Wayland Action Group

Kevin Tohilll, Lambeth Planning, Regeneration and Enterprise, Phoenix House, 10 Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2LL

26 November 2012

Dear Mr Tohill, Reference No: 12/03487/FUL. Wayland House Robsart Street SW9 Wayland Action Group (WAG) was formed in 2011 to give a voice to the wider community and to speak to CTH while their proposals were developed for Wayland House and could seek to find a solution more appropriate to the area. There is complete consensus that development to improve Wayland is overdue and can and should bring significant improvement for those to live there and to the neighbourhood. But there is unanimity that, whatever may be the design merits of the building put forward, its height scale and mass are entirely inappropriate for its location and that its negative impacts are unjustifiable. It is simply the wrong building for the site. This gives rise inevitably to significant objection to this proposal. Overleaf are summarised the impacted communitys objections put forward by the WAG on behalf of the excess of 250 people who have petitioned, contacted us and attended public meetings to express their views and ask for them to be represented. These individual objections and the detailed arguments which support them also presented later in more detail within the framework of four analyses. A) looks at the answers given by Lambeth Planning to questions put to them after the June 11th Public Meeting which Lambeth officers refused to attend. B) analyses the Applicants Planning Statement within its Summary and Conclusions C) analyses the most relevant planning issues and constraints D) examines the Applicants supporting documentation All the objections are properly founded and require serious consideration within any report or determination. They and their supporting analyses will be published and disseminated to petitioners, objectors, Councillors and the PAC. The objections are numerous and this reflects simply the fact that the objectors are numerous too! The number and importance of the planning objections is such that they overwhelm the dubious value of what the schemes departure from the OPP delivered - just 17 additional units and these only for open market sales.

Regards,

Maurice Cronly For *& on behalf of Wayland Action Group 24 Groveway SW90AR Tel 020 7582 3207

Summary List of Objections

1.

There is complete consensus of view that development to improve Wayland is overdue and can and should bring significant improvement for those to live there and to the neighbourhood. But there is unanimity that, whatever may be the design merits of the building put forward, its height scale and mass , which would make it Brixtons highest and largest tower block, are entirely inappropriate for its location and that its negative impacts are unjustifiable. It is simply the wrong building to place in front of a low rise estate, encroaching and overwhelming the park and conservation area it faces. The number and importance of the planning objections and the demerits of the proposal are such that they overwhelm the dubious value of what the schemes departure from the OPP delivers, just 17 additional units and these only for open market sales. Possibly the most important objection, arising from all the analyses, relates to the issues of viability and the financial necessity adduced as justification for the increased bulk and height over the Outline Planning Permission (OPP). If and only if the financial surpluses within the actual CTH latest forecast for the WHOLE estate can be proved to be less than those agreed within the Stock Transfer Agreement (STA) Business Plan, is there any financial or viability argument for the present proposals deviation from the OPP and the negative amenity impacts that result. We believe that the PAC is not the competent Committee to adjudge this, more particularly as it requires formal, open and accountable consideration by Housing and Councillors. This has to be done within the framework agreeing the legally required and overdue modifications to the present STA, so that CTH books can be opened and examined and the financial arguments assessed. By refusing to facilitate or attend an open pre-application discussion meeting in June 2012 to discuss all the issues raised by this development, councillors and Council officers have denied the community a voice, in preference to the applicant who has had continuous access to and discussions with officers and Councillors. The Council has failed to comply with it own cooperative council principles and also the NPPF, specifically para 69. CTH have failed properly to engage with those most impacted by their proposals in contravention of NPPF para 65. Demolition of Wayland House does not comply with UDP Policy 35 because the Council has taken no steps to analyse the feasibility of reuse through refurbishment and has failed in its policy commitment. No revised Overall Phasing Plan has been submitted by the applicant as required to maintain discharge of Condition 4 of the OPP. The same is true of Condition 54 With regard to Condition 54 of the OPP, no revised assessment of the total loss of open space within the Estate has been produced hence no proper judgement can be made of whether the further loss proposed is justified. The Council has not produced its own independent assessment of light loss and shadowing as promised and this must be done before the application can be considered. Wind tunnel testing, in line with the recommendation of the applicants consultant should be carried out before the application is determined so that the identified ill effects can be calibrated and the particularly questionable value of the roof gardens , which are adding the equivalent of two unwelcome storeys to the height, can be assessed.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

The applicant has not enabled any review of the achievement of the Business Plan (of the original Stock Transfer Agreement). This must be done and in its absence any viability arguments fall. The applicant should reveal the financial surplus over and above the original OPP that accrues to Lambeth and its financial gain from the additional height and bulk proposed for Wayland by comparison with the outline consent. The increased height and mass beyond the outline consent does not comply with Core Strategy, Policy S9 para D. This policy is fully compatible with sustainable development and is not superseded by the NPPF. The number of petitioners and objectors and the of objections by true stakeholders to the impact on the Conservation Area and Slade Gardens should count more heavily than the subjective views of two officers who may influenced by Planning Departments pre-application commitment to support the application. The applicant,s Planning Statement contains so many assertions that are either unsupported by evidence or are plain misrepresentations that it should be disregarded. Nowhere has the applicant provided evidence for the infeasibility, practical of financial, of the OPP agreed option for Wayland being abandoned. Neither in the application or pre application consultations, has it been demonstrated that demolition is a necessity. Of the dozens of blocks in Lambeth similar to Wayland, many have been satisfactorily refurbished and re-clad. We know of none that have been demolished. The applicant claims that the increase in the increasing in the number of bedroom is to accord with Lambeths housing need but Lambeths figures show the greatest overall requirement is for smaller (1 and 2 bed units) and conformity would reduce the floor space requirement. There is no evidence of a need to increase the average number of bedrooms at all and, without the increase proposed the required bulk would reduce. The housing justification for the proposed departure from the OPP is spurious. Lambeth is already on track to meet its needs, before even taking Vauxhall into account. This departure has a huge amenity price but produces only an additional 17 housing units and those are not reserved for Lambeth residents but are for open market sale. Net contribution to Lambeth residents needs is zero. The applicant argues that the present proposal is somehow better than the OPP scheme. But because CTH have refused to put forward any design within the OPP envelope, as they properly should have done at consultation stages, no improvement can be assessed. By contrast the increase in negative impacts is self evident. The viability and estate regeneration arguments are not sustained by the evidence provided. Should the existing Business Plan be in deficit by the amount implied, CTH had a legal obligation to promptly to notify the Council and agree modifications to the Stock Transfer Agreement . No shortfall was notified. Either it does not exist, as we believe the evidence available indicates, or there are serious breaches of the STA by the failure of CTH in failing to notify and/or by Lambeth in failing to monitor. This and the general viability arguments adduced to justify such a gross departure from the OPP and its cost in amenity impact are serious matters that require urgent and open scrutiny before and not at the PAC. The applicant claims that the proposal has the support of local residents which is a gross misrepresentation in the face of evidence from public meetings, petition and representation. While it is true that there is support for the overdue improvement of Wayland, there is universal preference for a lower build solution that remains unexplored ; There has been considerable dissatisfaction among Estate residents with the CTH consultation approach;

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

No residents felt that CTH had adequately explained or justified why they were departing so radically from what had been agreed at the time of the STA and OPP. They also felt that discussion was fruitless as CTH dont listen.

22.

