1

Site address 34 Groveway, London, SW9 0ARWard Vassall

Proposal Demolition of existing two storey residential property (Use Class C4) and erection of a three storey residential building plus lower ground level to provide 5 residential units (Class C3) with associated private and communal amenity space, refuse/recycling and cycle parking.

Application type Minor Dwellings & Listed Building Consent

Application ref(s) 14/03200/FUL & 14/03380/LB

Validation date 16 July 2014

Case officer details Name: Rozina VrlicTel: 020 7926 1195Email: rvrlic@lambeth.gov.uk

Applicant Mr John Smart

Agent Ms Louise MulcanyJohn Smart Architects124 Southwark StreetLondonSE1 0SW

Considerations/constraints Stockwell Park Conservation AreaSmoke Control AreaStreets Under Conversion Stress

Approved plans 014-001 (received 09.07.14), 014-002 Rev B (received 23.06.14), 014-010 (received 09.07.14), 014-011(received 09.07.14), 014-012 (received 23.06.14), 014-020 (received 23.06.14), 014-020 (received 09.07.14), 014-021 (received 23.06.14) 014-030 (received 09.07.14), 014-031(received 09/07/14), 014-032 Rev A (received 23.06.14), 014-040 Rev M (received 23.06.14), 014-041 Rev J (received 23.06.14), 014-042 Rev J (received 23.06.14), 014-043 Rev H (received 23.06.14), 014-044 Rev G (received 23.06.14), 014-045 Rev I (received 23.06.14), 014-050 (received 09.07.14), 014-051 (received 09.07.14), 014-052 (received 09.07.14), 014-053 Rev L (received 23.06.14) 014-054 Rev I (received 23.06.14), 014-055 Rev J(received 23.06.14), 014-056 Rev E (received 23.06.14), 014-059 Rev A (received 23.06.14), 014-060 Rev N (received 23.06.14), 014-061 Rev D (23.06.14), 014-070 Rev D

2

(received 23.06.14), 014-071 Rev H (23.06.14), 014-072 Rev G (received 23.06.14), 014-073 (received 09.07.14), 014-074 Rev B (received 23.06.14), 014-075 Rev A (received 23.06.14), 014-076 Rev B (received 23.06.14), 014-077 Rev B (received 23.06.14), 014-082 Rev D (received 23.06.14), 014-083 Rev A (received 23.06.14), 014-084 Rev A (received 23.06.14), 014-085 Rev A (received 23.06.14), 014-086 (received 09.07.14), 014-086 Rev A (received 23.06.14), 014-087 Rev D (received 23.06.14), 014-090 Rev F (received 23.06.14), 014-100 (received 09.07.14), Design and Access Statement (received 23.06.14), Heritage Statement & Schedule of Works (received 23.06.14), Parking Study, prepared by Paul Mew Associates, dated June 2014 (received 23.06.14), Energy Statement prepared by Falcon Energy Limited, dated 26 September 2014 (received 23.06.14), Code for Sustainable Homes, Pre-Assessment Report prepared by Falcon Energy Limited (received 23.06.14), Code for Sustainable Homes, Issue Status, rev 1, prepared by Falcon Energy Limited, dated 26 June 2013 (received 26.06.14).

Recommendation (s) I. Grant planning permission subject to conditionsII. Grant listed building consent subject to conditions

Background documentsCase File (this can be accessed via the Planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020 7926 1180)

3

Consultation

Department(s) or Organisation(s) Consulted? (y/n) Date response received

Comments summarised in report? (y/n)

InternalConservation and Design Y 17/07/14 YTransport/Highways Officer Y 19/09/14 YClimate Consulting Y 21/07/14 YRegulatory Services – Noise Pollution Y 22.07.14 YPlanning Policy Y 29/09/14 YDevelopment Control Enforcement Team Y No response NHousing Y No response NStreetcare Y No response N

ExternalKennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum Y No Response NKennington Association Planning Forum Y No Response NStockwell Park Residents Association Y No Response N

4

1 Summary of Main Issues

1.1 The main issues relating to the determination of this application are:

The principle of the redevelopment involving the demolition of the existing house and erection of a three storey (plus lower ground level) building to provide five (5) residential units;

Standard of the proposed residential accommodation; Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; The design of the new building and impact upon the character and appearance

of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area; Impact on the adjacent listed building at no.36 Groveway; Transport implications of the proposal; Sustainability of the proposed development; Crime prevention and community safety considerations.

2 Site Description

2.1 The application site is located on the northern side of Groveway and once accommodated one of a pair of semi-detached villa style dwellings (Nos. 34 and 36 Groveway) of early or mid 19th century origin. The original No.34 was destroyed during the second world war bombing and was replaced in the 1960’s with an unsympathetic 2-storey detached dwelling house. No.36 therefore now stands as a detached 3 storey building. The existing house is currently in multiple occupation (Use Class C4).

2.2 The site is located within a predominately residential area and is surrounded by a number of Grade II listed late Regency and early Victorian properties. To the east of the site is no.32 Groveway and to the west of the site is No.36 Groveway which was rebuilt after the WWII bombing and is Grade II listed. To the rear of the site is Hackford Walk, which is occupied by non residential buildings.

2.3 The application site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 6a, which is categorised as ‘excellent’. The site is located within the Stockwell Park Conservation Area. The building is not locally or statutorily listed and it has been identified in Stockwell Park Conservation Area statement as making a negative contribution to the character and appearance of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area. The site is located within a Smoke Control Area and designated Street Under Conversion Stress area (Policy S2 (e) of the Core Strategy (January 2011)).

2.4 There is an existing dropped kerb which provides access onto the site from Groveway.

3 Planning History

3.1 There is extensive planning history on this site dating from 2007, when an application was made and refused (07/03377/FUL). A subsequent application was refused in 2008 (08/01689/FUL) and following a number of dismissed appeals, additional applications were submitted but withdrawn in 2013 (13/00797/FUL, 13/00798/CON, 13/00964/LB and 13/04660/FUL, 13/04760/LB) and 2014 (14/00459/FUL, 14/01689/LB). Those

5

applications considered material to the current application are listed below:

3.2 Planning application for (07/03377/FUL), Conservation Area Consent (07/03378/CON) and Listed Building Consent (07/03425/LB) for the Demolition of existing two storey building and erection of three storey building with habitable roof space and lower ground floor to provide five self contained flats comprising two 1-bed and three 3-bed units with the provision for cycle and refuse storage were refused on 25.10.2007 for the following reasons:

07/03377/FUL

I. The LPA was not able to make a full assessment of the scheme due to the discrepancies found within the submitted plans and as such it was not fully possible to ascertain whether the proposal would create an adverse amenity impact to future occupiers as well as the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

II. The three-storey rear wing is considered to be unacceptable in terms of the excessive width, depth and choice material, thus creating an over-dominant features, which would undermine the character of the rear of the property and of the adjacent Grade II listed buildings and as such result in the loss of visual amenity to the property and would fail to achieve an acceptable level of sub-ordination to the host property and to the adjacent Grade II listed buildings as well as the conservation area as a whole, contrary to policies 36, 45 and 47 of the Council's UDP.

III. The proposed fenestration of the three-storey rear wing is considered to undermine the character of the rear of the property and of the adjacent Grade II listed buildings and as such result in the loss of visual amenity to the property and would fail to achieve an acceptable level of sub-ordination to the host property and to the adjacent Grade II listed buildings as well as the conservation area as a whole, contrary to policies 36, 45 and 47 of the Council's UDP.

