproposals achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with local contextetc.

� 3A.5: Housing choice UDP policies should ensure new developments offer arange of housing choices for all communities, built to ‘Lifetime Homes’standards and 10% wheelchair accessible.

� 3A.6 Quality of new housing provision seeks to ensure high quality newhomes.

� 3A.9: Affordable housing targets. UDP policies should set an overall target foraffordable housing based on an assessment of housing needs and theseshould take into account the Mayor’s strategic target of 50% affordableprovision.

� 3C.1 Integrating transport and development seeks the integration of transportand development.

� 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity seeks to matchdevelopment to existing transport capacity.

� 3C.21 Improving conditions for walking.

� 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling.

� 3C.23 Parking strategy relates to parking strategies, and guides councils toencourage access by sustainable means of transport and to adopt maximumparking standards and where appropriate, take account of localcircumstances and allow for reduced car parking provision in areas of goodtransport accessibility.

� 3D.13 Children and young people’s Play & Informal Recreation Strategiesseeks to ensure that all children have safe access to good quality, well-designed, secure and stimulating play and informal recreation provision.

� 3D.14 Biodiversity and nature conservation states that planning of newdevelopment and regeneration should have regard to nature conservationand biodiversity.

� 4A.1: Tackling climate change provides an overarching policy for respondingto the climate change challenge.

- 60 -

� 4A.3: Sustainable design and construction seeks to ensure that newdevelopment is designed and built to deliver sustainable outcomes.

� 4A.4: Energy assessment Boroughs should request an assessment of theenergy demand for proposed major developments and developments shoulddemonstrate proposed heating and cooling systems have been selected inorder of preference with passive design (most favoured) and gas centralheating (least favoured).

� 4A.5 Provision of heating and cooling networks seeks to maximiseopportunities for providing new networks that are supplied by decentralisedenergy.

� 4A.7 Renewable energy encourages energy efficiency and the use ofrenewable energy technologies in order to help meet the Mayoral carbonemission reduction targets.

� 4A.11 Living Roofs and Walls encourages such provision.

� 4A.13: Flood risk management promotes the management of flood risk.

� 4A.14 Sustainable drainage promotes a drainage hierarchy for ensuring thatsurface water run-off is managed as close as possible to its source.

� 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city sets out the key characteristics,which should be encouraged in new developments.

� Policy 4B11 seeks to protect and enhance London’s built heritage.

� Policy 4B12 looks to protect and enhance London’s historic assets.

� 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment.

� 4B.6: Safety, security and fire prevention and protection seeks to ensure thatnew development safeguards personal safety.

� 6A.4 and 6A.5 Priorities in planning obligations and Planning obligationsencourage the use of obligations to secure affordable housing, transport andother improvements where appropriate.

5.14 London Housing Design Guide (Interim Edition) August 2010This document sets out minimum standards for housing in London as well asproposing improvements in the development and procurement process so thatdesign remains valued from vision to delivery.

Local Policy

Adopted Unitary Development Plan5.15 The ‘saved’ policies in the adopted UDP (July 2004), together with the London Plan,

comprise the ‘development plan’ for Lewisham. Relevant policies are: URB 3 UrbanDesign, URB 4 Designing out Crime, URB 12 Landscape and Development, URB 13Trees, URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings inConservation Areas, URB 17 Demolition in Conservation Areas, OS 13 NatureConservation, ENV PRO 11 Noise Generating Development, ENV PRO 14Controlling Development in the Flood Plain, ENV PRO15 Sustainable Surface WaterDrainage in New Development, HSG 2 Housing on Previously Developed Land,

- 61 -

HSG 4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New ResidentialDevelopment, HSG 6 Dwelling Mix, HSG 7 Gardens, HSG 8 Backland and In-fillDevelopment, HSG 14 Provision of Affordable Housing, HSG 15 Creating Viable andBalanced Communities, TRN 1 Location of Development, TRN 2 Travel ImpactStatements, TRN 3 Developer Contributions, TRN 4 Access for Public Transport,TRN 5 Green Travel plans, TRN 10 Protection and Improvement of Public Transport,TRN 14 Cycle Parking (Table TRN2), TRN 15 Provision for Cyclists and Walkers,TRN 16 Developing Pedestrian and Cycle Networks, TRN 26 Car Parking Standards(Table TRN1), LCE 4 Places for Children to Play, IRM 3 Community Benefit andPlanning Loss.

