planning applications committee 13th may 2014 … · planning applications committee 13th may 2014...

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 13th

May 2014 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

1

101 14/01056/FUL Mudie House, Miller House, Lucraft House, Lafone House, Freeman House, Angus House,Cotton House, Crossman House, Currie House And Lycett House, London, SW2

Comments received (after agenda despatch) from resident in Mudie House: Resident pleased to see the revised plans of balconies position in Mudie House submitted by the applicant, which ensure that more flats have balconies off the living rooms rather than bedrooms. However, concerned that the revised plans of Mudie House now show smaller size balconies on some flats than on the original proposals (balcony type 1 replaced with balcony type 2). Officer response: The applicant reassessed the proposals and was able to reconfigure the balconies more favourably to the internal layout following earlier concerns being raised. However, as the balconies would be moved closer together the impact on the external appearance of the block was considered significant, as well as creating proximity and privacy concerns between individual units. As such, it was agreed with Officers that the smaller balcony type should be used instead.

None




2

115-156 14/01448/FUL & 14/01450/LB The Garden Museum, 5 Lambeth Palace Road

All references to the organisation which read as Museum of Garden History should instead be read as The Garden Museum.

Any Decision Notices issued under this application should make reference to the applicant being The Garden Museum and the site address being: The Garden Museum, St Mary’s Church, 5 Lambeth Palace Road.

115- 156 14/01448/FUL & 14/01450/LB The Garden Museum, 5 Lambeth Palace Road

Objection received (after agenda despatch) from the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society (LAMAS):

The LAMAS Committee objects on the basis that the development is an overdevelopment of the site, detrimental to the Grade II* listed tombs.

The scheme would despoil the garden, leaving only the Knot Garden in a courtyard hemmed in by buildings.

The garden element would not function appropriately.

A less intensively developed scheme would be more appropriate.

Officer response: A scheme has been developed following extensive negotiations with the applicant and statutory agencies and the Council to achieve a scheme that allows the organisation to continue operation within this site

None




3

and within Lambeth and provides an acceptable level of mitigation to offset the level of substantial harm that would occur. Principal tombs within the rear garden are being preserved, chest tombs currently in disrepair are being relocated and restored and slab tombs are being absorbed within the scheme and made visible. The gardens are to be made much more accessible (free entry) to the general public and there will be a strategy that will unite the rear garden and St Mary’s Gardens. i The development now under consideration mitigates many of the impacts in relation to trees, listed building impacts and is influenced by the constraints rather than an imposition on the constraints. Each principal element of the development both internal and external would be easily demountable and reversible allowing the fabric of the site to be reinstated and made good. Conditions have been added to this affect. Internally, much of the historic functional liturgical architecture within the church will be revealed and made visible. Officers have also paid regard to the presumption to protect the setting and interest of heritage assets on or near the site which may be affected by the proposed development. A Statement of Heritage Significance has been submitted and




4

considered and English Heritage/Lambeth Conservation Officers are of the view that despite the impact, this would be acceptable given the public benefits that would accrue and outweigh the presumption to be made for asset protection.


An expression of support has been received from the Ancient Monuments Society setting out the following observations:

Support for the views expressed by English Heritage who have come to the right conclusion.

The architecture pays appropriate reflection to traditional Christian architecture. The alterations to the building will benefit the church building.

A scheme which promises increased sustainability for the existing museum and brings advantages for the site maintaining the building for the long term.

None




5


An expression of support has been received from SAVE Britain’s Heritage. The plans are sensible and sensitive and are a template for reversible development.


An objection has been received (after agenda despatch) from the Victorian Society (statutory consultee):

The Victorian Society is opposed in principle to the extension of the building in a former burial ground.

The present proposal would occupy an excessive area of garden.

The proposal would harm the setting and appearance of the Grade II* listed church and tombs and the setting of the listed Lambeth Palace boundary wall and the listed walls around the application site.

Officer response: A scheme has been developed following extensive negotiations with the applicant and statutory agencies and the Council to achieve a scheme that allows the organisation to continue operation within this site and within Lambeth and provides an acceptable

None




6

level of mitigation to offset the level of substantial harm that would occur. Principal tombs within the rear garden are being preserved, chest tombs currently in disrepair are being relocated and restored and slab tombs are being absorbed within the scheme and made visible. The gardens are to be made much more accessible (free entry) to the general public and there will be a strategy that will unite the rear garden and St Mary’s Gardens. The development now under consideration mitigates many of the impacts in relation to trees, listed building impacts and is influenced by the constraints rather than an imposition on the constraints. Each principal element of the development both internal and external would be easily demountable and reversible allowing the fabric of the site to be reinstated and made good. Conditions have been added to this affect. Internally, much of the historic functional liturgical architecture within the church will be revealed and made visible. Officers have also paid regard to the presumption to protect the setting and interest of heritage assets on or near the site which may be affected by the proposed development. A Statement of Heritage Significance has been submitted and considered and English Heritage/Lambeth




7

Conservation Officers are of the view that despite the impact, this would be acceptable given the public benefits that would accrue and outweigh the presumption to be made for asset protection.

127 & 137

14/01448/FUL & 14/01450/LB The Garden Museum, 5 Lambeth Palace Road

Clarification within paragraph 4.6 and 8.12 to advise that the glazed link walkway on the eastern side of the garden would be pergola overgrown with plants.

None

128 14/01448/FUL & 14/01450/LB The Garden Museum, 5 Lambeth Palace Road

Clarification of public events figures: 1) Evening/late evening events: increase from

45 to 47. 2) Total events within the site (incorporating

education, seminars, public talks, community events, weddings): increase from 45 to 157. However, 95% of the total of 157 events would be education or community based.

None




8


Amendment to paragraph 8.21 to delete the word ‘two’ to make reference that there would be three principal buildings in the rear garden.


Additional paragraph 8.29A addresses the implications of the Barnwell judgement on this development:

In light of the objections received from the Victorian Society and the implications of the recent Court of Appeal Decision pertaining to the Barnwell Manor Windfarm (Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northants District Council at al ([2014] EWCA Civ 137), a recommendation to support the application must be pay regard to the significance of heritage assets and there is a presumption in favour of the protection and preservation of these heritage assets. The appeal court blocked the development of a windfarm at Barnwell Manor on the basis that insufficient consideration had been given to its impact on heritage assets. The Court of Appeal stated that decision makers should give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting and listing of listed buildings when carrying out a balancing exercise in planning matters. Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act (1990) also states that, ‘In considering whether to




9

grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’. In arriving at the current scheme, the proposed development has been underpinned by an assessment of the significance of the heritage which has been prepared by the applicant. In response, both the Council and English Heritage acknowledge that harm would occur: partial demolition would occur to the vestry, the existing listed southern boundary wall would be dismantled and rebuilt. A new building will be erected adjoining the boundary wall to Lambeth Palace. Furthermore, the proposed development would result in a previously undeveloped ornamental garden being developed in part with existing listed tombs being surrounded by buildings. However, English Heritage and Council officers have paid consideration and due regard to the proposed development’s impact on these heritage assets. English Heritage has provided substantial advice and detail as to the nature of the significance of the assets. English Heritage has stated in its observations in April 2014 that the proposals will result in a wide range of benefits identified throughout the report which are consider sufficient to outweigh the harm to the significance of the listed building. In addition, the underlying premise of the scheme both internally and externally is now about incorporating an approach that would protect the setting and significance of these




10

assets. All the structures within the garden and within the church building have been designed to be reversible and demountable allowing the restoration of the fabric of the church and the setting of the gardens and the listed structures to be undertaken.