IV. The principle of converting the upper two floors into one self-contained 3-bed maisonette is not considered to be acceptable in land use terms. The scheme would result with one of the bedroom for the said maisonette being below the Council's minimum standards with regards to floor to ceiling height, to the detriment of the amenities of future residents. As such, the proposal is contrary to the aims of Policy 15 of the Council's and to the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance 4: 'Internal Layout and Room Sizes'.

07/03378/CON

I. The proposed demolition, resulting in the loss a structure that makes a neutral contribution to the Conservation Area, and in the absence of an appropriate redevelopment scheme, would fail to preserve or enhance the character and

6

appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to PPG15 and to Policy 47 [Conservation Areas] of the Council's UDP.

07/03425/LB

I. The three-storey rear wing is considered to be unacceptable in terms of the excessive width, depth and choice material, thus creating an over-dominant features, which would undermine the character of the rear of the property and of the adjacent Grade II listed buildings and as such result in the loss of visual amenity to the property and would fail to achieve an acceptable level of sub-ordination to the host property and to the adjacent Grade II listed buildings as well as the conservation area as a whole, contrary to policy 45 of the Council's UDP .

II. The proposed fenestration of the three-storey rear wing is also considered to undermine the character of the rear of the property and of the adjacent Grade II listed buildings and as such result in the loss of visual amenity to the property and would fail to achieve an acceptable level of sub-ordination to the host property and to the adjacent Grade II listed buildings as well as the conservation area as a whole, contrary to policy 45 of the Council's UDP.

3.3 Planning Application (08/01689/FUL) Conservation Area Consent (08/01727/CON) and Listed Building Consent (08/01728/LB) for demolition of existing two storey building and erection of three storey building with habitable roof space and lower ground floor to provide five self contained flats comprising two 1-bed and three 3-bed units with the provision for cycle and refuse storage were refused on 28.07.2008 for the following reasons:

08/01689/FUL

I. The proposed development by reason of the rear extension due to its excessive width would be detrimental to the setting and special interest of the adjoining Grade II Listed Building and these adjacent as well as failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area (CA5). As such the proposed development would not comply with policies 31, 33, 38, 45 and 47 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

08/01727/CON

I. The proposed demolition of the building at 34 Groveway, in the absence of an appropriate redevelopment scheme, would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy 47 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

08/01728/LB

I. The proposed development by reason of the rear extension due to its excessive

7

width would be detrimental to the setting and special interest of the adjoining Grade II Listed Building. As such the proposed development would not comply with policy 45 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

3.4 Planning Application 08/01689/FUL, Conservation Area Consent 08/01727/CON and Listed Building Consent 08/01728/LB were dismissed at appeal on 27.05.2009 (ref: APP/N5660/E/09/2097230, APP/N5660/E/09/2097229 andAPP/N5660/A/09/2094273, respectively).

3.5 The planning application and listed building consent appeals were dismissed on the grounds of design and width of the extension to the rear. The Inspector considered that the building would be sandwiched between its two original and therefore historically accurate neighbours and as such, the new building would appear architecturally incoherent, and would fail to reflect the quality of design prevalent in the area. The inspector concluded that the proposal would materially detract from the setting of, in particular, the attached No.36 and would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

3.6 In relation to the conservation area consent appeal, the inspector found that the existing 1960’s building makes no positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and its replacement with a more sympathetic development would be of benefit. The Inspector found the principle of demolition acceptable. However, UDP Policy 47 seeks to ensure that demolition does not precede the grant of planning permission for a replacement building and it was the Inspector’s conclusion that in the absence of an acceptable redevelopment scheme, the grant for conservation area consent for demolition of the existing building would be premature.

4 Current Proposal

4.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing two storey residential property (Use Class C4) and erection of a three storey building plus lower ground level to provide 5 residential units (Class C3) with associated private and communal amenity space, refuse/recycling and cycle parking.

4.2 The proposed building would consist of three building elements. The main building would measure approximately 8.7m wide, 9.6m deep. The height of the building would be approximately 10m (eaves), 12.8m (ridge) above ground level, and 2.7m below ground level (basement level). The building would be attached to the flank wall of No.36 Groveway, and would be set-away from the side boundary with No.32 Groveway by approximately 1.5m.

4.3 The rear building element would measure approximately 3.6m wide, project rearwards for 3.8m. A flat roof is proposed to a height of 6.5m above ground level. This rear projection would be set away from the boundary with No.36 Groveway by 2.4m and 1.5m with No.32 Groveway. One skylight is proposed within the roof.

4.4 A side link infill element is proposed to provide a communal entrance into the building from the front and to rear gardens. This element would be set back from the main building by approximately 1.2m at ground floor level and 2.2m at first floor level. It

8

would measure approximately 1.5m wide and project rearwards along the boundary with no.32 Groveway for approximately 8m at ground floor level and 7m at first floor level. It would have a flat roof rising to a height of approximately 6m above ground level. Two skylights are proposed within the roof.

4.5 External materials would include brick work for the walls, timber windows and natural slate for the roof covering. The fine detailing and decorative elements, such as windows are proposed in cast stone and the ground floor would be in fine plaster stucco. The railings in the front and rear garden would be made of cast iron and painted black.

4.6 A light well is proposed to the front elevation to be enclosed by 1.1m high railing fence, made of cast iron and painted black. Refuse and recycling storage would be located adjacent the front railings. It would measure approximately 3m length, 1.2m high and 1.1m deep, comprising a London stock brick enclosure with planting. A cycle store is proposed to the rear of the site.

4.7 The proposed building would provide 2 x 1 bedroom units at basement level; 1 x 2 bedroom units over the second and third floor levels and 2 x 3 bedroom units at ground floor and first floor levels.

4.8 Each unit at basement level would be layed out with the bedrooms located to the front section of the building along with a bathroom; the kitchen/living/dining area located to the rear section with direct access to a private garden area (unit A and Unit B). The bedrooms to each of these units would be serviced by windows to a front lightwell.

4.9 The proposed ground floor level would accommodate a three bedroom unit, with two bedrooms and the bathroom located to the front section of the building and the other bedroom and the living/kitchen/dining area located to the rear section with access to a rear private terrace (Unit C). The bedrooms to the front section would be serviced by windows within the front elevation and the bedroom located to the rear would be serviced by a window within the rear elevation.

4.10 The proposed first floor level would accommodate a three bedroom unit with two bedrooms located to the front section of the building, (one of the bedrooms serviced by an ensuite) and the third bedroom, the bathroom and kitchen/living/dining area located to the rear section of the building. No private amenity space would be provided for this unit (unit D). The two bedrooms to the rear section would be serviced by windows located within the front elevation. The bedroom to the rear and the living/kitchen/dining area would be serviced by windows located within the rear elevation.

4.11 Unit E would be accommodated within the proposed second and third floor level (within roof). The second floor would accommodate the living area to the front section of the building, the bathroom and a bedroom and kitchen/dining area would be located to the rear section of the building. The third floor (roofspace) would accommodate the second bedroom and an ensuite. No private amenity space has been provided for this unit. The living area located on the second floor would be serviced by windows located within the front elevation. The bedroom and kitchen/dining area on this floor would be serviced by windows located within the rear elevation. The bedroom within the roof would be serviced by rooflights.

9

4.12 A total of approximately 256.5sqm of communal and private amenity space would be provided on site in form of a private garden, a terrace and a communal garden to the rear. Landscaping would be provided to the front and rear of the site and would include new tree planting.