5.16 Supplementary Planning Documents

5.17 Lewisham’s Residential Development Standards Supplementary Planning Document(SPD) (August 2006).

5.18 Telegraph Hill Conservation Area Appraisal

Local Development Framework

5.19 On 19 February 2010 Lewisham Council published its proposed submission versionof the Core Strategy. This is the principal Development Plan Document and onceadopted, will replace many of the policies in the current UDP. It is a materialconsideration in the determination of applications for planning permission, but it willnot form part of the Development Plan for the Borough until it is formallyadopted. Government advice on the weight to be attached to emerging DPD policiesremains that this is determined upon the stage of preparation or review, increasingas successive stages are reached. As the emerging draft Core Strategy is currentlyin the stage of Pre Submission following public consultation it will carry little weight inthe determination of planning applications because the document is at an earlystage in the preparation process.

6.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The key issues can be summarised as follows:

(1) Principle of Development(2) Urban Design and impact on the character and appearance of the Telegraph

Hill Conservation Area(3) Housing issues(4) Impacts on Surrounding Properties(5) Transport(6) Trees and Landscaping(7) Environmental Sustainability(8) Ecology(9) Legal Agreement and Viability(10) Other issues – dust and air quality

Principle of Development

6.2 The Adopted UDP does not contain policies which protect the loss of the reservoirnor does the emerging LDF. There are also no policies requiring that the land beused for community use or as open space.

- 62 -

6.3 The application is supported by a Heritage Report which assessed the reservoirstructure’s significance and the effect of its demolition on the character andappearance of the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area. It concluded that it is a heritageasset of low to very low significance, medium evidential value, medium to lowhistorical value, very low communal value and very low aesthetic value. In terms ofPolicy HE8 of PPS 5 it would therefore be placed towards the lower end of thesignificance to be attached to heritage assets. The assessment concludes that thereshould be no presumption in favour of its preservation and it makes very littlecontribution to the character or appearance of the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area.

6.4 The Council’s conservation officer has raised no objection to the principle of theremoval of the reservoir structure, subject to the approval of an acceptableapplication for the development of the site.

6.5 The UDP encourages the use of previously developed land, a stance supported byPPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Communities. As the site is a brownfield site theprinciple of redevelopment of this site for housing is considered to be acceptable.

Urban Design and Conservation

6.6 The relevant policies in assessing design are London Plan policies 4B.1 (Principlesof Design for a Compact City) and Policy 4B.4 (Enhancing the Quality of the PublicRealm) and relevant UDP policies include Policy URB 3 which requires a highstandard of design in new development whilst ensuring that schemes are compatiblewith, or complement the scale and character of existing development and its settingas well as URB 4 Designing Out Crime and URB 16 New Development, Changes ofUse and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas.

6.7 In relation to the architectural style of the proposed dwellings, many contemporarydesigns have been considered for this development and none have workedparticularly well. Given the strength of feeling against a contemporary design theapplicant has chosen, unsurprisingly to follow the route of adopting a design similarto that of the surrounding houses. Officers have consistently advised the applicantthat whichever architectural approach was adopted, a very high quality scheme wasexpected. The applicants have made a number of amendments to the currentscheme following the objections, particularly those from the Telegraph Hill Society(THS) and have made many minor but vital improvements to the appearance of theproposed houses such as inclusion of crested ridge tiles, use of Flemish bond andthe removal of detailing between ground and first floor. St James have responded indetail to the comments raised by the Telegraph Hill Society and have givenjustifications where they have not made changes.

6.8 All of the pairs of semi detached properties proposed are not symmetrical – plots 1and 2 and 8 and 9 are different in width and plots 3 and 4 and 6 and 7 have differentroofs. In the case of pairs 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, as they sit to either side of thedetached dwelling which has a gabled roof, so the gabled ends of 4 and 5 wouldappear appropriate and as there are hipped ends to houses 2 and 8, the hipped endof 3 and 6 would also appear appropriate. To have all hips or all gables would appearmore noticeable. Plots 1 and 2 and 8 and 9 are different widths - plots 1 and 9 havean additional element to the side which is 1.5m wide. This element is slightly set backfrom the frontage and is not considered to be significant in terms of unbalancing thepairs.

