Case Reference: 3248960

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 17-20 and 23-27 November and 7 December 2020
Site visit made on 30 November 2020
by John Braithwaite BSc(Arch) BArch(Hons) RIBA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 7th January 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/W/20/3248960
Woodlands Nursing Home, 1 Dugard Way, London
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] Ltd against the Council of the
London Borough of Lambeth.
• The application Ref 19/02696/FUL is dated 12 July 2019.
• The development proposed is redevelopment of the former Woodlands and Masters
House site retaining the Masters House and associated ancillary buildings; demolition of
the former care home; the erection of a single tall building of 29 storeys and peripheral
lower development of 3/4 storeys, to provide 258 residential units, together with
servicing, disabled parking, cycle parking, landscaping, new public realm, a new
vehicular and pedestrian access, and associated works.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
The site and its surroundings
2. The site is about 0.7 hectares and is generally flat. The north part of the site
is occupied by the vacant Woodlands Nursing Home, which closed in 2013, and its
associated grounds. The south part of the site is occupied by, principally, The
Master’s House, which was, originally, the administrative block and Chapel of the
Lambeth Workhouse, later Hospital, that was built in 1871-3. In front of The
Master’s House is part of Dugard Way, which has a junction with Renfrew Road to the
south-west of the site. Opposite The Master’s House and within the site, and backing
on to residential properties on Renfrew Road, are single storey buildings that were
ancillary buildings of the former Workhouse.
3. Outside the site and to the north-east of The Master’s House is the water tower
of the former Workhouse, which has been converted and extended to create a
dwelling. To the south and east of The Master’s House and the former water tower
are the recently built 3/4/5 storey residential blocks of the Water Tower
Development. The residential properties on Renfrew Road to the west of the site are
three storey terraced houses. To the north of the Woodlands Nursing Home is a
small development of two storey terraced houses on Castlebrook Close and the rear
gardens of two storey terraced houses on Brook Drive, and to the north-east is a
three storey residential block at the junction of Brook Drive and Dante Road.
4. Part of the staggered west boundary of the site, that part between the rear
amenity area of the former nursing home and the parking area of the
aforementioned three storey block of flats, is part of the boundary between the
London Boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. Extending up to this part of the east
boundary to the site is Longville Road, which has a junction with Dante Road. On the
west side of Dante Road, within Southwark, are two storey terraced houses either
side of the junction with George Mathers Road which, like Dugard Way, provides
access into the Water Tower Development. On the east side of Dante Road are four
storey blocks of residential accommodation.
5. The site has a public transport accessibility (PTAL) index of 6a/b and health
authorities decided, prior to selling the site, that the buildings and site were surplus
to public health sector requirements. Access to the site is from Renfrew Road along
Dugard Way. The Master’s House has been occupied by the Cinema Museum since
1998. The London Borough boundary along part of the east boundary of the site is
also the boundary of the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area (ECOA).
The proposed development
6. The principal buildings of the proposed development are Block A and Block B.
Block A would be 3/4 stories and would provide 15 2-bed and 9 3-bed apartments for
social rent. Block B would be 29 stories and would provide 27 studio, 157 1-bed and
50 2-bed intermediate and market apartments. Both blocks would be in the north
part of the site; Block A near to the rear boundary fences of properties on Renfrew
Road, and Block B to the south of Castlebrook Close. The 29 storeys of Block B
would be, partly, supported by pairs of angled columns.
7. The ground floor of Block B would include a refuse and waste holding area
whilst the principal refuse and waste areas for the development would be in the
ground floor of Block A. There would be some cycle storage in a single storey
building behind the parking spaces to the east of Block B and at ground floor level of
Block A, but the majority of the over 400 cycle spaces would be at basement level of
Block A. The area to the north of Block B and the area between the two blocks would
be landscaped to provide children’s play space. An area between Block B and The
Master’s House would also be landscaped to create play space.
8. A vehicular access would be created into the site off Longville Road to a
turning area and 4 disabled parking spaces to the east of Block B. Dugard Way
would provide vehicular access to a turning area and 5 disabled parking spaces to the
south of Block A. There would be a pedestrian route through the site from Longville
Road to Dugard Way passing under the uppers floors of Block B and through
children’s play areas. Areas either side of the front entrance into The Master’s House
would be landscaped and Dugard Way would be improved.
The Development Plan
9. The Development Plan includes The London Plan (LP), adopted in 2016, and
the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (LLP), adopted in 2015.
The London Plan (LP)
10. LP policy 3.4 states that development should optimise housing output for
different types of location within the relevant density range shown in a table. The
table, for a site with a PTAL of 6, indicates that the density of a housing development
in a central area should be in the range 650-1100 habitable rooms per hectare
(hr/ha) and in an urban area should be in the range 200-700 hr/ha.
11. LP policy 3.5 requires housing developments to be of the highest quality
internally, externally and in relation to their context and to the wide environment,
and to enhance the quality of local places taking into account physical context, local
character, density, tenure and land use mix. LP policy 3.6 requires housing
developments to make provision for play and informal recreation. LP policy 3.8
states that Londoners should have a genuine choice of homes that they can afford
and which meet their requirements for different sizes and types of dwellings.
12. LP policy 7.6 states that buildings should be of the highest architectural quality
and not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings,
particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy and overshadowing. The
policy emphasises, in relation to privacy and overshadowing, that this is particularly
important for tall buildings. LP policy 7.8 states that development affecting heritage
assets and their settings should conserve their significance by being sympathetic to,
amongst other things, their form and scale.
13. LP policy 7.7 states that tall and large buildings should be part of a plan-led
approach to changing or developing an area by the identification of appropriate,
sensitive and inappropriate locations, and that tall and large buildings should not
have an unacceptably harmful effect on their surroundings. With regard to planning
decisions, the policy states that applications for tall or large buildings should include
an urban design analysis that demonstrates the proposal is part of a strategy that
will meet specified criteria. The specified criteria include the requirement that tall or
large buildings should only be considered in areas whose character would not be
affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall or large building.
The London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (LLP)
14. LLP policy H2 ‘Delivering affordable housing’ states that the Council will seek
the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and that, on sites of 10 units
or more without public subsidy, at least 40% of units should be affordable. The
policy requires 70% of affordable housing units to be for rent and 30% to be
intermediate. LLP policy H4 requires, in the affordable housing element of a
residential development, that no more than 20% to be 1-bed units, 20-50% to be 2-
beds units and 40% to be 3-bed+ units, and for market housing a balanced mix of
unit sizes including family sized accommodation should be provided.
15. LLP policy H5 requires that new residential development will be expected to
provide dual-aspect accommodation, unless exceptional circumstances are
demonstrated, and that in new flatted development communal amenity space will be
provided of at least 50 square metres plus 10 square metres per flat either as a
balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated with the communal amenity space.
16. LLP policy Q2 states that development will be supported if, amongst other
things, adequate outlooks are provided avoiding wherever possible any undue sense
of enclosure or unacceptable levels of overlooking (or perceived overlooking), and it
would not have an unacceptable impact on levels of daylight or sunlight on the host
building and adjoining property. LLP policy Q5 states that where development
proposals deviate from locally distinctive development patterns applicants will be
required to show that the proposal clearly delivers design excellence and will make a
positive contribution to its local and historic context.
