Item No.

6.2

Classification: OPEN

Date: 19 July 2011

Meeting Name: Planning Committee

Report title:

Development Management planning application: Application 11-AP-1071 for: Full Planning Permission Address: KINGS REACH TOWER, STAMFORD STREET, LONDON SE1 9LS Proposal: Refurbishment and re-cladding of the tower and podium buildings, erection of six additional storeys to the tower for residential use [132.2m AOD] and change of use of floors 11 to 30 of the tower from offices to residential [to provide a total of 173 flats]; erection of a series of extensions and additions for office use including the erection of a ten storey infill atrium building between the tower and T shaped podium, erection of a part one, part three storey roof extension to the podium building and a series of other extensions to the north, east and west of the podium building to accommodate plant and stair cores. Creation of retail (Class A1, A2, A3 and A4) space, pool and gym (Class D2) on the ground floor, provision of new and refurbished landscaping, plant and equipment, formation of new accesses, including formation of a new pedestrian route linking Stamford Street to Upper Ground, and public realm improvements.

Ward(s) or groups affected:

Cathedrals

From: Head of Development Management

Application Start Date 18/04/2011 Application Expiry Date Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) application – no statutory expiry date

RECOMMENDATION

1 i)That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the applicant first entering into an appropriate legal agreement by no later than 1 November 2011 and subject to referral to the Greater London Authority. ii) In the event that the legal agreement is not entered into by 1 November 2011, the head of development management be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in paragraph 189 of the report.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site location and description

2 The site comprises an urban block surrounded by Upper Ground to the north, Rennie

Street to the east, Stamford Street to the south and Hatfields to the west. On the site is a 1970s mixed use development which comprises a 30 storey office tower, an eight storey T shaped podium office building and a number of access roads and servicing areas. Also forming part of the site is Milroy Walk, a shopping precinct containing retail units, including a bank. Milroy Walk is a covered precinct and is accessed from both Upper Ground and Stamford Street. Rennie Court, a nine storey residential building, has been excluded from the red line site boundary, and therefore does not form part of the application site. This building contains 99 flats and lies to the east of the site. The first floor podium, which contains the communal amenity space for these flats, however, does form part of the application site.

3 The buildings on the site are interconnected, and are currently vacant. It was last

used by IPC media in 2007 until its move to the Bankside 1,2,3 development [the Blue Fin building]. Some limited demolition works have been undertaken to implement the previous 2006 permission, and therefore the site is currently enclosed by hoardings.

4 The existing buildings were designed by Richard Seifert and Partners. The 30 storey

tower forms the principal feature of the site, being visible from a wide area. The site lies adjacent to the Old Barge House Conservation Area, which contains the unlisted but important landmark of the Oxo Tower. It is located directly behind Sea Containers House and is a short distance from Blackfriars Bridge. The existing basement currently contains 66 car parking spaces associated with the previous office use.

Details of proposal 5 The proposal is to largely retain and refurbish the existing buildings, together with the

erection of a series of additions and extensions. The following new key elements are proposed.

6 The new ground floor

The ground floor would be completely transformed under the proposals. A new publicly accessible route through the site would be provided linking Stamford Street, Upper Ground and Hatfields. Active retail frontages would be provided around the entire perimeter of the site, doubling the existing amount of retail space in a variety of unit sizes; these retail units would replace those that would be removed in Milroy Walk. Space has also been allocated for a new gymnasium complete with swimming pool. The entrance to the Rennie Court flats would be relocated from within Milroy Walk to Rennie Street.

7 The refurbishment and re-cladding of the tower, together with the erection of an

additional six floors The existing tower would be completely refurbished and re-clad. An additional six

floors are proposed to be added to the tower, which would represent a 0.335m increase in height over the implemented 2007 scheme.

8 The refurbishment and erection of roof and north, east and west side extensions to the

T shaped podium building The podium would be refurbished, with a series of additions and extensions. These

extensions would comprise a one storey roof extension over the entire building, plus an additional two storey crescent shaped roof extension. A series of other extensions are proposed to contain the plant and services; these would be erected to the north, east and west of the building.

9 The erection of a new 10 storey atrium building for office use

It is proposed that a new atrium building be erected to infill the gap between the tower and podium building. This building would provide additional office floorspace and would be arranged to connect the tower to the podium building.

10 Creation of new residential accommodation in the tower From floor 11 upwards, it is proposed that the office accommodation be converted to

residential use. This would involve the formation of a new internal core, together with new access arrangements into the tower from Hatfields. The scheme comprises 100% private market accommodation. No affordable housing would be provided within the scheme.

11 Landscaping and amenity space Together with the formation of the new internal publicly accessible route through the

site, a series of other improvements are proposed around the perimeter of the site. These include the installation of new hard and soft landscaping including new paving and new planting. It is proposed that the roofs of the podium and atrium building provide new communal amenity space for both the residents and the office workers. Winter gardens are proposed to some of the residential units within the tower. The existing first floor amenity space belonging to the Rennie Court residents is proposed to be upgraded and improved as part of the plans.

12 Access arrangements, servicing and car parking A series of new pedestrian access points would be created from the site perimeter into

the new retail units. A new servicing bay would be created, accessed from Upper Ground. This would provide for the servicing and deliveries aspects of the development. The existing access into the site from Hatfields would also be re-configured; the plans show that this grade level access would be re-routed via a ramp down to basement level, thereby freeing up the ground floor to allow its use for the new public route. Car parking would be provided at basement level.

13 Revised plans

In order to respond to a number of issues and concerns raised on the original submission, both from officers and neighbours, a series of revisions were made to the scheme. In summary, these changes comprise of the following: • a revised residential housing mix to increase the proportion of two bedroom flats

(results in a reduction in total units from 177 units to 173); • reduced massing of the extension to the north end of the northern podium; • reduced massing of the extension to the top of the south east stair core; • revised form and design to the extension to the top of the tower; • revised cladding materials to the tower and the extensions; • minor changes to the landscaping around the site; and • reduced residential car parking levels

14 The revised plans were consulted upon, and the responses are summarised in the

appendix to this report. Any additional responses to the reconsultation will be included in the Addendum report to the Committee.

Planning history 15 05-AP-0227: Planning permission granted with a legal agreement on 3rd March 2006

for the redevelopment of King’s Reach Tower to provide offices, and retail, professional services and restaurant uses at lower level, by recladding and extending the existing tower by 17 metres to 34 storeys; the erection of a new office building in a cluster of 4 buildings extending up to 57 metres in height (12 storeys) with ground floor

retail uses and basement car park with 16 car and 16 motorcycle spaces; refurbish and alteration of ground floor retail units at Rennie House remodelling of first floor podium and formation of new garden areas; provision of landscaping, alterations to highway, access and servicing areas, public realm improvements and provision of cycle parking. This scheme was designed by architects “MAKE” and involved a predominantly office scheme with a series of interconnected “mini towers”, plus recladding and extending the main tower by an additional four storeys.

16 10-AP-3589: An application for a Certificate of lawfulness (proposed) was granted on

3rd February 2011 to demonstrate that the development pursuant to planning permission 05-AP-0227 has been lawfully commenced by virtue of the 'material operations' that have been carried out at the site.

17 11-AP-0818: An application for a Screening Opinion was made relating to the

refurbishment, recladding and extension of the tower (by six storeys) and podium buildings to provide a mixed use development with office (Class B1) and retail (Class A1, A2, A3 and A4) space, and residential units (Class C3) and associated ancillary space and works including the provision of new and refurbished landscaping, plant and equipment, the formation of new access and public realm improvements. The Council confirmed, in a letter dated 1 April 2011 that the although the site area would exceed 0.5ha. the nature, scale and location of the development is not such that it would be likely to give rise to environmental effects of more than local significance, and therefore an EIA would not be required.

Planning history of adjoining sites 18 Many of the surrounding sites have been granted planning permission for substantial

developments: • Wedge House, 32-40 Blackfriars Road; an office development of 11 storeys

(granted 11/01/08; an application to renew this permission is pending a decision);

• 1 Blackfriars Road; a hotel, retail and residential development of 52 storeys plus basement levels (granted by the Secretary of State on 26/03/2009);

• 20 Blackfriars Road; an office, retail and residential development at part 42 storeys, part 23 storeys (granted by the Secretary of State on 26/03/2009);

• 231-241 Blackfriars Road; an office development of 20 storeys (granted 15/6/2011); and

• 6 Paris Gardens, 20-21 Hatfields; a mixed use development comprising of a ballet school and student accommodation in a part 9, part 13 storey building (granted 11/02/2009).

19 In addition, at Sea Containers House, immediately to the north of the application site,

an application has been received in respect of the following: “Erection of a new nine storey building in the rear parking/servicing area (maximum height AOD 42.895m) to provide retail at ground and offices above (8,968sqm); refurbishment of existing Sea Containers House and change of use of floors 5-14 of the rear wing plus three floors of the main building from offices to a 358 bedroom hotel (21,172sqm), including the erection of new roof extension at part 12th floor level to provide a bar ancillary to the hotel use. Extension and conversion of the ground floor area to provide new restaurant (Class A3), cafe (Class A3), service (Class A2) and retail uses (Class A1) together with new service bay, landscaping, new access arrangements and associated car and cycle parking”.

20 The consultation period for this application is currently underway, and it is expected to

be reported to this Committee in September. KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

Summary of main issues

21 The main issues to be considered in respect of this application are: i) principle of the proposed development in terms of land use; ii) affordable housing and the principle of a payment in lieu; iii) housing mix; iv) quality of accommodation; v) impact on the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties; vi) design issues, including site layout, acceptability of the six additional floors and impact on local and strategic views; vii) traffic issues, including level of car parking; viii) flood risk; ix) sustainable development implications; x) planning obligations;

22 Planning policy

The site lies within the Borough and Bankside District Town Centre, the Central Activities Zone, the Air Quality Management Area, the Strategic Cultural Area, the Archaeological Priority Zone and the Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Opportunity Area. Milroy Walk is defined as a Protected Shopping Frontage. The site is adjacent to Old Barge House Conservation Area, which contains the Oxo Tower, and has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 6.

Saved Southwark Plan 2007 (July) 23 Policy 1.1 Access to employment opportunities

Policy 1.4 Employment sites outside the Preferred Office Locations and Preferred Industrial Locations Policy 1.5 Small business units Policy 1.7 Development within town and local centres Policy 1.8 Location of developments for retail and other town centre uses Policy 2.5 Planning obligations Policy 3.1 Environmental effects Policy 3.2 Protection of amenity Policy 3.3 Sustainability assessment Policy 3.4 Energy efficiency Policy 3.6 Air quality Policy 3.7 Waste reduction Policy 3.9 Water Policy 3.11 Efficient use of land Policy 3.12 Quality in design Policy 3.13 Urban design Policy 3.14 Designing out crime Policy 3.18 Setting of listed buildings, conservation areas and world heritage sites Policy 3.19 Archaeology Policy 3:20 Tall buildings Policy 3.28 Biodiversity Policy 4.2 Quality of residential accommodation Policy 4.3 Mix of dwellings Policy 4.4 Affordable housing

Policy 4.5 Wheelchair affordable housing Policy 5.1 Locating developments Policy 5.2 Transport impacts Policy 5.3 Walking and cycling Policy 5.6 Car parking Policy 5.7 Parking standards for disabled people and the mobility impaired

24 London Plan 2011. The replacement London Plan has received the Inspectors report

following its Examination in Public, and is likely to be adopted on 22 July 2011. At this very advanced stage, the Plan is considered to carry considerable weight in determining applications, particularly since the Plan is expected to be fully adopted by the time any decision on this current application is issued..

Policy 2.5 Sub-regions Policy 2.9 Inner London Policy 2.10 Central Activities Zone – strategic priorities Policy 2.11 Central Activities Zone – strategic functions Policy 2.12 Central Activities Zone – predominantly local activities Policy 2.13 Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas Policy 2.15 Town Centres Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments mayors flat sizes set out Policy 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.10 Mixed and balanced communities Policy 3.11 Definition of affordable housing Policy 3.12 Affordable housing targets Policy 3.13 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes Policy 3.14 Affordable housing thresholds Policy 3.18 Healthcare facilities Policy 3.19 Education facilities Policy 4.1 Developing London’s economy Policy 4.2 Offices Policy 4.3 Mixed use development and offices Policy 4.7 Retail and town centre development Policy 4.8 Supporting a successful and diverse retail sector Policy 4.12 Improving opportunities for all Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 5.4 Retrofitting Policy 5.5 Decentralised energy networks Policy 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals Policy 5.7 Renewable energy Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling Policy 5.10 Urban greening Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs Policy 5.12 Flood risk management Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage Policy 5.15 Water use and supplies Policy 5.18 Construction, excavation and demolition waste

Policy 5.21 Contaminated land Policy 6.1 Strategic approach (Transport) Policy 6.2 Providing public transport capacity and safeguarding land for transport Policy 6.3 Assessing transport capacity Policy 6.5 Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.10 Walking Policy 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion Policy 6.12 Road network capacity Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.3 Secured by design Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.5 Public realm Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.7 Location and design of tall and large buildings Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology Policy 7.11 London View Management Framework Policy 7.12 Implementing the London View Management Framework Policy 7.14 Improving air quality Policy 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes Policy 7.18 Protecting local natural space and addressing local deficiency Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature Policy 7.21 Trees and woodlands Policy 8.2 Planning obligations Policy 8.3 Community infrastructure levy

Core Strategy 2011 25 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy are:

Strategic Targets Policy 1 - Achieving growth Strategic Targets Policy 2 - Improving places Strategic Policy 1 - Sustainable development Strategic Policy 2 - Sustainable transport Strategic Policy 3 - Shopping, leisure and entertainment Strategic Policy 5 - Providing new homes Strategic Policy 6 - Homes for people on different incomes Strategic Policy 7 - Family homes Strategic Policy 10 - Jobs and businesses Strategic Policy 11 - Open spaces and wildlife Strategic Policy 12 - Design and conservation Strategic Policy 13 - High environmental standards Strategic Policy 14 - Implementation and Delivery

26 Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS)

PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005) PPS 3: Housing (November 2006) PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009) PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010) PPG 13: Transport (March 2001) PPS 22: Renewable Energy PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24: Planning and Noise

PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations

Relevant Statements/SPD’s/SPG’s 27 Ministerial Statement, Planning for Growth, 23 March 2010

Section 106 Planning Obligations SPD (July 2007) Design and Access Statements SPD (September 2007) Sustainable Transport Planning SPD (September 2008) Residential Design Standards SPD (September 2008) Affordable Housing SPD (September 2008) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (February 2009) Sustainability Assessment SPD (February 2009) Draft London Bridge, Borough and Bankside SPD (February 2010) The London Plan Interim Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2010) Revised London View Management Framework 2010 (SPD to the London Plan) Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail (2010) (SPG to the London Plan) Update to the Residential Design Standards (March 2011) Draft Affordable Housing SPD (June 2011)

Principle of development 28 PPS1 advises that developments should be promoted in locations that allow for the

creation of linkages between different uses and which thereby create more vibrant places. PPS1 and PPS3 emphasis the benefits of creating mixed communities and also promote the efficient use of land. PPS4 seeks sustainable economic growth to reduce the need to travel and respond to climate change. PPS4 also states that economic growth should be focussed in existing town centres.