- 63 -

6.9 There has also been a good deal of discussion concerning whether the frontalignment of the new buildings should be set back or should align with the adjacentbuildings on this side of Jerningham Road. It is considered that there are benefitsand disbenefits to both options – setting back allows parking and landscaping to thefront and visually addresses the fact that these are new buildings. Siting thedevelopment to align with the adjacent buildings would repair the break in thebuilding frontage although it would raise issues with the neighbouring properties onJerningham Road and Vesta Road as cars would travel into the back of the plot topark, causing noise and disturbance (especially at night). Again, due to the weight ofobjection to the latter, the applicant has proposed to provide parking to the front,resulting in a set-back. Officers agree that this option has least impact onneighbouring amenities and given the fact the reservoir already breaks the frontage itis not considered necessary to knit it back.

6.10 The Telegraph Hill Society has voiced concerns over the detached dwelling whichthey consider to be an uncommon feature of the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area,but it occurs elsewhere. Where these houses are found they are single fronted with asingle bay window, as is proposed here and consequently this detached property isconsidered to be acceptable in design terms.

6.11 The proposed dwellings would be constructed using traditional methods and highquality materials sympathetic to the Conservation Area. The conservation officer hascommended the proposed use of Freshfield Danehill facing bricks and conditions arerecommended to ensure that materials and detailing are of satisfactory quality.

6.12 The removal and rebuilding of the front wall has been the subject of much concernfrom residents. The piers at the ends of the wall are to be retained and the wall wouldbe reinstated to the same height using stone coping and pier detailing at theentrance points. On the wall there is a painted ‘S’ on the northern end which pointedthe way to a wartime air raid shelter at Haberdashers Aske’s Boys School. This signis an item of local historical significance and it would appear that unfortunately theoriginal sign cannot be kept as the wall is so fragile. The applicant is proposing torepaint the sign onto the rebuilt wall and a condition has been attached to ensure thatthis happens. The applicants have now also committed to build the wall reusingbricks from the existing wall.

6.13 Overall it is considered that the approach adopted to the development of the site isthe most successful of those that have been considered.

6.14 The design of the proposed houses is of a sufficiently high standard and wouldreflect the design detail of the Victorian houses in the area, such that Officersconsider that this proposal would preserve the character and appearance of theTelegraph Hill Conservation Area. The scheme is considered to meet therequirements of UDP policies URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use andAlterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas and URB 17 Demolition inConservation Areas.

Housing Issues

6.15 Dwelling mix - Relevant national guidance is set out in PPS 1 (DeliveringSustainable Communities) and PPS 3 (Housing). The relevant UDP policies areHSG 6 (Dwelling Mix) and HSG14 Creating Viable and Balanced Communities whilethe relevant London Plan policy is 3A.5 (Housing choice), which is supported by theMayor of London’s SPG on Housing (2005).

- 64 -

6.16 UDP Policy HSG 6 states the Council will seek a mixture of dwelling sizes in thecase of residential developments of 15 units or more. As such Officers did notrequire there to be a mix of unit sizes. The applicants have submitted a marketreport which compiled responses from various estate agents as to which housesthey considered to be best for the site as well as a survey of larger properties in thearea. The report found that there is demand for larger high quality family properties.

6.17 The proposal is for 9 units, all of which would be 4/5 bedrooms. The LondonHousing Strategy suggests that schemes should deliver 42% family units so thisscheme far exceeds that figure. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report shows thatonly 2% of private sale units in the year 2008-2009 were 4 bedroom plus units. Thisscheme would introduce nine 4/ 5 bed semi detached and detached dwellings. Thenature of the proposed accommodation which would assist in addressing the needfor large family units within the borough. To ensure that these large family homesare retained a condition is recommended.

6.18 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Housing - General guidance is set out inPPS 3 (Housing). The UDP does not have a policy on accessible housing, howeverthe adopted Residential Development Standards SPD and London Plan policy 3A.5(Housing choice) call for 100% lifetime homes provision and 10% wheelchaircompliant homes. All of the proposed dwellings would meet all the Lifetime Homescriteria and one would be wheelchair adaptable.

6.19 Quality of Proposed Accommodation- The relevant national guidance is set out inPPS 3 (Housing). The relevant UDP policies are HSG 4 (Residential Amenity), HSG5 (Layout and Design of New Residential Development) and HSG 7 (Gardens). Alsoof relevance is the Council’s Residential Development Standards SPD which setsout guidance and standards to help ensure satisfactory accommodation and theDraft London Housing Design Guide (July 2009).

6.20 All of the proposed dwellings would be self-contained and dual aspect. All of theroom sizes meet the Council’s Residential Standards SPD and those in the LondonHousing Design Guide (August 2010) and as such provide a good standard ofaccommodation for future occupiers.