17. LLP policy Q7 states that new development will generally be supported if,
amongst other things, it has a bulk, scale/mass and siting which adequately
preserves or enhances the prevailing local character, or, in the case of regeneration
and opportunity areas where the context is changing, it respects the intended future
character of the area. LLP policy Q20 states that development affecting listed
buildings will be supported where it would, amongst other things, not harm the
significance/setting of those listed buildings. LLP policy Q22 states that development
affecting a conservation area will be permitted where it would, amongst other things,
preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area by
protecting its setting (including views in or out of the area).
18. LLP policy Q26 ‘Tall and Large Buildings’ states that proposals for tall buildings
will be supported where, amongst other things, there is no adverse impact on the
significance of strategic and local views or heritage assets including their settings,
design excellence is achieved, the proposal makes a positive contribution to the
townscape and skyline as a contribution to a group, it is of the highest standards of
architecture and materials, and it does not have an unacceptably harmful impact on
its surroundings.
Emerging planning policy
19. A Draft London Plan was published in November 2018, has been examined and
is now in its Intended to Publish form. The adoption of the Intended to Publish
London Plan (IPLP) is delayed by discussions between the Mayor and the Secretary of
State. A Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (DRLLP) was published in late 2018, has
been examined, and will be adopted after adoption of the IPLP. Given their stages in
the adoption process moderate weight is afforded to IPLP and DRLLP policies.
Supplementary planning guidance
20. The Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)
to the LP makes provision for a Fast Track Route for planning applications which are
not required to submit a viability assessment. For surplus public land such as the
appeal site the SPG expects that residential proposals should deliver at least 50%
affordable housing to benefit from the Fast Track Route. This guidance is reflected in
the Lambeth Development Viability Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
Lambeth Employment and Skills SPD sets out the Council’s approach for negotiating
obligations that will be sought at construction and end user phases of development.
Reasons
21. The main issues are;
1. The density and design of the proposed development and its effect on
the character of the area;
2. The effect of the proposed development on the settings of heritage
assets;
3. Whether the proposed development would have an appropriate mix of
housing units;
4. The effect of the proposed development on the amenities of residents of
neighbouring properties;
5. Whether the residents of the proposed housing units would have
acceptable living conditions;
6. Whether the proposed development would provide acceptable amenity
space and outdoor play space.
The first issue – the character of the area
22. Mr Considine, for the Appellant, claims in his proof of evidence that “The
Development Plan clearly places this as a site where a tall building is appropriate”.
The LLP, in fact, only identifies areas in the Borough that are sensitive to or
inappropriate for tall buildings. Other areas of the Borough have not been assessed
for their appropriateness for tall buildings so the proposed development, which is in
such an area, must therefore be considered on its merits with regard to its near
surroundings and the wider context. The wider context includes the ECOA where
there is a developing tall building cluster. There is a policy requirement to optimise
housing output. Optimisation is defined as achieving the maximum amount of
housing without causing unacceptable harm.
23. To the north and west of the site 19th and 20th century terraced housing does
not exceed, predominantly, three storeys in height. To the south of the site the
mansion blocks of the Water Tower Development are predominantly 3 or 4 storeys
and do not exceed five storeys, and further to the south development along
Kennington Lane and Kennington Park Road is no higher. To the east of the site
development along Dante Road is no higher than four storeys. Further to the east
and in Southwark, the wider context includes the UNCLE development that is, partly,
a 44 storey tower. To the north-east of this tower, on the opposite side of St Mary’s
Churchyard, is One The Elephant, a tower of 38 storeys.
24. There are no concerns regarding the design of Block A or the small buildings
either side of the entrance off Longville Road. Objections to the proposed
development focus on the design and form of Block B. The proposed development,
with regard to LP policy 7.7, was the subject of an urban design analysis and
discussions between the Appellant, the Council and Officers of the Greater London
Council (GLC). Those discussions centred on optimising the potential of the site and
Mr Graham, lead Architect in the design team and in his proof of evidence, states
that ‘proposals should optimise housing output with density appropriate for the
location’ and that the development should ‘provide built form to the perimeter and
centre of the site that responds to the surrounding context…’.
25. Table 3.2 of the LP, for the purposes of identifying density ranges to optimise
housing potential, describes central, urban and suburban areas. Central areas are
described as having ‘very dense development, a mix of different uses, large building
footprints and typically buildings of four to six storeys, located within 800 metres
walking distance of a…major town centre’. Urban areas are described as having
‘predominantly dense development as, for example, terraced houses, mansion
blocks, a mix of different uses, medium building footprints and typically buildings of
two to four storeys, located within 800 metres walking distance of a district centre or
along main arterial routes’.
26. The Appellant maintains that the site is within a central area but the
description of the near surroundings of the site leads to the inescapable conclusion
that the area is urban in form and character. In this regard the description of the
surroundings of the site, which is within 800 metres of the Elephant and Castle
district centre, falls squarely within the description of an ‘urban’ area’ in the LP. The
proposed 29 storey tower would not ‘respond to the surrounding context’ and would
be alien and incongruous. It would dominate its immediate surroundings, particularly
the two and three storey housing to the east, north and west and would have a
substantial adverse effect on the character of the area.
27. The design analysis and the approach to the development of the site has
clearly been influenced by the emerging cluster of tall buildings to the east in the
ECOA. The cluster is part of a plan-led approach to the regeneration of the ECOA
and London Borough of Southwark’s Elephant and Castle Supplementary Planning
Document (ECSPD) sub-divides the ECOA into character areas. Development on
Dante Road is within the Pullens Character Area whilst the UNCLE and One The
Elephant developments are within the Central Area. The ECSPD, at paragraph
4.5.16, states that “…the existing character of parts of the west, south and east of
the wider opportunity area comprises low scale residential development…” and that
“These areas cannot accommodate significantly taller development”.
28. The ECSPD does not support the development of tall buildings in the Pullens
Character Area to the east of the site; tall buildings either built, under construction or
approved are predominantly in the Central and Heygate Street Character Areas.
Whilst the tall building cluster is expanding mainly to the east, the UNCLE tower will
remain the closest tall building of the cluster to the appeal site. In views from the
south-east, north and north-west, from within the Pullens and West Square
Character Areas of the ECOA, and from the south and south-west within Lambeth,
the proposed 29 storey tower would be set well apart from the developing cluster
and would be a standalone feature. As the cluster of tall buildings increases in
density and expands the incongruity of the proposed tower would only increase.
29. There is a cluster of three 23 storey buildings at Cotton Gardens Estate on
Kennington Lane about 250 metres to the south-west of the site. This scheme
contributed to post-war reconstruction and was completed in 1968. Neither this
scheme nor other individual tall buildings in the city establishes a precedent for the
proposed 29 storey tower on the Woodlands Nursing Home site.
30. About half of the flats in Block A and about one-third of the flats in Block B
would be single aspect. This would conflict with LLP policy H5 and is a consequence
of the density of the scheme. The LP, at paragraph 3.31, states that “Residential
density figures should be based on net residential area…”. The appeal site is about
0.7 hectares but part of the site is occupied by The Master’s House, which should be
excluded. The net area of the site is about 0.51 hectares. The housing development
would have about 580 habitable rooms and therefore a density of about 1130 hr/ha.