Provision of office, retail and other uses 29 The site lies within the London South East Sub-Region, the Central Activities Zone

(CAZ), the London Bridge and Bankside Opportunity Area, the Borough and Bankside District Town Centre and the Strategic Cultural Area. In these locations the London Plan, Saved Southwark Plan policies and Core Strategy seek to provide for higher density, high quality mixed use developments which will help address the need for new homes as well as increase the range of employment uses. London Plan Policy 2.11 Central Activities Zone - Strategic Priorities states that developments proposals should increase office floorspace within the CAZ. This is because the CAZ is recognised as the country’s most important strategic office location and needs to ensure adequate capacity to meet future demand. Policy 4.7 of the London Plan advises that retail, commercial and leisure development should be focused on sites within town centres.

30 Strategic Policy 10: Jobs and Businesses of the Core Strategy protects existing

business floorspace and also supports the provision of additional business floorspace in the Central Activities Zone, Town Centres and Strategic Cultural Areas. Strategic Policy 3: Shopping, leisure and entertainment of the Core Strategy supports the provision of new shopping space in Bankside, Borough and London Bridge.

31 Saved Policy 1.4 Employment sites outside the Preferred Office Locations of the

Southwark Plan advises that development would be permitted provided that the proposal would not result in a net loss of floorspace in Class B use. The policy lists exceptions and advises that if the site is located within a town or local centre, suitable

Class A or other town centre uses would be permitted in the place of Class B uses. It also advises that where an increase in floorspace is proposed, the additional floorspace may be used for suitable mixed or residential use.

Table showing existing and proposed uses

32 Existing Proposed

Office 37,832sqm 34,317sqm Retail 2,534sqm 6,698sqm Total Commercial uses 40,366sqm 41,015sqm Residential 0 173 flats Height 114.0m

AOD 132.2m AOD

Storeys 30 36 33 The scheme proposes the loss of 3,515sqm of office floorspace compared to the

existing buildings. The existing office space has been vacant for a number of years and is considered to be at the end of its useful life. Floorplates are not large enough to meet current office requirements and the building is no longer environmentally sustainable. The relocation of its main tenant, IPC media, to the Blue Fin building has demonstrated this. Given the 4,164sqm uplift in retail and other town centre uses, this loss would be considered acceptable, since the replacement retail floorspace would exceed the lost office floorspace. This would comply with the requirements of Saved Policy 1.4 of the Southwark Plan. Whilst there would be a loss of office accommodation, the new retail and other town centre uses would generate new jobs, and therefore, would provide employment opportunities for local people. It has been estimated that the development in total would generate 2,209 jobs, and the applicant has committed to engage with local initiatives to maximise the number of jobs taken by local people, both during construction, and also in the final development.

34 The office space would be concentrated in the refurbished and extended podium

building where it is possible to provide a mix of larger floorplates; together with the office space in the lower levels of the refurbished tower this would help the borough to attract and retain employers. The cores and services have been positioned to maximise the quality, attractiveness and usability of the office floorspace.

35 The new retail space would provide for outward looking retail units, creating active

street frontages to Rennie Street, Stamford Street, Upper Ground and Hatfields. The quantum of retail space (which would include a range of A Class uses including shops, financial and professional services, cafes, restaurants and bars) is increased significantly above the existing Milroy Walk units, and would provide a range of services to local residents, workers and visitors. The quality of the units would far exceed the quality of the existing units within Milroy Walk, which are compromised by their format, and the environment created within the covered route. The attractiveness and vitality of Rennie Street and Hatfields would be significantly improved through the inclusion of these high quality retail frontages.

36 The new offices and retail units range in size, and would be capable of being occupied

by both large and small businesses. This is particularly important given the number of existing small units that would be lost within Milroy Walk. The retail space has been designed to accommodate a large supermarket, which could attract a major anchor tenant and generate footfall in the area. The applicant has advised that conversations are already being held with a well known supermarket retailer. The range of retail

uses proposed would be capable of including both food and non food space so that the needs of residents, as well as visitors and businesses could be met.

37 The ground floor accommodation has also been arranged to accommodate a large,

leisure operator, to occupy a health and leisure facility, including a swimming pool. This would add to the mix of local facilities that could be provided by the scheme.

38 The loss of office floorspace is therefore considered acceptable, given the increase in

retail and other town centre floorspace, which itself is supported in policy terms. The refurbished office accommodation would provide high quality office floorspace which would help to attract new occupiers to Southwark.

Provision of residential accommodation 39 The provision of residential accommodation is supported by the London Plan, the

saved Southwark Plan and the Core Strategy. Saved Policy 1.4 of the Southwark Plan also supports the provision of additional floorspace in town or local centres for residential use.

40 London Plan Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply sets a minimum target of 20,050

additional homes to be provided in Southwark over a period from 2011-2021. Core Strategy Strategic Policy 5 - Providing new homes carries this forward to give a target of 24,450 new homes between 2011 and 2026. A key objective is to provide as much new housing as possible and create places where people would want to live. The proposed 173 new residential units would contribute towards meeting an identified housing need. Issues relating to the quality of accommodation, and affordable housing, are discussed further below.

41 The site is currently vacant and is in a poor state of repair. The redevelopment of this

brownfield site provides an opportunity to provide new and refurbished office and retail space as well as good quality homes in line with current policy aspirations. The inclusion of housing would also support the viability of the development, and therefore its likelihood of being implemented. The principle of development for these uses is therefore acceptable.

Environmental impact assessment 42 The applicant submitted a screening opinion on 15th March 2011 (11-AP-0818) to

determine whether an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required for the development. The development is not considered to constitute EIA development, based on a review of the scheme against both the EIA Regulations 1999 and the European Commission guidance. In summary, the proposed development would not be likely to have significant effects upon the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location, and therefore an EIA would not be required.

Affordable housing 43 The developer proposes to make an in-lieu contribution of £22,435,000 to provide off

site affordable housing. No affordable housing would be provided on the application site.

44 The policy context relating to the delivery of affordable housing is contained within

PPS 3 Housing, London Plan Policy 3.13 Negotiating affordable housing in individual and private residential and mixed use schemes, Saved Policy 4.4 of the Southwark Plan and Strategic Policy 6 – Homes for people on different incomes of the Core Strategy. Further advice is contained within the Council’s adopted Affordable Housing

SPG. In addition, the council has just gone out to consultation on a new Draft Affordable Housing SPD.

45 PPS3 Housing states that where it can be robustly justified, provision of a financial

contribution in lieu of on-site provision (of broadly similar value) may be accepted as long as the agreed approach contributes to the creation of mixed communities in the local authority area.

46 Replacement London Plan (2011) Policy 3.13 Negotiating affordable housing in

individual and private residential and mixed use schemes states that affordable housing provision is normally required on-site. In exceptional circumstances it may be provided off-site or through a cash in lieu contribution ring fenced, and if appropriate ‘pooled’, to secure efficient delivery of new affordable housing on identified sites elsewhere. These exceptional circumstances include those where, having secured an alternative site, it would be possible to: • secure a higher level of provision • better address priority needs, especially for affordable family housing • secure a more balanced community • better sustain strategically important clusters of economic activities, especially in parts of CAZ and north of the Isle of Dogs where it might be part of a land ‘swap’ or ‘housing credit’ (Policy 2.11).

47 Policy 3.10 Mixed and Balanced Communities of the London Plan states that

communities mixed and balanced by tenure and household income should be promoted across London through incremental small scale as well as larger scale developments which foster social diversity, redress social exclusion and strengthen communities’ sense of responsibility for, and identity with, their neighbourhoods.

48 Saved Policy 4.4 of the Southwark Plan and Strategic Policy 6 of the Core Strategy

set the targets in relation to the provision of affordable housing. 49 The Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD (Section 3.6) together with the draft

Affordable Housing SPD amplifies on the Southwark Plan and Core Strategy policy framework and sets out the approach in relation to securing the maximum level of affordable housing from developments. Specifically, it sets out the sequential tests relating to the delivery of affordable housing, firstly relating to securing on site provision, secondly off site provision and thirdly an in lieu payment. This sequential test, is summarised below.

• On site provision: All housing, including affordable housing should be located on the development site.

• Off Site Provision: In exceptional circumstances, where affordable housing cannot be provided on site or where it can be demonstrated that significant benefits will be gained by providing units in a different location in the local area, the affordable housing can be provided on another site.

• In lieu payment: In very exceptional circumstances where it is accepted that affordable housing cannot be provided on-site or off-site, a payment towards the delivery of affordable housing will be required.

50 It is therefore expected that the applicant demonstrate that the steps as set out above

are followed in order to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist sufficient to support the provision of an in lieu payment.

• On site provision

51 In relation to on site affordable housing provision, a number of options have been examined. These include a 70%/30% social rented/intermediate mix, a wholly social rented approach and a wholly shared ownership approach.

52 It would be physically possible to provide affordable housing on the site, however

there are a number of practical constraints which the applicant advises should be taken into account. In relation to social rented housing, housing associations require separate entrances for their tenants and prefer self contained buildings to manage and maintain their accommodation efficiently. It would be very difficult to introduce the social rented flats into the tower as this would require the provision of a new separate core to serve this tenure, which would be difficult to achieve practically given the limited floorplate of the tower. The space needed to create this additional core would further compromise the space available for offices on the lower floors of the tower. This would further impact on the viability of the overall development.

53 The option of providing affordable housing within the podium building has also been

considered. This would require complex modelling of the space, as the unit sizes and layout would be dictated by the existing layout and form of the building. The displacement of office floorspace from the podium would require more floors in the tower to be provided as offices (to replace that lost from the podium), thereby reducing the amount of open market residential accommodation. This reduction in high value residential accommodation, and the increase in the proportion of office accommodation on the smaller floorplate tower floors would impact on the overall viability of the scheme.

54 The applicant has also indicated that, if the rear wing were to be used for affordable

housing, a majority of single aspect flats would be created, some of which would have poor outlook due to the proximity of the tower. The need for additional cores to serve these affordable units would also reduce the efficiency of the building and the ground floor retail. Whilst careful design may be able to create acceptable units in this wing, it is acknowledged that this would inevitably reduce the total number of units which could be accommodated, which would again impact on the viability of the scheme.

55 The adopted Affordable Housing SPG expects social rented accommodation to be

affordable to households with gross annual incomes of £17,600. The draft (2011) Affordable Housing SPD proposes to increase this figure to £18,100 in the Replacement London Plan. The council expects rent and service charges combined to total not more than 30% of net income. Assuming 15% deductions for tax, national insurance etc., this gives a net income of £15,385 and a target housing total cost of around £88 per week. Given the level of service charges likely in this type of development (£45-70 per week), it follows that it would be impossible to achieve anything close to this affordability target. The housing cost is estimated to be at least double the proposed affordability levels.

56 In relation to intermediate housing, the adopted Affordable Housing SPD recognises

the London Plan (2008) income limits for intermediate housing, which requires that housing is affordable by households with incomes of less that £58,600, and that housing costs (including rent and service charges) are no greater than 40% of the net household income. In the draft 2011 SPD, in line with the updated London Plan, the income limit is increased to £61,400, with a higher threshold of £74,000 for flats with 3 or more bedrooms. The housing costs as a proportion of income are proposed to remain the same (i.e. 40% of net household incomes). However, both SPD’s state that within Southwark we will adapt these London Plan income limits to create our own

affordability criteria for intermediate housing, to ensure that our residents can afford intermediate housing in Southwark. Our local figures are set at the mid-point between the upper limit at which households could qualify for social rented housing (£18,100) and the household income needed to purchase housing in the least expensive area of the borough. In the 2008 adopted SPD this level is set at £29,100 for a 1 bedroom flat, £35,228 for a 2 bedroom flat, and £36,657 for a 3 bedroom flat. In the draft 2011 SPD these figures are increased to £29,515 (1 bed), £35,943 (2 bed) and £42,372 (3 bed). These figures are used in S106 agreements where intermediate housing is provided on-site, in order to ensure that the units being provided will be affordable to local people in housing need. To meet the affordability in the 2008 SPD, the total housing cost including service charges would need to be not more than £8,148 per annum (£157 per week) for a one bed flat and £9,864 (£190 per week) for two bedrooms. Under the updated criteria in the 2011 draft, these figures would increase to £8,264 per annum for a 1 bed flat and £10,064 for a 2 bed flat. Calculations for potential shared ownership units in the podium building indicate a housing cost of £12,900 per annum or nearly £250 per week for a one bedroom flat (even assuming a lower service charge of £45 per week), significantly exceeding the affordability criteria in either version of the SPD.

57 It is not possible to cross subsidise the affordable housing by the market housing to

reduce service charges on affordable units, since this could result in an appeal to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

58 In conclusion, it is not practical to provide on site affordable housing because it would

be difficult to create the access points and cores to serve the units, and service charges, plus the purchase prices for shared ownership units, are such that they would make the location unaffordable to residents in housing need. Even if these issues could be overcome, the inclusion of the affordable units (and the impact on other income generating uses on the site described above), would affect the overall viability of the scheme such that it would effectively reduce the quantum of affordable housing capable of being provided to well below the 35% sought by policy. Therefore, if the affordable housing were to be required to be provided on site, then the number of units, and their affordability for households in housing need, would be compromised.

Off site provision 59 The applicant has undertaken a site search using three different agents to help identify

and obtain suitable sites in the surrounding area. The search did not result in any suitable sites available within the timescales needed. This is because of the lack of available sites, competition from market led residential developers and the known demand meaning that vendors have unrealistic expectations in terms of land values.

60 The council has prepared a strategic housing land allocation assessment (the

SHLAA). This has identified a number of sites in the surrounding area which could have potential for residential development. The applicant has advised that these sites have been reviewed to see if any of them could provide appropriate sites for residential development in the short term. The very small sites which would deliver five units of affordable housing or less were ruled out as impracticable given the overall number of units which would need to be delivered.

61 The remaining sites identified were either not on the market, unaffordable or not

available within the timescale necessary to meet the requirement to occupy no more than 50% of the market accommodation before the affordable housing is delivered.