The Applicants claim of residents approvals to the proposals through a poll are unreliable, not least because residents have complained that no consultation was conducted by an independent party able properly to advise tenants of their options. Residents were given the impression that the only option was demolition and replacement with a tower block. The supposed 3,000 sq m increase in amenity space over the OPP is based on the roof gardens (20%) and the increased number of balconies (80%) to go with the increased number of floors. But neither roof gardens nor balconies can be taken into account when assessing either this proposal or the scheme as a whole because private gardens and semi/secured housing amenity space are removed from calculation of public open space. Further balconies would form a mandatory part of a lower build option. Lambeth planning policies in respect to tall buildings in this location are clear and in no respect countermanded or reduced in force of application either by the NPPF nor by the London Plan with which they conform. Taken together these Lambeth policies determine the issue and preclude the increased bulk and height of Wayland on Robsart Street. To locate Brixtons largest and tallest tower block, bursting out of such a small site, in front of the park on the edge of a conservation area has to be what these policies are designed to prevent. : UDP Policy 40 Tall Buildings generally and specifically also Paras 4.14.3, 4.14.36 and 4.14.3; Core Strategy Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment especially 4.45; Conservation Area Policy Statement. The negative amenity impacts of the proposed increase in scale and mass are also precluded by inter alia: Strategic Policy 3.3: Policy 33 Building Scale and Design and Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction whose purpose is to protect the community from such degradation of their environment The applicant proposes further to reduce the open space by increasing the footprint of Wayland and is thus in breach of the undertakings made in its discharge of OPP conditions. The combined loss of open space quantum for the whole Estate needs to be presented bearing in mind both the Wayland Proposals but also any new builds, actual or planned and a revised Open Space Plan must be delivered and approved. A new Phasing Plan for the whole estate development is required for prior approval to rectify a further breach of OPP conditions Cumulative impact assessments (parking, overshadowing, light impact, visual impacts, conservation area assessment, park etc) need to be presented for the whole scheme if the OPP is to stand. This must take into account the increased mass and height of Cumnor & Lidcote, which also represented significant departures from the maximum. The viability assessment is not independently done and fails entirely to isolate the net financial contribution of the extra 17 units proposed and hence to justify them or the accompanying additional height and construction cost, by comparison with the OPP. CTH have consistently argued both with Cumnor & Lidcote and now with Wayland, that changes to the OPP are necessary to produce the revenues to deliver the STA. But they provide no evidence. Its worth noting that CTH have refused to open their books. Further, they obstructed for months tenants and our ability to obtain first the STA and, finally, the Business Plan which reveals all. The changes proposed for Wayland bring Lambeth no housing gain, just 17 units for open market sale. The only justification is thus that additional revenue may be required for the overall estate scheme.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Outside the PAC a full assessment of the Estates regeneration financial outcomes need to be made and is overdue. This should also identify any shortfalls that there may be to justify the additional 17 units to be built for sale. It should also identify the present estimated surplus of the STA that will accrue to Lambeth with and without this additional new build. Only then can an assessment be made of whether the cost in amenity impact can be justified. A viability assessment for the whole estate needs to be updated and agreed by the Council before PAC attempt to determine this application because, if the revenues accruing from the extra 17 units are not required, then the departure from the OPP envelope and the STA Business Plan is without justification of any kind. The Light assessment report is unsatisfactory at a technical level because it assesses only the impact of Wayland and the loss it will contribute. But it should make a cumulative assessment including also the losses already suffered from increases in from Lidcote and Cumnor. Overshadowing impact on the outlook for Denchworth House residents is missing and no visits or observations have been made from within properties. Light assessment of the park is a perfunctory single page. BRE figures are at best a guide. In understanding how to apply them a visit is necessary and would quickly reveal that the defining characteristic of the parks appeal lies in its unique light and open aspect and its outlook, not in formal plantings or gardens as in some parks. The assessment of light effect needs to be made in conjunction with the assessment of the impact of the change in outlook. The light assessment gives no accurate picture of the present light and shade levels. Changing them fundamentally, as this proposal does, alters entirely the character of the open space and devalues the park in its entirety. There is a risk of unacceptable wind conditions in some parts at ground level and that the amenity value of the vaunted roof gardens is suspect with a similar risk identified there. Hence the firm recommendations of the consultant should be followed. Alleviating measures must be devised to address the identified risks and the whole structure should be subjected to wind testing of models before designs are finalised. In view of the potential severity of the conditions, and of the fact that the amenity value of the roof gardens is questioned by the desk research, this must be done before consent can be given. Wind conditions on the balconies at 100- 200 ft should also be included. All should include the effect not just of normal expected winds but of thermal up-draughts caused by the building and its site. The verified view report is not an adequate basis for determining the visual impact of the development. The views shown in the assessment have been selected by the applicant and, excepting that of the park, are all streetscape views. None have been provided to show the appalling impact on individual properties and gardens which are the one of the biggest issues and are the key amenity planning policies exist to protect. The PAC must be shown the most relevant views, including those from houses and gardens, showing the impact of the additional height in single illustrations either with photo montage or wireline. Without these they can make no assessment. Any assessment should also be informed by a site visit. The applicants own illustrations prove the devastating impact of the enlarged footprint on the view down Robsart Street from the Brixton Road. The tower rises up from the very edge of the pavement and in consequence there is no through view now available. So there is no available sense of place any more. The failure properly to respect the streetscape and its frontage is manifest and complies neither with decent design nor the Councils urban design policies. The illustrations shown in the applicants interior visualisation are dishonest, misleading and inaccurate. For easiest example, the balcony visualisations suggest a balcony width of 3-4 metres whereas the application says that the present design width of the balconies is 1.5 metres (Daylight Sunlight Assessment).

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

While the devices within the surface design wrapping the building may be to the best of Shanghais standards, they do not succeed in concealing the sheer bulk and mass proposed. The attempts to disguise its gigantist form with colour and vertical stripes are ineffective, especially when viewed from within the street or immediate neighbourhood. This building looms over its neighbours like and elephant with a giant giraffe attached and is so close to them that however it may be or polished or painted with stripes it will always do so.

Analysis A

Answers from Lambeth Planning to WAG questions: June 2012

Tabled below are the questions put to Andy Gutherson, Acting Head of Planning, by Wayland Action Group. These questions emerged from the Open Meeting WAG held in June, which Lambeth officers refused to attend. Below each is shown the answer given in writing and our comments.

i) Will Planning require evidence/justification of the case for demolition, in view of sustainability policies? The proposed application does not fall within a Conservation Area and on this basis there is no reason for the applicant to provide a justification for the demolition of the existing building from the site. However, the new proposal will be assessed against current sustainability policies to ensure that the development is energy efficient and reduces carbon emissions into the environment. This reply ignores: Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction The Council will also seek the maximum reuse of existing buildings, subject to protecting their character and local residential amenity. (ii) The phasing plan for the estate submitted by CTH to discharge Condition 4 of the outline planning consent is already not being followed. Will they be required to submit a revised plan to be agreed, along with any planning application that varies further the schedules already agreed? If the approved phasing plan is not going to be followed then a revised plan should be submitted for approval. No revised phasing of the Masterplan has been submitted by the applicant. (iii) The open spaces and amenity plan for the whole estate submitted by CTH to discharge Condition 54 of the outline planning consent is contradicted by the present proposal. Can we assume that an alternative discharge of that condition must also be submitted and agreed If the approved open space and amenity plan is not going to be followed then a revised plan should be submitted for approval. No overall assessment has been presented. The erosion of open space within the estate was identified as a key issue at Outline stage because in this respect 5.1.2 The application is considered a departure from the adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998, in that the proposals would result in a loss of public open space, contrary to the aims of policy RL20. ... the overall provision of public open space as proposed by the indicative masterplan would fall from 12235 to 11018 square metres, a reduction of 0.11 hectares. It remains a key issue and is not redeemed by the provision of balconies or roof gardens because For the purpose of the Council's adopted open space(policy RL20) those areas of open space identified as private and semi/secured amenity space are not considered to be public open space. (iv) Will Planning undertake its own independent studies to assess the effect of light loss and shadowing of any proposal? Yes the submitted sunlight and daylight report would be independently assessed by the Council. This has not been done an, given earlier evidence of flawed assessments produced by CTH in support of the Outline application, must be. The flimsy desk assessment offered has been produced by the main contracting architect with vested interest. No determination should be given prior to the independent 7