Additional paragraph 8.30A addresses the implications of the Barnwell judgement on this development: The proposed development delivers a range of public benefits which must be considered. This includes the retention and protection of a listed building in community use, the improvement and enhancement of the public display of artefacts and archive material and more emphasis on visual presence in the public interest, the opening of the gardens to the public for free including the voluntary care and maintenance of St Mary’s Gardens, the expansion and diversification of the community outreach model to community groups including schools and vulnerable people, a greater role in environment protection and appreciation of horticulture in the community, the removal of the boundary wall from the at risk register, the increased role in promoting community health and wellbeing and the retention within the Borough of a valuable cultural asset in Lambeth which would otherwise be lost to the Borough. Officers have

None




11

considered these benefits in the context of the desirability of and presumption in favour of the protection of the identified assets. Supported by the detailed observations and influence of English Heritage and Conservation and Design officers, it is recommended that within the balancing exercise required by the Act, the NPPF and emphasised by the Barnwell judgement, that the public benefits outweigh the presumption in favour of protection in this case.


Substitution of paragraph 10.7 to address event and visitor management details. The extension to and rationalisation of the floorspace within The Garden Museum will allow for an increase in the numbers and types of events that can be accommodated within the building and the site and which allow The Garden Museum to be financially self sufficient. These include weddings, private parties, corporate events, seminars, community groups and education groups. On this basis, the Museum has indicated that above and beyond the use of the site as a Museum, the following activities will take place (with proposed hours of use indicated): weddings: 25 per year – Nave - 1600-0130

Private parties and corporate events: 22 per year – Nave – 1600-2200

seminars, conferences and talks – 30 per year – Classroom 0900-1700

seminars, conference and talks: 15 per year – Classroom - 1800 -2100

community Groups: 32 per year – Studio – 0900-1800

community Groups: 20 per year – Studio - 1800-2000




12

education groups and Hub partners – 13 per year – Studio – 0900- 1800

As such, there would be 47 events per year that may operate to 2200 and 25 per year that would operate to 0130. All these events would take place within the Church building. In addition there would be a regular and frequent number of school visits that would take place during opening and school hours. On this basis it is considered that this busy inner London CAZ location would be able to satisfactorily accommodate the nature of events listed above without significant harm to residential amenity.


Addition of new condition to the recommendation for planning permission 14/01448/FUL. This permission shall be personal to the Garden Museum or any other successor in name only who are the current occupier and applicant. Should the current occupier/applicant determine to vacate the premises, all structures and buildings erected as a result of this application shall be dismantled and removed from the site and interventions to the buildings and gardens shall be made good where appropriate. Reason: In order for the special interest, character, appearance and longevity of the heritage assets within the site to be maintained (Policies 39, 45 and 47 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by

This permission shall be personal to The Garden Museum or any other successor in name only who are the current occupier and applicant. Should the current occupier/applicant determine to vacate the premises, all structures and buildings erected as a result of this application shall be dismantled and removed from the site and interventions to the buildings and gardens shall be made good where appropriate. Reason: In order for the special interest, character, appearance and longevity of the heritage assets within the site to be maintained (Policies 39, 45 and 47 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and




13

the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), policies S1 and S9 of the Local Developments Framework Core Strategy (2011) and The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)) refer).

not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), policies S1 and S9 of the Local Developments Framework Core Strategy (2011) and The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)) refer).


Amendment to condition 5 for planning permission 14/01448/FUL

Notwithstanding the information shown on the accompanying plans, prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the siting and design of all boundary treatments (gates, railings and means of enclosure) showing all fixtures, fittings and hinges etc shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with English Heritage. All boundary treatments should retain the existing footway width, especially adjacent to the zebra crossing on Lambeth Road, to ensure that pedestrian safety is not compromised. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted commences and retained for the duration of the development. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory, that it preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area and protects the setting and interest of the listed buildings. (Policies 33, 36, 45 and 47 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy

Amendment to condition 5 for planning permission 14/01448/FUL Notwithstanding the information shown on the accompanying plans, prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the siting and design of all boundary treatments (gates, railings and means of enclosure) showing all fixtures, fittings and hinges etc shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with English Heritage. All boundary treatments should retain the existing footway width, especially adjacent to the zebra crossing on Lambeth Road, to ensure that pedestrian safety is not compromised. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted commences and retained for the duration of the development. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory, that it preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area and protects the setting




14

January 2011 and S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) refer).

and interest of the listed buildings. (Policies 33, 36, 45 and 47 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011 and S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) refer).


Amendment to condition 20 for planning permission 14/01448/FUL No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a detailed strategy for the management of deliveries and servicing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include measures to avoid localised congestion, parking on footways and damage to buildings caused by vehicles. The strategy shall include a booking system which will co-ordinate the arrival of deliveries to ensure that associated vehicles do not need to wait on the adjoining highway Deliveries and servicing shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Any amendments to on-street waiting and loading restrictions or other highway infrastructure that are required to accommodate deliveries shall be undertaken at the applicant’s expense and must be agreed in advance in writing by the highway authority and subsequently included within the approved strategy for deliveries and servicing.

Amendment to condition 20 for planning permission 14/0144/FUL No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a detailed strategy for the management of deliveries and servicing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include measures to avoid localised congestion, parking on footways and damage to buildings caused by vehicles. The strategy shall include a booking system which will co-ordinate the arrival of deliveries to ensure that associated vehicles do not need to wait on the adjoining highway Deliveries and servicing shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Any amendments to on-street waiting and loading restrictions or other highway infrastructure that are required to accommodate deliveries shall be undertaken at the applicant’s expense and




15

Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway (Policy 9 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan 2007 and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy).

must be agreed in advance in writing by the highway authority and subsequently included within the approved strategy for deliveries and servicing. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway (Policy 9 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan 2007 and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy).


New informative for planning permission 14/01448/FUL

You are advised of the necessity to consult the Principal Highways Engineer of the Highways team on [email protected] in order to obtain necessary prior approval for undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffold, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections and Repairs on the Highways, Hoarding, Excavations, Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licenses etc

New informative to planning permission 14/01448/FUL You are advised of the necessity to consult the Principal Highways Engineer of the Highways team on [email protected] in order to obtain necessary prior approval for undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffold, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections and Repairs on the Highways, Hoarding, Excavations, Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licenses etc


New informative for planning permission 14/01448/FUL The delivery and servicing management strategy (required by Condition 20) shall also set out the measures for addressing the highway and servicing implications which might arise if Lambeth Palace were to prevent access, loading and unloading from its front forecourt adjacent to the Morton’s Gateway.