This far exceeds the highest indicative density in the LP of 700 hr/ha for an urban
site and even exceeds the highest indicative density for a central site. Whilst this is a
mathematical exercise it does indicate that the density of the proposed development,
given the urban character of its surroundings, is inappropriate for the site.
31. Inspired by the Cinema Museum use of The Master’s House, the design of the
29 storey tower, conceptually, has been influenced by the imagery of hanging film
strips, variations in film format, and film gauge. The imagery has largely been lost
through the design process but the proposed tower would, nevertheless, be an
attractive building. The plan form of the building, two intersecting rectangles,
reduces the overall bulk of the building and the five storey step down in height of one
of the plan elements provides slenderness where the building meets the sky. The
facades of the building are well articulated with a strong vertical emphasis, though
staggered horizontal elements also contribute to pleasing proportions.
32. The detailed design of the facades has been carefully and sensitively
considered. The dark brown primary grid provides an appropriate structure whilst
the secondary framing of window units does, to some degree, reflect old style film
strips. Minimally framed glazed panels are complimented by sepia solid panel
sections and vertical ventilation panels at the corners of the building would be a
darker bronze colour. Horizontal framing towards the top of the higher section of the
building has been omitted to further emphasis the slenderness of the building.
Overall, the proposed 29 storey tower and other elements of the scheme would be
high quality architecture and would be constructed using high quality materials.
33. Mr Graham has written that “…the architectural concept for the proposals was
to respect the existing whilst contributing towards the future character of the area”.
The proposed tower, despite its architectural quality but given its height and scale,
would not respect the existing character of the surrounding area and would not
contribute to the future character of the wider area. In this regard the tower would
stand apart from the emerging cluster of tall buildings in the ECOA and there are no
strategic plans for the cluster to expand towards the site. The proposed 29 storey
tower would thus remain an incongruous and unacceptable individual townscape
feature that would have a substantial adverse and harmful effect on its near
surroundings. The proposed development would not optimise the housing use of the
site, because it would cause unacceptable harm, and conflicts with LP policy 7.7 and
with LLP policy Q26.
The second issue – the settings of heritage assets
34. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines the setting of a
heritage asset as the surroundings in which such an asset is experienced, and the
significance of a heritage asset to be the value of such an asset to this and future
generations because of its heritage interest. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act) states that in considering
whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building
or its setting the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of
preserving the building or its setting. Harm to the setting of a heritage asset must,
in accordance with established case law, be given considerable importance and
weight in the decision making process.
35. The listing description for the Water Tower, a Grade II listed building, states
that it is designated because it is “…an imposing and distinctive water tower in the
Venetian Gothic style, constituting a rare feature in inner London; historic
associations with Lambeth Workhouse and Infirmary; group value with the former
workhouse administrative block (The Master’s House) whose style it complements,
and with the nearby former courthouse and fire station in Renfrew Road…”. The
Water Tower has been extended to the west and north and from these directions and
from the east the tower is partially obscured by development. The principal direction
from which the tower can be experienced is from the south and, specifically, from
George Mathers Road where it turns north towards the tower.
36. The application was accompanied by a detailed Heritage and Townscape Visual
Impact Assessment (HTVIA). The HTVIA includes before and after photographs from
many viewpoints but, rather remarkably, does not include a photograph of the Water
Tower from George Mathers Road. From this near location the full height and
imposing form of the Water Tower is experienced and appreciated. In this view Block
B would be only about 20 metres behind the tower. Given its 29 storey height and
proximity, Block B would dominate the Water Tower and would substantially reduce
its imposing character. It would, also importantly and in this view, result in the
Water Tower no longer having a silhouette against the sky. The proposed
development would harm the setting of the Water Tower and though the harm would
be less than substantial it would be, given in particular the Water Tower’s rarity, of
high magnitude.
37. The Master’s House, a Grade II listed building is designated for, amongst other
things, the architectural quality of its exterior, whose principal elevations are virtually
intact and highly ornate for a workhouse building of its time, and for its rarity value
in London as the principal building of a Victorian metropolitan workhouse. The
building is best experienced from Dugard Way and, in particular, from the vicinity of
the gated entrance into the former workhouse complex. From this location the
ornate brick elevations and the architectural and historic interest of the building can
be appreciated. Block B would be directly behind the listed building in this view and,
given its height and proximity, would detract from an appreciation of the
architectural quality of the listed building’s exterior. The proposed development
would harm the setting of The Master’s House and though the harm would be less
than substantial it would be of moderate magnitude.
38. On the east side of Renfrew Road to the south of its junction with Dugard Way
is the Former Lambeth Magistrates Court, a Grade II listed building. The Magistrates
Court was built in 1869 in a Gothic style and is the earliest surviving example of a
Criminal Magistrates Court in the metropolitan area. The listed building is
experienced, principally, from Renfrew Road. From directly in front of the
Magistrates Court the 44 storey UNCLE building projects above its roofline and
detracts from an appreciation of the listed building’s architectural and historic
interest. Block B would, similarly and from some vantage points on the west side of
the road, also project above the roofline of the Magistrates Court. The proposed
development would harm the setting of the Former Lambeth Magistrates Court,
though the harm would be less than substantial and of minor magnitude.
39. A K2 telephone kiosk on Renfrew Road, a Grade II listed building, is
experienced in near views against a backdrop of nearby development and no harm
would be caused to its setting. To the south of the Former Magistrate’s Court is a
Former Fire Station, a Grade II listed building. The building has three elements all of
which have high frontages onto the pavement on the east side of Renfrew Road.
Consequently, Block B would not be visible above and in any near view of the Former
Fire Station and only to one side when passing the building. The proposed
development would not harm the setting of the Former Fire Station.
40. Block B would be too far distant from Lambeth Palace, a Grade I listed
building, and the Church of St Mary on Lambeth Road, a Grade II* listed building, to
cause harm to their settings. To the north-west of the appeal site is the Imperial
War Museum, a Grade II listed building. From its setting Block B would be seen
together with the existing tall buildings in the ECOA and no harm would be caused to
that setting. Other listed buildings have been mentioned, principally Grade II listed
terraced houses, but these are located within nearby Conservation Areas and are
significant to the designation of those areas. The proposed development would not
cause any harm to the settings of these listed buildings.
41. The Water Tower, The Master’s House, the Former Lambeth Magistrates Court
and the K2 telephone kiosk are within the Renfrew Road Conservation Area (RRCA).
To the north of the appeal site are West Square Conservation Area (WeSCA) and
Elliott’s Row Conservation Area (ERCA), and to the west is Walcot Square
Conservation Area (WaSCA). Section 72 of the LBCA Act requires that special
attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or
appearance of Conservation Areas.
42. The listing description for the Water Tower states that the building, The
Master’s House, the Former Magistrates Court and the Former Fire Station are ‘a
good ensemble of Victorian public buildings’. They were built in the ten year period
1867-1877 and are the principal buildings, and the reason for designation, of the
RRCA. The buildings of the proposed development would be directly to the north of
the RRCA and Block B, given its height and proximity, would undermine the visual
and historical link between the listed buildings and their contribution to the character
and appearance of the RRCA. The removal of the nursing home would be beneficial
but does not alter a conclusion that the development would harm the setting of the
RRCA. The harm would be less than substantial but of moderate magnitude.