6.21 All of the dwellings would have a garden measuring well over 9m which is theminimum garden length set out in Policy HSG 7 and the Residential DevelopmentStandards SPD as well as a front courtyard area, giving a good standard of externalamenity space for each house.

6.22 Density - The relevant national guidance is set out in PPS 3 (Housing), the UDPpolicy on density was not saved and is replaced by the London Plan policy ondensity which is 3A.3 (Maximising the potential of sites). This policy issupplemented by the Mayor of London’s Housing SPG (2005).

6.23 The site has a PTAL of 4 and a density of approximately 45 – 90 units a hectarewould normally be appropriate. The proposed development would have a density of176.77 habitable rooms/ha. Whilst the applicant refers to the UDP Policy on density,it is the London Plan’s density matrix that is relevant and the proposed density wouldfall below the criteria in the matrix. Policy 3A.3 states that schemes should meet thesuggested levels and should achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible withlocal context, and the design principles in Policy 4B.1. In a Conservation Areacontext the design and layout of the development is clearly important and isconsidered to hold greater weight than the need for the site to meet the densitythreshold.

- 65 -

To increase the density would affect the appearance of the dwellings, be likely toincrease building footprint or increase height or result in subdivisions and wouldcreate a greater demand for parking (and there are many other possibilities) andtherefore would be very likely to have an adverse impact on the character andappearance of the conservation area.

6.24 As such the fact that this site is at a density below the density threshold isconsidered acceptable given the site’s sensitive location.

Transport

6.25 Relevant London Plan Policies are 3C.17 (Tackling congestion and reducing traffic),3C.21 (Improving conditions for walking) 3A.3 (Maximising the potential of sites) andTable 3A.2 (Density Matrix), 3C.1 (Integrating transport and development) and3C.23 (Parking strategy).Relevant UDP policies are TRN 2 (Travel ImpactStatements), TRN 3 (Developer Contributions), TRN 5 (Green Travel Plans), TRN20 (Improving Road Safety) and TRN 26 (Car Parking Standards)

6.26 The application is supported by a Transport Statement which highlights the site’sproximity to 3 stations and 2 bus routes which are within 150m giving the site aPTAL 4 rating.

6.27 Each house would have one parking space and trip generation from the site isconsidered to be low and as such would have a negligible impact on existingtransport infrastructure and services.

6.28 Cycle Parking The relevant UDP Policies are TRN 14 (Cycle Parking), TRN 15(Provision for Cyclists and Walkers) and TRN 16 (Developing Pedestrian and CycleNetworks). The most relevant London Plan policy is 3C.22 (Improving conditions forcycling). The scheme shows that cycles can be stored in the sheds which areproposed in the rear gardens. This level of provision is in line with policy.

6.29 Refuse It is proposed that each household would bring their bins on collection dayto a collection point within 10m from the back of the pavement and therefore isacceptable in Highway terms. In order to ensure that the refuse bins are taken backto the individual dwellings a refuse management plan has been sought by condition.

Impact on Surrounding Properties

6.30 This section focuses on the impact that the scheme would have on the propertiessurrounding the site. Policies HSG 4 (Residential Amenity) and HSG 5 (Layout andDesign of New Residential Development) seek to ensure that new developments aredesigned so that the amenities of existing residential properties are not unacceptablyharmed. The Council’s Residential Development Standards SPD states thatdevelopers will be expected to demonstrate how privacy would be provided foroccupiers of neighbouring housing, noting that unless otherwise demonstrated thatprivacy can be maintained through design, there should be a minimum separation of21m between directly facing habitable room windows which would need to beincreased where higher buildings are involved.

- 66 -

Outlook, Privacy and Overlooking

6.31 Privacy - With regard to privacy, the separation distance at the rear between theclosest directly facing property in Reservoir Road is greater than 21m. The closesthouses in Vesta Road are at an angle to the site with no. 56 having the closestrelationship with the development. Though the garden of that property runs alongmuch of the rear boundary of the site it is not considered that no.56 would besignificantly adversely affected in terms of privacy given the oblique relationship andthe fact there would be trees on the rear boundary of the site obscuring views.

6.32 Outlook - it is not considered that the scheme would have a detrimental impact onthe outlook of neighbouring residents, therefore the proposal is considered to complywith UDP policies HSG 4 and HSG 5.