4.7 The scheme as proposed is illustrated in the following series of plans, elevations and sections.

Figure 1: Existing Street Context

10

Figure 2: Proposed Street Context

Figure 3: Existing Layout

11

Figure 4: Proposed Layout

12

Figure 5: Existing Front Elevation

Figure 6: Proposed Front Elevation

13

Figure 7: Existing Rear Elevation

Figure 8: Proposed Rear Elevation

14

Image 1: Existing Photo

Image 2: Artists Impression - Proposed

15

5 Consultations and Responses

5.1 Consultation letters were sent to occupiers of 18 neighbouring properties within Groveway in accordance with agreed procedures.

5.2 A site notice was displayed in the vicinity of the site on 25.07.14 and a press advert published in the Weekender on 08.08.14.

Internal consultation

5.4 Conservation and Design – The height, massing, scale, building line, detailing and materials palette are a vast improvement on the existing building. The design approach complies with Policies 33, 45 and 47 of the saved policies of the UDP and the development proposed would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area by helping to restore the balance and architectural integrity with the adjacent listed building at No.36 Groveway. The proposal would not harm the setting of the listed building and, subject to conditions the proposal is supported.

5.5 Transport/Highways Officer – raised no objection subject to conditions, requiring the existing vehicular access to be stopped up.

5.6 Climate Consulting – raised no objection subject to conditions, relating to the submission of certificates and summary score sheet under the Code for Sustainable Homes for the new build dwellings and submission of a revised Environmental Performance Statement.

5.6 Planning Policy – The proposed scheme is not consistent with Saved Policy S2 (e) (Streets Under Conversion Stress), however the Planning Act requires that the council should determine applications in-accordance with the development plan unless other material planning considerations suggest otherwise. In cases where other material planning considerations justify making an exception to the policies in the Development Plan an application should be dealt with as a departure from the Development Plan. However, in this case, as the proposal meets a number of other plan policies – such as those relating to securing a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community (core strategy Policy S2); achieve better quality of design (core strategy Policy S9 and Saved UDP Policy 38); fit better with the urban grain (Saved UDP Policy 31); enhancement of Conservation Area (Saved UDP Policy 47); it can be argued that it is not a departure from policy. All other plan policies are adequately met and the scheme in all these respects has considerable merit.

5.7 Regulatory Services – Noise Pollution – No objection to the proposal.

5.8 Housing - no response was received at the time of writing this report.

5.9 Development Control Enforcement Team – no response was received at the time of writing this report.

5.10 Streetcare - no response was received at the time of writing this report.

16

External consultation

5.11 The Herne Hill Society and Camberwell Society - No responses have been received. Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum, Kennington Association Planning Forum and Stockwell Park Residents Association – one response was received from the Stockwell Park Residents’ Association and the objections are summarised below.

5.12 3 letters of objection have been received in response to the consultation on this application. The objections are summarised below, with an officer response to those comments contained within the right hand column of the table.

No. of Letters sent No. of Objections No. in support Comments

18 4 0 0

Objections: Officer Response:

Site is located within a designated Street Under Conversion Stress and Policy S2 (e) of the Core Strategy (January 2011) does not support the conversion of dwellings into flats in these areas. The proposal is a departure from this policy and there is no exceptional justification to allow for this development.

Although the proposal is not consistent with policy S2 (e) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that the council should determine applications in-accordance with the development plan unless other material planning considerations suggest otherwise. In cases where other material planning considerations justify making an exception to the policies in the Development Plan an application should be dealt with as a departure from the Development Plan. However, in this case, as the proposal meets a number of other plan policies – such as those relating to securing a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community (core strategy Policy S2); achieve better quality of design (core strategy Policy S9 and Saved UDP Policy 38); fit better with the urban grain (Saved UDP Policy 31); enhancement of Conservation Area (Saved UDP Policy 47); it is not to be a departure from policy. The Officer’s report below adequately demonstrates that all other plan polices have been met and that the scheme has considerable merit.

The proposed building would attach to No. 32 Groveway. These buildings were not historically attached. To attach to this property No.34 Groveway is an inappropriate infill.

The proposed building would not be attached to No.32 but to No.36 Groveway to which it was originally attached. The general design approach is one of historic replication; this was agreed by officers at an early stage (and in the Planning Inspectors decision for the dismissed appeals (ref: APP/N5660/E/09/2097230, APP/N5660/E/09/2097229 and APP/N5660/A/09/2094273) to be an acceptable approach for the site. Due to the distinct local context, any other

17

approach is considered likely to appear incongruous.

The proposed height, mass and depth of the development are excessive. The proposal would breach Saved Policy 31(d) of the UDP. It would not respond to nor enhance the architectural character of the area.

The proposed scheme would result in a building whose form, height, scale, massing and general design would integrate well within the streetscene and help to restore the balance and architectural integrity to No.36 Groveway, of which it was originally attached before war damage. The proposal would historically replicate the original villa and therefore positively contribute to the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.

The proposed rear terrace would overlook neighbouring gardens.

The applicant has submitted an overlooking study (drawing ref. 014-082 Rev D), which officers have reviewed and it is considered that the drawing illustrates that overlooking into the rear garden of the adjoining property no.36 Groveway would be minimal.

The proposal would overlook gardens and parking spaces from the upper ground floor windows

It is accepted that given the depth and height of the proposed rear element there would be some additional lateral overlooking into neighbouring gardens. However, this is considered to be an acceptable level of overlooking within residential areas and would be no different from the spatial relationship between the rear elevations of neighbouring properties.

There were a number of concerns raised by the Council’s Urban Design and Conservation officer regarding the previous application ref. 14/00459/FUL (withdrawn). The applicant has not addressed all the concerns raised.

The Council’s Conservation and Urban Design Officer raises no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. It is considered that the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not harm the architectural integrity of the adjoining listed building. The concerns raised previously have been overcome in this scheme.

The proposal would not comply with Saved Policy 17 of the UDP. The change from a single dwellinghouse to five flats would be an over intensive scheme. The number of dwellings proposed is excessive for the site.

The proposed five units would provide an acceptable quality of accommodation for future residents. As such the proposal is considered to be consistent with Saved Policy 17 of the UDP and would not have a negative visual impact on the street. In addition, the scheme includes a full mix of unit sizes including a two 3 bedroom size unit with one of the units having direct access to a private terrace. The scheme does not therefore represent an over-intensive development of the site.

The proposal would not comply with Saved Policy 31(b) of the UDP. It would not retain or

The proposal is compatible with prevailing building lines and is considered to be successful in following the established built fabric in Groveway.

18

contribute to the urban grain and where appropriate follow plot sizes and gaps and spaces between buildings. In this respect, the two storey side link extension fails to respect the pattern of block widths and spaces between buildings. It creates a terracing affect.

The side infill link by reason of its set back, modest height and compatibility with the existing pattern of development as illustrated in the applicants, contextual drawing (No. 014-050) would not be a prominent or dominant feature within the street scene and would integrate well the rest of the property. The side element has to be read as part of the main building as a whole rather than as an extension to it.

The council have recently refused permission for an amendment to the roof line at flat 3, No.32 Groveway. It would be inconsistent if the Council were to grant planning permission for such a large development that breaches Council policy.

The most recent planning permission refused permission for the extension of existing rear roof dormer and erection of front facing dormer window, front rooflight and two rooflights to the east elevation roofslope; including associated internal modifications at No.32 Groveway (14/04232/FUL and 14/04246/LB). This application cannot be regarded as relevant to the subject proposal as they are proposing two different schemes. At No.32 the application was for roof extensions, the subject application at No.34 is for a new residential building. The proposal has been assessed against the Council’s development plan policies, and as discussed in the main body of the report, the proposal accords with development plan policies relating to design and in all other respects the scheme has considerable merit.

There is a need for family dwellings in the area. No families would want to live in the proposed development.