43. The WeSCA and the ERCA are adjoining Conservation Areas immediately to the
north of Brook Street to the north of the appeal site. The tall buildings of the ECOA
are visible from within the two designated areas and detract from their historic
character. Hayles Street is a street of both areas and has terraced Victorian houses
and buildings on both sides. The confined vista along this street from the north
would be terminated by Block B, which would rise well above the modern two storey
terraced houses on Brook Street that adjoin the site. The tall building would be
dominant and intrusive in the vista along Hayles Street and would be prominent in
views from other locations within both Conservation Areas. The proposed
development would harm the settings of the WeSCA and the ERCA, though the harm
would be less than substantial but of moderate magnitude.
44. WaSCA is to the west of Renfrew Road and further away from the appeal site
than the WeSCA and ERCA. Within the designated area are two triangular open
spaces; Walcot Square and St Mary’s Gardens. From these spaces the tall buildings
of the ECOA are visible above the roofs of terraced houses and detract from the
historic character of the designated areas. Block B would be significantly closer than
the existing tall buildings and would detract further from the historic character of the
area. The proposed development would harm the setting of the WaSCA, though the
harm would be less than substantial and, given that the existing tall buildings are in
the same direction, of only minor magnitude.
45. The proposed development would cause less than substantial harm of high
magnitude to the setting of the Water Tower, would cause less than substantial harm
of moderate magnitude to the settings of The Master’s House, the RRCA, the WeSCA
and the ERCA, and would cause less than substantial harm of minor magnitude to the
settings of the Former Lambeth Magistrate’s Court and the WaSCA. The proposed
development would undermine and harm the significance of these heritage assets
and conflicts with LP policy 7.8 and LLP policy Q20.
The third issue – housing mix
46. The proposed development includes 50% affordable housing (AH), on a
habitable room basis and including a mix of low cost rent (LCR) units and
intermediate housing (IH) units, in compliance with the SPD to the LP and the LLP.
Of the 113 AH units 66 would be 1-bed units (58%), 38 would be 2-bed units (34%),
and 9 would be 3-bed units (8%). The percentages conflict with those required by
LLP policy H4 (no more than 20% to be 1-bed units, 20-50% to be 2-beds units and
40% to be 3-bed+ units). The policy housing mix was advised by the 2012 Housing
Needs Assessment (HNA), which identified a shortfall in homes of all sizes across all
tenures but based on absolute numbers the greatest shortfall was for small homes.
However, the Council determined, given that some of the need for small units would
be met by the private sector amongst other things, that there was a need to
prioritise the future provision of larger family sized units.
47. The DRLLP takes a different approach to the LLP by including housing mix
targets only for LCR units; the approach for IH units being the same as for market
housing. For LCR units the DRLLP requires no more than 25% to be 1-bed units, 25-
60% to be 2-bed units, and up to 30% to be 3-bed units. So, the Council’s intention,
through adoption of the DRLLP, is to increase the percentage of 2-bed LCR units in
AH provision. Nevertheless, the DRLLP does include an implied requirement of at
least 10% 1-bed units whereas the scheme would include no 1-bed LCR units. Of the
24 LCR units in the scheme there would be fifteen 2-bed units (62% against a
maximum expectation of 60%) and nine 3-bed units (38% against a maximum
expectation of 30%).
48. The Council does not object to the overall number of LCR units provided in the
scheme and the DRLLP can be preferred to the LLP for housing policy because it is
advised by the 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) rather than the
2012 HNA. To be DRLLP policy compliant only one 2-bed unit and one or two 3-bed
units would need to be 1-bed units. The provision of higher percentages of larger
units, particularly the family sized 3-bed units, at the expense of the provision of any
1-bed units, does accord with the Council’s intention to prioritise the future provision
of larger units. Furthermore, for LCR units the difference in numbers is small and
must be considered in the context of the accepted acute shortage of AH in London
and in Lambeth. The lack of provision of any 1-bed LCR units in the scheme would
not cause any material harm.
49. The LP, at paragraph 3.29, recognises that “…higher density provision for
smaller households should be focused on areas with good public transport
accessibility (measured by PTAL) and lower density development is generally more
appropriate for family housing”. The proposed development would be a high density
scheme and the site has the highest PTAL rating. The Appellant maintains that this
and other factors justifies the lack of provision of any family housing, 3+ bed units,
in either the IH or market housing (MH) elements of the scheme. However, LLP
policy H4 is unequivocal in requiring the provision of, for MH, a balanced mix of unit
sizes including family-sized accommodation. This requirement is carried forward in
the DRLLP, in policy H4, and applies also to IH. Supporting text to policy H4 in the
LLP and the DRLLP explains that the requirement for a balanced mix of unit sizes is
to ensure mixed and balanced communities.
50. There is a tension, in this case, between ensuring mixed and balanced
communities by requiring a mix of housing units and, given the site’s location and
PTAL score, the indication in policy documents that smaller households should be
focused on areas with good public transport accessibility. This tension is
encapsulated in IPLP policy H10 ‘Housing size mix’ which, in section A, states that
“Schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes” but “To determine the
appropriate mix of unit sizes…applicants…should have regard to…”, amongst other
things, “…2) the requirement to deliver mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods…6) the
nature and location of the site, with a higher proportion of one and two bed units
generally more appropriate in locations…with higher public transport access…”.
Critically, however, the IPLP policy makes provision for ‘a higher proportion’ of 1 and
2-bed units not the absence of larger units.
51. The Council has accepted the proportion of LCR and IH units in the AH
element of the scheme which, at 50%, is policy compliant. The mixed tenure nature
of the scheme also complies with the LP’s requirement, at paragraph 3.58, that
“…there should be no segregation of London’s population by housing tenure”. The
Council accepted a high proportion of IH units in the AH element of the scheme partly
because of viability issues. The Appellant maintains that viability precludes including
3+-bed units in the IH and MH elements of the scheme because this size of unit
commands a lower profit per square metre. This was partly borne out by evidence
presented by Mr Ireland, for the Appellant, at the Inquiry. He also explained that
there is little demand for 3-bed IH units and that market demand in the north part of
the Borough is for smaller homes rather than family sized homes.
52. The 258 unit housing scheme includes only 9 3-bed LCR family units and no 3-
bed family units in the IH and MH elements of the scheme. The proposed housing
scheme would not, in itself, be a mixed and balanced community and, given also the
proposed mix of units, it conflicts with LP policy 3.8 and LLP policy H4. However, all
parties accept and understand the acute shortage of AH and MH in London and
Lambeth so, particularly given accepted viability issues and the PTAL rating of the
site, harm caused by the proposed development and the conflict with policy is
afforded only minor weight.