6.33 Sunlight and Daylight Impacts – the Daylight and Sunlight report submitted with theapplication considered the impact on specific properties in relation to BRE guidelinesas follows:116 To 152 (Even) Jerningham Road, 38 Reservoir Road and 46 To 56 (Even)Vesta Road. Daylight and Sunlight - All windows and rooms would be BREcompliant.159 Jerningham Road – All rooms would be compliant in sunlight terms and all butone would be BRE compliant in daylight terms. Window W2/2010 which appears toserve a kitchen “will experience an alteration to the level of sky visibility at thewindow face which is in excess of the BRE recommended maximum reduction of20%” which the report states ‘that this could potentially mean an adverse affect tothe level of daylight amenity to the room’. The report then considers the part of theroom served by this window in terms of the area which can receive direct skylight (atworking plane height) and assesses that 82% of the room area is able to receivedirect skylight. The report concludes that ‘this represents a very good level ofdaylight distribution within the room and demonstrates BRE compliance’. 163 Jerningham Road – Currently the side windows are hidden behind a large,dense Holly tree which would be removed. The report finds that the tree will havehad an affect upon the daylight amenity and following the removal of the holly treeand the construction of the proposed scheme, all of the windows and rooms wouldbe BRE compliant in daylight and sunlight terms

6.35 In terms of the proposed rooms – the assessment finds that all of the rooms are fullyBRE compliant in terms of daylight and sunlight. It is therefore considered that thescheme would comply with UDP Policies HSG 4 and 5 and the ResidentialDevelopment Standards SPD

Trees and landscaping

6.36 Relevant policies in the UDP are URB 12 Landscape and Development and URB 13Trees. The development would involve the loss of a number of trees which areprotected through their conservation area location. The trees that are proposed to beremoved within the site are all growing within the top of the reservoir structure on theramped earth embankment. It would therefore not be possible to retain these treeswhen the reservoir is removed. The Council’s Tree Officer accepts the applicant’sproposals for replacement tree planting which shows that many trees would beplanted at the front and around the side/rear boundary. It is therefore considered thatthe replacement trees would suitably mitigate against the loss of the existing treeson the site and therefore the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on thevisual amenity of the street scene or wider area so as to justify refusal of permission.

- 67 -

6.37 The application contains a draft landscaping scheme which gives a good indicationof the applicant’s intentions for the open areas of the site. The scheme proposesclimbers and native planting in addition to with semi mature trees. The proposal alsoincludes wild flower meadow planting which the Council’s Ecological RegenerationManager supports, subject to satisfactory details being approved. The landscapeproposals are considered to be acceptable and would meet the requirements of theaforementioned policies.

Environmental Sustainability

6.38 Code for Sustainable Homes - The applicant proposes that all of the dwellings wouldachieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and this will be secured though acondition.

6.39 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - London Plan Policy 4A.1 (Tacklingclimate change) establishes an energy hierarchy based around using less energy, inparticular by adopting sustainable design and construction (being ‘lean’), supplyingenergy efficiently, in particular by prioritising decentralised energy generation (being‘clean’) and using renewable energy (being ‘green’) and policy 4A.6 is also ofrelevance. Policy 4A.7 Renewable Energy is of most relevance and states thatboroughs should “adopt a presumption that developments will achieve a reduction incarbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation…unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible”. The applicationproposes a 14.24% C02 reduction. This percentage would be met by solar thermalpanels on dwellings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and photovoltaic panels on dwellings 1 and9. 8.36% of the proposed development’s total energy demand would be throughrenewable technologies after the implementation of energy saving measures. Giventhat this is below the required 20% the applicants have committed to pay acontribution of £7,599.60 for reducing CO2 emissions in the Borough which wouldbe put into the fund that puts insulation into local properties (particularly those withsolid walls). The contribution total was calculated using the £ Cost of 1 PV x thenumber of PVs needed to bring the scheme up to 20% (i.e. 40 PVs).

Ecology

6.40 PPS9 suggest that Ecological Studies are undertaken a stance supported in LondonPlan Policy 3D14. UDP policy STR OS 3 is also of relevance. The submittedEcological Assessment reveals the site to have little ecological importance andwhilst a number of trees would be removed there are opportunities for habitatcreation which would improve the site’s ecological interest, such as a wildflowermeadow, native hedge planting, provision of climbing plants along the rear fence,the introduction of dead wood piles and bat and bird boxes.

6.41 The Ecological report also highlighted the presence of Japanese Knotweed whichthe applicant must ensure the removal of prior to commencement of works. It notesthey are aware that bird and bat habitats must also not be disturbed. Conditionshave been attached to deal with these matters.