This would mean that the council would have to accept deferred delivery of the units, or that the redevelopment of the Kings Reach site would have to be delayed.

62 It is noted that the applicants site search did not commence in earnest prior to the

submission of the application, as would have been expected to comply with the sequential test. It is therefore possible that the search has not been as thorough as could have been the case with a more protracted discussion on the off-site option. However, it is clear, as has been experienced by other developers conducting similar searches, that the availability of sites in close proximity of the site is limited. The cost of acquiring sites in this area would inevitably be high, and this would ultimately impact on the overall viability of the scheme, and its ability of support policy-compliant levels of affordable housing.

Commuted sum payment 63 The applicant has prepared a confidential viability assessment as part of the

application, which has been reviewed on behalf of the Council by the District Valuer. After detailed discussions and negotiations, principally around the assumed sales values of the private flats, the DV has provided a report to the Council.

64 In the negotiations, it was acknowledged by both sides that there are few clear

'comparables' to this development which would give a reliable indication of the likely sales values of the flats. The sales achieved at Neo Bankside (adjacent to the Tate Modern) were examined, and whilst that development is in the same broad Bankside location, it is acknowledged that a new build housing scheme, set in landscaped gardens, and adjacent to the Tate, would be capable of creating units more immediately attractive to buyers. Conversely, however, the Kings Reach Tower has the advantage of height, with all flats above around the 12th floor have panoramic views across London. The only other new build residential tower in the north of Southwark is the Strata building at Elephant and Castle, but it is acknowledged that the values achieved in that location would still be far lower than those for a site in Bankside with river views.

65 Following these negotiations, the applicant has offered to make a commuted payment

of £22,345,000 in lieu of providing any affordable housing either on or off site. This sum would be paid immediately on implementation of the development, thus ensuring prompt availability of funds, which could then be used to deliver affordable housing within Southwark.

66 The adopted Affordable Housing SPD (2008) sets out three 'value areas' in the

borough, for the purposes of negotiating commuted sums. For the northern-most band, within which this site would fall, the SPD stated that the sum would be the subject of site by site negotiation, based on financial viability (the next 'band' suggested a sum of £100,000 for each habitable room not being provided on site). The draft (June 2011) Affordable Housing SPD does not include the concept of value 'bands', but indicates that a minimum of £100,000 per habitable room will be required, with a viability assessment carried out to determine the exact required amount (above £100,000).

67 The scheme provides 173 flats, containing a total of 502 habitable rooms. However,

the Affordable Housing SPD states that any rooms over 27.5sqm should be counted as 2 habitable rooms for the purposes of calculating affordable housing mix or commuted sums. When this formula is applied, the scheme would be assumed to include 641 habitable rooms. 35% of these theoretical rooms would amount to 224.35

habitable rooms of affordable housing. The sum being offered (£22,435,000) equates to £100,000 per habitable room as per the SPD calculation of habitable rooms, or £127,689 per actual room.

68 The draft Affordable Housing SPD expects commuted sums to be paid in three stages,

with 25% payable on implementation, 50% on practical completion, and 25% on first occupation of the development. As such, a substantial proportion of the monies would not become available for several years after permission is granted. In the case of Kings Reach, the applicant has offered to pay this sum in its entirety on implementation of the development, thus ensuring that the monies are available promptly and able to deliver new housing. The District Valuer has estimated that this early payment has an effective additional value of up to £3 million.

69 The District Valuer has reported that, given the degree of uncertainty relating to the

inputs to the appraisal, particularly on end values, and the degree of risk attached to the development, that the sum being offered is fair and reasonable, particularly bearing in mind the early payment terms.

70 It is therefore recommended that the Council accepts the sum of £22,435,000,

payable on implementation, in lieu of any provision of affordable housing on or off site. The commuted sum equates to £100,000 for each of the 35% of habitable room equivalents not being provided within the development. If affordable housing were to be provided on site, it would compromise the design and layout of the scheme to such an extent that the end value would be reduced, effectively reducing the quantum of affordable housing it is capable of delivering. The affordability of any units provided on site would also be questionable. It is acknowledged that the search for potential sites capable of accommodating off-site units was not carried out at an early stage in the development of the scheme, and this may have limited the effectiveness of the search. However, it is clear that delivery of units in the immediate vicinity of the site would be similarly limited by high land costs, and consequent higher costs to occupiers. The limited availability of sites could also delay the delivery of both this scheme, and any off-site affordable housing.

71 The commuted sum payment, to enable the deliver of housing by the council or its

development partners, would give the council a high degree of control over the location, quality and importantly the affordability of units. It would enable the council to dictate the mix and type of units, allowing a higher proportion of larger units to be built if this would meet the most urgent housing needs. It is therefore considered that, in line with PPS3 and the London Plan and Core Strategy policies, the payment of a commuted sum would ultimately deliver the maximum amount, and greatest choice, of affordable housing for Southwark residents.

Housing mix and density 72 Saved Policy 4.3 of the Southwark Plan requires a mix of dwellings sizes and types to

be provided within major new developments in order to cater for a range of housing needs. There is a particular need for family units in the borough and therefore policy requires that the majority of units should have two or more bedrooms and at least 10% three or more bedrooms with direct access to private outdoor amenity space. The number of studio flats should not exceed 5% and at least 10% of the units should be suitable for wheelchair users.

73 Strategic Policy 7 of the Core Strategy increases the proportion of two bed plus

accommodation to be provided and expects 60% of developments to have more than

two bedrooms, and at least 10% 3,4, or 5 bedrooms. A maximum of 5% as studios and only for private housing. The mix of units provided is shown in the table below.

74 Total Units

Studio 9 1 bed 55 2 bed 61 3 bed 44 5 bed 4 Total units 173

75 63% of the accommodation would be provided in the two bed plus sector, which

exceeds the 60% policy requirement and is considered to be a benefit of the scheme. 28% of the accommodation would be provided in the three bed plus sector, which considerably exceeds the policy requirement and is also a positive aspect of the scheme. 5% of the accommodation would comprise of studios, which is on the limit of the policy. Therefore the housing mix complies with relevant policies and is considered acceptable.

76 10% (18 out of 173) of units will be wheelchair accessible units. It is recommended

that a condition be attached requiring them to meet the relevant design guidelines in terms of fit out.

Density 77 Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential of the London Plan states that development

should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2 of the Plan. It also requires local context, the design principles and public transport capacity to be taken into account. Strategic Policy 5 – Providing new homes of the Core Strategy sets out the density ranges that residential and mixed use developments would be expected to meet. As the site is located within the Central Activities Zone, a density range of 650 to 1100 habitable rooms per hectare would be sought. Appendix 2 of the Saved Southwark Plan sets out guidance for how density should be calculated.

78 However, as the majority of the floorspace provided would be commercial, the

standard methodologies for calculating density are not applicable, since they relate to schemes that are either 100% residential or where the majority of the floorspace is residential. It is therefore considered that to calculate the density based on habitable rooms per hectare would produce a misleading figure. The important consideration is whether the scheme makes good use of existing buildings in a central London location, and whether the scheme would be compatible with the local context and public transport capacity. These issues are discussed below.

Quality of accommodation 79 Internal layout

Saved Policy 4.2 of the Southwark Plan advises that planning permission will be granted provided the proposal achieves good quality living conditions. The adopted standards in relation to internal layout are set out in the adopted Residential Design Standards SPD 2008. However, the consultation period on a set of amendments to the SPD has just closed (on 2 June 2011), and it is anticipated that the amendments would be adopted in September. The amendments update the policy references as the Core Strategy has now been adopted, and also include revised standards on minimum dwelling sizes, which includes reference to the number of occupiers for each

flat. Given the consultation period has now expired, this amended document should be afforded weight for the purposes of decision making. It should be noted that the revised standards align with those set out in the 2011 London Plan.

80 The following table sets out the minimum flat size requirements as set out in the

adopted SPD 2008 and the Update to the Residential Design Standards 2011, and also the flat sizes that would be achieved.

81 Minimum Size 2008

SPD Minimum Size 2011 amendments

Size Range Proposed

Studio: 32.5sqm Studio: 36sqm Studio: 41-58sqm 1b: 45 sqm 1b: 50sqm 1b: 45-70sqm 2b: 60 sqm 2b3p: 61sqm 2b3p: 70-78sqm 2b4p: 70sqm 2b4p: 93-114sqm 3b: 75 sqm 3b5p: 86sqm 3b5p: 108-152sqm 3b6p: 95sqm 3b6p: 172-218sqm 5b: no minimum size range given

5b: no minimum size range given

5b10p: 281-325sqm

82 The flat sizes comfortably meet the standards as set out in the adopted 2008 SPD.

There are some one bed flats however that do not meet the minimum standard as referred to in the 2011 SPD. The total number of flats that would fall short amount to 27 flats. However, as the 2011 SPD has yet to be adopted, it is considered that these shortfalls are considered acceptable, and in most cases the degree to which they fall below 50 sqm is small. The flats are arranged within an existing tower, which had led to some constraints in terms of achieving the emerging standards. The layout of some of these undersized flats is also unfortunate, with some units entered directly into kitchens. It should however be noted that the remainder of the flats are all considerably in excess of the both the 2008 and 2011 standards, and in some cases are more than double the minimum requirements. Overall, it is therefore considered that the flat sizes are acceptable, and would provide for a good standard of internal amenity.

83 In terms of aspect, 61% of the flats would be dual aspect. The flats that would have

aspect in one direction are not considered to give rise to any concern in terms of poor outlook as every flat would be afforded very extensive views and high levels of natural light.

Amenity space 84 All new residential development must provide an adequate amount of useable outdoor

amenity space. The Residential Design Standards SPD sets out the required amenity space standards which can take the form of private gardens and balconies, shared terraces and roof gardens. In terms of flatted accommodation the SPD requires 50 sqm of communal amenity space per development plus 10 sq.m per unit, although for smaller units (two bedrooms or less) a reduced amount is acceptable (minimum 3 sq.m balconies) but the shortfall needs to be added to the overall communal space provision. The SPD emphasises the need for family housing to have adequately sized and useable amenity space which can be used by the whole family in order to provide a safe outdoor area for children. Policy 3.6 of the London Plan requires new developments to make provision for play areas based on the expected child population of the development. Children's play areas should be provided at a rate of 10 sqm per child bed space (covering a range of age groups).

85 In terms of the overall amount of amenity space required, the following would need to be provided: • 10sqm per unit in the form of private/communal amenity space as required by the

SPD; • 50sqm communal amenity space as required by the SPD; and • 320sqm of children’s play space as required by the London Plan (at 10sqm for

each of the 32 total child spaces within the development). 86 In relation to individual private amenity for the flats, none of the studio and one bed

units would have access to any form of private amenity space. The remainder of the flats have amenity space provision provided in the form of winter gardens (enclosed balconies).

87 Table showing private amenity space provision Unit size Private amenity

space studio - one bed - two bed 7sqm to 8sqm three bed 7sqm to 17sqm five bed 37 to 47sqm

88 In relation to the two bed units, a number of flats have amenity space provision

ranging from 7sqm to 8sqm. Most of the three bed flats have provision ranging from 7sqm to 10sqm but there are also a number of three bed flats which have 17sqm. The five bed flats have between 37-47sqm.

89 As there are a number of flats which do not provide 10sqm of private amenity space,

the shortfalls would need to be added to the communal provision. The shortfall is 1118sqm. This shortfall of 1118sqm together with the 50sqm per development, suggests that a total of 1168sqm of communal space is required. The amount provided is 1208sqm, which exceeds the policy requirement and is considered to be a benefit of the scheme. 320sqm of children’s play space has also been provided, which also satisfies the policy requirement.

90 A roof terrace for the office use is proposed at seventh floor level, on the east wing of

the podium building. This would further maximise the attractiveness of the office accommodation, and provide amenity for the office workers.

91 In addition to the amenity space provided for the offices and new residents, the

scheme would make improvements to the existing podium garden used by the Rennie Court residents. This would remain for their exclusive use, and is considered to be a welcome inclusion in the overall scheme.

92

Noise Saved Policy 3.2 Protection of Amenity of the Southwark Plan states that permission would not be granted where any loss of amenity, including disturbance from noise would be caused. The site falls within Noise Exposure Category B/C where PPG24 Planning and Noise advises that noise mitigation measures would be required to ensure appropriate protection against external noise.

93 The noise report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Team. They

have raised some concerns with the report as it advises that noise is likely to be

audible during train passage to the lower floors (a London Underground line lies underneath the site). They have advised that further work is required to ensure that the amenity of the residential and office areas are not affected by noise. However, as this is an existing building, and as the relationship to the London Underground line would not change from the existing, it is felt that additional work or mitigation is not required. It is noted that the new residential units are created from floor 11 upwards within the tower, and so will be at some distance from the Underground line.

Air Quality 94 Saved Policy 3.6 of the Southwark Plan states that planning permission would not be

granted for development that would lead to a reduction in air quality. The site falls within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) due to the high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter attributable to road traffic emissions.

95 The air quality report states that the impact of the development would have a

negligible impact to the local air quality. The Environmental Protection Team have queried this conclusion. Specifically, they have advised that in this area of the borough, the levels of NO2 are exceeding the national air quality objectives, and given this, mitigation would need to be incorporated into the design to ensure that the residents would be satisfactorily protected from air pollution. The glazing to the residential floors would be double glazed, (with winter gardens creating an extra layer of protection where these exist) and owing to the high levels at which the accommodation would be provided, it is considered that any further mitigation is not required.

Impact of proposed development on amenity of adjoining occupiers and

surrounding area 96 Saved Policy 3.2 relates to the protection of amenity and states that permission would

not be granted where a loss of amenity to present occupiers would be caused. Daylight/Sunlight 97 A daylight and sunlight report has been submitted with the application. The report

assesses the scheme based on the Building Research Establishments (BRE) guidelines on daylight and sunlight.

98 The BRE sets out three detailed daylight tests. The first is the Vertical Sky

Component test (VSC), which is the most readily adopted. This test considers the potential for daylight by calculating the angle of vertical sky at the centre of each of the windows serving the residential buildings which look towards the site. The target figure for VSC recommended by the BRE is 27% which is considered to be a good level of daylight and the level recommended for habitable rooms with windows on principal elevations. The BRE have determined that the daylight can be reduced by about 20% of their original value before the loss is noticeable.

99 The second method is the No Sky Line (NSL) or Daylight Distribution method which

assesses the proportion of the room where the sky is visible, and plots the change in the No Sky Line between the existing and proposed situation. It advises that if there is a reduction of 20% in the area of sky visibility, daylight may be affected.