The fourth issue – neighbouring residential amenity
Daylight within existing properties
53. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) guide ‘Site Layout Planning for
Daylight and Sunlight – A guide to good practice’, published in 2011, provides
guidance on the effect of development on daylight and sunlight in neighbouring
buildings. As stated in the introduction “The advice given…is not mandatory…” and
the guidelines “…should be interpreted flexibly…”. The BRE Guide recommends, to
assess the effect of development on daylight, using the Vertical Sky Component
(VSC) and No-Sky Line (NSL) tests. The VSC test measures skylight falling on the
centre point of a window as a percentage. The guide advises that if a proposed
development would reduce VSC to below 27%, and if the reduction is less than 0.8
times its value before development (i.e. more than 20%), then occupants of a room
daylit by that window would be likely to notice the reduction in daylight.
54. Retaining a VSC level of 27% in neighbouring properties is unrealistic; as has
been recognised in many appeal decisions and other documents. Even retaining 20%
VSC is considered, generally, to be reasonably good. Maintaining satisfactory levels
of daylight in neighbouring properties and preventing unacceptable harm must take
into account the context of the surroundings of the site and the Appellant has
assessed existing VSC levels in certain parts of the surrounding area using ‘façade
mapping’ techniques. The average existing VSC level in those areas is stated to be
16% but it is necessary to consider the specific nature of the assessment and that in
each area only one window was considered. Two ground floor windows in houses on
the opposite side of Elliot’s Road to five storey terraces achieve VSC’s of 14.5% and
14.3%, and a ground floor window in a property on Kempsford Road opposite a five
storey block achieves a VSC of 15%.
55. The areas chosen to represent local context was selective and, conveniently,
didn’t include any existing dwellings on Castlebrook Close and Brook Drive
immediately to the north of the site, and on Renfrew Road immediately to the west of
the site. Dwellings in these areas have been considered to assess the effect of the
development and, except for one window, all windows achieve a VSC in excess of
20%. Had the areas considered in an assessment of an average existing VSC level
been truly representative of local context then the stated average would have been
higher than 16%, referred to by the Appellant as a mid-teen level. However, it is
recognised that the site is in an urban area where even retaining VSC levels of 20%,
and applying the flexibility recommended by the BRE Guide and required by LP and
LLP policy, would be inappropriate.
56. The Officer’s Report for a development elsewhere in the Borough stated that
“The benchmark for VSC is 18% rather than the 27% set out in the BRE guidance as
18% is considered to be more appropriate in a dense urban environment”. Mr Lane,
for the Appellant and in his proof of evidence, states that “…this is not materially
different to ‘mid-teens’…”, but it is necessary to establish a ‘benchmark’ percentage
rather than comparing assessed levels against a vague ‘mid-teen’ level. Target
Average Daylight Factor (ADF) levels, in applying methodology in BS 8206-2:2008,
for rooms in proposed development, are appropriately less for bedrooms than for
kitchens and living rooms. A mid-teen VSC benchmark of 16% is appropriate for
bedrooms but a VSC benchmark of 18% must be applied to living rooms and
combined living/kitchen/dining rooms. It is also necessary to consider the
percentage reduction in daylight distribution in a room, the NSL test, in an
assessment of the degree to which there would be harm to residential amenity.
57. The proposed development would have its greatest effect, in terms of daylight,
on properties on Brook Drive, Castlebrook Close, Renfrew Road, George Mathers
Road and Dante Road. At 138 Brook Drive the living/dining room would retain a VSC
of 17.5% and would experience a reduction in daylight of 44.6%. At 134 Brook Drive
an assumed living room would retain a VSC of 17.8% and would experience a
reduction in daylight of 35.6%. The living room in a flat in Wilmot House would
retain a VSC of 17.3% and would experience a reduction in daylight of 41%. The
living room in a flat in Freeman House would retain a VSC of 7.7% and would
experience a reduction in daylight of 47.2% and the living room in another flat in the
same building would retain a VSC of 11.4% and would experience a reduction in
daylight of 37.4%. Three living rooms in flats in Bolton House would retain VSC’s of
14.7%, 13.6% and 12.3%, and would experience reductions in daylight of 42.3%,
42% and 33.1% respectively
58. These are eight examples of nineteen living rooms in properties close to the
site that would retain a VSC of less than 18% and all of these would experience a
reduction in daylight of more than 32%. The worst case would be that of the living
room in a flat in Wilmot House that would retain a VSC of 7.8% and would
experience a reduction in daylight of 60%. This living room, currently, has a
respectable VSC of 19.5% and the residents of this property would experience a
severe and noticeable reduction in daylight. It is worth noting also that thirteen of
the nineteen living rooms would retain a VSC of less than the mid-teen level of 16%
that Mr Lane recommends as a benchmark. Furthermore, sixteen bedrooms in
nearby properties would retain a VSC of less than 16% and all of these would
experience a reduction in daylight of more than 30%, though overhanging eaves of
some of these properties provide an explanation of some of the low retained VSCs.
59. The NSL test, which is of equal importance to the VSC test, establishes the
degree to which there is a reduction in daylight reaching the working plane within a
room, and a reduction in excess of 20% is regarded to be likely to have an adverse
effect. It is worth having regard to the properties where there would be the greatest
reduction in VSC levels and these are in Freeman House, Wilmot House and Bolton
House on George Mathers Road. Only one room out of 80 in these buildings would
experience a reduction of daylight distribution in excess of 20%. However, the BRE
guide states that daylighting in existing buildings, resulting from new development
nearby, may be adversely affected if either (emphasis added) the VSC is less than
27% and less than 0.8 times its former value or daylight distribution (the NSL test) is
reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value. The favourable results of NSL tests
does not therefore alter the conclusions that can be reached from the VSC results,
particularly as the benchmarks that have been applied are significantly lower than
that in the BRE guide.
60. Residents of several properties adjoining the site would experience a
significant, and in one case severe, reduction in daylight in their most important
rooms, their living rooms. The proposed development would, for this reason,
adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity.
Sunlight in gardens to existing properties
61. The BRE guide indicates that at least 50% of a garden should receive at least
two hours of sunlight on 21 March and if, resulting from new development, that
garden does not meet that test and the part of the garden that can receive two hours
of sun on 21 March is less than 0.8 times its former value (i.e. more than 20%), then
the loss of sunlight is likely to be noticeable. Thirteen of the gardens assessed would
not meet this test, though that at 1 Castlebrook Close can be discounted because
currently only 1.7% of its garden receives two hours of sunlight on 21 March. The
garden that would suffer the greatest loss would be that at 8 George Mathers Road,
which currently has two hours of sunlight in 19.6% of its garden on 21 March but
would, as a result of the proposed development, receive no sunlight on that day.
62. Mr Lane has assessed, for eight of the gardens, the dates on which they would
meet the test. These vary from 28 March at two properties to 14 April at 144 Brook
Drive. He maintains that there is no ‘material difference’ between achieving the
target on 21 March and up to 25 days later. But the test, at these properties, would
not be met for a corresponding period before 21 September and 21 March has been
chosen for a specific reason, it is midway between the summer and winter solstices.
He has also tested the effect of alternative schemes on sunlight in adjoining gardens
but the results of these tests can be disregarded because it is the proposed 29 storey
tower that would, if it was permitted and built, affect sunlight in gardens. He has
also considered what cutbacks would have to be applied to the proposed 29 storey
tower to achieve the required sunlight standard in adjoining gardens but, again, this
can be disregarded for the same reason.
63. Residents of several properties adjoining the site would experience a
significant reduction in sunlight in their gardens. The proposed development would,
for this reason also, adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity.