assessment promised by the Council. (v) Will Planning undertake its own independent studies of wind tunnelling at lower levels and also of wind at higher levels to assess also the usability of balconies and any roof gardens proposed? This will be assessed by the applicant throughout the design stage. If considered necessary the Council would commission independent advice. The applicants consultant identifies a number of areas of real concern, most particularly on the roof top gardens whose amenity value is in question. Their recommendation is that the only way to be certain is to do wind tunnel testing of scale models. This must be done prior to determination. (vi) Can the impact of the development on CTHs business plan and the revenues available for estate regeneration be considered as a material consideration in any planning decision? The viability of a development can be a material planning consideration. The weight to be given to this would depend on the circumstances of the case. CTH have consistently argued, with Cumnor & Lidcote and now with Wayland, that the changes are necessary to produce the revenues to deliver the estate regeneration. Having examined the evidence we believe this is untrue and untruthful. Its worth noting that CTH have refused to open their books. Further, they obstructed for months tenants and our ability to obtain first the STA and, finally, the Business Plan which reveals all. Wayland residents and the wider community are being asked to pay a very high amenity impact price for the extra revenue CTH claim to need. Except that the evidence is produced and examined the viability argument falls and can form no part of the determination. (vii) Lambeth gains 40% of any surplus income generated through the whole project. Can the financial impact of the proposal on Lambeth be considered a material consideration ? This is not a material planning consideration. True. However it is likely a temptation that cannot help but put pressure on Councillors and transparency principles would require the figures at least to be produced so that the scale of temptation can be subjected to some scrutiny. (viii) The proposal for demolition of the existing and construction of a new taller building conflicts with a number of key Planning policies. What Planning Policies can be adduced to defend the proposal? The underlying position set out in the NPPF as national policy is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is clear that local authorities are expected to reflect that positive position in their development plans and their decision making. Lambeth has a clear position on delivering growth. The starting position for the Council is therefore unlikely to be one of looking to resist development. It is of course incumbent on the Council to ensure that the quality of development is appropriate when judged against all of our policies. Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan. ....In order to fulfil its purpose of helping achieve sustainable development, planning must not simply be about scrutiny. Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives ... planning policy itself has become so elaborate and forbidding the preserve of specialists, rather than people in communities. NPPF The following policies relating to tall buildings are considered relevant: Policy S9 of the Core Strategy, paragraph D supports tall buildings where they are an appropriate development form for the area, particularly where this contributes to the areas regeneration and local distinctiveness, makes the most effective use of land. 8

Refer to the full text for the true answer: Supporting tall buildings where they are an appropriate development form for the area, particularly where this contributes to area regeneration and local distinctiveness, makes the most effective use of land and is consistent with national and London Plan policies and guidance. Appropriate locations for tall buildings are parts of the Vauxhall and Waterloo London Plan Opportunity Areas and Brixton town centre, subject to appropriate accompanying urban design assessments. The height of buildings should be appropriate to the surrounding townscape. Core Strategy, Policy S9 para D. Hard to imagine how all this could imply acceptance of Brixtons largest and tallest tower block just here. Policy 40 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan states tall buildings should be of the highest architectural and constructional quality. It should enhance the skyline through profile and use of materials. Refer to the full text for the true answer: New tall buildings, including extensions to existing buildings, will be permitted where the following criteria are satisfied. Location: Tall Buildings should enhance and not detract from London's character, and should enhance the skyline, respecting its historic character. Any proposal should be very carefully related to its surroundings, both existing and proposed and especially to the height and form of any other tall buildings or prominent features in the vicinity. To assist assessment, plans should be accompanied by accurate representations of the appearance of the building in all significant views affected, including the relevant London panoramas, riverscape and local townscapes. Tall buildings should not be located where they would harm the character or settings of: Conservation areas Listed buildings UDP Policy 40 Tall Buildings (ix) How will the impact on the Conservation Area and amenity be assessed and by whom, in view of the fact that there are already over 200 objections to the proposal on these grounds? The impact on the Conservation Area would be assessed by Lambeth Conservation and Design team. Impact on amenity would be assessed by a Development Management officer. All representation received will be taken into account by officers and reported to the Councils Planning Applications Committee. The sheer volume and number of objections in itself is not a material consideration although it does of course indicate the level of concern and we would advise developers to address these concerns in their ongoing submissions and considerations of the scheme. The number and vehemence of the subjective assessments made by the hundreds of people who are true stakeholders who know the area intimately should perhaps weigh more heavily than those of just two Council officers. (x) In the event of this further development of Wayland, can the S106 discussions be re-opened in order to secure some funding for the Adventure Playground? The proposed application would be subject to a new Section 106 agreement which would secure contributions for parks and open spaces within the local area. (xi) Are there any discussions taking place between CTH and Planning on Thrayle House? No pre-application discussions have taken place on Thrayle House. Is this still the case? Analysis A gives rise to these objections 9

(i)

Demolition of Wayland House does not comply with Policy 35 because the Council has taken no steps to analyse the feasibility of reuse through refurbishment and has failed in its policy commitment. No revised Overall Phasing Plan has been submitted by the applicant as required to maintain discharge of Condition 4 of the outline consent. Similarly with regard to Condition 54, no revised assessment of the total loss of open space within the Estate has been produced hence no proper judgement can be made of whether this is justified. The Council has not produced its own independent assessment of light loss and shadowing as promised and this must be done before the application can be considered. Wind tunnel testing, in line with the recommendation of the applicants consultant should be carried out before consent is considered so that the ill effects can be calibrated and the value of the roof gardens assessed. The applicant has not enabled any review of the achievement of the Business Plan (of the original Stock Transfer Agreement). This must be done and in its absence any viability arguments fall. The applicant should also reveal the surplus over and above the same plan that accrues to Lambeth and the contribution made by the additional height and bulk proposed for Wayland by comparison with the outline consent. The increased height and mass beyond the outline consent does not comply with Core Strategy, Policy S9 para D. This policy is fully compatible with sustainable development and not supersede by the NPPF. The number of petitioners and objectors and the of objections by true stakeholders to the impact on the Conservation Area and Slade Gardens should count more heavily than the subjective views of officers who will have been advised of Plannings pre-application commitment to support the application.

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

(viii)

(ix)

10

Analysis B

Comments on the Applicants Planning Statement

Given within the complete text of the chapter Summary & Conclusions.

Application Planning Statement: Summary and Conclusions

6.1. In consultation with existing residents on the Stockwell Park Estate, Community Trust Housing (CTH) which is part of the Network Housing Group (NHG) devised a masterplan for the redevelopment of the Stockwell Park Estate. Outline planning permission was granted in 2007 for the redevelopment of estate and included permission for the extension and refurbishment of the existing Wayland House, increasing the number of flats from 86 to 142. The masterplan and OPP did NOT give consent to the number of units. It just defined and limited the maximum bulk and height for Wayland and ALL new build in the plan. (CTH have already exceeded this once with Cumnor & Lidcote increasing from 6 storeys to 8 storeys!). The spatial envelopes were accompanied by a number of acknowledged negative amenity impact (light, overshadowing, privacy etc) which were ultimately accepted as a reasonable maximum trade off for the Stock Transfer and refurbishment. The trade off assumed that all new build would be within the envelopes considered and that the negative impacts would not increase.

1.

... The outline planning permission did not fix the number of units and tenure within each block Statement by the applicant at PAC for Cumnor & Lidcote when, in order to access further funds through HAC Grants, they argued for an increase in the numbers of social housing units dwellings and the accompanying breach of the scale and mass limits for Cumnor & Lidcote. 2. The OPP and the related Stock Transfer Agreement set minimum numbers for social housing units and maximum numbers of new units for sale, with a definitive split between affordable and open market. 6.2. There are a number of constraints that have informed the decision to review the scheme with residents. These include: physical impediments in the existing building (such as the presence of asbestos); Hardly a major impediment. The applicants accompanying documents cost the removal of asbestos from the building at 17,000. In earlier presentations of the OPP option for Wayland the applicant stated that present Wayland is structurally sound. In its consultations the applicant presented an entirely different key reason for departing from the OPP scheme; it claimed that the footprint of the site was not large enough to accommodate the extension. This reason has been quietly dropped, presumably because it is untrue/improvable. In no presentation or discussion have other impediments been identified. Nowhere has the applicant provided evidence for the infeasibility, practical of financial, of the OPP agreed option for Wayland being abandoned. Neither in the application or pre application consultations, has it been demonstrated that demolition is a necessity. Of the dozens blocks in Lambeth similar to Wayland ,many have been satisfactorily refurbished and re-clad. We know of none that have been demolished. The applicant has not considered at all Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction: The Council will also seek the maximum reuse of existing buildings. the desire to meet the latest housing standards for all homes, and not just the extension; A fine aspiration but perhaps not enough to justify the demolition. This aspiration has not been enough to allow demolition of other tower blocks. No other towers in Lambeth have been. But it is only an aspiration and is not a requirement from the OPP.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