New informative to planning permission 14/01448/FUL The delivery and servicing management strategy (required by Condition 20) shall also set out the measures for addressing the highway and servicing implications which might arise if Lambeth Palace were to prevent access, loading and unloading from

mailto:[email protected]





16

its front forecourt adjacent to the Morton’s Gateway.


New condition for Listed Building Consent 14/01450/LB This permission shall be personal to The Garden Museum or any other successor in name only who are the current occupier and applicant. Should the current occupier/applicant determine to vacate the premises, all structures and buildings erected as a result of this application shall be dismantled and removed from the site and interventions to the buildings and gardens shall be made good where appropriate. Reason: In order for the special interest, character, appearance and longevity of the heritage assets within the site to be maintained (Policy 45 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), policies S1 and S9 of the Local Developments Framework Core Strategy (2011) and The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)) refers).

New condition for Listed Building Consent 14/01450/LB This permission shall be personal to The Garden Museum or any other successor in name only who are the current occupier and applicant. Should the current occupier/applicant determine to vacate the premises, all structures and buildings erected as a result of this application shall be dismantled and removed from the site and interventions to the buildings and gardens shall be made good where appropriate. Reason: In order for the special interest, character, appearance and longevity of the heritage assets within the site to be maintained (Policy 45 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), policies S1 and S9 of the Local Developments Framework Core Strategy (2011) and The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)) refers).




17

157 13/05251/RG4 10 Wynne Road London SW9 0BB

The Applicant has submitted further information/clarification in relation to the affordable offer. A copy has been sent to all Members of PAC

None

165 13/05251/RG4 10 Wynne Road London SW9 0BB

Amendment to Recommendation 2 to delete the words ‘determination deadline of the 6th of May’ and insert ‘23rd of May 2014’ which is the agreed revised determination deadline.

None




TP/MM Addendum sheet (version 2)

1

37-88 Application 14/00509/FUL Nursery School, 10 Lollard Street

Report Corrections: Para. 2.7 – a very small part of the south-east corner of the site is located within the Kennington Road Conservation Area, although no buildings are proposed in this location. Para. 7.25 – states that only 14 affordable homes could have viably been provided on the Shell Centre site, the figure should be 9 homes.

None


Planning Obligations Section 7.13 (S106 Obligations) and Section 10 (Recommendation) Please be advised that given the Council are the landowner of the site the planning obligations would need to be secured via a unilateral undertaking, rather than a S106 agreement. The recommendation therefore is made subject to the receipt of a satisfactory Unilateral Undertaking; rather than the successful completion of a S106 agreement.

None


A petition of objection to the tower element of the development has been received. The petition includes 205 signatures. The petition objects as follows:

1. The proximity of the tower to the existing towers will create an oppressive environment and increase population density in an area which is already heavily populated;

None





2

2. The existing density of social housing combined with the scale of the development might exacerbate social problems; and

3. The Ethelred Nursery should not be linked to the tower block.

The submission sets out: “This petition was collected in a few hours yesterday, 7 May, from residents of the tower blocks so it is only a sample, yet it shows overwhelming opposition to the proposal from the residents in the tower blocks that were asked”.


26 further representations from local residents have been received to the application, a number from residents who had already commented. The majority of letters do not raise any substantive issues that have not previously been raised and addressed in the Committee report. In the circumstances table at 5.5 of the report should be amended to read as follows: No. of neighbouring property addresses consulted: 1,225 No. of Objection: 61 No. in support: 1 Comments: 0 New issues raised: Will the three tall buildings make it more difficult for the fire brigade to put out fires and rescue people from upper

None





3

windows [Officer Comment: There is sufficient space around the buildings. In addition, the removal of the existing car park podium will also improve access to the foot of the buildings.] Mis-information by the developers in terms of the height of the tower [Officer comment: The application submissions clearly demonstrate the height of the new tower in context. The recommendation made is on the basis of the application submissions]. The procedure for submitting objections electronically is difficult, long winded and off-putting [Officer comment: It is considered that the system set up for submitting electronic comments is fit and appropriate for purpose.] The Ethelred Towers Resident Association are opposed to the development [Officer Comment: Noted] The plans breach leaseholder rights [Officer Comment: This is not a material planning consideration] The proposed construction will make surrounding flats hotter in the summer months as heat is reflected off of the buildings [Officer Comment: There is no evidence to substantiate this statement].





4


A further representation has been received from the Kennington Park Square Residents’ Association. It reiterates the frustrations of the Association and the individual residents of Kennington Park Square that they were neither consulted nor engaged on the development prior to the application submission. The Association states that the developer is amenable to making changes including changes to proposed brick treatment and the potential removal of Block F. They state that the Council’s refusal to consider removal seems to be undue interference. The removal would make the development and living environment immeasurably more bearable for those in Kennington Park Square and other nearby buildings. It is also asserted that the PAC report does not address the issue of the development as a whole creating a solid mass as, not only will the development fill the gap between Ward Point and Brittany Point from the aspect of Pritchard, but taken together, from the aspect of Aragon Court, existing residents will be faced with a mass at height across the entire Hotspur Street frontage. This will mean that residents will be confronted by four to five storey houses and lower level flats to the extreme left hand side of the aspect, followed by a 16 storey tower block with no windows on that frontage, Ward Point and then a blank seven storey wall filling the gap between Ward Point and Pritchard. This will fill in all gaps when viewed from the facing habitable rooms in Aragon Court. The Association also assert that no aspect has been

None





5

provided from the Hotspur Street frontage. This makes it hard to see how the Planning Authority can assert that they have all the required information to determine the planning application.


A letter of support for the application has been received from the Ethelred Nursery and Children’s Centre. They set out the following: 1) Ethelred Nursery School and Children's Centre

Governors and Senior Managers are in favour of the Lollard Street development including the plans for the new setting for the Nursery School and Children's Centre.

2) We believe that the plans will benefit our setting by

giving us purpose built accommodation and much better visibility and presence at street level. The developers have worked with us and revised their original plans to give us more outside space, which is vital for our children.

3) In light of the fact that we have been promised new

premises for upwards of the last twenty years, we support these plans as they give us the best chance of purpose built and fit for purpose premises we so badly need if we are to continue serving the needs of the most vulnerable young children in our community.

None

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 7TH JANUARY 2014 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

1 of 16

ITEM NO. 14/01202/FUL The South Bank Centre Belvedere Road

12 14/01202/FUL The South Bank Centre Belvedere Road

Add the word ‘not’ to the second sentence in paragraph 8.2, so that it reads as follows: None of the installations will be physically attached to any listed structure and as such it is considered that there would not be any harm caused to the special interest or character of any heritage assets.

Not applicable.

15 14/01202/FUL The South Bank Centre Belvedere Road

Delete paragraph 14.2 and replace with the following: The application proposes a number of installations but would not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Not applicable.

ITEM NO. 9 14/00302/FUL - Public Car Park, Belvedere Road, LondonSE1 8XZ

196 14/00302/FUL Public Car Park Belvedere Road SE1 8XZ

Amendment to recommendation to read: ‘Grant planning permission subject to conditions, the completion of a section 106 agreement and referral to the Secretary of State.’