Other Issues6.42 Air Quality – The Air Quality Assessment shows that the maximum predicted

increase of either nitrogen dioxide or PM10 as a result of increased vehicle flowsdue to the development would be “extremely small” which would be likely to have a“negligible” impact on local air quality.

- 68 -

6.43 An assessment of the levels of dust from site preparation and construction workswas carried out. The size of the proposed development would normally mean that itwould be categorised as a “low risk” site with regard to potential dust emissions butdue to the extent of the site preparation works, mitigation measures for “mediumrisk” sites were recommended, in order to ensure minimize effects.

S106 Planning Obligations

6.44 Circular 05/05 states that in dealing with planning applications, local planningauthorities should consider each on its merits and reach a decision based onwhether the application accords with the relevant development plan, unless material;considerations indicate otherwise. Where applications do not meet theserequirements, they may be refused. However in some instances, it may be possibleto make acceptable, development proposals which might otherwise beunacceptable, through the use of planning conditions or, where this is not possible,through planning obligations.

6.45 Paragraph 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (April 2010) setsout that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planningpermission for the development if the obligation is:

(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable(b) Directly related to the development; and(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.46 The applicant has provided a planning obligations statement outlining the obligationsthat they consider necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development inaccordance with Policy IRM 3 Community Benefit and Planning Loss. Below arelisted the contributions which the Council considers relevant to the development andnecessary to mitigate the impact of the proposals:

� Community Facilities £2,827 to go towards the provision, enlargement orimprovement of existing community facilities and services in the vicinity of thesite;

� Education - £102,573.40 to go towards the provision, enlargement orimprovement of existing educational facilities and services;

� Health - £12,600 to go towards measures for the provision of new healthfacilities and services or the enhanced capacity of existing facilities;

� Leisure - £7,321 for the provision of new leisure facilities and services or theenhanced capacity of existing facilities;

� Open Space - £3,784 for the provision of new open space provision or theenhancement of existing open space in the vicinity of the land;

� Renewable Energy - £7,599.60 for reducing CO2 emissions in the Boroughby putting insulation into local properties, particularly those with solid walls;

� Provision of wheelchair units

� Professional fees - £2,000

� Monitoring- £3,000

- 69 -

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposal is considered to be a well thought out response to the site and theresultant development is of good design quality which would preserve and enhancethe character and appearance of the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area. Theapplication would bring forward 9 large family dwellings which the Borough is most inneed of. The applicants have committed to a suitable s106 package which wouldadequately mitigate the impact of the proposal.

8.0 Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

8.1 The decision to grant planning permission has been taken, having regard to thepolicies and proposals in the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004)(February 2008) and the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004), as set outbelow and all relevant material considerations, including comments received inresponse to third party consultation.

8.2 The application was granted for the following reasons:

8.3 It is considered that the proposal satisfies the Council’s Land Use and environmentalcriteria and is acceptable in principle, being in accordance with Policies URB 3Urban Design, URB 4 Designing out Crime, URB 12 Landscape and Development,HSG 4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New ResidentialDevelopment, HSG 7 Gardens and TRN 26 Car Parking Standards in the adoptedUnitary Development Plan (July 2004).

8.4 It is considered that the proposal is appropriate in terms of its form and design andwould not result in material harm to the appearance or character of the surroundingarea, or the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is thereby inaccordance with Policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 4 Designing out Crime, URB 12Landscape and Development, HSG 4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout andDesign of New Residential Development, HSG 7 Gardens and TRN 26 Car ParkingStandards in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 RECOMMENDATION (A)

Authorise officers to negotiate a Section 106 Agreement in respect of the followingheads of terms:-

(a) Community Facilities - £2,827

(b) Health - £12,600

(c) Renewable Energy - £ 7,599.60

(d) Education - £ 102,573.40

(e) Open Space - £3, 784

(f) Leisure - £7, 321

(g) Provision of wheelchair units

(h) Professional fees - £2,000

(i) Monitoring – £3,000

- 70 -

9.2 RECOMMENDATION (B)

Subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement, authorise theHead of Planning to GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions including those setout in the conditions section below and such amendments as considered appropriateto ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.