The implication is that the wider community should accept a high amenity impact price for its fulfilment regardless of the fact that the amenity impact to be suffered was considered and capped at a maximum by the OPP. viability issues that have arisen since the original permission; 10. Under the terms of the STA, any significant issues of viability are to be raised by CTH with Housing. None have been raised. If there are viability issues the correct place for them to be assessed and evaluated is not

11

at PAC but with Housing and, if material, appropriate modifications to the overall Business Plan can be agreed after due scrutiny. 11. CTH have argued, first with Cumnor & Lidcote and now with Wayland, that the departing from the OPP limits is necessary to produce the revenues to deliver the STA. We believe this is untrue and untruthful.(Its worth noting that CTH have refused to open their books. Further, they obstructed for months tenants and our ability to obtain first the STA and, finally, the Business Plan which reveals all. ) 12. The Business Plan submitted as part of the STA was independently tested for adequate robustness to withstand major market shocks and found to be adequate. It showed for 2012 a balance sheet value of 55.4m and cumulative surplus of 9.5m. These figures excluded any funding received from grants that we know to have materialised. Thus it appears clear, and no evidence has been supplied to the contrary, that CTH have adequate resources to fulfil their STA obligations without imposing the extra units for sale on the mass of Wayland. 13. This suggests further that, quite apart from the community being asked for a second time to pay an unnecessary price in amenity loss, the residents of the Estate whom CTH are supposedly working for, have also been duped instead of being openly and honestly consulted and also protected by Lambeth. 14. The most extreme case is that of residents of Wayland. They were invited to vote for the STA on the understanding that they would only need to endure its horrors until end 2011 and be back in refurbished accommodation by 2013. Open ended decanting has commenced without any agreed modification to the STA, residents are steam-rollered into acquiescence with hints of poor alternative accommodation otherwise ensuing and without any attempt by Lambeth to protect their interests, as required by the STA. and ensuring the building lasts for generations to come, both in terms of maintenance and tenants needs. 15. This was also stated as being the case for the OPP refurbishment and extension option and is a general requirement that Building Regulations control.1 16. None of the cited constraints sustain the departure from the OPP scheme. The viability concern has not been formally raised with Lambeth and no figures have been provided to Estate residents or indeed anyone else. 6.3. In devising a subsequent new-build solution, it became clear that any redevelopment would necessitate an increase in scale. There are three key reasons for the increased scale. Firstly, the floorspace of the individual flats will need to increase (to comply with the London Plan and HCA space standards). 17. This is true, though the real drivers are the increased number of bedrooms proposed, the potentially irrelevant inclusion of roof gardens and the fanciful introduction of the cafe on the ground floor. Secondly, the mix in the outline was heavily based towards one-bedroom units. Having surveyed residents needs, it is evident that a number are over-occupying and will require a greater proportion of two-bedroom units. 18. Existing residents of Wayland were told that many were UNDER occupying and were given incentives to reduce the size of replacement accommodation. 19. The applicant argues earlier that the increase in the number of bedrooms is to accord with Lambeths housing need. In fact Lambeths own survey says the opposite, namely : that the greatest overall requirement is for smaller (1 and 2 bed units) units (39% and 32% respectively), 24% for 3-bed and 5% for 4-bed or larger. This reflects changing household composition, with one person households expected to account for 71% of household growth from 2011. 2 Thirdly, the economic conditions have changed substantially since 2007. This has meant that the scheme needs cross-subsidisation from private sale units. 20. Of course conditions have changed but the Business Plan appears to be in surplus. 21. The applicant argues earlier and in their separately presented Viability Study that: because the profit contribution from the additional Wayland is less than the cost of the affordable housing the new build is therefore cross subsidising the affordable (by c 3.6m) and thus by implication the extra new build units and increased height and mass are necessary for viability.
1 2

See Outline Planning Application Design and access Statement and Conditions attached to the consent. Lambeths 2012 Housing Needs Survey

12

This viability justification is spurious as shown in more detail in Analysis 4 later. Cross subsidy in Wayland is nothing new: as proposed in the OPP & STA the affordable element in the Wayland scheme would require subsidy from new build, simply by virtue of their weight of numbers. Viability and the amount of cross subsidy required needs to be assessed within the overall estate plan, not on a block by block basis. Redmayne House is to be exclusively for market sales. It is also of note that the Viability Assessment is not independent but produced by the Project Manager for Wayland. The proposal has been designed with significant input from officers, the Metropolitan Police, and has also been subject to local consultation at fun days and through a local leaflet drop. 22. Throughout the application documents the proposal is FALSELY presented as though it is approved by the local community and residents of the estate and is based on their feedback. See below. 6.4. The development of Wayland House is in accordance with planning policy framework at a National, London, and Local level. 23. All these policies exist both to guide development and to protect amenities and the community. The NPPF and the London Policy both support Lambeths own considered policy on Tall buildings.(UDP Policy 40 and Core Strategy S9) This explicitly excludes tall buildings or additions to existing tall buildings from this area. Therefore the community can rightly expect to rely upon its protection. The many respects in which the proposal fails to meet policy requirements are detailed separately and show that the assertion above is contentious at best. Furthermore, the scheme would also deliver the following benefits: 24. To the limited extent that the commendations below are true, they would equally apply to a lower build solution. They do not begin to justify the amenity impact or policy deviation of the proposal. Improves on the Existing Outline Permission Unsubstantiated. The OPP approved only the envelope. No detailed proposal has been presented for comparison, Neither here nor in any consultation with residents. Delivers Better Homes for Local Residents 25. This is not true. Except for those returning the accommodation is not reserved for local residents Of the 159 housing units proposed: CTH have so managed Wayland that only 30+ units will be occupied by present residents; 75 are for open market sales to people from anywhere; The remaining c 55 are equally not reserved for local residents. Its worth noting that the applicant has also revealed that The new tenure of affordable rent is not being proposed 26. The suggestion more generally is that this proposal responds to Lambeths desperate need for housing. But by comparison with the OPP this proposal creates only 17 additional private sale units, not reserved for Lambeths need. In fact the need is being fulfilled, even before we take Vauxhall developments into account, and a disproportionate share has been contributed already by Ferndale, Stockwell and Vassal wards. In 2010/11 a total of 1,289 dwellings were completed. In addition 313 vacant dwellings were returned to use. The development pipeline consisting of homes under construction and sites with unimplemented planning permissions totalled 5,545 at the end of 2010/11. In 2010/11 there were 694 net affordable housing completions in Lambeth out of the total 1,289 net completions, representing 54 per cent of net completions, and 50 per cent of gross completions, being affordable. Lambeth has traditionally delivered on or above targets for new development. Lambeth Strategy (Housing) 2012-2016 Version 4 June 18 2012 Delivers more amenity space for Residents 27. In terms of the Estate as a whole this is false. Even at the OPP stage the overall estate plans reduced amenity space to the extent that it was considered a departure from the adopted Unitary Development 3 Plan in that the proposals would result in a loss of public open space . The overall provision of public open was reduced by c 1100 sq m. This is now further to be reduced by the increased footprint of this proposal. In terms of planning issue, this was the most important problem for the OPP to resolve, more particularly as the lack of open space is recognised as a major problem in the estate. 28. The supposed 3,000 sq m increase in amenity space over the OPP is based on the roof gardens (20%) and the increased number of balconies (80%) to go with the increased number of floors. The wind
3