Overlooking and other amenity matters
64. On its west side Block A would be three storeys high and on this side of the
building, at both upper floors, there would be four 2-bed flats with balconies. The
middle two flats at each upper floor would be single aspect and three of the flats at
each upper floor would have balconies facing west towards properties on Renfrew
Road. The distance between Block A and the main rear elevation of the terraced
dwellings would be 19.6-20.6 metres. 20 metres is regarded to be an appropriate
separation distance between two storey dwellings in new residential developments
though this is based on the presumption that first floor rooms are bedrooms not
living rooms and that adjoining rear gardens are of similar depth. The west
boundary of the site is 5.6-6.3 metres from the west elevation of Block A and first
and second floor rooms facing west include living rooms as well as bedrooms.
65. Two balconies would face directly towards the rear elevation of 28 Renfrew
Road and obliquely towards the neighbouring dwellings, two balconies would face
directly towards the rear elevation of 23 and 24 Renfrew Road and obliquely towards
the neighbouring dwellings, and two balconies would face directly towards the rear
elevation of 21 and 22 Renfrew Road and obliquely towards the neighbouring
dwellings. 22 and 23 Renfrew Road, in fact, would be overlooked from four
balconies. Many of the dwellings in the terrace have rear ground floor extensions
and overlooking of these from the balconies to living rooms are at distances of less
than 20 metres. Overlooking of garden areas from the balconies would be from
significantly less than 10 metres.
66. The balconies provide the only outdoor amenity spaces for residents of the six
flats. They are likely to be well used, particularly during summer months when
residents of the terraced dwellings are most likely to be enjoying their gardens and
opening the doors of their rear extensions. Close overlooking from the elevated
balconies would be seriously intrusive and would significantly undermine enjoyment
of the garden areas and the dwellings. It is worth noting that LLP policy Q2
recognises that perceived overlooking, as opposed to actual overlooking, can be
harmful. It is undoubtedly true that the possibility of overlooking from six balconies
and from four single aspect flats and two double aspect flats would contribute to the
harm that would be caused by the proposed development to the amenities of
residents of terraced dwellings on Renfrew Road. The depth of the balconies, 1.5
metres, would not minimise overlooking.
67. The converted water tower has a modern three storey ‘extension’ on its west
side. The roof of the extension is a terrace and, because ground around the water
tower is amenity space for the Water Tower housing development, is the only private
outdoor amenity space available to residents of the dwelling. The proposed 29
storey tower would be only 20 metres from the centre of the terrace and residents of
single aspect studio flats and dual aspect 1-bed flats at several floor levels would
have direct views across to, and down into, the amenity space. Though overlooking
is currently possible from upper floor flats in Wilmot House, overlooking from Block B
would occur from many flats and would be perceived by residents of the water tower.
The proposed 29 storey tower would dominate the terrace and overlooking from its
flats would also cause significant harm to the amenities of residents of the converted
water tower.
68. The north-west corner of Block B would be only about 13 metres from the
centre of the rear private garden of 4 Castlebrook Close. The 29 storey tower would
overshadow and dominate this amenity area and overlooking would occur from
several flats. This overlooking would also occur in the rear garden areas of other
dwellings on Castlebrook Close that are only slightly further away. The rear
elevations of 134-138 Brook Drive would be only about 28 metres from the nearest
corner of Block B, which would be about 100 metres high and, in the outlook from
the dwellings and their rear gardens, about 40 metres wide. The 29 storey tower
would dominate the outlook from these dwellings and the garden areas and
overlooking, and perceived overlooking, would occur from many flats. The tower
would be only about 12 metres from the centre of the garden area to 8 George
Mathers Road. Not only would the 29 storey tower prevent any sunlight reaching this
garden area, it would also be dominant and cause overlooking.
69. The proposed development would result in serious overlooking of gardens and
dwellings on Renfrew Road, would dominate and cause overlooking of gardens to
dwellings on Castlebrook Close, would dominate, and result in overlooking of, the
rear gardens of dwellings on Brook Drive and would be visually intrusive in the
outlook from those dwellings and gardens, would dominate the rear garden of 8
George Mathers Road, and would dominate and result in overlooking of the terrace to
the converted water tower. The proposed development would, for this reason also,
have a serious adverse effect on neighbouring residential amenity.
Conclusion on the fourth issue
70. Residents of several properties adjoining the site would experience a
significant, and in one case severe, reduction in daylight in their most important
rooms, their living rooms, and several properties would experience a significant
reduction in sunlight in their gardens. The proposed development would also result
in overlooking and perceived overlooking of garden and amenity spaces, in some
cases severe overlooking, would dominate many private areas, and would be visually
intrusive in the outlook from some residential properties.
71. Some of the properties referred to would experience only one form of adverse
effect on amenity, such as those on Renfrew Road, albeit the adverse effect would be
severe in certain cases. Some would experience more than one, such as 8 George
Mathers Road. But one property at least, 138 Brook Drive, would be adversely
affected by all of the aforementioned adverse effects on amenity.
72. The proposed development would have a significant and unacceptable effect on
the amenities of residents of dwellings around the site. The proposed development
conflicts with LP policy 7.6 and LLP policy Q2.
The fifth issue – living conditions of intended residents
73. Block A, which would be four stories high on its east side, is separated from
Block B by a distance of about 14 metres. Overlooking between bedrooms and
between a living room and a bedroom at such a distance would not be unduly
harmful. Some living room windows in the east elevation of Block A are set back to
the rear of balconies and are therefore about 15.5 metres from Block B. Taking into
account shading of such windows by the overhanging floor above such a separation
distance between living room windows is acceptable. But living room windows in two
single aspect flats at each upper floor level in Block A would face living room windows
of one single aspect flat and one dual aspect flat in Block B at a distance of 14
metres. Overlooking between living rooms at such a short distance would undermine
privacy in, and would result in poor living conditions for intended residents of, the
relevant flats.
74. Minimum Average Daylight Factor (ADF) levels, from BS 8206-2:2008, are 2%
for kitchens, 1.5 % for living rooms and 1% for bedrooms. All rooms in Block B
would achieve these minimum levels whilst in Block A 28 rooms would not; 14
bedrooms, 10 combined kitchen/living/dining rooms, 2 kitchens and 2 kitchen/dining
rooms. The Appellant maintains that there is 95% compliance with the minimum
levels over the whole development and that this level of compliance is similar to that
which has been accepted by the Council for other developments in the Borough. In
MH and IH developments, such as Block B, residents would be purchasers and could
choose whether to accept daylight levels of the flats. But Block A is wholly LCR units
and future residents of these units would not have that choice. The compliance rate
for Block A is 69%.
75. No material harm would arise from sub-standard daylight in bedrooms, even
though three bedrooms would achieve an ADF of 0%. In modern flats where
kitchens are invariably within living rooms and are located away from windows it is
sometimes not possible to achieve an ADF of 2%. However, living areas are directly
daylit and in a new development the target should be to achieve an ADF of 1.5% for
all living areas. Two of the 10 combined kitchen/living/dining rooms only achieve an
ADF of 1.0%, though this is partly down to the inclusion of balconies, and two others
only achieve 1.2%. Living rooms are spaces where residents would spend most of
their time indoors and sub-standard daylight would result in poor living conditions for
intended residents of the relevant flats. It is worth noting, in this regard, that one of
the flats that would achieve an ADF of only 1.2% in its living room would have ADF
levels of 0.2% and 0% in its two bedrooms. This particular flat would have poor
internal living conditions.