CONDITIONS / REASONS

The development shall be constructed in accordance with the proposals set out inthe submitted Energy Strategy Addendum (September 2010) and the measuresshall be brought into active use prior to first occupation of any part of thedevelopment and maintained in full working order thereafter. Within six months ofpractical completion of the development a report verifying achievement of theenvisaged 14.24% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions shall be submitted to andapproved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason

To reduce carbon emissions and create homes that are more sustainable inaccordance with Policies 4A.1 Tackling Climate Change, 4A.7 Renewable Energyand 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction in the London Plan (February 2008 -Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) and the Mayor of London’s SupplementaryPlanning Guidance Sustainable Design and Construction (May 2006).

Code for Sustainable Homes(i) Before any work in connection with this permission is carried out above ground

level, the applicant shall provide to the local planning authority for approval inwriting an independently verified Code for Sustainable Homes interimcertification that seeks to achieve a minimum Code Level 3 rating.

(ii) The approved scheme shall then be provided in accordance with these detailsand a Code for Sustainable Homes final certificate (or other verification processagreed with the local planning authority), shall be submitted to and approved inwriting by the local planning authority, confirming that the agreed standardshave been met, prior to the first occupation of each dwelling.

Reason

To reduce carbon emissions and create homes that are more sustainable inaccordance with Policies 4A.1 Tackling Climate Change and 4A.3 SustainableDesign and Construction in the London Plan (February 2008 - Consolidated withAlterations since 2004). and the Mayor of London’s Supplementary PlanningGuidance ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (May 2006).

Site Investigation(a) No development shall commence until each of the following has occurred:

(i) a site investigation has been carried out to survey and assess the extent ofpotential contamination and its effect (whether on or off site);

(ii) a report comprising the results of that site investigation and recommendationsfor treatment of any contamination (whether by remedial works or not) has beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Council; and

- 71 -

(iii) all measures or treatments identified in that report as being necessary ordesirable for the remediation of the site have been implemented in full.

(b) If during any works at the site (whether pursuant to paragraph (a) of thiscondition [”paragraph a“] or implementation of this planning permissiongenerally) contamination is encountered which has not previously beenidentified (”the new contamination“), then paragraph (a) shall apply to the newcontamination and no further development shall take place until therequirements of paragraph (a) have been complied with in relation to the newcontamination.

(c) No dwelling shall be occupied until a closure report has been submitted to andapproved in writing by the Council. The closure report shall include confirmationthat the site has been eradicated of Japanese knotweed, details of theremediation (including waste materials removed from the site; an audit traildemonstrating that all imported or reused soil material conforms to current soilquality requirements as approved by the Council) and any post-remediationsampling that has been carried out.

Reason

To ensure that the local planning authority may be satisfied that potential sitecontamination is identified and remedied in view of the historical use of the site,which may have included industrial processes and to comply with Policy ENV.PRO10 Contaminated Land in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

Detailed drawings of a hard and soft landscaping scheme for the entire site shall besubmitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing prior to any workscommencing on site. This should include numbers of plants and locations, details ofthe wildflower meadow, the locations of the two retained reservoir access hatchesand information plaque. The soft landscaping scheme approved shall thereafter becarried out in the first appropriate planting season following completion of thebuilding works and thereafter retained in good condition for the lifetime of thedevelopment. The hard landscaping approved shall be carried out followingcompletion of building works and thereafter retained in good condition for the lifetimeof the development.

Reason

To protect the visual amenity of the neighbouring occupiers and to comply with theduty imposed on the local planning authority by Section 197 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990 and to comply with Policies URB 3 (Urban Design), URB12 (Landscape and Development) and URB 13 (Trees) in the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan (July 2004).

External Materials(i) No development shall commence until a sample board of the proposed

materials for the permitted hard landscaped areas has been provided on siteand written details (including colour, texture and bond in relation to blockwork)have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(ii) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved externalmaterials thereafter retained in good condition for the lifetime of thedevelopment.

- 72 -

Reason

To ensure that thedevelopment is of a satisfactorily high design standard and makesa positive contribution to the appearance of the locality and in accordance withPolicy URB 3 (Urban Design) in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

All planting, seeding or turfing forming part of the details of landscaping herebyapproved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following thefirst occupation and in any event no later than the completion of the whole of theDevelopment. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from thecompletion of the whole development die, are removed, or become seriouslydamaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others ofsimilar size and species, unless the local planning authority has given writtenconsent to any minor variation.

Reason

To protect the visual amenity of the neighbouring occupiers and to comply with theduty imposed on the local planning authority by Section 197 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990 and to comply with Policies URB 3 (Urban Design), URB12 (Landscape and Development) and URB 13 (Trees) in the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan (July 2004).