06/01769/OUT OPP Officers Report

13

assessment questions the amenity value of the roof gardens so the extra 2 storeys of height they require for this small contribution is not justified. But, most important, neither roof gardens nor balconies can be taken into account when assessing either this proposal or the scheme as a whole. This is because private gardens and semi/secured housing amenity space are removed from calculation of public open space and it is here that the issue revolves. 29. At OPP stage the PAC was persuaded that the palpable loss might (just) be balanced by the improvement in quality of some of the open space and public realm. But to ensure this it required, as a condition, a detailed landscape plan for the whole development to be produced, confirming quantum and quality, for officers to approve and for CTH to adhere to. This was done. But this proposal now breaches the discharge of that condition and requires a reassessment of the overall estate plan approval. Has the Support of Local Residents Of the many misrepresentations made within the application is the grossest. Residents of the Estate The Wider Community 31. The nearest to hard evidence of consultation is 36. Wayland Action Group (WAG) was formed in the assertion In a poll of existing residents at 2011 to give a voice to the wider community that Wayland House, there was an overwhelming could speak to CTH while proposals were preference for a total redevelopment (83%). developed and could seek to find a solution more According to some participants it was not a poll, appropriate to the area. there was no formal voting and no independent advice or observation. 37. In early meetings with CTH it became clear that they would entertain no discussion of change in 32. The applicant, here and elsewhere, has declined the overall scheme whose parameters were set by to reveal what questions were put, nor have they housing finance constraints. These also they were made clear how many residents were consulted. not prepared to discuss or reveal. All that was up Closer inspection reveals that only qualified for discussion was the design. tenants were eligible. Presently there are only c 32 qualified residents. How many was this 83% 38. With the help of the Vauxhall Civic Society, and should this handful of people, rather than the information was posted on the web in March and estate as a whole and the wider community, be a petition was opened during the following 12 the only residents to approve what happens? weeks This was supported by 237 local residents Were they told that the tower would finally be so We want the developer to abandon any idea of a much higher than then discussed? new tower block and to come forward with a more appropriate design for Wayland House 33. Participants say that no option for a reflecting the views of local residents and groups, redevelopment within the OPP limits was and we ask Lambeth Planning and local presented; nor were they told that they could councillors to press them to do so. require it to be presented in equal detail. . Rather that this was the only option that allowed decent 39. Residents were alerted to the proposal through a replacement accommodation and that demurral door to door leaflet and the WAG mandate was might also compromise their temporary further developed through two open meetings in accommodation offers during the 2 year decant. March and June. These gathered the views of those attending which included residents of 34. This major change of plan for Wayland and its Wayland and the Estate. These were attended by timing is a material departure from the plan CTH. voted for by the Estate at the time of the transfer and, under its own terms, there is a requirement 40. The evidence from this was: for full and formal sanction from residents of the there is total support for the overdue Estate. The STA sets out consultation improvement of Wayland requirements and it seems that these have not there is universal preference for a lower build been met. . solution; There was considerable dissatisfaction among Estate residents with the CH consultation National guidelines make clear that this kind of approach; consultation should be carried out by an independent party able also to advise residents. None felt that CTH had adequately explained or justified why they were departing so radically This independent party is able then ensure that a from what had been agreed at the time of the fair process is followed and reported. STA and OPP. They also felt that discussion was fruitless as CTH dont listen.

14

41. CTH have seen and heard for themselves that there is no support for the scale and height of what they propose. In this area there has never been such a widely objected and strongly detested proposal. 42. Based on their disillusioning experiences of CTH consultation for this scheme (reinforced by similar experience of consultation over Cumnor &Lidcote and also Redmayne House) a conviction that CTH have no real wish to engage. Not surprising therefore that their final presentation/consultation was so poorly attended. 43. Following the open meeting in July WAG has continued to gather comments from the community, to identify the breaches by both the Council and CTH of their legal obligations under the STA and the compliance of the application with planning policy and existing CTH commitments. Deliver the Next Phase of the Stockwell Park Regeneration 44. CTH are legally obliged to do so though they are significantly in breach of the timing undertakings they gave to tenants and the council within the STA. The delays sufferer are quite unnecessary and could have been avoided. Based on the OPP it was open to CTH to proceed with construction in 2011 subject, only to approval of detail,s rather than delay to 2013 with this inappropriate solution. 45. The net contribution of the extra units from the increased height is c 1-2m. If it were the case that there was a shortfall event of this magnitude in the delivery of their Business Plan, then CTH had a legal obligation to notify the Council and agree modifications. No shortfall was notified. Either it does not exist, as we believe the evidence available indicates, or there are serious breaches of the STA by CTH in failing to notify and/or by Lambeth in failing to monitor. This and the general viability arguments adduced elsewhere to justify the gross departure from the OPP and the cost in amenity impact are serious matters that require urgent and open scrutiny before and not at the PAC. Introduces Activity on the Ground Floor Help Deter Criminal Activities Creates a Landmark Entrance to the Northern End of the Estate 47. All this would be equally true of the OPP scheme, with the possible exception of the newly introduced cafe beneath the private tower. This has the effect of further driving the space increase in the development. No evidence of any demand for this has been shown nor of any other tangible benefit. Meanwhile CTH seem not to have found a sponsor committed to offer a subsidy in perpetuity, further reducing funds available to meet their existing obligations. 6.5. By comparing the existing, part vacant, structurally unsound building with the proposed new modern development, the case for granting planning permission is compelling. The development will help invigorate and revitalise this area of Stockwell, creating synergies with the extensive redevelopment of the estate currently taking place. 48. There is no opposition to a new modern development and planning permission for this exists subject only to CTH agreeing details with officer. Any such development of more reasonable bulk and height, including the OPP scheme for Wayland as the Design & Access Statement for the application made clear, would bring these overdue benefits and have the support of the whole community. At issue here is not the development, nor its surface design. The issue is the increase in bulk height and the attendant ills and that remains unjustified and seems unjustifiable. 6.6. The proposal accords with the National, London and Local planning policies, and would represent a sustainable modern development in an accessible location in need of regeneration. The proposed design is of considerable architectural merit, and represents an improvement on both the existing building and the permitted outline, development. 49. The same would be true of a design within the agreed envelope. Because CTH have refused to put forward any design within that envelope, as they properly should have done, no improvement can be assessed. By contrast the increase in negative impacts is self evident and not disputed. Of course, significant architectural merit is a necessary condition for any tall buildings, But the requirement is that first they must meet the location criteria.

Analysis B gives rise to the following objections: (i) The applicants Planning Statement contains so many assertions that are either unsupported by evidence or are plain misrepresentations that it should be disregarded. 15

(ii)

Nowhere has the applicant provided evidence for the infeasibility, practical of financial, of the OPP agreed option for Wayland being abandoned. Neither in the application or pre application consultations, has it been demonstrated that demolition is a necessity. Of the dozens blocks in Lambeth similar to Wayland, many have been satisfactorily refurbished and re-clad. We know of none that have been demolished. The applicant claims that the increase in the increasing in the number of bedroom is to accord with Lambeths housing need. Lambeths figures show that, on the contrary, the greatest overall requirement is for smaller (1 and 2 bed units). Meeting the actual need would reduce the floor space requirement. The housing justification for the proposed departure from the OPP is spurious. Lambeth is already on track to meet its needs, before even taking Vauxhall into account. This departure has a huge amenity price but produces only an additional 17 housing units and those are not reserved for Lambeth residents but are for open market sale. Net contribution to housing need is zero. The applicant argues that the present proposal is somehow better than the OPP scheme. But because CTH have refused to put forward any design within the OPP envelope, as they properly should have done at consultation stages, no improvement can be assessed. By contrast the increase in negative impacts is self evident. The viability and estate regeneration arguments are not sustained by the evidence provided. Should the existing Business Plan be in deficit by the amount implied, CTH has a legal obligation to promptly to notify the Council and agree modifications to the Stock Transfer Agreement. No shortfall has been notified. Either it does not exist, as we believe the evidence available indicates, or there are serious breaches of the STA by CTH in failing to notify and/or by Lambeth in failing to monitor. This and the general viability arguments adduced to justify such a gross departure from the OPP and the cost in amenity impact are serious matters that require urgent and open scrutiny before and not at the PAC. The applicant claims that the proposal has the support of local residents which is a gross misrepresentation in the face of evidence from public meetings, petition and representation. While it is true that there is support for the overdue improvement of Wayland, there is universal preference for a lower build solution that remains unexplored ; There has been considerable dissatisfaction among Estate residents with the CTH consultation approach; No residents felt that CTH had adequately explained or justified why they were departing so radically from what had been agreed at the time of the STA and OPP. They also felt that discussion was fruitless as CTH dont listen. The Applicants claim of residents approvals to the proposals through a poll are unreliable not least because residents have complained that no consultation was conducted by an independent party able properly to advise tenants of their options. Residents were given the impression that the only option was demolition and replacement with a tower block. No others were presented The supposed 3,000 sq m increase in amenity space over the OPP is based on the roof gardens (20%) and the increased number of balconies (80%) to go with the increased number of floors. But neither roof gardens nor balconies can be taken into account when assessing either this proposal or the scheme as a whole because private gardens and semi/secured housing amenity space are removed from calculation of public open space. Further, balconies would also form part of a lower build option because they are now mandatory.