100 Another method of calculation is the Average Daylight Factor (ADF) which is a more

detailed assessment and considers the amount of sky visibility on the vertical face of a window, but also the window size, room size and room use. The recommendations for ADF in dwellings are 2% for kitchens, 1.5% for living rooms and 1% for bedrooms.

101 The daylight and sunlight impacts on the following adjoining residential properties has

been considered in the submitted daylight report. • 57 Stamford Street

• Rennie Court 57 Stamford Street 102 This building is located to the south-west of the site. A significant proportion of these

windows would not experience any notable reductions in their daylight as the majority of the windows would achieve full compliance with the BRE guidelines. However, there are a total of four windows on the ground and first floor which would experience losses greater than that recommended by the BRE guide, and would fail all three daylight tests. All of these rooms are bedrooms. The levels of daylight to these windows is already compromised by the design of the building and the current values are already significantly below the recommended BRE levels. It is therefore considered that the additional reductions would not reduce the daylight to unacceptably harmful levels.

Rennie Court 103 This building lies to the east of the site. There are a total of 230 windows within

Rennie Court which face the application site. These windows light habitable rooms, in the form of bedrooms, living rooms and kitchens. Given the proposed three storey roof extension to the podium building, the impact upon the daylight to these west facing Rennie Court windows would be significant, and would result in daylight losses in excess of the recommended BRE guidelines.

104 The results of the VSC assessment indicate a compliance rate of 71% (171 windows

meeting the standard) with 59 windows experiencing changes beyond the guidance. Whilst the majority of windows would not experience any notable changes, there are a significant proportion of windows that would experience very large reductions ranging from 20% to 45%. In addition, there is one window that would experience a 100% reduction [meaning a reduction in VSC from 1.42% to 0%] and another window which would experience a loss of 94% [resulting in a VSC reduction from 0.98% to 0.06%]. Both of these windows are on the podium level of the Rennie Court block, and both have large balconies overhanging above at second floor level.

105 In relation to ADF, 68% of the rooms [119 out of 174] would meet the standards as set

by the BRE. However, 55 rooms would fail, with the reductions likely to lead to noticeable reductions in daylight. There are some rooms that would be particularly concerning, including a bedroom which would have an ADF of 0.16% and a living/dining room that would have an ADF of 0.01%. The recommended ADF’s for these rooms are 1% and 1.5% respectively.

106 The NSL results also indicate significant areas of non-compliance. Whilst 74% of

windows would meet the required NSL standard [129 out of 174 rooms], 45 windows would fail to achieve the BRE targets. The majority of windows affected would be at the lower levels. In percentage terms, some of the losses would be just above the limit of 20%, however, there are a number of windows which would result in losses ranging from 30% to 80%.

107 There are therefore a number of rooms which would fail all three daylight tests, and

would result in noticeable reductions in daylight if the scheme were to be built out. However, a material consideration is the 2006 implemented “MAKE” scheme, and the

applicant has advised that the daylight impacts of that 2006 scheme would be materially worse in daylight terms than the current proposal. Therefore a comparison needs to be drawn between the impacts of that 2006 scheme with the current proposal.

108 Under the 2006 scheme, 65% of the Rennie Court west facing windows/rooms passed

all three daylight tests, where as under the current proposal, this is increased to 73% [an increase of 8%]. The previous scheme proposed to demolish the podium building and erect a cluster of four interconnected “mini towers” which extended up to 57m in height. That scheme proposed a greater increase in bulk and height than the current proposal, and therefore inevitably has a greater impact than the current scheme. Under the current proposal, the height of the podium building as extended would reach just over 40m.

109 Further, the flats at Rennie Court have two aspects to their design which has had an

impact on the amount of daylight that they could receive. These are the unusual depth of the rooms, which are in excess of 6m deep. The second aspect is the size and location of balconies, which are also deep and are directly positioned over the window on the floor below. These balconies therefore already restrict the amount of daylight falling at the window face.

110 The daylight report indicates that many of the existing windows that fail the VSC, ADF

and NSL tests already fail as existing, on account of the design constraints referred to above. The levels of daylight is therefore already compromised. Whilst the reductions in daylight are accepted as being very noticeable, the implemented 2006 scheme is a material consideration that has to be taken into account. The conditions would not worsen in this scheme, and would actually represent an improvement on that 2006 scheme. It should further be noted that the scheme has been amended to take into account residents concerns in relation to daylight, with the bulk at the northern end of the podium building substantially reduced to improve the daylight to the closest west facing windows.

111 It is therefore considered that on balance, the impacts on daylight should be

considered acceptable. The 2006 scheme is capable of being built out and completed and would result in greater harm to daylight than the current proposal. It should however, be made clear that any proposals to increase the height of the podium at a later stage for additional plant or other ancillary equipment would not be accepted.

Sunlight 112 In relation to sunlight, the test is to calculate the annual probable sunlight hours

(APSH) taking into account the amount of sun available in both the summer and winter for each given window which faces within 90 degrees of due south. The assessment requires that a window should receive a quarter of annual probable sunlight hours in the summer and at least 5% of sunlight hours during the winter months. As with daylight, the impacts of the scheme on sunlight have been considered with respect to the following properties:

• 57 Stamford Street • Rennie Court

57 Stamford Street 113 The submitted report indicates no change from the existing situation. The proposal

would therefore not affected current sunlight levels enjoyed by this property.

Rennie Court 114 The sunlight analysis shows that the scheme would reduce sunlight to 37 living room

windows in Rennie Court. As with daylight, the ranges of losses are considered to be significant, with some living room windows having no access to direct sunlight if the scheme were to be built [reductions from 5% of summer sunlight to 0% as proposed]. However some of these individual rooms are served by a three window arrangement with one or two of these windows meeting the standards. As with daylight, the impacts of the scheme in relation to sunlight would be an improvement over the 2006 scheme, and therefore it would be difficult to support the refusal of permission for the current scheme.

115 A resident at River Court has objected on the basis the additional floors onto the tower

would reduce sunlight to the south elevation of River Court. Whilst the sunlight impacts of the scheme upon River Court were not assessed in the submitted daylight/sunlight report, the overshadowing diagrams submitted demonstrate that no new areas of shadow would fall onto River Court. The impacts of the scheme in relation to River Court would therefore be acceptable.

Light pollution 116 The site is located in an area of high district brightness, given the urban London

location. Given the proximity of the residents at Rennie Court, any likely light pollution spillage would need to be carefully controlled, particularly as the offices could be occupied past 23:00 hours. A lighting design scheme and lighting control scheme will therefore need to be applied to control and minimise light trespass. This could be in the form of a control system to dim the light (and thus reduce light spillage) during late hours. It is recommended that these details are requested by condition.

Overshadowing 117 The BRE guide considers that sunlight availability should be checked for open spaces

including amenity sitting out areas and gardens. It advises that for those spaces to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, no more than two-fifths and preferably no more than a quarter of any garden or amenity area should be prevented by buildings from receiving any sun at all on 21 March. If, as a result of a new development, an amenity area cannot meet these guidelines, a loss of 20% would be allowed before it could be considered noticeable.

118 The following areas have been tested in the report:

− The Oxo Tower amenity area − The amenity area between Rennie Court and the podium block − The public Thames Path (north of Sea Containers House) − The public parks located west of Broadwall

119 • Oxo Tower: The diagrams submitted show that this area would not experience

any substantial differences in shadow as a result of the development. There would be some further shadow cast between 08:00 and 09:00 hours on 21 March although this passes quickly and within the hour.

120 • The amenity area between Rennie Court and the podium: Throughout the year the

shadows cast by both the existing and proposed development would be very similar. The only main difference would be between the hours of 3pm to 5pm in June, however, the overall change is considered minor and not substantially different from the existing situation. It should also be noted that the Rennie Court building itself would result in a certain amount of shadow on this amenity area in

the morning when the sun rises from the east. The shadow cast is typical of the inner London environment.

121 • The public Thames Path: Throughout the year the shadows cast are practically

identical when the existing is compared with the proposed. There would therefore be no difference here.

122 • The public parks located to the west of Broadwall: The shadows cast in this area

in the existing conditions would be very similar when compared to the shadows case in the proposed condition.

123 No adverse impacts in terms of overshadowing are therefore expected to result, and

the scheme would be acceptable in this regard. Overlooking/outlook 124 In order to prevent against harmful overlooking, the Residential Design Standards

SPD 2008 requires developments to achieve a distance of 12m at the front of the building and any elevation that fronts a highway and a minimum of 21m at the rear.

125 There would be well over 60m between the Rennie Court residents and the new

residential units in the tower, preventing any harm in terms of outlook. Plus, the residential units would not directly face each other, as the new residential accommodation starts at floor 11. It is therefore considered that no intrusive overlooking would result from the scheme.

126 In relation to outlook, the removal of a substantial volume of bulk to the north of the

podium has considerably improved the amenity for the closest west facing windows on the Rennie Court block. The additional floors on top of the podium would however reduce the view of the sky from the lower units and could create a sense of enclosure for the Rennie Court flats. However, as referred to above, there would be over 37m between the proposed roof top podium extensions, and the Rennie Court flats. This distance would ensure that any harm in terms of outlook or sense of enclosure would not be harmful.

127 There are some additional small scale extensions proposed to the east face of the

podium building; these include an extension to the north of podium to contain plant, and two new stair cores. These extensions are relatively small in scale and should not intrude upon the views of the Rennie Court flats.

128 No impacts in terms of overlooking or outlook to 57 Stamford Street would arise. 129 It is recommended that details of the screening to the roof terraces be requested by

condition. It is recommended that the screening be set back from the perimeters of the building to avoid any further reductions in daylight to Rennie Court residents.

TV interference 130 The Electronic Interference report advises that there would be no adverse effects to

television reception as a result of the proposed development. The tower is already considerably taller than the surrounding buildings, and the report advises that the additional floors would not give rise to any new impacts.

Wind assessment 131 A microclimate assessment has been submitted as part of the application, which

focuses on the wind microclimate during the windiest season [winter]. The assessment has considered the impacts of wind upon Rennie Street, Stamford Street, Hatfields and Upper Ground. The building entrances and amenity space terraces have also been considered. The north and south ends of Hatfields are expected to be the windiest zones around the site but are classified as suitable for leisure walking. The numerous building entrances into the site are also classified as suitable for entrance use.

132 The wind microclimate on the roof terraces on the podium building however, will

require mitigation as this terrace would be exposed to winds. The landscape plan will therefore have to play an important role in sheltering the terrace, and would need to include mitigating design features including screening and planting. The indicative landscape plans provided as part of the application show 1.5m high dense planting to shelter the terrace from winds – it is recommended that these details be secured by condition.

Design issues 133 London Plan Policy 7.4 Local Character advises that development should have regard

to the form, function and structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings. Policy 7.5 Public Realm states that London’s public spaces should be secure, accessible, easy to understand and maintain, and incorporate the highest quality landscaping, planting, furniture and surfaces. Policy 7.6 Architecture states that architecture should make a positive contribution to a coherent public realm, streetscape and wider cityscape. It should incorporate the highest quality materials and design appropriate to its context. Policy 7.12 Implementing the London View Management Framework requires that new development should not harm and where possible should make a positive contribution to the characteristics and composition of the strategic views and their landmark elements.

134 Saved policy 3.12 of the Southwark Plan asserts that developments “should achieve a

high quality of both architectural and urban design, enhancing the quality of the built environment in order to create attractive, high amenity environments people will choose to live in, work in and visit.” Saved policy 3.13 calls for design that embodies the principles of good urban design and creates an environment that relates to its context and results in places that people like to visit and enjoy.

135 The proposed scheme retains many of the qualities of the existing group of buildings

and sets out to compliment them, keeping the essence of their robust and confident structure and enhancing them with sensitive additions and alterations.

Site layout, including the new publicly accessible route across the site 136 The two buildings that are the main focus of the development are the existing Seifert-

designed commercial tower and lower T-shaped block. These are arranged on the site in a striking and complimentary way with the tower sitting between the extended north and west wings of the T-shaped block. This has been capitalised on by the designers in an inventive way.

137 They are proposing to transform the existing ‘service’ space into an internalised public

thoroughfare that will offer a new connection between Stamford Street, Upper Ground and Hatfields across the heart of the site, under the T-shaped block and through to the foot of the tower at the north-west corner of the site. This is to be developed as a new space, which will not only be animated by the new lift and stairs for the commercial

accommodation above but also will be lined by shops and also potentially a centrally located gym, complete with 25m pool. This newly-created permeability would rely on the success of the principal tenant (the gym), the quality of finishes in the space, the range of retail space provided at grade, the passive surveillance offered by the office space above and the potential for future connections to the Thames Path beyond particularly if this is followed through on the Sea Containers site to the north. This newly created space offers the greatest opportunity for the site to re-connect with its context. The existing building has, at best, an indifferent relationship with its surrounding streets and the patterns of movement in the area. This public route re-connects the development to its context and brings with it the prospect of new connections across the site and beyond.

138 It should be noted that an EDF substation was introduced at the base of the tower at a

late stage in the application process, and without any prior discussions with officers. The positioning of this substation is unfortunate, and whilst it is accepted that it would require 24 hour emergency access, it is recommended that further discussions take place to find an alternative location, in a more discreet area of the site.

139

The remodelled perimeter of the ground floor This scheme seeks to remodel the perimeter of the block, to provide high quality street-facing retail along Stamford Street and Rennie Street. Rennie Street in particular currently suffers from a poor facade treatment dominated by blank walls and mechanical services and exhausts. Whilst Upper Ground retains the service access to the site, this frontage will be punctuated by new retail frontages, a new prominently located entrance hall to Rennie Court as well as the entrance lobbies to the residential and commercial tower. The active frontages continue along Hatfields and reinforce the north-south connection to Upper Ground. This complete remodelling of the perimeter is not just skin-deep, but would provide a full range of retail space, including smaller scale shops and kiosks, the medium space requirements of bank and outfitters as well as the deep-space requirements of supermarkets.

140

Extension to the tower, including acceptability of the impact upon strategic views The tower is proposed to be raised by six residential storeys to take it to the height to 132.2m AOD to the top of the core, and 130.885m to the parapet height. This would result in a 0.335m increase over the previous 2006 scheme. This change has altered the tower’s proportions for the better, because the increased height emphasises the slender width of the tower and has brought the top of the tower into sharper focus. At the top the architects have been guided, once again, by the aesthetic qualities of the existing building. The existing tower steps down to reveal the lift core at the top to give it a spire-like appearance as it meets the sky. In a similar way, the top of the tower is stepped down a single storey on two sides and set-back to reveal the glassy box at the top to emulate the profile of the core and give the new tower a fitting crown. The views that were submitted with the application demonstrate this recessive profile of the tower and illustrate the tower’s improved proportions.