The proposal would include two large family sized units including, Unit C which is located on the ground floor and has direct access to a private terrace and communal amenity space to the rear of the site. This unit is approximately 76.7sqm. The other unit D, which is located at first floor level, would have direct access to the communal amenity space located to the rear of the site via the side infill link. This unit is approximately 80.3sqm. It is considered that the 2 x 3 bedroom units would provide as family sized dwellings in replacement of the existing family dwelling house (or house in multiple occupation).

This proposal would support the current owner’s strategy of renting it out to students.

This is not a relevant material planning consideration. The planning rules allow dwellings to switch between occupation as single family dwellings (Use Class C3) and as properties in multiple occupation (Use Class C4).

No notices were put up and if they were they were promptly removed. Concerned that the removal of the notices coupled with the time of year this

Consultation letters were sent to occupiers of 18 neighbouring properties within Groveway. A site notice was displayed within the vicinity of the site on 25.07.14 and a press advert published on 08.08.14.

19

application is being advertised (July – summer holidays) has not provided residents with an opportunity to comment and neighbours should therefore be re-consulted.

Consultation on the application has been undertaken in accordance with agreed procedures and in accordance with statutory requirements.

The applicant has not addressed all previous concerns raised by objectors regarding application ref. 14/00459/FUL (withdrawn). All previous objections made on this application should be considered as part of this application.

Comments made on previous applications are not carried forward to be addressed in new planning applications. Once a planning application is submitted public consultation is done in accordance with agreed procedures, the public is invited to comment on the new scheme and can resubmit previous comments made if they feel that these comments have not been adequately addressed by the new scheme. The current application has to be considered on its own merits and any concerns raised during consultation on it have been taken into account.

The previous objections centre on design and the lack of symmetry that arises from attaching the proposed building to form a terrace with No.32 and 36 Groveway.

The general design approach is one of historic replication; this was agreed by officers at an early stage (and in the Planning Inspectors decision for the dismissed appeals (ref: APP/N5660/E/09/2097230, APP/N5660/E/09/2097229 and APP/N5660/A/09/2094273) to be an acceptable approach for the site. Any other approach is considered likely to appear incongruous. The proposal reinstates the relationship with No.36 as a pair of semi-detached properties. The pair would not be attached to No.32 Groveway.

The applicant has not submitted a landscape management and maintenance plan.

The applicant has indicated proposed landscaping to the front and rear of the site. If minded to grant planning permission it is recommended that a condition be included requiring details of soft and hard landscaping be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The development should be permit free. The Parking Survey submitted is out of date and has not been done in accordance with Council guidance on Parking Surveys.

The Council’s Transport Planner has reviewed the Parking survey submitted with the application and considers the survey to be acceptable. Furthermore, the council’s Transport Planner has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the closure of the existing dropped kerb. The proposal is not secured as permit free because officers consider that there is sufficient capacity in the CPZ to accommodate car parking demand associated with the new flats.

The provision for cycle stores located to the rear of the site is

A suitable cycle store is shown on the plans to be located to the rear of the site which would be accessed via the side

20

unrealistic; bicycles would be chained to the front railings.

link element. The store would provide accessible and adequate storage for the required number of bicycles in line with London Plan standards.

6 Planning Policy Considerations

National Guidance

6.1 Central Government guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was published on the 27th March 2012. This sets out the current Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It reinforces the Development Plan led system and does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making.

6.2 The NPPF must now be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

Local Development Plan

6.3 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the Lambeth Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011); and the remaining saved policies in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011); and the London Plan (adopted July 2011).

The London Plan 2011

6.4 The London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous versions, which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008. The London Plan is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with London Plan policies.

6.5 The key policies of the London Plan considered relevant in this case are:

Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Supply Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments Policy 3.8 Housing Choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and Balanced Communities Policy 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation Policy 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 6.3 Assessing effect of Development on Transport Capacity

21

Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.2 An Inclusive Environment Policy 7.3 Designing Out crime Policy 7.4 Local Character Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 8.2 Planning Obligations Policy 8.3 Community Infrastructure Levy

London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’

6.6 The following saved UDP policies are considered to be of relevance to the assessment of this application:

Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 15 Additional Housing; Policy 17 Flat Conversions; Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out Crime; Policy 33 Building Scale and Design; Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction; Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas; and Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design.

Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)

6.7 The following policies the Core Strategy are considered to be of relevance to the assessment of this application:

Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives; Policy S2 Housing; Policy S4 Transport; Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction; Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management; Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment; and Policy S10 Planning Obligations.

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

6.8 The following SPD’s and statements are considered to be relevant to the assessment of this application.

Stockwell Park Conservation Area Statement; SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House

22

Conversions; SPD: Safer Built Environments; SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction; SPD: S106 Planning Obligations; Refuse and Recycling Storage Design Guide (2013); Waste and recycling Storage and Collection Requirements (2006); and The Council's 'Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements:

Guidance for Architects and Developers' (2006)

7 Planning Considerations

7.1 Principle of land use

7.1.1 The application relates to a two-storey dwellinghouse, located within a designated street Under Conversion Stress (Policy S2 (e) of the Core Strategy (January 2011)). This seeks to ensure mixed and balanced communities with a choice of family sized housing by "protecting all family sized houses from conversion into flats in parts of the borough under conversion stress, and protecting family sized houses of less than 150 square metres as originally constructed in other parts of the borough”.

7.1.2 The Council’s Policy Officer has advised that whilst the proposed scheme is not consistent with Policy S2 (e) of the Core Strategy, primary planning legislation requires councils to determine applications in-accordance with the Development Plan unless other material planning considerations suggest otherwise. In cases where other material planning considerations justify making an exception to the policies in the Development Plan such applications should be dealt with as a departure from the Development Plan. However, in this case, as the proposal meets a number of other plan policies – such as those relating to securing a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community (core strategy Policy S2); achieving better quality of design (core strategy Policy S9 and Saved UDP Policies 33 and 38); better fit with the urban grain (Saved UDP Policy 31); enhancement of Conservation Area (Saved UDP Policy 47); therefore it can be argued that the proposal is not a departure from policy.

7.1.2 Moreover, Policy S2 (e) does not prevent demolition of dwelling houses in areas under conversion stress to allow redevelopment of sites for new housing. The conversion stress policy applies specifically to flats derived from conversion of "existing family sized houses" (two or more bedrooms) and not to new flats created in such streets by redevelopment of existing housing land. It therefore does not prevent the owner of a dwelling house from demolishing it and redeveloping the land for new housing.

7.1.3 This interpretation of policy was supported by an inspector on appeal regarding No.8 Conyers Road (appeal ref. APP/N5660/A/14/2214989). The appeal related to a proposal for demolition of an existing dwellinghouse to provide flats at No.8 Conyers Road SW16, which is also in an area designated as Street under Conversion Stress (13/04396/FUL). This appeal was allowed and within the decision notice the inspector noted the following:

23

‘I consider that the development offers an acceptable mix of dwelling sizes. Further, I understand that Conyers Road is located within a designated conversion stress area. However, as set out by the Council this does not prevent the demolition of a dwelling to allow for redevelopment of the site with new housing’.

7.1.4 It will be demonstrated in this report that the proposed development offers an acceptable mix of dwelling sizes. The objections raised by local residents on these grounds have no basis and therefore cannot be relied upon to resist the proposed development. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated in this report that all other plan policies are adequately met and that the scheme has considerable merit. The redevelopment of the site to provide new housing including family size units is therefore considered acceptable in principle.

7.1.5 In land use terms therefore, the matter for consideration is whether the proposal is consistent with the Council's Development Plan policies including the London Plan (2011) that seek to increase housing supply in the borough having regard to the most recent Lambeth Housing Needs Assessment.