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

(viii)

(ix)

16

Analysis C

Planning Issues

1. Lambeth planning policies in respect to tall buildings in this location are clear and in no respect countermanded or reduced in force of application by either by the NPPF nor by the London Plan with which they conform. These policies determine the issue. 2. In the UDP, Lambeths policy for tall buildings was rather reserved and uncertain. But was later carefully refined and made explicit within the Core Strategy document, which in key parts (S9) supersedes the UDP. A tall building (above 30m) is not now permitted in this location, by any sensible reading of the latest policy documents. UDP Policy 40 Tall Buildings states New tall buildings, including extensions to existing buildings, will be permitted where the following criteria are satisfied. Location: - Tall Buildings should enhance and not detract from London's character, and should enhance the skyline, respecting its historic character. - Any proposal should be very carefully related to its surroundings, both existing and proposed and especially to the height and form of any other tall buildings or prominent features in the vicinity. To assist assessment, plans should be accompanied by accurate representations of the appearance of the building in all significant views affected, including the relevant London panoramas, riverscape and local townscapes. - Tall buildings should not be located where they would harm the character or settings of: Conservation areas (For what this actually means see 8 Below) Listed buildings

3. While the UDP policy statement says little about the location criteria, the explanations go further in expressing reservations about the appropriateness of tall buildings, without yet being explicit as to where they might be appropriate. 4.14.35. The impact that tall buildings have upon London's skyline has always been highly controversial. For some, the absence of tall buildings is seen as an advantage maintaining London's character as a predominantly lowrise city. For others it is seen as a disadvantage harming London's international competitiveness. The policy responds to the widespread concern for a clear policy on assessing the aesthetics and skyline impact of tall buildings in London. It takes account of guidance produced by CABE/EH and the GLA. It provides a balanced approach. Lambeth will support tall buildings in appropriate locations and strongly resists them in inappropriate ones. The policy protects the setting and historic skyline in the most sensitive areas whilst supporting tall buildings of outstanding design where their visual and transport impact can be most easily accommodated. .. 4.14.36. Lambeth recognises that tall buildings can have, on the limited sites where they are appropriate, significant benefits in providing the housing and employment space that London so badly needs. Of course the vast majority of new employment and residential development in Lambeth and London will be high density but not in the form of tall buildings

4. The reason for the hesitancy about appropriate areas criteria was made clear in the further explanation. Simply it was that further work needed to be done to define the appropriate areas and, until it was completed, Lambeth reserved its position. 4.14.37 Lambeth will use the criteria in the policy to select areas which might be most appropriate for tall buildings. These are more likely to be locations that would provide a focus and momentum for regeneration or growth or which have (or with the potential to have) high public transport accessibility 17

and capacity. The Council intends to carry out further work, in accordance with the English Heritage and CABE Guidance on Tall Buildings to assess if there are areas in the borough that can be specifically identified as appropriate for tall buildings. 5. The work referred to was completed later and, after consultation, its results were enshrined in the Core Strategy Policy S9, which in this part only supersedes the earlier UDP 40 because it is this policy that has always been intended to define those locations that are appropriate and acceptable. 6. The consultations on the Core Strategy examined alternative options for addressing 10 key spatial issues spatial issues and options. One of these was Where to locate tall buildings. The further work referred to in the UDP had been completed and policy for tall buildings was then made , still stands and is binding. Core Strategy Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment states The Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability, in order to sustain stable communities, by: ... (d) Supporting tall buildings where they are an appropriate development form for the area, particularly4 where this contributes to area regeneration and local distinctiveness, makes the most effective use of land and is consistent with national and London Plan policies and guidance. Appropriate locations for tall buildings are: parts of the Vauxhall and Waterloo London Plan Opportunity Areas and Brixton town centre, subject to appropriate accompanying urban design assessments. The height of buildings should be appropriate to the surrounding townscape.

7. For the avoidance of doubt, this policy is further explained and justified 4.45 The London Plan identifies parts of the Central Activities Zone and Opportunity Areas as suitable locations for tall buildings. The Council has carried out urban design studies to define the potential for the development of tall buildings in Lambeth and these have identified parts of Waterloo, Vauxhall and Brixton as appropriate locations. The evidence to justify the location of tall buildings in these areas is summarised in Topic Paper 3. 8. Some have seized upon the subjective language (e.g. of settings enhancement etc) used when referring to amenity protection in the policies above and argue that somehow this new monster tower is an enhancement! But the meaning of these terms, particularly in this area, is made explicit in e.g. the Conservation Area Policy Statement. A bulkier block and tower of the dimensions and shadowing proposed simply cannot rationally be presented as an enhancement to Stockwell Park Conservation Area or Slade Gardens. By any interpretation the increase in mass and height is excluded. Conservation Area Policy Statement ... At the corner of Lorn Road and Stockwell Road is the open space of Slade Gardens and a visually intrusive tower block dominates the view and detracts from the character of the conservation area... 3.2 New Buildings The Council will resist the loss of buildings that make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. Care should be taken to ensure that new buildings in and adjoining the conservation area preserve or enhance the character of the area and its setting.

Important to note that contribution to regeneration is not an alternative to appropriate location.

18

Tall or bulky buildings in these instances are unlikely to be appropriate if they dominate or over shadow the conservation area or impact ... Proposals and their accompanying Design Statement should be respectful of the existing character of neighbouring buildings and the wider street scene ... 9. Any decision to approve the application on the grounds of conformity with the above policies would lay the Council open to Judicial Review. Policies are both for the guidance of development and the protection of communities who can reasonably expect the protections to be maintained. Further similar protections also apply e.g. Strategic Policy 3.3: The Council will protect and enhance the boroughs open spaces, and ensure that recreational, sporting and play needs are met. Policy 33 Building Scale and Design c) Residential Density and Scale In all cases, however, development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding development or harm residential amenity. For development affecting conservation areas or listed buildings (or their setting), protecting or enhancing their character and appearance takes precedence. Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction The Council will also seek the maximum reuse of existing buildings, subject to protecting their character and local residential amenity. 10. When OPP was given for the entire development, the individual amenity impacts of ALL NEW BUILD envelopes and their cumulative impact was assessed. There were a number of clearly identified negative impacts but, taking these together and setting them against the overall gains of regeneration, it was decided that the negative impacts were, just, balanced. The most critical in planning terms was the loss of open space within an estate already lamentably deficient. It was for this reason that the officers report said the departure from Unitary Development Plan policy in relation to reduction of public open space on the site (Section 7.3). The then calculated loss was c 1100 sq m, a loss of c 8%. 7.3.1.2 ... For the purpose of the Council's adopted open space (policy RL20) those areas of open space identified as private and semi/secured amenity space are not considered to be public open space. In this regard, the overall provision of public open space as proposed by the indicative masterplan would fall from 12235 to 11018 square metres, a reduction of 0.11 hectares. Policy RL20 states that the Council will resist the loss of public open space throughout the borough; for this reason, the outline planning application has been treated as a departure from the adopted Unitary Development Plan in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. Any resolution to grant outline planning permission would be subject to direction by the First Secretary of State. 11. Ultimately it was decided to accept the officers recommendation to weigh the positive improvements to the quality of accessible public open space and against the loss of existing open space but to impose conditions to ensure that the balance visible at that stage would actually be delivered. 7 Prior to the commencement of new-build development hereby permitted in the relevant phase, as set out in the approved Phasing Plan, details of all publicly accessible open space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be in accordance with the approved details. This condition was ultimately discharged (document seems to be dated Feb 2011 !!!)