141 As the Kings Reach tower is already an existing tall building, it is considered that the

locational criteria of Saved Policy 3.20 Tall Buildings of the Southwark Plan is less relevant. However, the proposal would be expected to satisfy the criteria relating to design quality and contribution to the public realm. In this respect, the extensions to both the tower and the podium buildings are considered to be of a very high architectural standard, and the extension to the tower in particular is considered to improve the appearance of the tower in relation to the London skyline. The development would also make a very positive contribution to the public realm, by

creating active frontages to the streets, and creating an attractive new route through the site itself.

142 In relation to the impact upon views, the application has been accompanied by a

detailed Townscape Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) which has included all the relevant strategic views and river prospects as set out in the London View Management Framework (LVMF) as well as a number of local views.

143 In the river prospects, the increased height and amended proportions of the tower

become evident. The accurate visual representations which have been prepared in accordance with guidance set out in the LVMF demonstrate that the increased height improve the proportions of tower and give it a new vertical emphasis. The impact in most views is marginal due to the limited increase in height however, one view is notable – LVMF Townscape View 26A.1 from St James’s Park Bridge. The impact on this view of Duck Island from the Blue Bridge in St James Park is nominal and is no different to that of the implemented scheme. Indeed, the tower is most prominent in the distant backdrop of this townscape view in mid-winter when the dense foliage of Duck Island is at its lowest where the uppermost storey would be visible over the rooftops of the Ministry of Defence buildings in Westminster which are also visible over Duck Island at this time. In summer, the impact is considerably reduced by the mature managed landscape on the island where it is visible among the crowns of the trees. This nominal impact would be incidental in character, and limited in proportion and as such has been found to be acceptable particularly the incursion is no greater than the implemented scheme. The GLA have found this impact to be broadly acceptable and English Heritage has confirmed that they do not wish to raise an objection.

144 A further consideration of the views relates to the detailed design of the tower and its

appearance in the views. This assessment includes a detailed consideration of the proposed materials, the silhouette and proportions of the tower and its relationship with other tall buildings in the area. In the view of officers the tower has benefited enormously from this redesign. The views demonstrate that, far from being a simple ‘extrusion’ of the footprint, the tower as proposed tapers elegantly towards the top and retains many of the qualities of the original building. The cladding emphasises and compliments the existing concrete fins balancing the vertical with the horizontal, retaining the simplicity and elegance of the original with its crisp and uncluttered lines and high quality materials. In the local views the tower is a fundamentally improved by this high quality re-cladding. Its profile, massing and silhouette are enhanced and this treatment will greatly improve its presence and its appearance in the round. Towers are important for orientation and location in a dense city like London and the tower’s remodelled top will greatly enhance the viewer’s appreciation of the city signalling the important and historic river crossing at Blackfriars Bridge nearby.

145 In conclusion, the proposed design has an acceptable, and in most cases desirable

impact on the local and strategic views. In particular the elegant and understated appearance of the new cladding will compliment this important local landmark, not only giving it a new lease on life but allowing it to take its rightful place in the London skyline.

146

The T-shaped block This lower podium block is proposed to be re-clad to match the tower, and raised by one storey on the east wing and by a further two storeys on the north and west wings (three storeys in total). The structure and floor plates of podium block are retained and

the building is proposed to get a new zinc and glass facade filled in between the retained and very distinctive projecting concrete ‘fins’ of the original building. This T-shaped block presents a striking sweeping facade onto Stamford Street which will be enhanced by this sensitive re-cladding whilst the renewed shop-fronts at the base will echo the roof-top additions to give the block a new base, middle and top.

147 Internally, the office space is much improved and could offer uninterrupted office

accommodation on all levels. On the northern side this block overlooks the elevated communal garden of Rennie Court. Here the block is proposed to be faced with a vertical timber cladding in as a vertical screen, which will not only offer a degree of privacy to residents and solar shaping to occupiers, but also give this facade a softer more tactile presence onto the residential garden. At the 7th floor the scheme includes a roof-top garden for the office occupiers whilst at the roof top of the L-shaped addition on the 9th floor the elevated communal garden for the residents of the tower will offer those residents their landscaped communal amenity and panoramic views of the borough. The other side extensions to the podium block are considered acceptable, as they would be considered to be relatively minor and small in scale.

148 In relation to the impact of the roof extensions on river prospects and the more local

views, the three-storey addition to the podium block can be glimpsed over the roof-tops to the south of the Oxo Tower. Its incursion into the view is limited and stays within the wider prevailing heights in this part of the city. Accordingly it is considered that the increased height on the podium block does not impact on the views of landmarks in the views and has a neutral impact on the river prospects. In the local views the impact of the podium block becomes more evident in the linear views along Stamford Street where its scale is most prevalent at the end of the axis. The curved profile of the existing building is elegantly off-set by the recessive counter-curve of the additional three floors to this block in these local views.

New ten storey atrium 149 This new publically accessible route has given a positive use to space that was

previously left-over between the tower and the podium block. It is now proposed to infill this space with a new atrium building. The space is punctuated by the new vertical cores and lifts as well as two extensions of the office space that reach into the space at the Hatfields and the Upper Ground frontages. The atrium space has strong entrance portals at these two prominent locations and are proposed to be lightweight and glassy in character to compliment this new space. The materials and detailed design of these new internalised public faces is a matter that can be reserved by condition.

150

The re-cladding of the tower The Kings Reach tower is an iconic and recognisable feature of the south bank, prominent in many views and river prospects. Its existing brown cladding and tinted glass give it a sombre appearance but its most striking features are its elegant tapered fins which give the building a strong vertical emphasis. This proposal seeks to retain the tower’s floorplate, core and tapered ‘fins’ and to re-clad between them in a glass and zinc cladding. In this way, the proposal seeks to retain the best features of the original tower and to compliment them with carefully detailed cladding, emphasising the tower’s proportions and wrapping the building in a modern ‘skin’. The cladding has not simply been designed to envelop the building but also to extend it visually and take on the additional floors. This has been done by the introduction of a thin vertical line in the cladding, a ‘pin-stripe’ has been added into the in-fill panels which extends to the full height of the building to dovetail the extension onto the existing building. In

addition, the spandrel panels have been designed as framed panels to balance the vertical with the horizontal and enhance the tower’s proportions.

Landscaping and trees 151 The proposal occupies a prominent site on Stamford Street which is the main east-

west thoroughfare to Waterloo Station. To the north is Upper Ground and Sea Containers House which fronts onto the Thames Footpath. The proposal seeks to provide a unified and co-ordinated landscaped public realm across the site and includes natural stone finishes, mature planting on Stamford Street and a new public space onto Upper Ground at the foot of the tower. The wider consideration of the public realm is important in this context and could give much-needed unity across the site and beyond. In this regard, officers have encouraged the applicants to work with the neighbouring Sea Containers House site to bring forward a unified vision for the public realm which will encourage north-south permeability and enhance the quality of the streetscene. Such co-operation across these two sites could, in due course, offer an opportunity to connect to the Thames Path on the east side of the Oxo Tower and greatly improve north-south connections. The choice of materials is also important, and it is required that the emphasis be on the use of high quality materials including York Stone which will compliment the newly activated perimeter of the block.

152 The extensive green roofs and gardens are a welcome element of the remodelling

design. Specifically, they include roof top amenity space on the top of the podium building, and also the new atrium. The landscape design shows the retention of street trees with no overall net loss. New trees are proposed to be planted around the perimeter of the site, and this includes a proportion of semi-mature trees. The tree species proposed have been revised in line with the Urban Forester’s recommendations.

153 The retained podium garden envisages a well specified and extensive area of planting

using large size plants and trees. As this podium space would be used by residents of Rennie Court, it is suggested that a suitably worded condition be attached to the permission requiring the developer to carry out consultation on the landscaping for this space before the detailed plans are submitted for approval. Both the developer and the residents have indicated acceptance of this approach. If tree planting is proposed for this space, details would need to be submitted demonstrating that the trees could be adequately supported and maintained. Soil volume and irrigation will also be critical.

154 The information contained within the Design and Access Statement indicates that a

row of trees would be planted along Rennie Street. Whilst this would be supported in principle, it is considered that Rennie Street lacks sufficient pavement width to allow this planting to be provided.

155 Any trees that could be affected by the development along Stamford Street would

require discussions to be held with TfL. Conclusion on design issues 156 In conclusion, this proposal is a fundamental enhancement of this iconic building. It

removes the ageing and poorly performing cladding, whilst retaining and complimenting the key structural components to give the buildings a much improved appearance improving accessibility and use across the site. Whilst this is the most visible part of this scheme is the tower, the substantial benefits offered by this re-development will be experienced at grade where the scheme compliments this part of

the city by enhancing permeability across this site and addressing past failures and the compromises across this site. The substantial improvements to the public realm, the active frontages on the perimeter of the whole block coupled with the quality of the proposed materials and design details ensure that this proposal is of exceptional quality of architectural design. It is also more appropriate and understated than the implemented 2007 scheme, which is welcome.

157 The success of the design will rely on the quality of materials and the detailing of the

in-fill cladding panels. This is a matter that could be reserved by condition requiring the presentation of full scale mock-ups of the cladding to the tower and the cladding to the podium block, including the north and east face looking onto Rennie Court as well as detailed drawings of fabric of the building.

Impact on character and setting of the Old Barge House conservation area 158 Saved Policy 3.18 states that permission will not be granted for developments that

would not preserve or enhance among other things: the setting of the Conservation Area; or views into or out of a Conservation Area. This is an important consideration of PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment – and includes a consideration of the proposed scheme’s design, its scale bulk and height as well as its structure, arrangement and facing materials.

159 The proposed scheme is not located in a designated conservation area but is

immediately adjacent to the Old Bargehouse Alley conservation area. In developing this scheme designers need to take into account views into and out of the conservation area. In particular, views from the Southbank to illustrate the presence of this scheme in the backdrop of this historic area. Policy 10.1 of PPS5 states that when considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, “local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset.”

160 The Old Bargehouse Alley conservation area is centred on the Oxo Tower. It extends

from the Thames footpath to the north to Upper Ground in the south and into Lambeth to the west taking in Bernie Spain Gardens. Views within the conservation area are centred on the important local landmark of the Oxo Tower, which is noted in the river prospects and particularly prominent from the park to the west. In this case the extended and re-clad tower would be the most visible feature of this development, visible in these local views from the Thames footway and Bernie Spain Gardens to the west. Whilst the proposed materials, the zinc and glass are overtly modern in character, the retained concrete fins will preserve the masonry character of the existing tower. Further, the replacement of the brown-framed metal panels on the tower with zinc cladding would echo the lead framed panels introduced into the Oxo Tower building at its recent re-development and in doing so, could enhance its connection to this small conservation area. Any assessment of materials would need to include a consideration of this immediate historic context and should be reserved by condition to ensure that the tone of zinc chosen for the spandrel panels and the framing to the glazed panels will echo the metal panels used in the conservation area.

161 Accordingly, by preserving the best features of this iconic building and choosing

cladding materials that will compliment those prevalent in the conservation area, the proposal enhances the setting of this important historic area and complies with local policy and national guidance.

Transport issues 162 Saved Policy 5.1 of the Southwark Plan requires major development to be located

near transport nodes. Saved Policy 5.2 advises that permission will be granted for development unless there is an adverse impact on the transport network or if there inadequate provision is made for servicing. Saved Policy 5.3 seeks to ensure that provision is made for pedestrians and cyclists within the development and Saved Policies 5.6 and 5.7 concern car parking. Core Strategy Strategic Policy 2 - Sustainable transport reaffirms the commitment to encouraging walking, cycling and use of public transport rather than travel by car.

163

Access arrangements The vehicular access points would remain as existing; access to the car park would be from Hatfields and the exit on Upper Ground. Servicing vehicles would enter the service bay from Upper Ground. Office workers would enter the development from either Stamford Street, or from the new public route. The residential occupiers would enter from Hatfields. In addition, there are many entrances into the ground floor retail units. The Milroy Walk route would be lost through the development, but replaced by the new route through the site, and the enhanced streets around the site.

164 Car parking

The Council is seeking to reduce car dependency, particularly in areas with good accessibility to public transport, and thus encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes. The site is well served by all forms of public transport, including train and tube stations and a number of bus services. Accordingly the site has a high Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 6b. Given the high PTAL rating, the development would be expected to be car free, with the exception of disabled parking.

165 The scheme originally proposed 13 general car parking spaces for the flats. Concerns

were raised by Transport Group to this high level of provision as development here is expected to be car free. The scheme was subsequently amended to omit this car parking, and now the scheme comprises solely disabled parking. A total of 24 disabled parking spaces are proposed. 18 of these spaces serve the 18 wheelchair accessible flats, and the remainder would be allocated for disabled office and retail workers. A neighbour has commented that there is insufficient visitor parking, however, as car free development is expected here, visitor parking could not be justified. The scheme is therefore considered acceptable in this respect.

166 The site is located within a Controlled Parking Zone. In order to prevent overspill

parking from the development, the future occupiers of the development would be prevented from obtaining on street parking permits. It is also expected that the applicant provide residents with three years car club membership to Streetcar. Car club bays are located on Rennie Street and Paris Gardens.

167 The details provided with the application advise that all car club spaces would have

electric charging points. This measure is encouraged and it is recommended that these electric charging points are required by condition.

168

Cycle storage In terms of cycle storage for the residential element, a total of 195 cycle parking spaces are provided at ground floor level. In relation to the retail element, a minimum of 25 spaces are to be provided, however, it is not clear from the plans where these are located; details of this provision would need to be provided by condition. A

minimum of 140 spaces would be required for the office element; 164 spaces are provided at basement level which exceeds the minimum standards and is a positive aspect of the scheme. The cycle parking must be safe, covered and secure with good lighting. The cycle spaces should comprise “sheffield stands”, as these are the council’s preferred type since they are secure and convenient to use.

Servicing 169 It is proposed that servicing would occur within the service area at ground floor level

which is to be accessed from Upper Ground. The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that all servicing and deliveries could be accommodated within this service area. This arrangement is considered to be an improvement over the existing servicing arrangements, which occur from on street loading bays on Rennie Street.

170 A neighbour has commented that this new servicing arrangement would create

congestion on Upper Ground. However, it is not expected that any congestion would arise; the vehicles would service from within the service area itself and not from the street. A service management plan would also be required by condition and this should state that no deliveries should take place during the evening to prevent noise disturbance to residents. Further, it is not expected that such a high volume of daily deliveries would be expected to disrupt the bus services.