(i) Prior to the commencement of works, details of all proposed boundarytreatments (which in regard to the front boundary wall should also includedetails of the repainting of the air raid shelter sign and the reuse of up to 50% ofthe original bricks unless otherwise agreed) hereby approved shall besubmitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(ii) The approved boundary treatments shall be implemented in accordance withthe approved details before the development is occupied and shall be retainedthereafter.

Reason

To ensure that the details of these arrangements are satisfactory and to comply withPolicy URB 12 (Landscape and Development) in the adopted Unitary DevelopmentPlan (July 2004).

No occupation shall take place until notification has been sent and acknowledged bythe local planning authority confirming the locations of the 9 artificial bird nestingsites/boxes, 9 artificial bat roosting sites/boxes and two wood piles for stag beetles.

Reason

In order that the development adequately safeguards birds on the site and inaccordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

External Materials (Buildings)(i) The development shall be carried out in the materials submitted (Danehill

Yellow bricks, Eternit Slate roof tiles (Rivendale) and Leicester Orange brickbands unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority inadvance of construction commencing on site and details of all other externalfacing materials

- 73 -

(including balustrading, ridge tiles, guttering, render) shall be submitted to andapproved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement ofworks on site. A material sample board shall also be provided on site at the sametime for inspection.

(ii) Flemish Bond shall be used on the front and side elevations of the dwellingswhere such walls are visible from Jerningham Road unless otherwise agreed inwriting with the local planning authority in advance of construction commencingon site.

(iii) The proposed windows shall be of timber double-hung sash construction, with90mm deep external reveals.

Reason

To ensure that the development is of a satisfactorily high design standard andmakes a positive contribution to the appearance of the locality and in accordancewith Policies URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use and Alterations toBuildings in Conservation Areas and URB 3 (Urban Design) in the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan (July 2004).

No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on the externalfaces of the buildings.

Reason

It is considered that such plumbing or pipes would seriously detract from theappearance of the buildings in accordance with Policy URB 3 (Urban Design) in theadopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

Lifetime Homes(i) All dwellings hereby approved are to be designed and constructed to Lifetime

Homes standards.

(ii) Prior to the occupation of any dwelling in connection with this permission, theapplicant shall provide to the local planning authority for approval in writing anindependently verified statement confirming that the building and every dwellingcontained therein achieves Lifetime Homes standards.

Reason

To ensure inclusive design in accordance with Policy 3A.5 Housing Choice in theLondon Plan (February 2008 - Consolidated with Alterations since 2004), the Mayorof London’s ‘Accessible London’ Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2004) andthe South East London Housing Partnership's 'Wheelchair Homes DesignGuidelines' (August 2009).

No deliveries to or from the site in connection with the site preparation orconstruction works shall take place outside the hours of 0800 and 1800 on Mondaysto Fridays and 0800 and 1300 on Saturdays and no such deliveries shall take placeat all on Sundays or public holidays.

- 74 -

Reason

In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupants at unsociable periods andto comply with Policies ENV.PRO 9 (Potentially Polluting Uses), ENV.PRO 11(Noise Generating Development) and HSG 4 (Residential Amenity) in the adoptedUnitary Development Plan (July 2004).

No construction work shall take place outside of 0800 to 1800 hours (Monday toFriday) and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays. There shall be no construction work onSundays or public Holidays.

Reason

In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupants at unsociable periods andto comply with Policies ENV.PRO 9 (Potentially Polluting Uses), ENV.PRO 11(Noise Generating Development) and HSG 4 (Residential Amenity) in the adoptedUnitary Development Plan (July 2004).

The refuse collection points shall be constructed in accordance with the approveddrawings before any of the residential units hereby approved are occupied. Detailsof a refuse management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by thelocal planning authority prior to commencement of works.

Reason

In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied with the provisions forrefuse collection in the scheme and to comply with Policy URB 3 Urban Design inthe adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

Informatives

(1) The applicant be advised that all construction work should be undertaken inaccordance with the "London Borough of Lewisham Code of Practice forControl of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites"available from the Environmental Health Office, 2nd Floor Laurence House, 1Catford Road, Catford, London SE6 4SW Tel No. 020 8314 6789.

(2) The applicant should be informed that if Planning Consent is granted theimplementation of the proposal will require approval by the Council of a StreetNaming & Numbering application. Application forms are available on theCouncil’s web site.

(3) The applicant should ensure that the development commits to the principles ofSecure by Design.