Not applicable.


Paragraph 3.19: Reference here should be to the call-in having been made in 2013, and likewise the inquiry held towards the end of 2013, not 2014.

Not applicable.

205 14/00302/FUL Comments received from Parks department: Amend Condition 3, to read:


2 of 16

Public Car Park Belvedere Road SE1 8XZ

SUPPORT application subject to conditions regarding exterior landscaping and exterior lighting, and reinstatement and enhancement of MOL on departure of proposed structures

As regards public open space provision the application site will be relatively limited in terms of available space and this will be very formalised; therefore, whilst there will be limited soft landscaping, it should still be of very high quality and be well maintained. The application site is within an Area of Deficiency for Access to Nature (AOD) as described in the London Plan and in the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy, and so any opportunities to enhance the ecological value of the public realm within and around the final development would be welcomed. A. Biodiversity, Ecological Impacts and Lighting In terms of ecology the application site has relatively low value and has potential for habitats of equal or better value to be created on site as part of any proposed redevelopment and landscaping. Therefore, unless any legally protected species (e.g. bats or nesting birds) are found to be on the site at the time of construction, it would be difficult to object on ecological terms. The application site is also not within or adjacent to any existing Site of Importance for Nature Conservation for Lambeth, although it is within 250 metres of the River Thames which is a Metropolitan SINC for Lambeth and Greater London. However, there is no evidence of any physical or ecological impacts upon this Metropolitan SINC. However, it is important that the development is sensitive to the risk that protected species may use the

All ground and landscaping works hereby permitted shall be retained in situ following the expiration of the development hereby approved unless the prior approval of the authority in writing has been achieved. Reason: To ensure the delivery of Open Space in accordance with policy 50 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007). Amend Condition 11, to read: A landscaping scheme, including hard and soft landscaping, street furniture, and ecological enhancements to include a green roof, illustrated on detailed drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, prior to above ground works of the building hereby approved.. Soft landscaping details to include the planting of trees and shrubs showing species, type of stock, numbers of trees and shrubs to be included and showing areas to be grass seeded or turfed, planter profiles; all hard landscaping including all ground surfaces, seating, lighting of all external public areas, refuse disposal points, designated smoking areas, secure and covered cycle stands, bollards, vehicle crossovers/access points, any ramps or stairs plus wheel chair access together with finished ground levels and site wide topographical levels. All landscaping in accordance with the approved scheme, and approved, shall be carried out prior to the first occupation of the building hereby approved and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the lifetime of the development such maintenance to include the replacement of any plants/trees that die, or are severely damaged, seriously diseased, or removed, upkeep of ground surfaces and hard landscaping features as well as cleaning schedule to include removal of graffiti/chewing gum. Reason: To provide a high environmental standard in the interest of the site and wider area (Policies 31, 33, 39 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy).


3 of 16

current site for foraging or migration, especially bats. Therefore, whilst it is unlikely any bat roosts would be affected by the development, lighting both within and around the pavilion may have a potential adverse effect on bats unless it is designed and managed to minimise these impacts. This means using lighting units, light sources (lamps or arrays) and screening/filters which aim to minimise light spillage or leakage away from targeted areas on or near ground level, and that emitted light wavelengths are designed to reduce disturbance to bats and their prey. At this stage the actual technical and operating details of the lighting are outline in nature, and further information on actual design, construction, operation and maintenance can be secured by condition.

The final landscaping proposals make mention of a need to incorporate ecological enhancements into the development and to ensure that tree and shrub plantings have a fair proportion of native species or those which have ecological benefit. This is to be encouraged, and should be made a key element of any condition of consent as to the final landscaping plans and schedules for the development, should the application be approved. B. Public Open Space Provision Current public open space provision in the application site is relatively poor and monotone at ground level. The proposed changes to the existing open space are good, and will add variety, form and diversity whilst still maximising public access and use.

As the majority of the site is Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) we would expect that any development aims to retain as much of this as possible once the pavilion is constructed and in use, and that the overall quality of

Amend condition 12: Prior to the commencement of any relevant lighting works, full details of a lighting strategy for any lighting to be affixed to the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include information on lighting unit design, light sources (lamps/arrays), screening/filters, and method of operation and maintenance. The approved lighting shall be installed before the building is first occupied, or in accordance with an agreed implementation strategy. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to detailed design, to security and community safety (Policy 7, 32 and 33 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policies S2, S9 and PN1 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).


4 of 16

the MOL is enhanced as a consequence. Once the pavilion is no longer in use, and is removed from site, it is imperative that the land is reinstated so that the original MOL area is recovered, but that it is returned in a condition that is of greater value than the land before the development commenced, including through the retention (within reason) of the new soft landscaping that is proposed (see below). C. Soft Landscaping – Quality and Appropriateness The landscaping plans for the site as presented in the application are very welcome and show that there is a clear understanding and intention to maximise both the amount of soft ('green') landscaping and to ensure it is of a high quality. It is accepted that much of this will need to be robust and formal in nature, given the pressure the site will be under from public use, and having large areas of naturalised or semi-informal landscaping will need to be limited to key areas or embedded within the more formal features. However, the introduction of an extensive green roof on the pavilion will help provide ecological mitigation and add to the naturalness of the development. The application documents includes details on soft landscaping opportunities but it is essential detailed design and planting specifications, supported by maintenance schedules, are provided subsequently through condition, so that we can ensure that the landscaping is of the highest quality and will be appropriately maintained. This is especially the case for trees but also applies to any planters, shrub areas or any naturalised areas included in the proposals. We would expect to have sight of these detailed specifications and maintenance schedules, and recommend that they be provided as a condition of


5 of 16

consent to be discharged at a later date. Suggested Conditions of Consent:

1. Detailed internal/external lighting schemes,

including information on lighting unit design, light sources (lamps/arrays), screening/filters, and method of operation and maintenance;

2. Detailed hard and soft landscaping plans, specifications and maintenance schedules, including ecological features such as extensive green roofs


Paragraph 5.8 Further comments received from Climate Consulting in response to applicant stating satisfaction with the proposals.

Not applicable.


Paragraph 5.10 Delivery and Servicing – A revised layout to the bus stand has been proposed, increasing the length of the stand. This followed discussions with TFL.

Add Head of terms to the Section 106 at paragraph 12.3 (page 234), as follows:

- Section 278 Agreement - Bus stand extension


English Heritage Following their comments received respectively on 7

th

March and 4th April 2014, a request was made for the

LVMF view 8a of ST Pauls Cathedral from Victoria Embankment pier to be provided. Following receipt of additional information from the applicants in response to

Not applicable.