7.1.6 The London Plan under Policy 3.3 (Increasing Housing Supply) seeks to secure a minimum provision of 32,210 new additional homes across London with Lambeth allocated a target of 11,950 new homes for the period 2011-20. Lambeth Core Strategy Policy S2 (Housing) envisages the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings for the period 2010/11-2016/17. Policy 15 (d) (Additional Housing) has a presumption in favour of retention of residential accommodation and therefore provides a basis for resisting development that would result in the net loss of either permanent or non-permanent residential accommodation to other non-residential development. This proposal seeks to provide additional housing in the borough and, is therefore policy compliant.

7.1.7 In conclusion, the proposal to demolish the existing house and redevelop the site to provide new housing is considered acceptable in principle in land use terms. The proposal would make a positive contribution to the Councils stated aims of securing new housing to meet the different needs of the Borough’s residents.

7.2 Standard of the proposed residential accommodation

Dwelling Mix and Tenure

7.2.1 The mix of housing types, sizes and tenure is informed by the priority needs identified in regular housing needs assessment referred to above. Policy S2 (d) requires the provision of a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures in new residential schemes to meet the needs of different sections of the community. This policy provision does not prescribe a mix of units; instead it is informed by the priority and strategic housing market needs identified in regular housing assessments undertaken by the Council. The dwelling type and mix also has to have regard to the particular location and nature of the individual development site.

7.2.2 In this case, the proposed dwelling mix of 2 x 1 bedroom units; 1 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units would provide an acceptable mix of dwelling types and is

24

therefore policy compliant, having regard to the overarching objective of the Council's encourage sustainable communities with a choice of family sized housing (Policy S2 (e) of the Core Strategy). Council policy de-fines family sized housing as comprising "two or more bedrooms" and as such the proposal meets current policy requirements in relation to dwelling types. The proposal would include two large family sized units, Unit C which is located on the ground floor and has direct access to a private terrace and communal amenity space to the rear of the site. This unit is approximately 76.7sqm. The other unit D, which is located at first floor level, would have direct access the communal amenity space located to the rear of the site via the side infill link. This unit is approximately 80.3sqm. It is considered that the 2 x 3 bedroom units would provide as family sized dwellings for the existing family dwelling house or house in multiple occupation.

Living accommodation

7.2.3 The proposed development is considered acceptable in principle subject to complying with Council's policies for new residential development. These include a requirement for development of an appropriate urban design, which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. The Council's Supplementary Planning Document 'Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions' (SPD) expands on this policy and advises on requirements such as minimum room sizes and space standards, amenity space requirements, daylight/sunlight provision and privacy and spacing between buildings. It is a material consideration in the determination of applications involving all forms of residential development. This will be discussed further in the report.

7.2.4 The individual room sizes and overall floorspace of each residential unit within the development proposal meets and in some cases exceeds the standards set out in the Council's SPD for housing development and house conversions. The SPD provides that a new housing development could include; one bedroom units (1 bed/2 persons - minimum overall floor space 45sqm); and two bedroom units (2 bed/3 person units - minimum overall floor space 60sqm) (3 bed/4 person units- minimum overall floorspace 70sqm). in this scheme all the dwellings are of an acceptable layout; each meets the minimum room sizes and overall unit sizes, and they also contain sufficient and unencumbered circulation and storage space. In these respects, the proposal would provide dwelling units of an acceptable standard of accommodation.

Layout/Natural Lighting/Privacy/Outlook/Noise

7.2.5 Saved UDP Policy 33(d) and Section 3 of the SPD Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (July 2008) seek to ensure the provision of acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight for future residents in proposed new developments.

7.2.6 Paragraph 1.4 of the SPD states that 'wherever possible dwellings should have dual aspect orientation, subject to the constraints of the site and where appropriate to the overall form and design, in order to maximise opportunities for cross ventilation and solar gain. Natural ventilation to all rooms in the form of windows is preferred'.

25

7.2.7 In this scheme, all habitable rooms would be provided with fenestration allowing good access to daylight, sunlight, ventilation and outlook with windows to the habitable rooms located to the front and rear elevations of the ground and upper floor units C, D and E. It is also considered that the front lightwell and rear private garden, which would service the lower ground floor units A & B, would provide for adequate daylight/sunlight, ventilation and outlook to these five units. The applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight assessment for the lower ground floor units A & B in accordance with BRE guidance ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight; A Guide to Good Practice’. This has been reviewed by officers and it is considered that the results summary contained in the study which indicate that the rooms would pass the relevant BRE tests for good natural lighting are sound.

7.2.8 With regards to noise related issues, this will be controlled by building regulations. Given the layout and nature of the proposal with the vertical stacking of similar rooms in most instances it is considered that noise transmission between the dwellings would be minimal.

7.2.9 It is considered that a good level of privacy would be provided for future occupiers of the five flats.

External Amenity Space

7.2.10 The requirement for amenity space provision as part of new residential developments is detailed both in the London Plan and the Council's Adopted Unitary Development Plan. Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(h) of the Core Strategy require that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by, where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity space.

7.2.11 The SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions states that for new flatted developments, shared amenity space of at least 50sqm per scheme should be provided. A further 10sqm per flat should also be provided, either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated with the communal space. On this basis the overall minimum amenity space requirement for this proposal would be 100sqm of outdoor amenity space.

7.2.12 The proposal provides private amenity space in the form of private courtyard gardens (Units A and B), private terrace (unit C), as more than 50sqm of easily accessible communal space to the rear of the site for all five units. A total of 256.5sqm of consolidated amenity space would be provided on site, which would considerably exceed the minimum requirements of the Council's SPD.

7.2.13 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed five units would be provided with acceptable standard of quality accommodation for future residents. As such the proposal is considered to be consistent with Saved Policies 17 and 33 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy and the Council’s SPD Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.

7.3 Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents

26

7.3.1 Saved Policies 7, 33 and 38 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy, deal with amenity seek to ensure that the development should not unacceptably harm the amenities (privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight) of adjoining residents, and should not create an unacceptable sense of enclosure or noise and disturbance.

7.3.2 Sunlight and Daylight

7.3.3 New buildings should be of a scale and design that protects residential amenity of neighbouring residential properties by not adversely affecting existing daylight and sunlight levels.

7.3.4 The development is of a scale and location that would not cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of sunlight and daylight. The two storey rear projection is sited sufficiently away from the boundary of the adjacent neighbours at No.32 and 36 Groveway. Given this, it is considered that proposed works would not cause any demonstrable loss of sunlight/ daylight to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers.

Privacy and Overlooking

7.3.5 The applicant has submitted an overlooking study (drawing ref. 014-082 Rev D), which officers have reviewed and it is considered that the drawing illustrates that overlooking into the rear garden of the adjoining property no.36 Groveway would be minimal. Given the height of the boundary fence between these two properties, sightlines would be directed at or above the existing boundary fence and therefore no material loss of privacy would occur.

7.3.6 A door is located to the rear of the link infill element, with stairs to access the rear garden which could give rise to overlooking of the adjoining No.32 Groveway. The applicant has proposed a screen of iron railings painted in heritage colours along the boundary with no.32 Groveway to address this. Given the height of this screen it is not considered likely that the proposal would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy/overlooking to the gardens/dwellings of the adjacent property no.32 Groveway.

7.3.7 The application proposes a number of rear facing windows, which service bedrooms and lounge areas within the proposed units. It is accepted that, there could be some additional lateral overlooking into neighbouring gardens. However, this spatial relationship between the rear elevations of neighbouring properties is typical within many suburban locations in the borough and is considered acceptable.

