Full planning permission for demolition, alterations and extension of existing buildings and erection of new buildings comprising a mixed use scheme providing up to 1,217 residential units, up to 3,795 sqm GEA of flexible Class A1/A3/A4 floorspace, up to 12,023 sqm GEA of flexible Class B1/B2, up to 922 sqm GEA of flexible Class D1.D2 and up to 3,882 sqm GEA of multi-use floorspace (A1/A3/A4/D1) within building BF-F and a new secondary school, in buildings ranging from 4 to 28 storeys in height as well as the creation of a single storey basement. The development also includes communal amenity space, landscaping, children's playspace, car and cycle parking, installation of plant, new pedestrian, vehicular and servicing routes, the creation of two new pedestrian routes through the Railway Arches and associated works and
Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for the part demolition and part retention of existing buildings and erection of two new buildings comprising a mixed use scheme providing up to 125 residential units and up to 781 sqm GEA of flexible Class A1/A3/A4/D1/Sui Generis Uses and other associated works.
The committee heard the officers’ introduction to the report. Members of the committee asked questions of the officers.
A number of objectors addressed the committee. Members of the committee asked questions of the objectors.
The applicant’s agents addressed the committee, and answered questions by the committee.
There were no supporters who lived within 100 metres of the development site present at the meeting that wished to speak.
The local ward councillors, Councillor Hamish McCallum of North Bermondsey ward and Councillor Leo Pollak of South Bermondsey ward, addressed the committee, and answered questions by the committee.
The committee put further questions to the officers and discussed the application.
That planning permission is REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The development fails to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, and the affordable housing offered would be at a cost which would not be affordable to those in greatest housing need. As such, the development does not maximise the delivery of affordable housing as required by saved Southwark Plan policy 4.4 ‘Affordable housing’, Core Strategy policy SP6 ‘Housing for people on different incomes’ and London Plan policy 3.12 ‘Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential developments’, or the Mayors Affordable Housing and Viability SPD 2017. In addition, the development does not comply with the specific requirements for Private Rented Housing set out in the submission version (2018) of the New Southwark Plan policy P4 ‘Private rented homes’ in terms of the tenure split or the period for which the PRS housing is secured, or with the draft new London Plan 2017 policy H13 ‘Build to Rent’ in terms of the type of DMR homes being offered. As such, the development would fail to offer genuinely affordable housing to meet a recognised and acute housing need.
2. The development is above the density range for an urban area set out in Saved Southwark Plan policy 4.1 ‘Density of residential development’ and London Plan policy 3.4 ‘Optimising housing potential’, but does not provide an exemplary quality of accommodation for its future residents to combat the potential negative impacts of high density living. Specifically, the development provides a high proportion of single aspect dwellings, including dwellings which have a northerly aspect, or a constrained outlook, and dwellings with the sole aspect towards a large railway viaduct so subject to noise and overheating. A significant proportion of flats also do not have access to private amenity space. The qualitative aspects of the housing design would not meet the expectations of the draft London Plan 2017 policies D4 ‘Housing Quality and Standards’ and D6 ‘Optimising housing density’ as well as the standards for amenity space and aspect contained in Saved Southwark Plan (2007) policy 4.2 'Residential Quality' and the Southwark Residential Design Standards SPD 2015. As such, the development would not provide a suitably high quality of residential amenity for future occupiers, and increase the likelihood of use of mechanical heating, cooling and ventilation due to the aspect and need to mitigate noise and overheating.
3. The ‘blind spots’, convoluted and illogical internal routes proposed for pedestrians/cyclists and motorised vehicles would exacerbate pedestrian-vehicle and vehicular conflict and subsequently create adverse impact on highway safety, contrary to the Saved Southwark Plan 2007 Policies 5.2 ‘Transport impacts’ part ii and 5.3 ‘Walking and cycling’ parts i and ii, Strategic Policy 2 ‘Sustainable transport’ of the Core Strategy 2011 plus New Southwark Plan 2018 Policies P11 ‘Design of places’ parts 1.5 and 1.7, P47 ‘Highways impacts’ part 4 and P48 ‘Walking’ part 3.
4. In the absence of a clear agreement with the owners of the arch spaces, the proposed development would not secure the delivery of the two pedestrian routes through the viaduct which are a requirement of site designation NSP10 of the Submission Version of the New Southwark Plan.