6 of 16

this request (see illustration at appendix 1) the following additional comments, dated 9

th May 2014, have been

received: Thank you for arranging production of a drawing, showing the plan of the proposed Shell Centre pavilion in relation to LVMF view 8a of St Paul’s Cathedral from Victoria Embankment Pier. A wire line image of the LVMF view would also have been useful, but the plan is helpful in demonstrating the proximity of the pavilion to the narrow view cone and the orientation of the proposed LED screen towards the viewing point. We have strong concerns in regards to the potential impact of the moving screen when seen in the context of this view. It is a narrow view, only discernible from one particular spot on the Victoria Embankment, but a remarkable one nonetheless; St Paul’s Cathedral rises above Waterloo Bridge at the point it crosses Belvedere Road, framed by the rear of the Royal Festival Hall to the left and the Whitehouse Apartments to the right. The introduction of a large digital screen just to the right of the view will draw the viewer’s eye away from St Paul’s, the intended focus of the view, and towards the moving images and illumination of the digital screen. In our previous correspondence, you suggested that there was a difference between what I called a TV screen and the proposed LED screen on the pavilion. I am unable to determine what this difference is; most of the large advertising boards at Piccadilly Circus are now LED screens for instance, and there is no difference between those and a TV screen; if anything they may be brighter. The guidance of the LVMF, in relation this particular view, states “The Viewing Location should be managed so that new development, such as kiosks, are designed and sited to enhance the view and viewing experience”. The proposal for a pavilion here fails to do so.


7 of 16

You already have our comments in regards to the impact of the proposed pavilion on the setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site when seen from Waterloo Bridge at the point it passes over Belvedere Road, and although I will not repeat them here you should note that objection still stands. This proposal affects the setting of heritage assets of the highest order - two of London’s most recognised buildings, one of which is part of a World Heritage Site. This is Metropolitan Open Land, and the London Plan under policy 3D.10 advises that “the Mayor will and boroughs should maintain the protection of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) from inappropriate development.” In light of the above, we strongly recommend that your council presses for amendments to the proposals to preserve the setting of the heritage assets affected. I suggest this could be achieved through reducing the height of the proposed structure and omitting the LED screen, which would enable the development to proceed with little or no harm to the historic environment. If you intend to make a recommendation for approval notwithstanding our advice, I would be grateful if our comments could be reported in full when the application proceeds to committee. Applicants initial response following request for the view to be carried out: This view was given serious consideration by the client team and excluded from the application material as the 4 storey temporary visitor pavilion lies outside the protected vista identified for the view in the LVMF. The LVMF at para 167 notes the unimpeded view of the peristyle, upper drum and dome [of St Pauls], silhouetted against the sky as the key attribute of this


8 of 16

view and goes on to give detailed guidance on the elements of the view to be protected: “Visual Management Guidance: Foreground and Middle Ground 168 The clear view of the Cathedral should not be obscured by tree growth in either the foreground or middle ground. 169 A Landmark Viewing Corridor will maintain the existing visual frame around the Cathedral created by the middle ground buildings. Background 170 Development should preserve or enhance the viewer’s ability to recognise or appreciate the dome, peristyle and south-west tower of St Paul’s Cathedral. These elements should generally remain with a clear sky backdrop. Management of the Viewing Location 171 The Viewing Location should be managed so that new development, such as kiosks, are designed and sited to enhance the view and viewing experience.” The proposed development is in full compliance with the above and an Accurate Visual Representation view is not required to illustrate this.” Officer response: The response of the applicants is considered to be proportionate to the nature of the application, both in terms of its scale, design and overall impact in this


9 of 16

location. The proposal has been reduced in height since it was initially presented to the Authority, from six to now four storeys. It is considered to be of a high quality. The lighting proposals would offer the opportunity for a range of artistic displays, rather than be a ‘tv screen’. Officers do not accept that there will be harm to this view.


Paragraph 5.20 WCDG comments received in full (see appendix 2), as follows

Not applicable

WCDG Comments Officer response

The application is a departure from one of the most notoriously stringent protections afforded in planning policy. The MOL designation protects from developing permanently open areas of strategic importance which are clearly distinguishable from the built up areas. The designation has been in place for decades and withstood testing three times by HM Inspectors

As set out in the PAC report, whilst inappropriate development is strongly resisted by Planning policy (at all levels) it is allowed in very special circumstances. Additionally, the proposal is not permanent, but temporary. It will provide visual and landscaping enhancement to the MOL together with public access that is otherwise not afforded currently.

The proposal is not necessary to bring about the development of the Shell site, which awaits planning approval from the

The subject application, would be directly related to the Shell scheme in its implementation, only where the SoS approves


10 of 16

SoS.

the former. Whilst the scheme is not necessary in respect of bringing forward the development of the Shell site, it is complementary to the parent application. It would provide an education hub to showcase regeneration along the South Bank together with being the marketing suite for the parent site and demonstrate the developers commitment to high quality development at this strategic location.

The proposal is not necessary to bring about the extension of Jubilee Gardens, which is legally connected to the decision of the Secretary of State.

This is factually correct. Nonetheless, the implementation of this scheme, should it be approved, would mean that the Shell application has also been approved. Thus, it is intrinsically linked to the shell scheme. The car park would in part be landscaped, allow for public access, and improve the visual and ecological amenity of the site.

There are no other ‘very special circumstances’ to justify this [policy]

As acknowledged by WCDG, there is agreement between the


11 of 16

departure.

landowner of the site and the applicant, who are also the applicants of the Shell development. The two applications are intrinsically linked. The development of the Shell site, through this agreement, would lead to the extension of Jubilee Gardens. The landscaping proposed as part of the subject application could become the first phase of the extension. The GLA, the proponents of MOL policy within the London Plan that permits development in ‘very special circumstances’ considers that these circumstances have been demonstrated. This is in addition to the temporary nature of the scheme together with the limited visual impact to the openness of the MOL.


12 of 16

The granting of permission would establish a principle of development and would therein undermine justification for retaining the MOL designation, and thereby potentially undermine the achievement of the longstanding objective of an extension of Jubilee Gardens across the Hungerford Car Park.

WCDG have recognised that there are very stringent policy constraints to development. The approval of this application thus does not set a precedent for development of any kind on this MOL scheme. Were the application to be developed, it would be done so on the back of the Shell scheme having achieved planning permission. In turn, the agreement WCDG refer to between the applicant and landowner of HCP would thus be triggered also. This is the first real opportunity for the long standing objective to be realised in decades.


Comments received from Network Rail raising no concerns.

Not applicable


Two additional neighbour objections received. Other than it being considered that the application is being ‘rushed’ through to PAC, no new matters have been raised in the objections.

Not applicable.


Paragraph 10.4 The access arrangements have been resolved to the satisfaction of Transport colleagues.

At paragraph 12.3, add the following:

- Provision of on-street disabled bay.


13 of 16

Paragraph 10.6 Amendments during the course of the application have secured an increase in the overall public realm. Colleagues in transport welcome this addition. On-street disabled bay to be dealt with by S106


Replace section 14 entitled ‘Conclusion’ with the following: 14.1 The proposal represents a form of development that can be considered a ‘very special circumstance’ in response to the sites Metropolitan Open Land designation, as recognised by the GLA. The proposal will bring forward landscaping to improve the visual amenity of the site, and in turn its ecological value. It will achieve public access to a part of the site where it is otherwise limited, and would remain so for the period that the development is sought, being a temporary. Similarly, it would bring about sporting events on the site, compatible with its MOL designation. 14.2 The submitted supportive information adequately addresses concerns in respect of heritage and it is not considered that the proposal would result in harm to the Conservation Area, nor the OUV of the World Heritage Site. Likewise, having special regard to the setting of and to surrounding listed buildings, no harm is considered to arise. It is of a scale that it does not compete with the view towards St Pauls nor the profile of the Grade I listed Royal Festival Hall. 14.3 In terms of residential amenity, the submitted scheme is unlikely to result in any significant problems. Likewise, no transport issues arise. 14.4 The temporary nature of the use is such that its

Not applicable


14 of 16

impact will be limited and therefore shall not prejudice long term objectives to see the extension of Jubilee Gardens across the site, but be complementary to them. It would set no precedent, and be implementable only in the instance that approval is achieved on the parent site, at the Shell site.