76. Some of the LCR units in Block A would have sub-standard internal daylight
and there would be overlooking between flats of both blocks at first, second and third
floor levels. Some intended residents of the proposed development would have poor
living conditions. The proposed development thus conflicts with, in this regard also,
LLP policy Q2.
The sixth issue – amenity space and outdoor play space
77. The proposed development is required to include, to satisfy LLP policy H5,
2630 square metres of amenity space. The development includes 2315 square
metres of communal amenity space, 280 square metres of private garden and 165
square metres of balcony space in Block A. The total of 2760 square metres slightly
exceeds the policy requirement. Furthermore, living rooms in the flats in Block B are
oversized and have ‘internal balconies’, which are more usable in a high rise building,
rather than external balconies. The proposed layout and design of the external
amenity spaces are acceptable.
78. The proposed development, at ground level, would include play spaces for
under 5s, 5-11s and over 11s. In terms of quantum the play spaces would be
adequate in size and policy compliant for the number of children, assessed as 50,
that would live in the flats. The play spaces and other areas of the site have been
the subjects of a thorough landscape strategy and have been carefully and
sensitively designed in terms of materials and soft landscaping. But there would be a
pedestrian route through the site from Longville Road to the Cinema Museum and
beyond. The current route from the centre of Elephant and Castle, where the tube
station is located, is along a footpath to the north of One The Elephant from
Newington Butts, then along Brook Drive and Dante Road to George Mathers Road,
and then through the Water Tower Development to the south of the Museum.
79. The pedestrian route through the proposed development from Longville Road
would shorten this journey for those walking to the Cinema Museum from Elephant
and Castle. The route would pass under the overhanging upper floors of Block B,
through the 5-11s play area and diagonally across the relatively small dedicated over
11s play area. The route, in fact, would pass close to a fixed table tennis table that
is intended to be located in this area. The over 11s area would not, in this regard,
provide suitable opportunities for play and informal recreation for this age group.
There is also the possibility for conflict between pedestrians passing through the
development and children playing in the 5-11s play space. Whilst it is preferable not
to segregate competing activities children of this age group need to feel that they
can play without fear of conflict with strangers.
80. The main part of the play space for under 5s is between the two blocks and
would be a stimulating environment for children of this age group that would benefit
from passive surveillance. A secondary part of the under 5s play space would be to
the north of Block B. The proposed development accords with Part G of IPLP policy
T6.1, which requires disabled parking spaces to be provided in a development from
the outset equal to 3% of the number of residential units. The policy also requires
the proposed scheme to demonstrate how an additional 7% could be provided as
soon as existing provision is insufficient. This additional provision, in the proposed
development, would take up the play space to the north of Block B, part of the play
space between the blocks, and would encroach on the over 11’s play area. However,
it is unlikely that the full additional provision would be required and providing a few
more disabled parking spaces, to meet the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, could
be accommodated if required without compromising the provision or quality of
children’s play spaces.
81. An agreed planning condition would require, despite the landscape details
provided with the application, the prior approval and implementation of a Soft and
Hard Landscaping Scheme. There is the opportunity, and this could be part of the
approved scheme, to demarcate the pedestrian route through the site so that it does
not pass through any play areas and, especially, would pass between the 5-11s and
over 11s play spaces. This could be achieved without unduly compromising desire
lines or elongating the route, and without the introduction of intrusive or enclosing
landscape features. The proposed development, with the imposition of the condition,
would thus include adequate amenity space and outdoor play space in compliance
with LP policy 3.6 and LLP policy H5.
Other matters
82. Agreed conditions would require the prior approval and implementation of a
servicing plan and a waste management strategy. These conditions would ensure
that waste and recycling transfer from Block B to Block A would be properly managed
without causing inconvenience to residents. Refuse vehicles currently pass through
the gates on Dugard Way to access the Water Tower Development and there is no
reason to suppose, given the geometry of the turn north towards the Woodland site,
that refuse vehicles accessing the proposed development would be any more likely to
damage the gates. A refuse vehicle manoeuvring in the turning area at the proposed
development would be supervised by a banksman and there is no reason to suppose
that this vehicular activity would be dangerous to residents or pedestrians on the
route through the site.
83. An agreed condition would require the prior approval and implementation of a
Flood Evacuation Plan, which would include details of, amongst other things,
advanced flood warning measures, advanced site preparation and evacuation
measures, and dedicated named flood wardens who would be on site at operational
times. Though the flats at ground floor level of Block A would be susceptible to
flooding, with an approved Flood Evacuation Plan in place and on-site wardens in
attendance residents of these flats would not be in danger. The Environment
Agency, furthermore, in a letter to The Planning Inspectorate dated 19 October 2020
and in response to the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment, stated that “We do
not oppose the planning application as submitted, subject to the attached conditions
being imposed….”.
84. The majority of over 400 cycle parking spaces would be at basement level of
Block A with lift and staircase access. Use of the basement cycle parking area would
not be unduly inconvenient for residents and, with on-site staff in place to manage
the development, it is unlikely that bicycles would be secured to railings or other
landscape features at ground level by residents, rather than in designated secure and
dry cycle storage areas.
85. LP policy 3.16 states that the suitability of redundant social infrastructure
premises for other forms of social infrastructure for which there is a defined need in
the locality should be assessed before alternative developments are considered. This
matter is a subject of IPLP policy S1, which accepts that loss of redundant social
infrastructure may be part of a wider public transformation. There is no indication
that the loss of the nursing home use on the site is part of a wider public
transformation but, equally, no party has brought forward any evidence to indicate
that there is a social infrastructure service that could make use of the unused
building or the site. This is a neutral matter. No harm would be caused by the
development other than that identified in consideration of the main issues.
Conditions and Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking
86. The Council and the Appellant have agreed conditions that would be imposed if
planning permission was to be granted. They would be amended, in the interests of
clarity and precision, but they meet the tests set out in the National Planning Practice
Guidance (NPPG).
87. A signed and dated Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking was submitted before
the close of the Inquiry. The undertaking relating to the Cinema Museum is
considered below. Otherwise, the obligations of the Undertaking are all related to
requirements of development plan policies and are all necessary to make the
development acceptable in planning terms. They are all, furthermore, directly
related to the development, are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development, and are in place to mitigate the effects of the development. The Legal
Agreement therefore complies with the tests set out in the NPPG and with Regulation
122 of the CIL Regulations 2010.
88. The retention of the Cinema Museum use of The Master’s House is an element
of the proposed development and a legal undertaking would be the offer of a 999-
year lease at a peppercorn rent, for a premium of £1 million, before implementation
of a planning permission. Thereafter the Cinema Museum would have five years to
accept the offer in writing and the Appellant would then be required to complete the
lease within two months of the offer being accepted. The retention of the Cinema
Museum use of The Master’s House is accepted by all parties to be beneficial. They
are committed to maintaining their use of the building and are confident that they
could raise the necessary funds to accept the lease offer thus ensuring their future.