Outlook and Sense of Enclosure

7.3.8 The proposed building would be sited to about the same building line in relation to the street as the existing dwellings in Groveway. Given the limited depth of the this projection ( approx. 3.8m beyond the original building line), its height of approx. 6.5m and the retained separation distances between the proposed building and these neighbouring properties, it is considered that the proposal would not appear

27

overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring properties or create undue sense of enclosure.

Noise and Disturbance to Existing Residence

7.3.9 In assessing development proposals, local planning authorities are required to ensure that development does not cause unacceptable noise nuisance and/or general disturbance to existing residents. Where subsequent intensification or change of use may result in greater noise and/or general disturbance, planning policy recommends the use of appropriate conditions to mitigate the impact of a development proposal.

7.3.10 The area surrounding the site is predominantly residential in nature and therefore the residential development proposed would be a compatible land use. It is considered that the living conditions of existing resident in terms of noise and any disturbance would not be materially harmed by the intensification of use of the site consequent upon the flatted nature of the development.

7.3.11 In conclusion, the proposal is considered to be of a scale and layout that would not harm the amenity of neighbouring residents. As such the proposal would provide future residents with good quality accommodation which accords with Saved UDP Policies 7, 33 and 38 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy.

7.4 The design of the new building and impact upon the character and appearance of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area.

7.4.1 There are two main elements to the assessment of the conservation and design implications of the proposal:

I. The demolition of the existing two storey dwelling house; and II. The design of the replacement residential building.

I. The demolition of the existing two storey dwelling house

7.4.2 Saved Policy 47 of the UDP states that development in conservation areas should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Part (c) of this policy states that the Council will resist granting consent for the demolition of a building; or substantial part of a building that makes a positive contribution to a character or appearance of a conservation area. Policy S9 of the Core Strategy maintains and seeks to safeguard and promote improvements to the Borough’s heritage assets including appropriate use and improvements to Listed Buildings.

7.4.3 The application proposes the demolition of the existing two storey dwelling and to replace it with a three storey building containing five units. In relation to the conservation area consent to demolish, the previous decision at appeal (ref.APP/N5660/E/09/2097229) is a material consideration. The inspector in this case found that the existing 1960’s building makes no positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area and its replacement with a more sympathetic development would be of benefit and considered the principle of demolition

28

acceptable.

7.4.4 However, UDP Policy 47 seeks to ensure that demolition does not precede the grant of planning permission for a replacement building and it was the Inspector’s conclusion that in the absence of an acceptable redevelopment scheme, the grant for conservation area consent for demolition of the existing building would be premature. The existing two storey dwelling has been identified in the Stockwell Park Conservation Area as making a negative contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore the principle of demolition is considered acceptable.

7.4.5 The matter for consideration is whether the proposed replacement building is a more sympathetic development and would be of benefit to the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.

II. The design of the replacement residential development.

7.4.6 Government guidance in the NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. The NPPF further states that although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

Impact on the Stockwell Park Conservation Area

7.4.7 Saved Policy 47 (a) of the UDP states that development proposals in a conservation area should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. It further states at Policy 47 (c) that replacement buildings should follow the provision contained within Policy 33 of the UDP and the opportunity should be seen as a stimulus to imaginative, high quality design.

7.4.8 Saved Policy 45 states that proposals for the alteration to the listed building may be granted where the result preserves the special interest of the building. Where repairs, alterations or extensions are necessary, they must relate sensitively to the original building and will require craftsmanship and professional skill of a high standard.

7.4.9 The site is located within the Stockwell Park Conservation Area; the general design approach is one of historic replication; this was agreed by officers at an early stage (and in the Planning Inspectors decision for the dismissed appeals (ref: APP/N5660/E/09/2097230, APP/N5660/E/09/2097229 and APP/N5660/A/09/2094273) to be an acceptable approach for the site. Due to the distinct local context, any other approach is considered likely to appear incongruous.

7.4.10 In this scheme the height, massing, scale, building line, detailing and materials palette proposed would be a vast improvement on the existing and the design approach would help to restore the balance and architectural integrity of the adjacent listed

29

building at No.36 Groveway and the character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with Saved Policies 33, 45 and 47 of the UDP.

Layout and Siting

7.4.11 Saved Policy 31 of the UDP requires that new developments should, where possible, retain or contribute to a clear urban grain and follow appropriate block widths, gaps and spaces between buildings thereby helping to add to the connectivity of the street blocks. Individual buildings should address the street with frontages and entrances and should create or enhance views and vistas.

7.4.12 The proposal is compatible with prevailing building lines and is considered to be successful in following the established building line along Groveway. This is achieved by setting the building in line with the adjoining dwelling no.36 Groveway and not projecting forward of the adjacent building no.32 Groveway and other neighbouring dwellings within Groveway. It is considered that the proposal would successfully fit into the streetscene.

7.4.13 Issues previously raised with regards to the set back of the infill link element, have been addressed. The side infill element would be setback from the main building by approximately 1.2m at ground floor level and 2.2m at first floor level and would be of a comparable height to the existing. The design of this aspect of the scheme is similar in design to previous applications and appeal decisions where it was considered acceptable. The applicant’s contextual drawing (drawing no. 014-050) illustrates that dwellings within Groveway have single storey side garages that maintain varying gaps between buildings and in some instances leave no gaps. Given the above, this element of the proposal would not be a prominent or dominant feature within the street scene and would integrate well with the main property.

Height, Scale and Massing

7.4.14 With regard to its scale, massing and design, reference is made to Policy 33 of the UDP, which states that infill development should be compatible with the height, massing and scale of neighbouring buildings. The design approach that has been chosen is considered appropriate for this site. The proposed scheme would result in a building whose form, height, scale, massing and general design would integrate well within the streetscene and would help to restore the balance and architectural integrity with No.36 Groveway.

7.4.15 The area has relatively low scale development with buildings primarily two - three storey in height. The proposal takes its design cue from the existing building heights in the area. The proposed building would be attached to, No.36 Groveway and the height of the building would match the height of this adjoining building. It would appear slightly lower in height than the adjacent building at No.32 Groveway. Overall, the proposal is similar in height to neighbouring properties, and as such the overall height, scale and massing of the proposal is considered acceptable.

7.4.16 The issues with the rear addition as raised in previous refusals and the Inspectors appeal decision have been addressed by the applicant. The rear element is now of a

30

massing, height and design which is subordinate to the main building. The fenestrations to the rear and the detailed architectural design of the building have also been addressed to the satisfaction of officers.

Detailed Design and Materials

7.4.17 Saved Policy 33 (b) and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy require development to be of high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area and that infill development should be compatible with the colour, type, source, and texture of local materials.

7.4.18 The success of the scheme will lie in ensuring that all the materials and details for the new build match the existing exactly - even a slight difference has the potential to appear harmful to both the conservation area and the setting of the listed building. The principle of front boundary railings is welcome as it helps create semi-private defensible spaces and re-instates formal traditional boundaries.

7.4.19 The Council’s Conservation and Urban Design Officer has noted that drawing ref. 014-070 Rev D illustrates a gate, which pivots from the ground whilst; drawing ref. 014-072 Rev G illustrates the same gate without the pivot. The gates in the submitted drawings show a double rail detail which is not a traditional feature. Any gate here should pivot from the ground in the traditional manner, should have invisible fixings, no hollow sections and should have traditional detailing. Overall the Council’s Conservation and Urban Design Officer supports the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to control the detailing, in respect of colour, texture, facebond and pointing.

Landscaping

7.4.20 Policy 39 of the UDP seeks to encourage development to include landscape design that enhances the area and reflects the character of surrounding built environment.

