Kennington Planning Matters

13:19:00 o'clock BST
08/02033/FUL
The Cricketers Public House
17 Kennington Oval
London
SE11 5SG
Redevelopment of the site, involving demolition of existing building and erection of a part 4, part 5, part 6 storey building to contain 173 sqm of ground floor commercial floor space (either Class A1- retail, A2 - financial/professional services, B1- offices or D1 - community uses), together with 29 self contained flats (14 x 1 bed, 10 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed units) and associated amenity space and cycle parking.
Full Planning Permission
Expiry Date for Standard Consultations: 27/06/2008
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=K1KSY8BO0AY00



Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

09:17:30 o'clock BST
08/01961/FUL
The Power House
6 Sancroft Street
London
SE11 5UD
Change of use from Office (Use Class B1) to mixed use office and residential (Use Classes B1 and C3) to provide 5 self contained flats (4 x 2 bed and 1 x 1 bed units) on upper floors, including the creation of an additional 3rd floor and formation of a new entrance door to flats on the ground floor front elevation and alterations to windows and doors.
Full Planning Permission
Miss Simona Butera
Expiry Date for Standard Consultations: 30/06/2008


Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

09:08:27 o'clock BST
08/02197/FUL
Surrey County Cricket Club
Kennington Oval
London
SE11 5SS
Installation of four/five retractable floodlight poles around the cricket grounds.
Full Planning Permission
Miss Eileen McCarthy
Expiry Date for Standard Consultations: 30/06/2008
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=K26SR2BO00O00 



Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

08:52:24 o'clock BST
Forwarded Message:

Subj: Kennington Playground Protest  Date: 12/06/2008 23:31:07 GMT Standard Time From: savekenningtonadventure@live.co.uk To: lhills@lambeth.gov.ul, avoce@ncb.org.uk, kenningtonassn@aol.com, agibson@lambeth.gov.uk, alumsden@lambeth.gov.uk, ameader@lambeth.gov.uk, asawdon@lambeth.gov.uk, nsabharwal@lambeth.gov.uk, aaminu@lambeth.gov.uk, danyanwu@lambeth.gov.uk, kabrams@lambeth.gov.uk, amckenna@lambeth.gov.uk, hvanderputt@lambeth.gov.uk, pakhtar@lambeth.gov.uk Sent from the Internet (Details)

Dear Kennington residents,South London MPs,representatives of Lambeth Council and other interested parties,
 
A message from Kennington Parents.
 
We refer your attention to Tuesday's South London Press,p 10,regarding  plans to build houses on Kennington Adventure Playground and One o' Clock club. A Lambeth spokeswoman is quoted as saying "the new facilities will be developed with input from families who use it" (ie Kennington Play Project.)The quote continues;"Plans for the location are being finalised"
 
Parents and children are saying we do not want to see these playgrounds sold off and replaced with something much smaller.

Lambeth's Unitary Development Plan is clear on this issue.
 
Policy 50 deals with 'Open Spaces and Sports Facilities'  (page 127 of the UDP 2007.)It states;
 
'The Council will protect open space in the borough as defined below'... (which goes on to include play areas.)
'Open space will be protected ...from inappropriate built development.'(This) 'includes development that would result in the loss of or damage to open space'
 
The policy states....'Exceptionally,some
(i) development on open space may be permitted if it comprises;
 
(ii) development that makes compensatory provision in the vicinity for replacement open space of equal or better quality and size'
 
On page 128 the policy on play areas specifically is set out; 
 
'CHILDREN'S PLAY FACILITIES'
'Redevelopment of play areas will only be considered where facilities of equalsize and quality are provided within the development site or at a more appropriate and safely accessible location prior to the commencement of the development'
 
So what about Kennington Play Project?

 The adventure playground provides 2090 sq m of supervised play space and the One o'Clock Club provides 1,134 sq metres,which is a total of 3224 sq metres altogether.
 
What is proposed is  a new adventure playground on a site less than one quarter the size and a new One o' Clock club which still does not have any identified site at all.
 
There are the two ideas suggested for a new One o'  Clock club;
a)move it inside Kennington Children's Centre,which has hardly any play space
b) relocate it somewhere on the Kennington Park 'Extension' which means using up 1,134 square metres of open space from there,which we think is unlikely to happen.
 
This plan is never going to be able to provide a replacement play area of 'equal or better quality and size'.
Why?
The reason is that there are clearly no suitable alternative sites available.
That is why we want to keep and improve the sites we already have,and we cannot understand how this plan has even been allowed to be put forward.

You can see the problem. If the Council were going to really provide something of equal size before we build on these two playgrounds,as the UDP demands,then they would have to find another 3224 sq metres nearby. That means for a while we would have two untouchable areas of 3,224 sq metres each-one a play area,and the other,a future play area.
 
CONSULTATION

On page 131,the UDP lists 'Ten fundamental Parks and Green Spaces Principles' including;
 
No 3. 'Parks and Green Spaces as Community Assets'
 
Quote; ' Lambeth's parks and green spaces are an essential and inalienable community resource. The council
will work in partnership with local people and involve them in the decision making process,relating to the use,development and management of the boroughs parks and green spaces'
 
So far,this has not been the case.
 