19

12. The applicant now proposes further to reduce the open space by increasing the footprint of Wayland and is thus in breach of the undertakings made in its discharge of this condition. The combined loss of open space quantity for the whole Estate needs to be presented bearing in mind both the Wayland proposals and also any new builds, actual or planned, A revised Open Space Plan must be delivered and approved. The OPP exits and is dependent on the discharge of conditions and where these are breached they invalidate the OPP except that they are satisfactorily discharged now. Similarly the phasing conditions have been breached and a new Phasing Plan is required and needs to be agreed. 4 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a Phasing Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Phasing Plan will identify and describe all of the phases of construction of new development (excluding works of refurbishment and alteration to existing buildings), including the following: (a) The use (by Use Class), quantum, location and timing of provision of the non-residential uses hereby permitted; (b) The type, quantum, location and timing of provision of the 'market' and 'affordable housing' hereby permitted; (c) The type, quantum, location and timing of provision of the residential amenity space, publicly accessible open space and formal play space hereby permitted; and (d) The number, location and timing of provision of the car and cycle parking spaces hereby permitted. 5 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the approved Phasing Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The breach of this plan is also a breach of the STA of which it is an integral part. 13. It follows also that all impact assessments (parking, overshadowing, light impact, visual impacts, conservation area assessment, park etc) need to be re-assessed for the whole scheme if the OPP is to stand. This must take into account the increased mass and height of Cumnor & Lidcote, which also represented significant departures from the maximum permitted envelope of the OPP and any other changes CTH have in mind. Any loss of X % (against what was agreed) that has already suffered needs to be added to the Y% now proposed and any Z% of any other changes CTH may have in mind. Light assessments must be made independently by the Council and assess cumulative impact of all deviations from the OPP. Analysis C gives rise to the following objections: (i) Lambeth planning policies in respect to tall buildings in this location are clear and in no respect countermanded or reduced in force of application either by the NPPF nor by the London Plan with which they conform. Taken together these Lambeth policies determine the issue and preclude the increased bulk and height of Wayland: UDP Policy 40 Tall Buildings generally and specifically also Paras 4.14.3 , 4.14.36 and 4.14.3; Core Strategy Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment especially 4.45; Conservation Area Policy Statement. Except that the location criteria are met design attributes are irrelevant. The negative amenity impacts of the proposed increase in scale and mass are also precluded by inter alia: Strategic Policy 3.3: Policy 33 Building Scale and Design and Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction whose purpose is to protect the community from such degradation of their environment The applicant proposes further to reduce the Estates open space by increasing the footprint of Wayland and is thus in breach of the undertakings made in its discharge of OPP conditions. The combined loss of open space quantity for the whole Estate needs to be presented, bearing in mind both the Wayland 20

(ii)

(iii)

proposals and any new builds, actual or planned. A revised Open Space Plan must be delivered and approved. (iv) A new Phasing Plan for the whole estate development is required for prior approval to rectify a further breach of OPP conditions Cumulative impact assessments (parking, overshadowing, light impact, visual impacts, conservation area assessment, park etc) need to be presented for the whole scheme if the OPP is to stand. This must take into account the increased mass and height of Cumnor & Lidcote, which also represented significant departures from the maximum permitted envelope of the OPP and any other changes CTH have in mind. Any loss of X % (against what was agreed at OPP) that has already suffered needs to be added to the Y% now proposed together any Z% of any other changes CTH may have in mind. Similarly cumulative light assessments must be made independently by the Council to assess cumulative impact of all deviations from the OPP.

(v)

21

Analysis D I Viability Assessment

Applicants supporting documentation

1. The Viability assessment is presented as though it is independent. But it is not. The Assessment, produced by Redloft Consultants, is signed off by Danny Sutcliffe who is also Project Manager for Wayland, albeit not on the payroll of CTH but of Network Housing. It represents a vested financial interest. The assessment has been completed by Red Loft LLP in September 2012. Red Loft LLP is a specialist housing development consultancy based in London with substantial experience in carrying out this type of analysis. Further information can be found at www.redloft.co.uk.

Further it, by its own admission is not an assessment, rather it is: intended to assist the developer in demonstrating to the Local Authority that the scheme does not generate a profit, other than a surplus that is reinvested into Affordable Housing on the site. 2. Unsurprisingly the assessment, based on its own model, concludes triumphantly that because the profit contribution from the Wayland private sale now planned is less than the cost of the affordable housing this is therefore cross subsidising the affordable (by c 3.6m.) The unspoken implication is that the extra new build units and increased height and mass are necessary for viability. But the assessment fails entirely to isolate the effect of the extra 17 units proposed and hence to justify them or the accompanying additional height and construction cost, by comparison with the OPP. 3. Cross subsidy in Wayland is nothing new, it is a requirement and legal obligation: as proposed in the OPP& the STA, the affordable element in the Wayland scheme would be cross subsidised , simply by virtue of their weight of numbers. Viability needs to be assessed in relation to the WHOLE project and the revenues from ALL 329 new market sales on the Estate. Yes, Wayland has a mix and market sales subsidise as previously. But equally Redmayne House is to be exclusively for market sales. One subsidises the other as always planned. The question is, are the extra units required? 4. Thus CTH does not justify the additional storeys. They argue only that, because Wayland overall shows a net subsidy, they are not profiteering, but contributing a lot to the regeneration fund. This is true, but it is part of their contractual obligation under the original Stock Transfer Agreement. From their figures it seems that the net profit contribution of storeys 15-19 is between 0.5 and 1.5m, which will bring them above the revenues agreed at that time. But the whole scheme seems likely to be already ahead of its necessary revenues without an additional 17 units to be sold, given that multi-million grants have been received and none were assumed in the original business plan. 5. Quite aside from the OPP, CTH were required to complete a formal Stock Transfer Agreement with Lambeth. An integral part of the STA was the Business Plan. This showed annual and cumulative financial outcomes, demonstrating that: (i) (ii) These were necessary and sufficient for the delivery of all but not more than the refurbishment; That the new build cap was not too low.

This plan was third party tested for adequate robustness to withstand any shocks to the housing/financial scenarios. The fact that, while the revenues required to support the regeneration in the STA Business Plan were deemed more than adequate without any grant receipts, CTH have received extra revenue from multimillion grants suggests that they are already well ahead financially without needing to exceed the agreed cap on open market sales. 22

6. If we are right, and we have evidence to support our assertion, then quite apart from the community being asked again to pay an unnecessary price in amenity loss, the residents of the Estate whom CTH are supposedly working for, have also been duped instead of being openly and honestly consulted and also protected by Lambeth, as the STA requires. 7. If we are wrong and CTH is in need of extra revenue to make Wayland and the whole scheme viable, then, under the terms of the STA, they are required formally to advise this to Lambeth. But they have not done so and hence can be assumed not to require the extra revenue to make Wayland viable. 8. CTH have consistently argued, both with Cumnor & Lidcote and now with Wayland, that the changes are necessary to produce the revenues to deliver the STA. We believe this is untrue and untruthful. Its worth noting that CTH have refused to open their books. Further, they obstructed for months tenants and our ability to obtain first the STA and, finally, the Business Plan which reveals all. 9. The STA contained a condition that any material change to plans would require a separate agreement to modify the STA. Changes to Cumnor & Lidcote were material but not sanctioned by any modification. Failure by CTH to deliver its timetable is material and remains unsanctioned. Wayland Towers is hugely material and WILL REQUIRE Council Agreement. Part of this has to be a full viability assessment and this must be made by Lambeth Council, not by the PAC. 10. There was also a condition, standard within STAs, that 40% of any surplus, beyond that shown in the business, would accrue to Lambeth, ring fenced for housing. The remainder would be similarly dedicated by CTH to social housing in Lambeth. This was designed to ensure that development windfalls would not be entirely lost to Lambeths housing need. It would be appropriate, in the light of what CTH have said about viability that the PAC and public should know: what if anything is the gain that will accrue to Lambeth and how much of this is dependent upon the extra 17 private sale units? 11. This means that consent to the present Wayland proposal and its financial setting will need separately to be given by the Council, along with other STA modifications, and not by the PAC. II Daylight Sunlight Assessment

1. The assessment produced of light loss impact should be impartial and not contrived by the main project architects, as it is in this Application. It assesses only the impact of Wayland .But it should properly make a cumulative assessment including also the loss from Lidcote and Cumnor and the increases in their mass and height. It is only reasonable that any properties or amenities affected have taken onto account also any losses that they have already suffered through deviations from the OPP. The findings are perfunctory desk work only, with no existing building accessed as good practice would suggest; the excuse given is without foundation: In the case we have not sought or obtained access an adjoining property, we therefore have made reasonable assumptions as to the geometry of these buildings based on OS map data, site photographs, and aerial photographs for adjoining properties. This is normal practice where access to adjoining properties is limited due to development confidentiality issues. 2. The appalling overshadowing impact on Slade Gardens is similarly too lightly dismissed, with just 1 of the 66 pages. The assessment shows only the shadowing with the proposal itself. Because it does not show the extent of open daylight before, no assessment of impact can be made. Given also that the issues revolve around the increase in height, this effect of the increase in height should be disaggregated. 3. Of course BRE gives only a guide. In understanding how to apply it a visit is necessary and would quickly reveal that the defining characteristic of the parks appeal lies in its unique open aspect and outlook, not in formal plantings or gardens as in some parks. The assessment gives no accurate picture of the present light 23

and shade levels. Changing them fundamentally, as this proposal does but the assessment does not reveal, alters entirely the character of the open space and devalues the park in its entirety. The numbers give no guide here, though common sense and observation would. 4. No overshadowing assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of this development combined with Lidcote & Cumnor on the already dismal outlook for residents of Denchworth House.