7.4.21 The applicant has indicated proposed landscaping to the front and rear of the site. If minded to grant planning permission it is recommended that a condition be included requiring details of soft and hard landscaping be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

7.4.22 In conclusion, the principle of demolition is considered acceptable and given the above it is considered that the proposed replacement building is more sympathetic and would be of benefit and acceptable in design terms. The proposal therefore complies with Saved Policies 33, 45 and 47 of the UDP and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy.

7.5 The Impact on the adjacent listed building at No.36 Groveway.

7.5.1 Saved Policy 45(a) of the UDP states that the council will preserve listed buildings for their special architectural or historic interest. Consent for the demolition of a listed building will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Saved Policy 45 (b) of the

31

UDP further states that consent for alterations and extensions may be granted where the result preserves the special interest of the building. All aspects of proposals should be necessary and should protect the architectural or historic integrity and detailing of the exterior of the building.

7.5.2 The applicant proposes the removal of render from the flank wall of No.36 and works to the chimney breast to facilitate the erection of the new dwelling at no.34 Groveway. The Council’s Conservation and Urban Design Officer has been consulted on the application and deemed this acceptable subject to conditions, including the requirement to submit a method statement and construction details of how the new building would be attached to No.36 Groveway. In addition it is recommended, as a condition of consent, that as demolition works must be carried out by hand tools and that all construction/building works requiring an interface with No.36 Groveway should be undertaken in accordance with approved details.

7.6 Transport implications of the proposal

7.6.1 Saved Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy are relevant with respect to transport and highway matters. These policies seek to ensure that proposals for development have a limited impact on the performance and safety of the highway network and that sufficient and appropriate car parking and cycle storage is provided whilst meeting objectives to encourage sustainable transport and to reduce dependence on the private car.

7.6.2 Saved Policy 9 of the UDP states that planning applications will be assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impact on highway safety, on the environment and road network and all transport modes including public transport. Any increase in traffic generated by development should not increase levels of traffic congestion, lead to a situation where the condition of highway safety is reduced, cause material harm to the speed and/or reliability of bus and other public transport services. If development would have an unacceptable transport impact transport, it should be refused in the absence of mitigation measures to make the development acceptable.

7.6.3 The site has a PTAL rating of 6a, which is considered excellent. Increased housing density is encouraged in areas of good public transport accessibility.

7.6.4 There is an existing dropped kerb which would no longer be required since no vehicular access is proposed. It is recommended that this crossover be removed and the footway reinstated. A condition to secure this is proposed.

7.6.5 The proposals involve the loss of an existing garage and driveway, with no off-street parking proposed. Average car ownership per household in Vassall ward from the 2011 census is 0.44, so two vehicles would be associated with the five proposed units. A parking survey has been submitted which demonstrates that there is sufficient on-street capacity to accommodate the expected increase in car parking demand associated with this development.

7.6.6 A suitable cycle store is shown on the plans to be located to the rear of the site which would be accessed via the side link element. The store would be able to provide

32

accessible and adequate storage for 8 bicycles; the required number of bicycles in line with London Plan standards. A condition to requiring submission of details of the design of the store is recommended.

Refuse and Recycling Storage

7.6.7 Policy S8 of the Local development Framework Core strategy seeks to ensure adequate provision for refuse and recycling storage is incorporated within new developments. The council’s Guidance for ‘Waste and recycling storage and Collection requirements’ provides a more comprehensive guide to waste storage development.

7.6.8 The proposed refuse and recycling storage would be located to the front of the site and would measure approximately 3m length, 1.2m high and 1.1m deep and constructed as a London stock brick enclosure with planting. A condition is recommended requiring that details of refuse and recycling provision consistent with the council’s requirement for refuse collection be submitted for further assessment to ensure that the objectives of policy S8 of the Core Strategy are achieved.

7.6.9 The Council’s Conservation and Urban Design officer considered the enclosure to be acceptable, however, recommended that it should be moved away from the front railings to allow for hedge planting to soften the visual impact. This matter would be addressed when considering details of the refuse storage provision.

7.7 Sustainability

7.7.1 Saved Policy 35 of the UDP sets out that all development proposals should show how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. The Council's SPD on Sustainable Design and Construction sets out that all developments should achieve a minimum 3 star rating for the Code for Sustainable Homes, albeit that the Council aspires to 4 stars or more in the majority of developments.

7.7.2 The development is expected to offer a reduced environmental impact which attains Code 4 for Sustainable Homes (CSH), in accordance with the London Plan standards. The Council's Sustainability consultant has reviewed the Sustainable Homes Pre Assessment, submitted with the application, which indicates that level 4 CSH (70.33%) would be achieved. The proposal would meet the requirements of policy on sustainability in this respect. Never-the-less conditions requiring the submission of Design Stage certificate and summary score sheet and a Post Construction Review certificate and summary score sheet under the Code for Sustainable Homes for the new build dwellings are recomended.

7.7.3 The applicant has submitted an Environmental Performance Statement, (prepared by Falcon Energy Limited, dated September 2013) which has been reviewed by the Council’s Sustainability consultant. The statement does not fully comply with the London Plan Policy 2.5, which requires all developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions through the energy hierarchy of reducing demand, supplying energy efficiently and using renewable energy on-site. The Sustainability Consultant advises that this can be addressed via conditions. If

33

minded to grant planning permission it is recommended that prior to construction a revised Environmental Performance Statement should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority.

7.8 Lifetime Homes

7.8.1 Policy 3.5 (Quality and design of housing developments) of the London Plan, Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(d) of the Core Strategy provide guidance on Lifetime Homes. This is further expanded on in Section 7 of the Adopted SPD 'Guidance and standards for housing development and house conversions'. This requires Lambeth to ensure that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes Standards.

7.8.2 The applicant has not provided detailed information relating to Lifetime Homes and accessibility. If minded to grant planning permission a condition is recommended requiring details to ensure that the proposed development complies with Lifetime Homes Standards.

7.9 Community Safety/Designing out Crime

7.9.1 Saved Policy 32 of the UDP requires that developments should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. This requirement is contained within Section 17 of The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which imposes an obligation on the local planning authority to consider crime and disorder reduction in the assessment of planning applications.

7.9.2 It is considered that the proposed development could meet the Secure By Design minimum standards for new windows, doors, lighting and access control. If minded to grant planning permission it is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the development complies with the Secured by Design accreditation scheme.

7.10 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

7.10.1 The development would be liable to pay the Lambeth Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). CIL expenditure allocation is not a matter required to be considered in determining planning applications. Separate governance arrangements are being put in place for Borough Infrastructure needs, and locally through the Cooperative Local Investment Plan initiative.

7.10.2 The London Mayors CIL would also be applicable, which will be applied towards the cost of Crossrail.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1.1 The proposed scheme is acceptable in land use terms as it has been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that the development would optimise the re-development potential of the site by providing new housing on the site of the existing dwelling, located within a predominantly residential area.

34

8.1.2 The proposed works to the listed building at no.36 Groveway to facilitate the erection of the new dwelling at No.34 Groveway, subject to conditions, would not cause harm to the special interest of the listed building or the character and appearance of the conservation area.

8.1.3 The proposed redevelopment of the site is acceptable in that it would be of an appropriate design; it would provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers; it would not prejudice the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; it would not harm conditions of on-street parking or prejudice conditions for the free flow of traffic and highway safety; and would not unacceptably impact upon local infrastructure.

8.1.3 The proposed development is considered to be an appropriate response to the character of the site and surrounding area. It is considered that the proposal is subordinate in scale, height and massing to development located within the surrounding area. The development would enhance the character and appearance of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area.