Amendments and additions to paragraph 12.3: Third head of term should read: Retention of Marks Barfield Architects during construction Additions to paragraph to include:

- Public access to the landscaped areas 24/7

Not applicable, though changes terms in respect of the Section 106.


Paragraph 15.1 amendment to recommendation to read: ‘Grant planning permission subject to conditions, the completion of a section 106 agreement and referral to the Secretary of State.’

Not applicable

235 - 238 14/00302/FUL Public Car Park Belvedere Road SE1 8XZ

Condition amendments: No.4 and No. 6, should read ‘save in respect, rather than ‘safe in respect’. Condition No. 6 – received date should be 13

th January

not February.

Condition 4 to read: Prior to the use of the building hereby approved (save in respect of Condition 1) details of a ‘Meanwhile use Strategy’ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority for the area labelled ‘Land reserved for recreation and event space’ on plan no A-101. The strategy, as a minimum, shall include the following details: a. Phasing details of landscaping, set up and removal, including to assist other temporary installations on the wider Car Park site; b. A schedule of events, to be updated annually, including:


15 of 16

i. No more than 10 days (whether consecutive or otherwise) for use as a Market; ii. Programme of sporting events, to be no shorter than 4 weeks concurrently and no less than 12 weeks in all; iii. Details shall include how the sporting calendar will be made available and for use by Lambeth residents; and iv. Pop-up ventures, such as outdoor cinema, theatre, retail outlets (excluding market restrictions). v. How annual events shall be reported, including prior consultation with surrounding residents as agreed. Reason: To safeguard the open aspect and public use of MOL. Condition 6 to read:

The development hereby approved shall be managed

strictly in accordance with the visitor management plan,

delivery and servicing plan (including the construction

and deconstruction phase) set out within the Transport

Statement (received 13th

February 2014), safe for

Condition 1 above.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers

and the surrounding area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the

Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy

4A.20 of the London Plan.


Additional Conditions: To restrict advertisements. Construction Management Plan Closure of existing crossover.

Condition no.14 No advertisements shall be erected or displayed on or around the site or in relation to the use or development erected or exercised on the site (or that in relation to application number 12/04708/FUL or associated consents), unless the prior approval of this is signage has been applied and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority.


16 of 16

Reason: To prevent visual clutter, safeguard visual amenity and to safeguard the setting, interest and significance of Listed Buildings in the vicinity and to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the South Bank Conservation Area. (Policies 37, 45 and 47 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies saved beyond August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)) and policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). Condition no. 15 - Construction Management Plan Condition no. 16 – Closure of crossover.


Additional informative. Conditions 4 and 12 should be the subject of public consultation.

1:500

102SM-SK1880 10 20 30 40 50m

SPACE

EVENT

AND

RECREATION

FOR

RESERVED

LAND

Site BoundaryInitial Application

A-SK188

Pauls vista from Westminster towards St Proposed Site Plan showing protected

Westminster Piervista 8a.1 from LVMF protected

STATUS: FOR INFORMATION

MAY 2014

Project

Date Check Rev

Job number Drawing number

Drawn

Drawing

Revision

Scale

Revision description

NOTES:

Key:

553

architects

marks barfield

N

Applicant:

E14 5ABLondonCanary WharfOne Canada Square

020 7418 2770Fax020 7418 2000Tel

Architect:

Tel +44 (0)20 7067 4700 Fax +44 (0)20 7067 4701London:

Tel +44 (0)131 226 4474 Fax +44 (0)131 220 5331Edinburgh:

www.speirsandmajor.com

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, LONDON WC2A 1AF

Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 Fax: +44 (0)20 7314 5001

http://www.wspgroup.com

Structural Engineer:

MEP engineering:

HOARE LEA

Tel: 0121 450 4800B16 8PEBirminghamEdgbaston54 Hagley Road6th Floor WestBirmingham

Fax +44 20 7498 7103

Tel +44 20 7501 0180

United Kingdom

London SW4 OBG

50 Bromells Road

wwww.marksbarfield.com

Lighting Design:

DateChecked

BoundaryApplication Site

RE

M: C/B

Riverw

all

Riverw

all

Riverw

all

London

Townshend

3a Zetland House

5-25 Scrutton Street

EC2A 4HJ

TOWNSHENDLandscape Architects

Landscape & Public Realm:

ARCHITECTS.

THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MARKS BARFIELD

OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPYING WITHOUT

IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, GRAPHIC ELECTRONIC

AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED OR COPIED OR MODIFIED

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS WORK IS COPYRIGHT

REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.

ALL OMISSIONS AND DISCREPANCIES TO BE

ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE CHECKED ON SITE.

USE SCALE BAR IF SCALING FROM THIS DRAWING.

IC

Paper Size

A1

Visitors PavilionSouthbank Place Temporary

Partnership.

Braeburn Estates Limited

UMS

Riverw

all

Riverw

all

Riverw

all

Air

Shaft

Shelter

3.6m

13 to 65

10

8

BM 5.62m

Shell Centre

Eliz

abeth

House

4.0m

Sloping

masonry

Statue

CONCERT HALL APPROACH

Statue

Shell Centre

4.1m

BM

4.82m

Statue

RO

AD

SL

TCBs

Shingle

BM 5.50m

Mud

4.1m

Shell

Centre

Viaduct

Bank

BM 5.29m

BE

LV

ED

ER

E

Shingle

Jubilee Gardens

FS

Waterloo

Station

(LRT)

Shell Centre

Shelter

Shelter

SL

SL

SL

RE

M: C/B

Riverw

all

Riverw

all

Riverw

all

DIS

AB

LE

D

LO

ADIN

G

Waterloo Community Development Group A Company Limited by Guarantee, registered in England & Wales

Registration No. 4269850

Registered Charity No. 1114299 Registered Office: 14a Baylis Rd, London SE1 7AA

Tel: 020 7633 9291 Fax: 020 7401 2469

Website: www.wcdg.org.uk

Email: [email protected]

Cllr Diana Morris Chair, Planning Applications Committee Lambeth Council 6th May 2014 Dear Diana

RE: Hungerford Car Park 14/00302/FUL We strongly object to this application, and strongly object to the manner in which it appears to be being rushed through PAC prior to the election. Having received notification only last week of a re-consultation on this application to which we had until the 7th May to send in comments, I am surprised to find that this an item for PAC’s meeting on 13th May. This timescale means that responses to the consultation can only be reported on to you in the most cursory fashion, by way of addendum, if at all. Such haste is neither necessary nor appropriate. The application is for a marketing suite for the Shell Centre proposals, which has yet to receive permission, cannot begin on site until the autumn at least, and will take four years to build. The marketing suite is not enabling works: nor is it imperative that the applicants open the marketing suite prior to any other works. This haste is evident in the PAC report, which has a number of errors, not least of which the paragraphs of the conclusion recommending approval are entirely unrelated to this application: paragraphs 14.1 – 14.5 have nothing whatsoever to do with this application. They refer to theatres, pedestrians on the Queen’s Walk and sale of alcohol, and are clearly to do with another item on the PAC agenda regarding the Southbank Centre, and have been erroneously cut and pasted. Our fundamental objections are that

This application is a departure from one of the most notoriously stringent protections afforded in planning policy. The MOL designation protects from development permanently open areas of strategic importance which are clearly distinguishable from the built up areas. The designation has been in place for decades and withstood testing three times by HM Inspectors.