Travel Plans 171 The draft travel plans submitted with the application are considered to be

unacceptable. An improved travel plan must be submitted and any measures and initiatives identified would need to be secured and enforced. A sum of £3,000 is required for the monitoring of the travel plan.

Construction Management Plan 172 It is suggested that a construction management plan be requested by condition, to

ensure that the building works minimise disruption to nearby residents and highway conditions as much as possible. Noise during construction is strictly not a material planning objection, however, the management plan should set out hours that the works would take place, and include any required mitigation.

Blackfriars Road Improvement Scheme/ Way finding schemes 173 In partnership with Transport for London, a scheme is being developed to enhance

Blackfriars Road. This is aimed at improving the overall quality of the environment along Blackfriars Road including the junction re-design at Blackfriars Road/Southwark Street, pedestrian and cycling improvements, tree planting and materials. Transport for London have indicated that they would expect the development make a contribution towards this scheme; however, no specific sum has been requested by TfL and no clear offer made by the applicant. Further discussions are therefore required to determine the level of contribution and an updated position on the amount offered will be reported in the Addendum report.

174 In addition, TfL are developing a way finding scheme in this area as part of the wider

Legible London programme. In order to ensure new signage can be provided, TfL request that a minimum contribution of £15,000 is provided by the developer; at this stage the developer has not confirmed whether that sum will be offered.

175 The site falls within the area where the Crossrail charge may be sought for

developments which include a net increase in office, retail or hotel space. In this case, the increase in floorspace for these uses is 649sqm, which is above the 500sqm

threshold for charging. This would indicate that a contribution would be required, but TfL have not yet advised whether any payment is due; any update on this position will be report in the Addendum report.

Flood Risk 176 The site is located within Flood Zone 3a which is considered to be an area of high risk

of flooding due to the proximity of the tidal River Thames. However the site is protected by the Thames Barrier and related defences. A flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application and the associated breach analysis demonstrates that the site would not flood in the event of a breach of the Thames tidal defences. The Environment Agency were consulted on the application and they have advised that subject to revised drainage details being submitted with associated detailed run-off calculations, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment would be acceptable. They have not yet advised of any conditions that would be required. If they advise that conditions would be required, it is recommended that they be attached to the permission at that stage.

177 Consideration must be given to the sequential test, advocated in Planning Policy

Statement 25 “Development and Flood Risk” which requires Local Planning Authorities to direct development towards lower flood risk zones and within development sites where the highest vulnerability uses should be located on parts of the site at lowest probability of flooding. A significant part of Southwark is within Flood Zone 3 and there are no sites at a lower risk of flooding for some distance. Whilst the application site is not designated for housing purposes, the development of brownfield sites such as this is encouraged in order to maximise the efficient use of land with the provision of much needed housing as well as providing local employment opportunities. The proposed scheme therefore meets the Planning Policy Statement 25 sequential test.

Planning obligations (S.106 undertaking or agreement) 178 Saved Policy 2.5 of the Southwark Plan and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan advise that

planning obligations can be secured to overcome the negative impacts of a generally acceptable proposal. Saved Policy 2.5 of the Southwark Plan is reinforced by the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Section 106 Planning Obligations, (which sets out in detail the type of development that qualifies for planning obligations), and Circular 05/05, which advises that every planning application will be judged on its own merits against relevant policy, guidance and other material considerations when assessing planning obligations. Strategic Policy 14 – Implementation and delivery of the emerging Core Strategy states that planning obligations will be sought to reduce or mitigate the impact of developments.

179 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations came into force on 6th April 2010.

The regulations state under 122 – “Limitation on use of planning obligations” that it is unlawful for a planning obligation to be taken into account when determining a planning application for a development, or any part of a development, that is capable of being charged CIL if the obligation does not meet all of the following tests: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • directly related to the development; and • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

180 The applicant has submitted a proposed Heads of Terms based on the Council’s

Planning Obligations SPD. The following table sets out the contributions payable based on the Section 106 Planning Obligations SPD and what the applicant has

proposed to offer. The contributions are set out based on the uplift in retail floorspace and the creation of new residential units.

181 Topic area S106 SPD Applicant’s S106 offer

Affordable Housing 0 £22,435,000 Education £204,170 £204,170 Employment in the development

£32,631 £32,631

Employment during construction

£155,805 £155,805

Employment during construction management fee

£12,011 £12,011

Public open space £72,530 £72,530 Children’s play equipment £21,731 £21,731 Sports development £176,996 £176,996 Transport Strategic £110,737 £110,737 Transport Site Specific £121,945 £121,945 (or works in kind

exceeding this sum) Transport for London Amount to be determined

(for Blackfriars Road Improvement Scheme and Way Finding Initiative)

No offer currently made

Crossrail If required, the amount has yet to be determined

No offer currently made

Public Realm £165,195 £165,195 (or works in kind exceeding this sum)

Archaeology £15,036 £15,036 Health £177,393 £177,393 Community Facilities £26,714 £26,714 Admin charge £25,858 £25,858 Total £1,318,752 £1,318,752 + £22,435,000

for affordable housing 182 It should be noted that Transport for London have advised that contributions to the

Blackfriars Road Improvement Scheme and the Way Finding Initiative are required. Further, confirmation is also requested from TfL in relation to whether a Crossrail contribution would be required. It is expected that a resolution on these matters, including the amounts sought would be reported in the addendum report.

183 In addition to the above contributions, an amendment to the Traffic Management

Order would be required to exclude occupiers from obtaining parking permits. The amount sought is £2,750.

184 It should also be requested that the new public route and public realm works are

completed before the development is occupied. Car club membership would also be required (for three years), together with terms to ensure travel plan monitoring, including the payment of the monitoring fee (£3,000).

185 The applicant is proposing to make a number of improvements to the public realm as

part of the application. These include repaving the perimeter of the site in high quality materials, installing cycle stands on the highway and installing lighting and new

planting. It is accepted that the developer could offset the public realm and site specific contributions against the cost of completing this work, provided that realistic cost estimates of the work are provided. It should be made clear that if the works total more than the site specific and public realm contributions, then any further offset against any of the other contributions would not be acceptable. It is also required that the materials used are high quality (e.g York Stone). The council’s Public Realm division have advised that commuted sum payments would be required if the materials to be used do not form part of their standard palette of materials. Further discussions are therefore required to resolve this outstanding issue. Associated S.278 agreements may be required to enable this work to be undertaken by the developer. For the avoidance of doubt, only the works outside of the red line site boundary could be offset against the above mentioned contributions.

186 As noted in paragraph 68 above, the applicant has offered to pay the commuted sum

payment for affordable housing on implementation; this is a benefit of the scheme as the council would be likely to receive this money in the near future [likely to be early next year].

187 It is considered that the planning obligations sought meet the planning tests of Circular

05/05 and the CIL regulations. The contributions would be spent on delivering new school places as a result of the development, job creation during construction and in the final development, improvements to open spaces and sports facilities, improvements to increase the capacity of transport provision across the borough, improvements to the public realm, funds to secure archaeological monitoring, new health facilities and improvements to community facilities. The affordable housing contribution would be secured for delivering new affordable housing in the borough.

188 In accordance with the recommendation, if the Section 106 Agreement is not signed

by 1 November 2011, the Head of Development is authorised to refuse planning permission, if appropriate, for the reason below: ‘In the absence of a signed Section 106 Agreement, there is no mechanism in place to avoid or mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the public realm, public open space, sports facilities, education, health, affordable housing, the transport network, community facilities and employment and the proposal would therefore be contrary to Saved Policy 2.5 'Planning Obligations' of the Southwark Plan and Policy 14 – 'Implementation and delivery' of the Southwark Core Strategy, the Southwark Supplementary Planning Document 'Section 106 Planning Obligations' 2007, and Policy 8.2 Planning obligations of the London Plan 2011.

Sustainable development implications 189 Policy 5.2 of the London Plan Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions that requires

development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide and that they should provide an assessment of their energy demands and demonstrate how they have taken steps to apply the Mayor's energy hierarchy. Policy 5.7 Renewable Energy seeks to increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources. Saved Policy 3.4 of the Southwark Plan seeks energy efficient development. Core Strategy Strategic Policy 13 - High environmental standards applies a similar energy hierarchy to the London Plan and requires the highest possible environmental standards including requiring major developments to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from low or zero carbon sources of energy, and achieving Code Level 4 based on Code for Sustainable Homes. These policies are expanded upon in the Council's Sustainable Construction and Design SPD. An Energy Strategy and Pre-Assessment Code for Sustainable Homes Report

has been submitted as part of the application. 190

Energy Efficiency A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Features include variable speed motors and energy efficient lighting. These measures would achieve a reduction of 66 tonnes per annum (4%) in regulated carbon dioxide emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant scheme. This level of energy efficiency is welcomed.

191 District Heating

No existing heat networks have been identified within the vicinity of the development. There is the possibility that a network could be established through the South Bank Employers Group and the development would be designed to allow future connection.

192 A site heat network will be installed, supplied by a single energy centre at sub podium

level. A schematic drawing showing all building uses connected to the heat network has been provided. Drawings showing the location, size and layout of the energy centre have also been provided.

193

Combined Heat and Power A 400kWe gas fired CHP engine with thermal energy storage will be installed in the energy centre as the lead heat source for the heat network. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 331 tonnes per annum (23%) is envisaged. Load profiles demonstrating the sizing of the CHP will however be required.

194

Cooling The demand for cooling will be minimised through high performance glazing and optimisation of the building facade. Where cooling is required, an absorption chiller, fired with heat from the CHP engine will be used as the lead cooling source, with cooling delivered via a chilled water distribution system.

195

Renewable energy technologies The scheme proposes 200sqm of photovoltaic panels (PV) to be located on the roof. A reduction in regulated carbon emissions of 16 tonnes per annum will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy. This would amount to a 1% reduction from renewable energy technologies. The reduction is a considerable way short of the 20% target. However, given that the proposal seeks to re-use and retrofit existing buildings (which itself is a sustainable measure), it is considered that the opportunities for introducing greater reductions from renewables are limited. Many of the roof tops provide amenity space for the occupiers, and therefore the PV panels could only be inserted on any left over space. A condition is recommended to show the placement of the panels to ensure that every opportunity is taken to maximise their usage.

196 The scheme does include proposals for a CHP, which itself is a clean form of

technology, and is promoted by the Greater London Authority as part of their energy hierarchy. The scheme also includes proposals to make the buildings more energy efficient, and the re-cladding proposals would also ensure that they would be better insulated.

197 In summary, a reduction of 413 tonnes of carbon emissions would be achieved

compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an

overall saving of 27%. 198

Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) and BREEAM The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement and has committed to achieving a CfSH ‘Level 4’ and BREEAM excellent for the offices. A range of sustainability measures are proposed, including sustainable construction practices and green and brown landscaped roofs.

Ecology 199 The findings of the Ecology report are agreed, no further survey for bats is required.

The ecological features proposed (bat and bird boxes, and green and brown roofs) would make a positive contribution to biodiversity. However, swift bricks should also be incorporated into the development. A planning condition to install 10 swift bricks should be added. The developer should work with the London Swift Group or RSPB to determine the best locations and associated infrastructure for installation.

200 In summary, the energy, sustainability and ecology aspects of the scheme are

considered acceptable. Some further information in terms of load profiles for the CHP and detailed plans showing the PV panels is required.

Other matters 201 It should be noted that Rights to Light is a common law matter, rather than a material

planning consideration, but as mentioned, the scheme has been assessed in relation to daylight impacts.

202 Some concern has been raised by residents in relation to noise leakage from plant. It

is recommended that the standard noise condition be attached to the permission; this would ensure that the residents would not suffer any undue disturbance from any new plant or machinery proposed.

203 The scheme proposes a number of improvements for Rennie Court residents. These

include revised access arrangements and provision of a new concierge which would be shared between Rennie Court and River Court residents. These measures would reduce the service charges for these residents, which would be a positive benefit for them. The developer and the relevant management companies are in the processes of negotiating on a legal agreement to secure these changes to ensure that they are implemented as part of the scheme.

Conclusion on planning issues 204 The refurbishment and extension of Kings Reach would generate significant economic

benefits for the local and wider area. It would increase the quantum of high quality office and retail floorspace in Southwark. The proposal would also make efficient use of land and re-use the existing buildings, which is a benefit in terms of sustainability. The principle of housing on the site is also accepted, and would be in line with policy aspirations to increase the number of new housing units. The mix of uses provided is diverse and should contribute to urban regeneration.

205 The principle of a payment in lieu of on site affordable housing is acceptable in the

specific circumstances of this case, and is considered to be the mechanism capable of providing the maximum quantum of affordable housing, of a type and affordability most suited to meet identified housing needs.

206 The proposal would provide an extensive improvement of the streetscape together

with new active frontages which would improve the experience for pedestrians, and provide for natural surveillance. A number of new building entrances are proposed, which is a further benefit. The new pedestrian route would increase the overall permeability of the area and allow for connectivity to the River Thames, and would allow for a range of uses to spill out into the space, which would add vitality to the space.

207 New roof top gardens, including green roofs should enhance biodiversity and create

habitat. The quality and form of the amenity spaces have the potential to create high quality space, which would benefit the office and residential occupiers.

208 The impacts of the scheme in design terms is considered acceptable, and the various

additions and extensions would not harm any defined strategic or local views. Further, there would be no harm to the setting of the Old Barge House Conservation Area.

209 The impacts of the scheme in relation to daylight and sunlight are considered

unfortunate, however the implemented 2006 permission is a material consideration and the impacts would be less than those that would be caused by that scheme.

210 The scheme would not be expected to cause any unacceptable impact to local

highway or transport conditions. Confirmation is required from Transport for London in relation to the amount of contributions required for Crossrail, Blackfriars Road and Wayfinding Initiatives.

211 This site is currently vacant and has a negative impact on the perception and

appearance of this part of Bankside. The area includes a number of large and high profile sites where development has stalled due to market uncertainty and concerns about viability. The applicants for Kings Reach have indicated that, if planning permission is granted, the scheme could commence as soon as Spring 2012. Development on this site could improve investor confidence in the wider area, and stimulate interest in schemes on other important sites in the locality. As such, Kings Reach has the potential to contribute significantly to the regeneration, and economic well-being of Bankside and Southwark.

212 It is therefore recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions as set out in the attached draft decision notice, completion of s S106 agreement on terms as set out above, and referral to the GLA.

Community impact statement

213 In line with the Council's Community Impact Statement the impact of this application has been assessed as part of the application process with regard to local people in respect of their age, disability, faith/religion, gender, race and ethnicity and sexual orientation. Consultation with the community has been undertaken as part of the application process.

