34-36 Bedford Road, London SW4 - Lambeth Council
34-36 Bedford Road, London SW4 - Lambeth Council 34-36 Bedford Road, London SW4 - Lambeth Council
5.1 A total of 207 neighbours were consulted on Aristotle Road, Bedford Road, Lendal Terrace, Clapham High Street and Cadmus Close. 5.2 Site notices were displayed on 6 th August 2012 and a press notice was published on 10 th August 2012. Internal consultation 5.3 The Council’s Highways and Transportation officer requires the height clearance for vehicles in the basement to be secured by condition, and recommends S106 requirements including the development being permit free, lifetime membership of a car club for all residents. The officer also stresses that parking levels are higher than would normally be allowed for a commercial development but are acceptable in this specific circumstance only. 5.4 The Council’s Housing Officer is generally supportive of the scheme, and is satisfied with the proposed rental levels. 5.5 The Council’s Crime Prevention Officer highlights the need for the design to comply with secure by design standards. 5.6 The Council’s Policy officer does not object, and is satisfied with the uses proposed for the site and is satisfied with the split between affordable/private housing provision. 5.7 The Council’s Conservation Officer does not object, and concludes that overall the scale and mass of the proposal is considered acceptable and as such should not appear overly dominant in its setting. Furthermore proposal responds positively to prevailing building lines and architectural rhythms and as such will reinforce and define the street. 5.8 The Council’s noise and pollution Officer does not object, and states that the applicant’s noise and vibration assessment has satisfactorily addressed the issues of internal noise standards. 5.9 The Council’s Parks Projects Officer requests S106 payments towards parks and open spaces and conditions requiring further detail of landscaping and green roofs. External consultation 5.10 Transport for London are satisfied with a car free development, recommend that disabled parking is provided for the residential units, require electric vehicle charging points to be provided and recommend cycle parking is reallocated between the residential and commercial uses. 5.11 The Environment Agency have no objection subject to a condition relating to contamination. 5.12 English Heritage have no objection subject to a condition relating to archaeological works. 5.13 16 letters of objection have been received following the consultation process. No letters
of support have been received. No. of Letters No. of Objections No. in support Comments sent 207 16 0 1 Objections: Council’s Response: Overdevelopment, 2 large development schemes recently approved nearby, overconcentration of use, increase in population. Car parking, increase in use of public transport, traffic, increased hazards from traffic, access, cycle safety. Loss of potential for increased employment opportunities, loss of industrial site, mixed use is not in keeping with the area. Intensification per se is not recommended as a reason for refusal, however the officers’ report considers the related impacts of the proposed increase in size and includes detailed reference to impacts on neighbouring amenity, transport impacts and infrastructure provision via the S106 agreement. The proposed access and car parking arrangements are considered to be acceptable, and the development is recommended to be secured as ‘car free’ via a S106 agreement which should not result in an increase in on street parking. Verified information suggests that the capacity of Clapham North station is not exceeded. The scheme proposes an increase in the amount of employment floorspace. The proposed mixed use scheme is a more effective use of land and would provide both private and affordable housing for which there is a local need. Impact infrastructure, on S106 payments have been sought to mitigate the impacts of the development on health, education, libraries, sports facilities and parks. Building has recently been refurbished. Query why the existing building is no longer viable. Height, design, materials, scale, out of keeping, impact on nearby listed buildings, impact on nearby conservation The planning department must consider all applications submitted and an assessment is made on the basis of planning policy. In any case the scheme would result in additional B1 floorspace which constitutes an improved development. The applicant advises that the proposed office layout will form a more effective office environment for the occupier and also states that the new layout will facilitate additional employment opportunities beyond the current 90 on site. The proposals are not significantly taller than the surrounding buildings, the proposed design breaks up the massing, and the acceptability of the proposed footprint and height would be informed by any detrimental impacts on neighbouring amenity which are found to be acceptable elsewhere in this report. The appearance of the scheme and the proposed materials are
- Page 2 and 3: Site address Ward Proposal Applicat
- Page 4 and 5: Consultation Department(s) or Organ
- Page 6 and 7: 3 Planning History 3.1 Planning per
- Page 10 and 11: area. Neighbouring Amenity - daylig
- Page 12 and 13: • 4.2: Offices • 4.3: Mixed use
- Page 14 and 15: 7.7 Therefore the proposed mix of b
- Page 16 and 17: 741sqm of communal amenity space, w
- Page 18 and 19: 12.4 The development of the area cu
- Page 20 and 21: condition. Section 17 of The Crime
- Page 22 and 23: • 4.3: Mixed use development and
- Page 24 and 25: Planning Authority prior to commenc
- Page 26 and 27: appropriate visual appearance (Poli
- Page 28 and 29: Reason: To ensure an adequate level
- Page 30: 5 You are advised of the necessity
of support have been received.<br />
No. of Letters No. of Objections No. in support Comments<br />
sent<br />
207 16 0 1<br />
Objections:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Response:<br />
Overdevelopment, 2<br />
large development<br />
schemes recently<br />
approved nearby,<br />
overconcentration of<br />
use, increase in<br />
population.<br />
Car parking,<br />
increase in use of<br />
public transport,<br />
traffic, increased<br />
hazards from traffic,<br />
access, cycle safety.<br />
Loss of potential for<br />
increased<br />
employment<br />
opportunities, loss of<br />
industrial site, mixed<br />
use is not in keeping<br />
with the area.<br />
Intensification per se is not recommended as a reason for<br />
refusal, however the officers’ report considers the related<br />
impacts of the proposed increase in size and includes detailed<br />
reference to impacts on neighbouring amenity, transport impacts<br />
and infrastructure provision via the S106 agreement.<br />
The proposed access and car parking arrangements are<br />
considered to be acceptable, and the development is<br />
recommended to be secured as ‘car free’ via a S106 agreement<br />
which should not result in an increase in on street parking.<br />
Verified information suggests that the capacity of Clapham North<br />
station is not exceeded.<br />
The scheme proposes an increase in the amount of<br />
employment floorspace. The proposed mixed use scheme is a<br />
more effective use of land and would provide both private and<br />
affordable housing for which there is a local need.<br />
Impact<br />
infrastructure,<br />
on<br />
S106 payments have been sought to mitigate the impacts of the<br />
development on health, education, libraries, sports facilities and<br />
parks.<br />
Building has recently<br />
been refurbished.<br />
Query why the<br />
existing building is<br />
no longer viable.<br />
Height, design,<br />
materials, scale, out<br />
of keeping, impact<br />
on nearby listed<br />
buildings, impact on<br />
nearby conservation<br />
The planning department must consider all applications<br />
submitted and an assessment is made on the basis of planning<br />
policy. In any case the scheme would result in additional B1<br />
floorspace which constitutes an improved development. The<br />
applicant advises that the proposed office layout will form a<br />
more effective office environment for the occupier and also<br />
states that the new layout will facilitate additional employment<br />
opportunities beyond the current 90 on site.<br />
The proposals are not significantly taller than the surrounding<br />
buildings, the proposed design breaks up the massing, and the<br />
acceptability of the proposed footprint and height would be<br />
informed by any detrimental impacts on neighbouring amenity<br />
which are found to be acceptable elsewhere in this report. The<br />
appearance of the scheme and the proposed materials are
Change language