The proposal is not necessary to bring about the development of the Shell site, which awaits planning approval from the Secretary of State.


There are no other ‘very special circumstances’ to justify this departure.

The granting of permission would establish a principle of development and would therein undermine justification for retaining the MOL designation, and thereby potentially undermine the achievement of the longstanding objective of an extension of Jubilee Gardens across the Hungerford car park.

http://www.wcdg.org.uk/


2

The substantive comments which follow are based upon the strong objection expressed at our public meeting to consider this application in October 2013, attended by 46 people. The minutes are attached.

1. Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) designation The site has been designated for additional open space in an unbroken planning policy stretching back to at least the Waterloo District Plan 1977, and was carried forward in the UDP 1998, the UDP 2007, the Core Strategy 2011 and the current draft Local Plan. The site’s owners, the Southbank Centre, have proposed at least 5 major redevelopments of the site over the past 40 years, but have been consistently and robustly rebuffed by Lambeth as the planning authority. In order to protect the site from development, and to encourage the landowners to accept this aspiration and to landscape the site, it was designated Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) in 1998, the highest protection afforded to open space, and akin to Green Belt status. This designation has been consistently challenged and tested at Inquiry and Examination of policy, and has been endorsed by 3 Inspectors over the past 20 years. Along with the application site, only Brockwell Park, Clapham Common and Streatham Common have MOL designation in Lambeth. The landowners have played a very long and tiresome game on this site over previous years, and Lambeth Council have fought doggedly and persistently to achieve open space at the site. In an effort to forge a compromise with the landowners one part of the site was de-designated as MOL in 2011, to allow a cultural building to come forward, provided this ensured the landscaping of that part of the site afforded MOL protection. That part of the car park site remains empty and could accommodate the proposal. But, having sacrificed one third of the site to encourage compromise, the applicant proposes to slice off another portion for development. Significantly, the Southbank Centre has finally conceded in recent years that the right future for the site is as open space, as an extension of Jubilee Gardens. The need for additional open space has not diminished since MOL designation was conferred, but in fact has increased exponentially since the area became one of the most popular visitor destinations in the UK with the opening of the London Eye in 2000. Jubilee Gardens is under enormous stress and struggles to accommodate 26 million visitors annually, let alone the rapidly increasing residential and employee population, scheduled to rise by 1,900 and 15,000 respectively.

2. Planning Policy for MOL The planning policy is very clear: the site is designated as MOL in Lambeth’s Core Strategy. The London Plan1 states that MOL designation affords the same level of protection as Green Belt. The NPPF states that “the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.” The London Plan sets out four criteria for MOL designation; the Hungerford car park site meets only the first: “it contributes to the physical structure of London by being clearly distinguishable from the built up area.” The London Plan continues that “the Mayor strongly supports the current extent of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), its extension in appropriate circumstances and its protection from development having an adverse impact on the openness of MOL.”

1 Policy 7.17 Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)

3

Strategic permanent openness is the defining feature of MOL, and, uniquely among planning policies, MOL designation and protection is designed to last beyond the 20-year life of the development plan. As a result both the NPPF and the London Plan severely restrict development of MOL: the London Plan baldly states

“The strongest protection should be given to London’s MOL and inappropriate development refused, except in very special circumstances… Essential ancillary facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they maintain the openness of MOL… Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL.”

Strategic permanent openness is the defining feature of MOL. The tests for development on MOL are clear:

The application completely fails to respect the fundamental criteria of permanence – a temporary intervention is proposed in order to facilitate a commercial objective.

The application completely fails to meet the fundamental test of openness – the current site is completely open, clearly distinguishable from the built up area as required by policy; but the application is to develop a relatively large, tall highly visible structure (four times larger at the top than at ground) which would entirely extinguish the distinction of the MOL from its surrounding built up area

The application fails to meet the test for exceptions: it is not ancillary to the open space (such as toilets or a bandstand), it is not small scale, and it does not maintain the openness.

Green Belt and MOL does not have to be green, and much of it isn’t. It is about a strategic break in the built up area and protection from development which would encroach that break – in the case of Green Belt a break in the built up area around London, in the case of MOL in the built up area within London. The break in the built up area needs to be strategic – and the South Bank is nothing if not strategic, serving millions of visitors. The fact that the site is currently a car park is therefore not the relevant factor for its MOL designation, it is that it is a strategic break in the built environment. It should be noted that, like the Green Belt, MOL is not an entirely inflexible policy, but does allow development of MOL: but the mechanism to achieve this is not an opportunistic planning application, but should involve reviewing MOL designation during the review of the development plan. Lambeth reviewed the MOL designation of the car park thoroughly in preparation for the UDP 2007 and Core Strategy 2011, as a result of which a portion of the car park was de-designated in order to allow for the development of an arts building on part of the Hungerford car park. The current proposal is therefore “inappropriate development” as defined in the London Plan. This goes on to state that inappropriate development should be refused – which is why it has been deemed a departure application. Even so, the London Plan policy does make it possible to grant permission for inappropriate development “in very special circumstances”, although it fails to define these. However, the NPPF provides guidance:

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

3. ‘Very Special Circumstances’

What are the very special circumstances in this case? How is the substantial harm by reason of inappropriateness clearly outweighed by other considerations?