214 A statement of Community Involvement has been submitted with the application. The

document has set out the extensive pre-application consultation that has been carried out with the immediate neighbours in River and Rennie Court and other local residents, neighbouring land owners, Members of Southwark Council and the Greater London Authority. A number of other local groups have also been consulted. These include Rennie and River Court Management Board, Waterloo Community Development Group, Southbank Employers Group, Coin Street Community Builders

and the Peabody Duchy Residents Association. 215 In terms of the forms of consultation carried out, letters were issued to immediate

neighbours, meetings and private exhibitions held with residents of River and Rennie Court and public exhibitions held for the wider community. A number of briefing sessions and presentations were also held with Members of Southwark Council and also local groups.

216 The pre-application consultation period began in May 2010, and a large number of

individual consultation events have been carried out (approximately 26). The submitted statement has summarised the responses received during consultation and has set out how it has responded to any issues and concerns raised. Further to this, the developer has met with a number of residents of Rennie Court after the application was lodged. Their comments and concerns were taken into account by the designers during the scheme re-design.

Consultations

217 218

Details of consultation and re-consultation undertaken in respect of this application are set out in Appendix 1. It is noted that an informal presentation by the applicant to Planning Committee, Ward and Executive Members took place on 16 March 2011.

Consultation replies 219 Details of consultation responses received are set out in Appendix 2.

220

Summary of consultation responses One letter of objection received from River Court in relation to loss of sunlight and increase in congestion. 13 letters of objection received from Rennie Court residents in relation to loss of daylight, sunlight and privacy, and impacts in relation to noise. One objection letter received from a resident at the Oxo Tower objecting on grounds of noise and disruption. One letter of support from Blackfriars Limited. The CAAG generally support the scheme subject to landscaping and design comments.

221 Two letters of objection received from the re-consultation period, one from a resident

in the Oxo Tower objecting on grounds of noise and disruption, and the other from a Rennie Court resident in relation to loss of daylight and sunlight.

Human rights implications 222 This planning application engages certain human rights under the Human Rights Act

2008 (the HRA). The HRA prohibits unlawful interference by public bodies with conventions rights. The term ’engage’ simply means that human rights may be affected or relevant.

223 This application has the legitimate aim of providing a new mixed use development on the site. The rights potentially engaged by this application, including the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private and family life are not considered to be unlawfully interfered with by this proposal.

SUPPLEMENTARY ADVICE FROM OTHER OFFICERS

Strategic Director of Communities, Law & Governance: N/A

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS Background Papers Held At Contact Site history file: TP/1234-E2 Application file: 11-AP-1071 Southwark Local Development Framework and Development Plan Documents

Regeneration and Neighbourhoods Department 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH

Planning enquiries telephone: 020 7525 5403 Planning enquiries email: planning.enquiries@southwark.gov

.uk Case officer telephone:: 020 7525 5513 Council website: www.southwark.gov.uk

APPENDICES

No. Title Appendix 1 Consultation undertaken Appendix 2 Consultation responses received Appendix 3 Neighbour Consultee Map Appendix 4 Images

AUDIT TRAIL Lead Officer Gary Rice Head of Development Management

Report Author Kiran Chauhan

Version Final

Dated 8 July 2011

Key Decision No

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER OFFICERS / DIRECTORATES / CABINET MEMBER Officer Title Comments Sought Comments included

Strategic Director of Communities, Law & Governance

No No

Strategic Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods

No No

Strategic Director of Environment No No

Date final report sent to Constitutional Team 8 July 2011

APPENDIX 1

Consultation undertaken

Site notice date: 21/4/2011

Press notice date: 21/4/2011

Case officer site visit date: Numerous over past six months, most recent on 7 June 2011

Neighbour consultation letters sent: 19/4/2011 & 23/6/2011 Internal services consulted: Archaeology Officer

Environmental Protection Team Public Realm Planning Policy Transport Planning Team Waste Management Property Division Design Review Panel Parks and Open Spaces Arboriculturalist Ecology Housing Regeneration Initiatives Economic Development Design Review Panel

The scheme was also presented to the following Cabinet, Ward and Planning

Committee Members on 16 March 2011: Councillors Althea Smith, Geoff Thornton, Fiona Colley, Robin Crookshank Hilton and Adele Morris.

Statutory and non-statutory organisations consulted: Transport for London

Metropolitan Police Environment Agency London Fire & Emergency Planning Thames Water EDF Energy Greater London Authority London Borough of Westminster London Borough of Lambeth City of London Arqiva Digital Telecommunications BAA English Heritage Royal Parks Twentieth Century Society Royal Parks

Neighbours and local groups consulted: Bankside Residents Forum

Southwark Cyclists Southbank Employers Group Coin Street Community Builders Waterloo Community Development Group

Re-consultation: All statutory and non statutory organisations, neighbours, local groups and internal

consultees were consulted on the revised plans.

APPENDIX 2

Consultation responses received

Internal services

Public Realm:

• Due to the redevelopment of the area and highway surrounding Kings Reach and Sea Containers House, further information is needed on who will be contributing and responsible for the works and to what scale. The S106 contributions assigned to these two developments needed to be ascertained.

• As there are two developments in the area the highway will most likely be damaged through the deliveries of materials / heavy goods vehicles. We therefore would like to see this carriageway resurfaced and this may impact on the construction completions for each development.

• A delivery site access plan is needed. • A shared pedestrian / vehicle surface area will not be agreed in this area. • Rennie Street and Hatfield's paving materials should be conducive to the materials

chosen for Stamford street (TFL) and Upper Ground (LBS) to maintain a uniform aesthetics to the area.

• Commuted sums may apply depending on materials. • Highways need to agree to the materials chosen. • STATS companies and Highways need to agree to Boiler Pipes being run under

the carriageway before the design is approved. • Tree species chosen will need to be considered by the Urban Forester. Highways

would like reinforced tree pits with root lining to prevent future damage to the highway and services.

Housing Regeneration Initiatives: The Housing Regeneration section supports the

proposal that the affordable housing contribution in respect of this scheme takes the form of a payment-in-lieu.

Ecology: The findings of the Ecology report are agreed, no further survey for bats is

required. The ecological features proposed (bat and bird boxes, and green and brown roofs) will make a positive contribution to biodiversity. However, swift bricks should also be incorporated into the development. A planning condition to install 10 swift bricks should be added. The developer should work with the London Swift Group or RSPB to determine the best locations and associated infrastructure for installation.

Planning Policy: The proposal to provide a mix of offices, residential and retail is

acceptable in principle. Core Strategy Policy 10 seeks to protect business floorspace in the Central Activities Zone. The proposal includes an overall reduction in the B1 office floorspace and an increase in retail floorspace. Policy 1.4 states that within town centres, suitable Class A or other town centre uses will be permitted in place of Class B uses. In this case, the small loss of B1 office use is in principle acceptable. The proposal will result in a mixed use development which is suitable for a town centre location. The provision of small business units is encouraged, in order to promote a sustainable

local economy, and also to replace the small units lost. The range of uses is encouraged, given the Central Activities Zone and Strategic Cultural Area. The proposal includes flexible uses (A1-A4) pending occupier demand. The mix of retail use floorspace should be considered in the context to the character of the town centre, and the catchment area it serves in line with Policy 1.7. The proposal must also not harm the vitality and viability of the district town centre. The number of A3 takeaway units in close proximity to the site should be given due regard in relation to the proposed flexible A use and units should provide an active frontage on pedestrian routes. The scheme should provide the maximum reasonable proportion of affordable homes in accordance with the Core Strategy. The Core strategy requires 35% and the maximum reasonable proportion. The applicant proposes an affordable housing in-lieu contribution as opposed to providing units on site, because of difficulties experienced with the retention and re-use of the existing structure and the expansion of uses within this. The Affordable Housing SPD states that in very exceptional circumstances, where it is justified and accepted through an open book financial appraisal that all or some of the affordable housing can not be built on-site or on an identified off-site location, an in-lieu payment will be required. The in-lieu payment should be enough to build the required level of affordable housing. Further detailed justification should be sought on why the affordable housing cannot be integrated on-site.

The proposed density of the development will need to be in line with Core Strategy policy 5 which suggests a density of 650 -1,100hrh in the Central Activity Zone. The proposed development will need to provide a mix of residential units including at least 60% 2 or more bedrooms, 10% with 3 beds or more as set out in Core Strategy Policy 6. The residential units will need to meet the Lifetime Homes criteria and the development will need to include 10% wheelchair accessible units, in order to meet the Mayor’s Housing SPG and the Residential Design Standards SPD requirements. All the proposed commercial units will need to achieve a BREEAM rating of “excellent” in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 13. The residential units in the development proposal will need to achieve Level 4 Code for Sustainable Homes rating. Other environmental targets set out in Policy 13 will also need to be adhered to.

Environmental Protection:

Contamination: A condition will be required to require more detailed land contamination reports. Noise: The noise report is incomplete. The consultants survey report states that re-radiated noise is likely to be audible during train passage to the lower floors. Further work is required to ensure that the amenity of the residential and office areas are not affected. There is no mention about the intensification of the neighbouring railway station due to the Thameslink programme. There is inadequate consideration to the LA max criteria within the report. Air Quality: The report is incomplete – the report states that the impact of the

development will have a negligible impact to the local air quality. However the background air quality will not comply with the mean annual pollutant concentrations of the national objective, but there is no mention of suitable mitigation measures in the report. One option could be a section 106 contribution to the implementation of the measures within the revised Borough’s Air Quality Action Plan. There is also a local air quality problem in the area. It relates to the current standby generator for Rennie Court. When the generator is running, the exhaust fumes enter the adjacent flats. Therefore there is an opportunity to resolve a problem with the standby generator for this development could feed Rennie Court as well. There is no clear indication where the outlets of the flue for the CHP, standby generators and boilers are being discharged.

Urban Forester: The extensive green roofs and garden are a welcome element of the

remodelling design. The landscape design shows the retention of street trees with no overall net loss. The Landscape Strategy shows a line of six to eight new street trees fronting a new retail parade but query whether there is enough room for planting here. Consideration could also be given to using suitable small street trees or planters on Hatfields in exchange for bollards. Confirmation is needed together with species, planting and maintenance details. Public realm footway specifications should include tree pit designs that allow a combined load bearing surface, sustainable urban drainage system and tree rooting space (e.g. Permavoid http://www.permavoid.co.uk/productrange.html). The podium garden envisages a well specified and extensive area of planting using large size plants and trees. For this to be more than aspirational it will require weight loading to be determined which ensures that it can be adequately supported and maintained. Soil volume and irrigation will also be critical. Planting designs are of considerable merit and include provision for bat boxes and foraging habitat. In relation to planting species, it is advised that some of the species would not be appropriate, and revisions to the selection are recommended. Herbaceous and perennial species should include those which are tolerant of drought and exposure. Given the city centre location within the heat island, together with poor growing conditions, native tree species are not essential and others which better perform the design function may be preferable. Finally, tree protection details are required for remaining/existing trees on and adjacent to the site.

Transport Group:

Our main comments in relation to this submission include:

• 24 car parking spaces are provided which include one space per wheelchair units, one space for disabled workers for the retail element and the remaining five spaces for office workers.

• We would look for further details on the trip generation to be developed. The use of TRAVL and TRICS should be used to find as many representative sites as is possible. The surveys should be undertaken recently or factored via the use of TEMPRO growth factors.

• Clarification is requested over the proposed level of disabled parking spaces.

Contradictory information is presented within the submission. Clarification is required as to who the intended users are for all the car parking spaces (valet and disabled) and how many spaces are proposed:

• The development should be made exempt from applying for CPZ permits.

• Further details on the nature of cycle parking, including manufacture details is

required. This is to ensure the cycle parking satisfies Policy 5.3 of the Southwark Plan. Clarification is also sought as to where the proposed cycle parking for the retail element of the building will be. The office and residential cycle parking is evident on the plans however it is unclear where the retail is proposed.

• The applicant is required to provide 3 years membership to Streetcar car club

for all residential units proposed.

• Should planning permission be granted it is recommended that a full travel plan is secured by Section 106 agreement and through this; commitment to surveying users within 3 months of occupation of the development and at 3 and 5 years should be sought, it is recommended that a sum of £3,000 is secured for LBS’s monitoring of the travel plan, either through the Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking.

Conditions should be imposed requesting a Delivery and Service Plan, details of the electric charging points and a Construction Management Plan is required.

Archaeology: The applicants have undertaken an archaeological evaluation within

other parts of the tower complex at King's Reach indicating there is a considerable build up of modern deposits relating to the raising of the land at the time of the construction of Blackfriars Bridge. The evaluation has also shown deposits in the area relate to the 16th-18th century. The methodology proposed, of the excavation of three trenches, and a watching/ stopping brief during ground works represents a proportionate response to the archaeology identified during the evaluation. I would recommend that archaeological mitigation and reporting conditions are applied to any consent. Foundation design conditions are not necessary in this case as the proposal is to reduce basement levels to below the level of surviving archaeology.

Design Review Panel: The scheme was presented to Design Review Panel on 11 January 2011.

The Panel were impressed with the amount of work that had been undertaken on what is a very challenging project. They raised a number of issues which had arisen out of the complexities of the project and the ambition that this project needs in order to create a meaningful and valuable place in this location. The issues related to the quality of the public realm and the retail offer and permeability on the site, the nature and quality of the new atrium space, the quality of the residential space and the proposed capping to the tower.

i) The first issue related to the nature and quality of the public realm and the retail space in the western part of the site. The Panel questioned the viability of the narrowed Milroy Walk and the viability of the double fronted retail units in this location. The space would create a narrow and uninviting space and questioned the need to re-provide this thoroughfare in this location. ii) The Panel questioned the quality of the ‘atrium’ space proposed between the T shaped building and the tower. It was felt the drawings illustrated a space that will have lost the clarity and the sense of drama that exists between these two iconic forms and instead appeared to have filled the space with additional office space, lift and stair cores and bridges topped off with a solid roof that further affected one’s appreciation of this space. The Panel welcomed the new permeability that this space offered at ground level and congratulated the architects for delivering this new public route across the site. iii) The next issue raised was the quality and nature of the residential space. The space would need to meet the Residential Design Standards not just in terms of room and unit sizes but also in terms of high quality private and communal amenity space as well as a high proportion of dual aspect. The Panel also raised concerns in relation to the quality of the winter gardens, and the access to the communal amenity space. iv) Finally the Panel considered the designers proposals for the top of the tower. They felt that the cladding remained unresolved and related poorly to the existing building. They encouraged the designers to develop their ideas in greater detail and consider the building as a whole. In conclusion, the Panel felt the scheme had many positive aspects. They encouraged the designers to develop their scheme to address the concerns raised by the Panel before they submit an application.