5. According to the light assessment, the light levels in most planned apartments on the lower floors are poor because of the proximity of other blocks, and throughout impaired to below standard by the additional obstruction of the planned balconies. Nonetheless, the balconies are claimed as a positive addition to the amenity of their occupiers. Given that balconies are now almost mandatory these designs are questionable. The presence of the balconies means that 3/4 of the living rooms in the development would not have good solar access. However, we cannot ignore the added amenity that these balconies represent, as well as their key role in providing solar shading during summer periods, when overheating is most likely to occur. The BRE guidelines are meant to be taken with a degree of flexibility, as obviously daylight and sunlight is only one of many design issues that a designer is tasked with addressing.

III

Wind Assessment

1. The submitted wind assessment says The proposed development is exposed to prevailing south-westerly and westerly winds, and represents a significant structure with respect to wind. There is potential for winds travelling over Denchworth House and the New Lidcote & Cumnor development to impact the proposed development and create the potential for strong downdraughts to reach the ground level, where they are subsequently accelerated around building corners. As a result, the pedestrian level wind environment within the proposed development site is expected to have the potential to rate as unsuitable, in terms of safety, for the general public at the south-western, north-western and south-eastern building corners. 2. The west sides of the rooftop terraces (in Spring) when north-easterly winds are relatively common, ... may be too windy for prolonged periods of outdoor sitting ...the northwest corner of the south rooftop terrace is expected to be susceptible to downdraughts from the 20-storey northern block, reaching the south rooftop terrace. This area is therefore expected to be marginally windy for outdoor sitting during summer. Wind conditions across the remaining parts of rooftop terraces are likely be suitable for a viewing platform. It is recommended that wind mitigation measures be developed throughout the development in order to locally alleviate unwelcome conditions.

3. Translating these and its other reservations into plain English shows both that there is a risk of unacceptable wind conditions in some parts at ground level and that the amenity value of the vaunted roof gardens is suspect. Hence the firm recommendations, first to ensure that alleviating measures be devised to alleviate unwelcome conditions and second, that the whole structure be subjected to wind testing of models before designs are finalised. In view of the potential severity of the unwelcome conditions and the fact that the amenity value of the roof gardens is thrown into question by the desk research this must be done before consent can be given. 4. Further assessment needs to be made of the usability of the balconies at heights of c 200 ft and this has not been done. The effects must also take into account not just normally expected winds, but also the effect of thermal up-draughts created by the fabric of the building and its hard standing.

24

IV

Verified Views

1. The views shown, carefully selected by the applicant, with the exception of one of the park, are all streetscape views. None have been provided to show the impact on individual properties and gardens which are the key amenity planning policies protect. 2. The the before and after illustrations are hard to assess because they are not side by side. The normal practice might be wire line drawings and, though the elaborated methodology refers to these as being done, only one is included. Hence the illustrations offered do not really allow any assessment of the additional height. 3. The PAC should be provided with illustrations of individual views, including those from houses and gardens, showing the impact of the additional height in a single illustration either with photo montage or wireline. Without these they can make no assessment. Any assessment should also be informed by a site visit.

Interior & Exterior Visualisations

1. This illustration shows the devastating impact of the enlarged footprint on the view down Robsart Street from the Brixton Road. The tower rises up from the very edge of the pavement and in consequence there is no through view now available. So there is no available sense of place any more. The failure properly to respect the streetscape and its frontage is here shown as it will be.

2. The general extent of the distortions presented is well illustrated here. According to the applicants other documents the presently designed width of the balconies is 1.5 meters!

25

Analysis D of the applicants other supporting documents give rise to these objections: (i) The viability assessment is not independently done and fails entirely to isolate the net financial contribution of the extra 17 units proposed and hence to justify them or the accompanying additional height and its construction cost, by comparison with the OPP. CTH have consistently argued both with Cumnor & Lidcote and now with Wayland, that changes to the OPP are necessary to produce the revenues to deliver the STA. But they provide no evidence. Its worth noting that CTH have refused to open their books. Further, they obstructed for months tenants and our ability to obtain first the STA and, finally, the Business Plan which reveals all. The changes proposed for Wayland bring Lambeth no housing gain, just 17 units for open market sale. The only justification is thus that additional revenue may be required for the overall estate scheme. Outside the PAC a full assessment of the Estates regeneration financial outcomes need to be made and is overdue. This should also identify any shortfalls that there may be to justify the additional 17 units to be built for sale. It should also identify the present estimated surplus of the STA that will accrue to Lambeth with and without this additional new build. Only then can an assessment be made of whether the cost in amenity impact can be justified. A viability assessment for the whole estate needs to be updated and agreed by the Council before PAC attempt to determine his application because if the revenues accruing from the extra 17 units are not required then the departure from the OPP envelope is without justification of any kind. The light assessment report is unsatisfactory at a technical level because it assesses only the impact of Wayland and that loss. It should make a cumulative assessment including also the losses already suffered from increases in Lidcote and Cumnor. Overshadowing impact on the already dismal outlook for Denchworth House residents is missing. No visits or observations have been made from within properties. Light assessment of the park is a perfunctory single page. BRE figures are at best a guide. In understanding how to apply them a visit is necessary and would quickly reveal that the defining characteristic of the parks appeal lies in its light and its unique open aspect and outlook, not in formal plantings or gardens as in some parks. The assessment of light effect needs to be made in conjunction with the assessment of the impact of the change in outlook. The light assessment gives no accurate picture of the present light and shade levels. Changing them fundamentally, as this proposal does, alters entirely the character of the open space and devalues the park in its entirety. There is a risk of unacceptable wind conditions in some parts at ground level and that the amenity value of the vaunted roof gardens is suspect. Hence the firm recommendations of the consultant should be followed, Alleviating measures must be devised to alleviate the identified risks and the whole structure should be subjected to wind testing of models before designs are finalised. In view of the potential severity of the conditions and the fact that the amenity value of the roof gardens is thrown into question by the desk research this must be done before consent can be given. Wind conditions on the balconies at 100- 200 ft should also be included. The effects must also take into account not just normally expected winds, but also the effect of thermal up-draughts created by the fabric of the building and its hard standing The verified view report is not an adequate basis for determining the impact of the development. The views shown in the assessment have been selected by the applicant and, excepting that of the park, are all streetscape views. None have been provided to show the appalling impact on individual properties and gardens which are the one of the biggest issues and the key amenity planning policies protect. The PAC should be offered views, including those from houses and gardens, showing the impact of the additional height in a single illustration either with photo montage or wireline. Without these they can make no assessment. Any assessment should also be informed by a site visit.

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

(viii)

26

(ix)

The applicants own illustrations prove the devastating impact of the enlarged footprint on the view down Robsart Street from the Brixton Road. The tower rises up from the very edge of the pavement and in consequence there is no through view now available. So there is no available sense of place any more. The failure properly to respect the streetscape and its frontage is manifest and complies neither with decent design nor the Councils urban design policies. The illustrations shown in the applicants Interior & Exterior Visualisations go beyond spin and hyperbole to being dishonest, misleading and inaccurate. Most evidently in the balcony visualisations which suggest a balcony width of 3-4 metres whereas the application says that the present design width of the balconies is 1.5 metres (Daylight Sunlight Assessment).

(x)

27