9.0 Recommendation

Recommendation 1

9.1.1 Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Recommendation 2

9.1.2 Granted Listed Building Consent subject to conditions

Summary of Reasons

In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the development plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies were relevant:

UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011:

Policy 7 Protection of Residential AmenityPolicy 9 Transport ImpactPolicy 14 Parking and Traffic RestraintPolicy 15 Additional HousingPolicy 17 Flat ConversionsPolicy 31 Streets, Character and LayoutPolicy 32 Community Safety/Designing out CrimePolicy 33 Building Scale and DesignPolicy 35 Sustainable Design and ConstructionPolicy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use AreasPolicy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design

35

Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011:

Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives;Policy S2 Housing;Policy S4 Transport;Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction;Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management;Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment; andPolicy S10 Planning Obligations.

10 Conditions Planning Permission (REF: 14/03200/FUL)

Standard Conditions

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Design and Conservation

3 Notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application or approved plans, all construction details, window reveals, brick arches, materials, mouldings, glazing bar patterns, fan light design and materials of the proposed windows and doors shall exactly match those at 36 Groveway. No development shall commence until detailed drawings at 1:20, 1have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and a sample window provided on site for inspection. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to ensure that the development is not detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area and safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the adjoining listed building No.36 Groveway (Saved Policies 33, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

4 Notwithstanding any indications to these matters, which have been given in the application or approved plans, no development shall commence until construction details showing eaves profile and soffit have been submitted to and approved in

36

writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details should exactly match those at No. 36 Groveway. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to ensure that the development is not detrimental to the character, and appearance of the conservation area and safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the adjoining listed building no.36 Groveway (Saved Policies, 33, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

5 The new facing brickwork shall match the brickwork of No.36 Groveway in respect of colour, texture, face bond and pointing. The bricks shall be Imperial bricks and the coursing of the front and rear brickwork and rustication shall also align with that of No.36 Groveway. A sample panel showing the junction between the brickwork coursing of the new building and its listed neighbour shall be erected on site for inspection and approval by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to ensure that the development is not detrimental to the character, and appearance of the conservation area and safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the adjoining listed building no.36 Groveway (Saved Policies 33, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

6 No development shall commence until cross-sectional drawings of the flank showing stock brick and stucco banding in sync with the adjoining listed building elevation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to ensure that the development is not detrimental to the character, and appearance of the conservation area and safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the adjoining listed building no.36 Groveway (Saved Policies, 33, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

7 Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no development shall commence until detailed drawings/samples (as appropriate) of all metal work have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where replicating features of No.36 Groveway (for example the balconettes) these should exactly match the dimensions, design and detailing of the metalwork at 36 Groveway. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

37

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to ensure that the development is not detrimental to the character, and appearance of the conservation area and safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the adjoining listed building no.36 Groveway (Saved Policies, 33, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

8 Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no development shall commence until detailed drawings of the boundary treatments at 1:20, 1:5 and 1:1 scale where appropriate have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to ensure that the development is not detrimental to the character, and appearance of the conservation area and safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the adjoining listed building No.36 Groveway (Saved Policies, 33, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

9 All construction/building works requiring an interface with No.36 Groveway shall be undertaken in complete accordance with the approved plans. If any other method of construction is proposed details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works being undertaken.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to ensure that the development is not detrimental to the character, and appearance of the conservation area and safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the adjoining listed building no.36 Groveway (Saved Policies, 33, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

10 Notwithstanding the approved drawings, prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby permitted, detailed drawings of the cycle & refuse storage including their elevational appearance, dimensions, location, layout and materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking and refuse storage is available on site, to promote sustainable modes of transport and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area (Policies 9, 14, 33 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S4 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

38

Landscaping

11 No development shall commence until a specification of all proposed soft and hard landscaping and tree planting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted, together with an indication of how they would integrate with the development in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection. In addition all shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 and current Arboricultural best practice.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visualamenity and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies 39 and 47 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan : Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).

12 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visualamenity and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies 39 and 47 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan : Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).

Transport

13 Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, the existing vehicular access shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb and reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users. (Policies 9 and 14 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January (2011) and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (2011)

39

Sustainability

14 Prior to construction works commencing, a revised Environmental Performance Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority, demonstrating that the development will be able to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions through the Mayors energy hierarchy.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and Core Strategy Policy S7.

15 Prior to construction works commencing full Design Stage calculations for each dwelling under the Standard Assessment Procedure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority, demonstrating that the development will be constructed in accordance with the approved revisions to the Environmental Performance Statement and any subsequent approved revisions.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and Policy 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S7 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)).

16 Prior to the first occupation of the building, evidence (e.g. photographs, installation contracts and as-built certificates under the Standard Assessment Procedure and National Calculation Methodology) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing that the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved revisions to the Environmental Performance Statement and any subsequent approved revisions.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and Policy 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S7 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)).

17 Within three months of work starting on site a Design Stage certificate and summary score sheet under the Code for Sustainable Homes for the new build dwellings (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing that a Level 4 rating will be achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S7 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))

40

18 Prior to first occupation of the building a Post Construction Review certificate and summary score sheet under the Code for Sustainable Homes for the new build dwellings (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing that a Level 4 rating has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S7 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))

Lifetime Homes

19 All residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of any of the residential units hereby approved. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and permanently retained.

Reason: In order that the development is made more accessible to all in accordance with Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S2 (d) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the related Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (2008).

Crime Prevention/Community Safety

20 The development hereby permitted shall meet ‘Secured by Design’ standards, consistent with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 2005 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the safety and security of future occupiers and adjoining properties and prevent crime and disorder occurring within and in the immediate vicinity of the site, in the interest of public safety (Policy 32 of the 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 Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). Listed Building Consent Conditions (Ref. 14/03380/LB)

1 The works of demolition or alteration by way of partial demolition hereby approved shall not commence unless planning approval has been secured for the entire scheme of works relating to the development of the proposed new building.

Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the adjoining listed building (Saved Policy 45 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies

41

saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

2 Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no development shall commence until full details including method statement and construction details at 1:5 and 1:1 scale of illustrating how the new building shall be attached to the adjoining property (No.36 Groveway) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of this listed building (Saved Policy 45 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

3 Demolition work shall be carried out by hand or by tools held in the hand and not by power-driven tools.

Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the adjoining listed building (Saved Policy 45 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

4 All finishes and works of making good to the retained fabric following the removal of render and the demolition of the chimneybreast shall match the existing adjacent work with regard to the methods used and material, colour, texture and profile, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved.

Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of this listed building (Saved Policy 45 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

5 All construction/building works requiring an interface with No.36 Groveway shall be undertaken in complete accordance with the approved plans. If any other method of construction is proposed details shall be submitted and approved prior to works being undertaken.

Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of this listed building (Saved Policy 45 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

Notes to Applicant

42

1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.

3 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities. The London Borough of Lambeth’s Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (May 2006) and the Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide (July 2013) are available on the planning pages of the Council’s website: www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning

5 As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the StreetNaming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following:

- name a new street- name a new or existing building- apply new street numbers to a new or existing building- register new flats or new buildings with Royal Mail

This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, inaccordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the LocalGovernment Act 1985.

The correct street number or number and name must be displayed prominently on thepremises in accordance with regulations made under Section 12 of the LondonBuilding Acts (Amendment) Act 1939.

Contact details are listed below.Tom Browntel: 020 7926 2283fax: 020 7926 0780email: tbrown3@lambeth.gov.uk

6 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Principal Highways Engineer of the Highways team on drw@lambeth.gov.uk 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. You are advised to contact the Highways team at the earliest possible opportunity.

43

7 You are advised all conditions which require further details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority need to be accompanied by an application form and a fee. The application form and fee schedule can be viewed at www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning.

44