89. Granting planning permission for the proposed development is not required to
authorise the Cinema Museum use of The Master’s House because planning
permission 97/01751/FUL was granted on 6 August 1997 for ‘conversion and change
of use from hospital to a cinema museum, with ancillary car parking’. The use of the
building is therefore lawful and the undertaking to offer the lease is not necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms. The undertaking does not
therefore comply with the tests set out in the NPPG or with Regulation 122 of the CIL
Regulations 2010.
Planning Benefits
90. The Council is consistently maintaining a five year housing land supply and
housing completions in recent years in the Borough have exceeded policy targets.
However, given the demand for housing across London, the provision of 258 units of
market and affordable housing is a clear and substantial benefit of the proposed
development. The regeneration of the previously developed site and its highly
sustainable location are also substantial benefits of the scheme. The £100 million
development would provide substantial economic benefits for the Borough.
91. Improvements to the immediate surroundings and setting of The Master’s
House would be of modest benefit. Environmental improvements to the site, the new
pedestrian and cycle route increasing permeability around The Master’s House and
the Water Tower Development, and the car free credentials of the development,
would be benefits of moderate weight. High quality design is at the heart of national,
strategic and local planning policy so the design credentials of the proposed
development are not afforded any weight.
92. It is accepted by the Appellant that the lease of The Master’s House by the
Cinema Museum “…is not a planning issue”. But the planning permission, given its
second condition, is personal to the Cinema Museum and their continuing occupation
of the building, which would be likely given the undertaking to offer a long term
lease, would almost certainly be ensured if planning permission was to be granted.
This would be positive for the maintenance of the fabric of the historic asset and for
the character of the building. The retention of the Cinema Museum use of The
Master’s House, for social reasons also, is afforded moderate weight.
Heritage and Planning balance
93. The proposed development would cause less than substantial harm of high
magnitude to the setting and significance of the Water Tower, would cause less than
substantial harm of moderate magnitude to the settings and significance of The
Master’s House, the RRCA, the WeSCA and the ERCA, and would cause less than
substantial harm of minor magnitude to the settings and significance of the Former
Lambeth Magistrate’s Court and the WaSCA. Paragraph 196 of the NPPF states that
where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset the harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal.
94. The planning and therefore public benefits of the proposal, some of which are
substantial, outweigh, as a matter of planning judgement, the less than substantial
harm, even though this is of high magnitude with regard to the Water Tower, that
would be caused to the significance of heritage assets.
95. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the 2004
Act) requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in
accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. This requirement is at the heart of the planning balance.
96. The proposed development would cause harm in addition to that which would
be caused to the significance of heritage assets. Substantial and unacceptable harm
would be caused to the character of the area, substantial and unacceptable harm
would be caused to the amenities of residents of dwellings around the site, and the
proposed development would not optimise the housing use of the site, because it
would cause unacceptable harm. Furthermore, the proposed housing scheme would
not be a mixed and balanced community and some intended residents of the
proposed development would have poor living conditions.
97. The substantial harm that would be caused by the proposed development is
not outweighed, as a matter of planning judgement, by the public benefits. This
conclusion would be the same if the harm caused would only be to the character of
the area and to the amenities of residents of dwellings around the site.
98. The proposed development, with regard to Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act,
conflicts with LP policies 3.8, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 and with LLP policies H4, Q2, Q20 and
Q26. The public benefits of the scheme are material considerations but they do not
indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the
Development Plan.
99. Future housing provision in Lambeth is addressed in Topic Paper 10a to the
DRLLP, published in October 2020. The Woodlands Nursing Home site is identified in
a schedule of developable large sites for years 11-15 as being a site that could
accommodate 90 housing units. The Council has not at any time suggested that the
site is not suitable, and is clearly intending to allocate it, for housing. It is likely,
therefore, that market housing and affordable housing will be built on the site in the
future, though not to the same quantum as considered in this decision. Such a
development could secure public benefit without causing unacceptable harm and
could secure the future long-term use of The Master’s House by the Cinema Museum.
John Braithwaite
Inspector
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Ms H Sergeant Of Counsel
She called
Mr D Black IHBC MRTPI Team Leader, Conservation and Urban Design at
L B of Lambeth
Ms D Barnett MPlan MRTPI Principal Planning Officer at LB of Lambeth
Mr I Dias BSc(Hons) MRICS Partner at Schroeders Begg (UK) LLP
Mr J Holt BRTP Principal Planning Officer at LB of Lambeth
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr S White Queens Counsel
He called
Mr C Graham BArch(Hons) Main Board Director of Rolfe Judd
DipArch RIBA
Mr N Ireland MRTPI Director of Iceni Projects Ltd
Mr C Miele IHBC MRTPI Senior Partner of Montagu Evans
Mr N Lane BA(Hons) Director of Point 2
Mr D Considine BSc(Hons) Director of TP Bennett
DipTP
Mr N Farrer CMLI PPLI FLI Director of Farrer Huxley Ltd
FOR STOP THE BLOCKS
Mr R Kohli Of Counsel
He called
Mr V Maher MA MCD MBA Planning Consultant
MSc MRTPI
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr S Oakeshott Local resident
Ms K Ford Cinema Museum
Mr Z Wilcox Local resident
Ms F Lockheart Local resident
Ms K Loddo Local resident
Mr G Neale Borough Councillor
Ms P Harvey Local resident
Ms L Habgood Local resident
Ms S Lewis Local resident
Mr G Evans Local resident
Mr A Saint Local resident
Mr G Voce Local resident
Mr N Poteri Local resident
Mr H Brainch Local resident
Mr T Millson Local resident
Ms T Hennessey Local resident
Mr T Hanafin Local resident
Ms J Simpson Borough Councillor
Mr T Smith Local resident
Mr D Weighton Local resident
Ms M Harman Local resident
Mr P Yaghmourian Local resident
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
1 Appellants’ Opening Submissions.
2 Opening on behalf of the Local Planning Authority.
3 Opening on behalf of Stop the Blocks.
4 Signed and dated Statement of Common Ground.
5 Bundle of statements by Local Residents.
6 Playspace calculation.
7 Core Document List.
8 LPA regarding Water Tower Development and comments on conditions.
9 Errata of Mr Miele.
10 Transient Overshadowing – 21 March and 21 June.
11 Amenity space calculations note.
12 Note by Mr Dias in response to information from Mr Lane.
13 Corrections to Mr Maher’s Proof of Evidence.
14 Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking.
15 Objections by LB of Lambeth to the UNCLE development.
16 Updated list of drawings.
17 Environment Agency letter dated 19 October 2020.
18 Waste Management Plan of July 2019.
19 Stop the Blocks suggested site visit locations.
20 Site Plan showing LB and ECOA boundary.
21 LPA statement of compliance on the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking.
22 Appellant’s Briefing Note on the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking.
23 Appellant and LPA’s suggested site visit locations.
24 Updated draft conditions.
25 Updated Stop the Blocks suggested site visit locations.
26 Suggested conditions with waste management condition.
27 Completed Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking.
28 Closing Statement by the LPA.
29 Case law relied on by the LPA.
30 Closing Statement on behalf of Stop the Blocks.
31 Closing Statement on behalf of the Appellant.