Statutory and non-statutory organisations Greater London Authority: The main issues raised in the Stage 1 report are

summarised as follows: Land uses

• The mix of uses, including housing is generally supported. The loss of 3,000sqm of offices is acceptable in principle given the uplift in retail provision and residential floorspace.

Affordable housing • No affordable housing is to be proposed on the site, instead the scheme

makes a provision for a financial contribution to deliver affordable housing elsewhere in the borough. The first priority is however to deliver the housing on site, and that if there are exceptional circumstances, off site provision could be considered acceptable. Further information is required explaining why on site affordable housing is not appropriate, including details of whether these difficulties are financial, practical or both. The financial appraisals are currently being assessed but it should ensure that the market values are appropriate and that the scheme is financially neutral in terms of the benefit to the applicant. Discussion will also be required to establish how the commuted sum payment will be spent – it will need to be used to deliver additional affordable housing, and not to improve existing housing stock.

Unit mix • There is a disproportionately high number of one person units [studios] and

further discussion is required in relation to be clear as to how the mix was arrived at. Amendments should be pursued to improve the balance and residential quality of the units. A high proportion of larger family units may not be appropriate in this instance.

• The studio and one bed units do not benefit from any amenity space and there is one unit on each floor which is single aspect north facing. Given the views and outlook, this is accepted but consideration should be given to reconfiguring the units to improve the mix and quality of accommodation. There are also a high number of units being accessed from a single core (11 in the case of levels 11-19). The proportion of wheelchair units is acceptable.

Density • A straightforward calculation on density is not necessarily important in this

instance as the scheme makes use of an existing building in a central location that is in close proximity to public transport.

Tall Building and Views Impact • The principle of a tall building is accepted here subject to views testing. The

views from conservation areas will not be unduly harmed and would not be visible above Somerset House. The river prospect views are broadly acceptable, and in most instances represent a significant improvement that makes a positive contribution to the setting of the River Thames. In relation to the view from St James Park footbridge to Horse Guards Road, it is acknowledged that there is an extant permission which could be built out, and the appearance is an improvement over the implemented scheme.

Layouts and access • The layout and new routes are acceptable. • More detail is however required on access arrangements in relation to the

detailed design of routes into the building from surrounding streets. • The route from the disabled parking bays is convoluted and it needs to be

made clear that there is no other option. Amenity and playspace

• The children’s play space provision is considered acceptable. Sustainability

• An overall saving of 27% in carbon reductions is achieved. CfSH level 4 is being targeted and a BREEAM excellent for the offices. A scaled plan showing the location of the 200sqm of pv panels is expected.

Environment Agency: A revised Flood Risk Assessment is being prepared

incorporating revised drainage details. This submission would make the development acceptable in terms of flood risk.

UK Power Networks: Originally objected on the basis that that the site contains two

operational substations that are held under leases. Objection later withdrawn as alternative electrical arrangements have been made and agreed with the applicant.

Thames Water: No objection with regard to sewerage infrastructure or water

infrastructure. In relation to surface water drainage, the developer needs to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. Recommend that informatives be attached.

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority: The development should comply

with the requirements of B5 of Approved Document B (Building Regulations). A full consultation will take place once an application has been made.

Crime Prevention Design Advisor: No issues are raised with this application. London Underground: The applicant is in touch with London Underground engineers

and therefore have no comment to make on the application except that the developer should continue to work with LU engineers.

Transport for London: There are a number of concerns about the proposals and

further work and information is required before the scheme can be considered acceptable in transport terms. 1. The site falls within the Crossrail charging zone. Contributions will be sought in line with the Crossrail SPG for any uplifts above 500sqm in office or retail floorspace. 2. TfL are also developing the Blackfriars Road Improvement Scheme which seeks to improve the overall quality of the environment along Blackfriars Road. The development is expected to make a contribution to this scheme. 3. TfL is also developing a way finding scheme in the area as part of the Legible London programme. In order to ensure that new signage can be provided to integrate this development into the wider way finding network, TfL expects a minimum contribution of £15,000. 4. The trip generation and modal split methodology is not in line with TfL’s Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance, as the modal split for employees using the bus appears low. 5. Car parking provision equates to 0.19 spaces. This level of provision is acceptable however clarification is required in relation to the allocation of these spaces and the level of disabled parking provision. 6. Draft electric vehicle charging points should be provided. 7. Details of the allocation of the 368 cycle spaces across the various uses need to be provided. The 30 spaces on Stamford Street are to be maintained however details of temporary provision during construction need to be provided. 8. Cycle parking must be safe, covered and secure with good lighting and CCTV. 9. There are a number of trees on Stamford Street which may be affected by the development. Any impact on these trees should be avoided. 10. The travel plans have failed the “Attribute” test, used by TfL to assess its content. 11. A construction management plan should be secured by condition. 12. The strategy for servicing and refuse for the tower and retail units remains unclear. The main service yard is located at some distance from the tower.

English Heritage: Do not object. The scheme proposes a modest increase to the

tower over the consented scheme of 0.5m. The tower features in views from River Thames bridges identified as being worthy of management in the London View Management Framework (LVMF) and, in its heightened form, it would also have some impact upon the view from the bridge across the lake in St James Park, another view identified in the LVMF. The Casework Review Panel was invited to consider the implications of this proposal on these LVMF views and the Panel expressed further regret at the further additional increase in height of the building as proposed. The Panel did not consider that this was sufficient grounds for English Heritage to formally object but consider that a condition should be imposed to ensure that this extra height is only permissible in the context of the much calmer architectural cladding proposals which form part of this application.

Neighbours and local groups One letter of support submitted: Blackfriars Limited: Express support for the scheme, it makes a welcome

enhancement of the locality, intelligently re-using the existing buildings and providing

an exciting and complementary mix of uses which will comfortably sit with our proposed scheme.

The Conservation Areas Advisory Group for Southwark: Express support for the

scheme but raise some issues. This update of a tall tower and podium block by Siefert (1972), looks to be a serious

improvement to the Stamford Street / Old Barge House Alley Conservation Area. We welcomed the design work passing from the famously insensitive architects ‘Make’ to the more sophisticated hands of Kohn Pedersen and Fox (KPF). Our conservation group welcomes the retention of the distinctive precast concrete fins that characterize the building’s envelope. Commendable about KPF’s scheme is that it lets this powerful work of post-war architecture to read through into the new development, creating a satisfactory blend of old and new. The design of the six new floors to the top, taking the building from 111m to 130m, seems to work well with the 70’s tower. Our criticisms of the current proposal revolve around three main issues:

l. The landscaping treatment should try to reflect the gritty, former working, dock side, environment of the Barge House Alley CA: granite setts, cast iron, timber sleepers etc. The slick, sanitized ‘corporate’ environment of the More London hard landscaping approach should be avoided.

ll. The new internal street proposed through the podium element at the base of the tower needs to be as generous as possible – at least 10 meters, to encourage people to use it.

lll. It is good news that the concrete fins of the original design are being retained and it is hoped that they are read coherently in the re-glazing project. Query whether the 20th Century Society having any input into this process. If so Southwark CAAG would like to hear of their comments too. This is a positive step forward for this major site and big improvement on the earlier Make scheme. [Officer comment: The 20th Century Society were consulted but no response received at the time of writing].

15 letters of objection have been submitted: Flat 69 River Court, Upper Ground:

1. Object to the access for goods/service vehicles on Upper Ground. This road is a designated bus route and has one way traffic flow, which could lead to serious congestion. The access point should be from Stamford Street instead, as this road is wider and allows two way traffic. It would also eliminate the need for lorries delivering to the site during unsociable hours having to pass Rennie and River Court.

2. Object to the erection of six additional storeys as this would result in a loss of sunlight to the front elevation of River Court.

Flat 1, Rennie Court, 11 Upper Ground:

Concerns relate to impact on natural daylight to the flat in relation to the west facing windows. Further concerns relate to noise impact from the plant. The plans for Sea Containers house will also block light in the reception room, and affect privacy.

Flat 3, Rennie Court, 11 Upper Ground:

1. South facing windows will be impacted in terms of daylight and sunlight. 2. Noise impact – the proposals to put plant and machinery under the podium will

cause intolerable noise problems, together with the noise problems experienced now.

3. Insufficient visitor parking – there are only six guest car parking spaces in our

forecourt. These are used for visitors/repair men and the proposal is now to share these with Kings Reach tower residents. This will make it difficult to find a short stay parking space when needed.

Flat 5, Rennie Court, 11 Upper Ground:

Delighted about the comprehensive refurbishment but prime concerns relate to the extension onto the podium and buildings that might have an impact upon noise levels and also to the proposed dwindling sunlight on west facing windows. Also refer to the points made by neighbour at Flat 8.

Flat 7, Rennie Court, 11 Upper Ground:

1. Impact on daylight and sunlight loss through south facing windows. 2. Loss of privacy and concerns over light pollution. 3. Noise impact from the plant located in the building envelope. There is an issue

concerning the plant below the podium level and request that this is re-sited and placed as far away as possible from the residential flats.

4. Wildlife and vegetation – the details submitted show trees and vegetation to be planted on the newly modernised central podium, however, no consideration has been made to the fact that the main central Rennie Court podium area will not have all year round sunlight to support planting and wildlife.

Flat 8 Rennie Court, 11 Upper Ground:

1. Loss of daylight, sunlight and sky – the west facing windows are important as it casts natural light through living room and down the hallway. The new front extension will bring the commercial building comfortably close and will block daylight, sunlight and the sky.

2. Loss of privacy and light pollution 3. Noise and acoustic concerns – The new plant and machinery should be kept

away from residents as much as is possible. There are existing problems on the site relating to plant and the redevelopment would present an opportunity to move this plant away.

4. wildlife and vegetation – the details submitted show trees and vegetation to be planted on our newly modernised central podium, however, no consideration has been made to the fact that the main central Rennie Court podium area will not have all year round sunlight to support planting and wildlife.

Flat 9 Rennie Court, 11 Upper Ground:

1. Loss of light to living space – sunlight will be reduced by a staggering 78.57% and vertical sky by 46%. The diagrams submitted show that no sunlight will be received from west facing windows, and there will no longer be a direct view of any sky. The report states that ‘averaged’ loss of light will be 23%. We question the validity of this calculation as it averages already severely impaired north facing windows in different rooms – rather than addressing living room in particular.

2. Loss of privacy and impact on quality of living. The offices will be closer than at present, and may even be as close as 8.5m.

3. Noise, vibration and light pollution – there will be increased light pollution given the closeness of the office space. Air conditioning units and machinery could lead to noise and disruption.

4. Detriment to appearance and character of area – The building extension will cover the remaining part of open podium in that area, up to the boundary wall. It will create a solid wall and barrier leaving no space between Sea Containers and the site. This will leave the area overcrowded, particularly given the plans

to build on the car park at Sea Containers House. The visuals submitted are limited in relation to the podium and its extensions, and the impacts upon Rennie and River Court have not been addressed.

13 Rennie Court, 11 Upper Ground:

1.The proposal will eradicate direct sunlight from west facing windows and eliminate view of the north bank and the Thames skyline. The extension would reduce daylight to Rennie Court by 78.57% and reduce vertical sky by 46%. 2. The podium extension would detract from the development as a whole by presenting a barrier at that end of the development.

Flat 15 Rennie Court, 11 Upper Ground: Unsure of how the scheme will affect

daylight and sunlight, and also the sunlight on the podium garden. Query what efforts the developers are making to reduce noise pollution for Rennie Court residents that face the podium?

Flat 16, Rennie Court, Upper Ground:

Fifth floor flat has aspect to the south and west. Object to the scheme on the following grounds:

1. The size and scale of building to the south of the apartment will have an adverse impact upon property.

2. The proposals will affect the light entering the podium and the Royal Horticultural Society award will be threatened by extinction.

3. The northern extension will reduce light to the west side of the flat – which is essential for the living room and hall. Also, query whether the residents have proven Rights to Light?

4. The new plant will cause a serious problem for the residents. Flat 17, Rennie Court, Upper Ground:

There are 13 flats in Rennie Court which will have a drastic impact on their sunlight and views from windows facing west. These windows allow for sunlight to be provided and also offers stunning views to the south bank. The extension would reduce daylight by a staggering 78.57% and vertical sky by 46%. Suggest that the offending projection be removed.

Flat 20 Rennie Court, Upper Ground:

There are 13 flats in Rennie Court which will have a drastic impact on their sunlight and views from windows facing west. These windows allow for sunlight to be provided and also offers stunning views to the south bank. The extension would reduce daylight by a staggering 78.57% and vertical sky by 46%. Suggest that the offending projection be removed.

Flat 21 Rennie Court, 11 Upper Ground: The proposal will have a drastic impact on

our west facing windows in terms of sunlight and views. The proposal would virtually close this gap and entirely block all direct sunlight, and our cherished view. The sunlight report concedes that our sunlight would be reduced by a staggering 78.57% and reduce our vertical sky by a critical 46%. It is our suggestion that the offending projection be removed.

Flat 84 Rennie Court, Upper Ground:

84 Rennie Court is very close to the development site and all the windows of the apartment look out directly onto the tower, podium building and podium. It has become run down and some form of refurbishment is now essential.

1. Fully support some aspects of the proposals – the retail space has the potential to enhance the area and the re-cladding should help make the area more attractive. 2. Some aspects need more detail to be submitted. Rennie Court residents are being asked to give up a right of way into Stamford Street in exchange for a new entrance and exit from the podium. There is no detail on this. Also need more information on landscaping – who will have access onto the podium. The new main entrance to Rennie Court is not described in any detail. 3. Object to the podium building. It is described in the planning statement as having eight stories, but it has seven, and the seventh storey is a plant room. The descriptions in the proposal are too vague and need clarification. The additional storeys would reduce daylight and sunlight to apartment.

Two objections received following on from reconsultation Resident at the Oxo Tower, Barge House Street:

Living room and bedroom face toward Kings Reach tower, and whilst the buildings were being gutted, the noise from the building was unbearable. The main concerns over the development are as follows:

1) The management of noise is a concern. Will Southwark Council officers be on site to monitor the developer?

2) No disruption should occur to the local and very much needed RV1 bus service down Upper Ground. The bus stops at Berine Spain garden and Hatfields have previously been closed.

3) Given the redevelopment of Kings Reach, and the redevelopment of Sea Containers House (Upper Ground), query how the Planning Department will ensure that residents have a quality of life whilst two large redevelopment works are going on at the same time.

Flat 15, Rennie Court:

Re-iterate our concerns that the proposal when completed would lead to a substantial loss of light in our flat. Also remain concerned about the loss of light and sunlight to the podium garden.

APPENDIX 3

Neighbour Consultee Map