4

a) Enabling the Shell centre scheme? The PAC report claims that the marketing suite

i. functions as “enabling development”2 for the ‘parent application’ of the redevelopment of the Shell site; and

ii. is “intrinsically linked to the redevelopment of the Shell Centre”.3 These claims are simply factually incorrect. The proposal is not enabling development in either the technical planning sense or any common sense meaning: it is not generating funding to render the Shell scheme more viable. The Shell scheme stands on its own merits: it was presented to Lambeth and the recent public inquiry as a standalone viable scheme, without the Hungerford car park. A marketing suite on the Hungerford car park is not necessary to deliver the Shell scheme. For this reason the two applications are not ‘intrinsically linked’. The Shell scheme can be delivered without this marketing suite. The marketing suite is not “a ‘motor’ for regeneration”. It is an entirely superfluous addition to what is already one of the largest regeneration schemes in London, in an area simply heaving with regeneration4.

b) Extending Jubilee Gardens? The PAC report implies (at 7.9-10) that the extension of Jubilee Gardens across the entire MOL-protected part of the car park site, undertaken by the applicant at their expense, is a benefit accruing to this application “the principle of the building component of the proposal is therefore demonstrated to contribute towards the longstanding objectives for the site, without which they may not come to fruition. No similar catalyst has emerged for over a decade.” This is simply not the case. The longstanding objective of an extension of Jubilee Gardens across the site has already been agreed to be undertaken by the applicant, and was presented in detail at the recent public inquiry. The applicant is committed by contract with the Southbank Centre to deliver that extension by 2018, the contract being triggered by the granting of permission for the Shell site by the Secretary of State, the decision for which we await. The issue of the proposed marketing suite is neither here nor there in this matter. Furthermore, there is no s106 agreement or other planning control to ensure that the extension is indeed delivered, either connected to the current application or the Shell site application. Lambeth Council simply has no control over this matter. It is controlled by an agreement with the Southbank Centre which the local authority are in no position to enforce. Not preparing for the possibility that the extension is not delivered is remiss of the local authority. Indeed in their ‘Installation and De-Installation Plan’ the applicant even sets out the scenario for dismantling the structure and reinstating the car park, not extending Jubilee Gardens! This is clearly a possibility: “The Applicant has an agreement with the South Bank Centre to deliver an extension of Jubilee Gardens into Hungerford Car Park. If this is delivered then the ground works and landscaping will remain and become incorporated into the new scheme. However in the event that this cannot be delivered the ground works and landscaping will need to be removed and the site returned to use as a car park.”5 Members cannot labour under the delusion that this application brings the extension of Jubilee Gardens any nearer, quite the reverse: granting permission for this application will bring about a 5 year delay in what could happen immediately, given the landowner’s agreement in principle to an extension and the applicant’s willingness to fund it as adjunct to its Shell Centre scheme.

2 PAC report 7.8

3 PAC report 7.6

4 Shell Centre, Elizabeth House, National Theatre, Doon St, King’s Reach Tower, Sea Containers House, York House, Lying-In Hospital

hotel, Park Plaza hotel, Addington St hotel, Westminster Bridge Rd hotels, Hercules House, Tune Hotel, Christian Alliance Centre, London Nautical School flats, Hatfields student accommodation… these are just some of the schemes in the pipeline or constructed in the past decade around the South Bank. 5 Installation and De-Installation Plan, 6.2

5

c) Greening a small portion of the MOL?

The PAC report also argues that the creation of landscaped space around the structure is a benefit which outweighs the negative impact of the structure. This misses the point entirely. No one objects to the landscaping, it is not compromising the openness of the MOL. But it cannot be argued that it is OK to build on this bit of MOL, because an adjacent bit of MOL is not being built on! Of course, the greening of part of the MOL is welcome, although even this is not unproblematic. The design of the landscaping is fundamentally different from that of Jubilee Gardens, whose key features are an undulating topography and waywardly curving footpaths to avoid trampling down of the grass and shrubs. There has been no consultation on the proposed design for the MOL, and has not been agreed with the Jubilee Gardens Trust6. The design creates a number of operational issues for Jubilee Gardens:

the creation of informal pedestrian access between the two sites and associated wear and tear – effectively visitors will be encouraged to follow a path which does not exist on Jubilee Gardens

the removal of the service road for servicing the pump, electricity and water tanks, and for storing waste bins and disposing of rubbish

security matters such as the apparent lack of CCTV, the impact of lighting on existing CCTV in the Gardens, lack of detail on the 24/7 presence, and lack of hostile vehicle measures on Belvedere Road access required to protect the London Eye from potential terrorist attack. .

An amendment made public only last week proposes an extension of the planning application area to include a ‘Recreation and Event space’. Unfortunately no details have been provided as to what is proposed, either in terms of landscaping or events. It is not even clear if this area will be open to the public. This lack of information is inappropriate for an application on MOL in a Conservation Area, in such a sensitive location, and its merits are impossible to judge. There is reference to the expectation that the use would be sport dominant. This is completely at odds with the design and use of Jubilee Gardens and elsewhere on the South Bank, which is focused on arts and entertainment. There are no sporting facilities on the South Bank: sporting facilities are provided elsewhere, in particular the nearby Archbishops Park.

4. Other issues

Lighting The proposal would provide a range of possibilities for a highly lit structure displaying images. In itself this may appear attractive, but in context it is potentially distracting and over-bearing. The area is already well-lit. As English Heritage comment, the lighting will distract and detract from the appearance of the grade I listed Royal Festival Hall, and also of views of Big Ben through the London Eye. It will also dominate Jubilee Gardens in the evening, where we have deliberately kept lighting relatively low key.

Advertising The applicant states that the lighting is capable of displaying images, but these will not be used for the purposes of advertising. However there is no condition to this effect, the PAC report relying on the perceived need for Advertising Consent. It would seem that nothing has been learnt from the IMAX debacle. At the IMAX an arts facility was approved with similar lighting possibilities and similar assurances from the applicant that it wouldn’t be used for advertising. It has subsequently been used for advertising, and is the largest and most prominent single advertising space in Central London. The local authority have proved incapable of stopping, having granted approval of the structure without the requisite legally binding agreements.

6 It should be noted that, under the terms of the lease from the Southbank Centre, the Jubilee Gardens Trust is restricted from

commenting in any way on planning applications on the Hungerford Car Park. While I am aware of these issues as a member of the Jubilee Gardens Trust board, I am not speaking on behalf of the board.

6

Principles and Permanence The application is for a temporary permission, but the structure is a permanent structure with full foundations. The design and materials are high quality. Marx Barfield, the designers, have a track record of proposing delightfully extravagant permanent structures for temporary permission which then become permanent – the London Eye being the prime example. Once the principle of development on the MOL is agreed it will be more difficult to resist attempts to extend the life of this structure. Again, it should not be assumed that the applicants will always appear so benign. Permission runs with the land, not the applicant, and were this site to change hands (and there any number of circumstances for this to happen), it is entirely possible that the Shell site main scheme is approved and partially implemented but not fully built out (as happened in 2007); nevertheless, permission would thereby have been triggered to develop the MOL site. The PAC report recommendation fails to sufficiently secure the outcome it uses to justify the application. At the very least there should be legally binding safeguards enforceable by the authority to ensure that the extension of Jubilee Gardens is finally achieved in any circumstance, and that the site is not used for advertising

5. Conclusion

This application is a departure from one of the most notoriously stringent protections afforded in planning policy.

The MOL designation protects from development permanently open areas of strategic importance which are clearly distinguishable from the built up areas.

The designation has been in place for decades and withstood testing three times by HM Inspectors.

The proposal is not necessary to bring about the development of the Shell site, which awaits planning approval from the Secretary of State.


There are no ‘very special circumstances’ to justify this departure.

The granting of permission would establish a principle of development and would therein undermine justification for retaining the MOL designation.

This application should be refused. Yours sincerely Michael Ball Director, WCDG

planning applications committee 13th may 2014 … · planning applications committee 13th may 2014...

Documents