In its introduction on page 17 Lambeth's UDP sets out an agenda of 'empowering local communities' and promoting 'social inclusion' with 'flexible regeneration initiatives.'It states that one of it's aims is 'ensuring that ultimately all regeneration projects are for the benefit of the people of Lambeth.'
 
What about Kennington children's right not to lose their  play spaces?
 
We think that supervised play areas such as this are a vital part of healthy and happy communities. If we reduce the size of these two play areas, then the local community will suffer .What we should be doing instead is using this as an opportunity to enhance the facilities we already have whilst the housing development goes on around them
 
Alternatively,the Council should announce that the UDP is no longer going to be adhered to.
 
Thank you,
 
from Kennington parents and grandparents
 
Charlie Skinner, Ms Janet Gay,Joy Baker,Mrs E Hill,Patrick Mensah,Joy Nabirye, Yasmin Baker,Tammy Brown,Stacey Brown,Albertina Fernandez,Sarah Degabrielle, P Robertson



Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

11:31:03 o'clock BST


Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

12:44:38 o'clock BST

From: Chris Cossey

318 Kennington Road

London SE11 4LD

 

Tel: 020-7582 5986

E-mail: chris.cossey@btopenworld.com

 

 

 

To friends and neighbours                                                                        29  May 2008

 

Dear all

 

MONTFORD PLACE PLANNING DECISION: SOME OBSERVATIONS

 

I have been examining the Planning Officer’s report justifying the decision to refuse planning permission for the proposed car-pound. You may find it helpful if I share my thoughts on this with you.

 

The reasons for refusal

 

First, although we should be pleased that the application has been refused, it is not in my opinion necessarily the end of the threat. We must be prepared for the likely lodging of a new application before too long. The current application has been refused on only two grounds: (1) inadequate information to enable the Planning Authority to assess whether the site ‘would be, or could be rendered, suitable‘ for the proposed use ‘without detriment to highway and pedestrian safety’; and (2) insufficient information on vehicle movements to enable assessment whether the site would be, or could be rendered, suitable for the proposed use ‘without detriment to residential amenity (through increased levels of noise and disturbance)’.

 

I think this may well be interpreted by the applicant as an invitation to reapply with more detailed evidence. We must be ready to respond to that. But I am also concerned that several of the responses by the Planning Officer to objections we have made effectively reject our arguments. We would need to challenge those judgments if the application is resubmitted.

 

Some inescapable facts

 

1.  The Planning Officer describes the land as a ‘vacant employment site’ within a Key Industrial Business Area (KIBA), and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP - which defines the context for decision-making) describes it as a Major Development Opportunity (MDO) and as a ‘mixed use employment area’. This reflects the historical use of this land and the land occupied by the Beefeater Gin Distillery, Tesco etc.

 

2.  The site is owned by Tesco, whose intentions are not known, but its main preoccupations are almost certainly to keep its options open to use this site for an extension of its car-park and to prevent a competitive retailer occupying it.

 

Some uncertainties

 

The Planning Officer’s report states that the site would ‘operate in support of Lambeth Parking Services, and all vehicles brought to the site will be picked up in Lambeth’. However, I did not see that information in the planning application, and it is not consistent with the stated Transport for London view that ‘it is not clearly stated where the impounded vehicles will be from and how many vehicles will be transported  [from the site] to the applicant’s site in North London’. We may reasonably assume that the Planning Officer knows Lambeth Council’s interest in the proposed use of the site, although that is not included in the application information.

 

Another uncertainty is that Lambeth’s parking management contract is likely soon to be transferred to a new contractor. That could change present arrangements for impounding cars, and it could put Kennington off the agenda. (The South London Press mentions Mitcham.) However, until we know the new arrangements, we shall not know where it is intended to have any new Lambeth car-pound.

 

Planning Officers views/decisions on objections we made

 

1.  Because the site is within a KIBA ‘industrial uses are not considered to be out of keeping with the area’. I think this is challengeable. It is on the edge of the KIBA and adjacent to significant residential properties in a Conservation Area. The adjacent buildings include ‘listed’ properties on Kennington Lane and Kennington Green and Imperial Court, converted ten years ago from NAAFI headquarters offices to 83 flats. ‘Industrial uses’ must be qualified by suitability in the context, with noise and disturbance the major factors.

 

2. The response to concern that allowing the car-pound would prejudice future development is that the application is ‘for a temporary period of five years’. That is challengeable on the grounds that it is avoiding the case for encouraging sympathetic development now, and the reasonable expectation that the applicant would probably seek to renew the temporary permission after the five years.

 

3.  The Planning Officer’s report says: ‘Industrial and business uses can be within  conservation areas without adversely impacting on their character’. In theory perhaps, but this must depend on the types of activity generated and the design of buildings on the site. So challengeable.

 

4.  The site has ‘historically been in industrial use, and it is not considered that the proposed use would have any additional impact over and above previous uses’. How this has been concluded is hard to understand. The demolished building on the site was part of the Beefeater distillery, a benign industry in terms of noisy or disruptive activity. There has been no noisy activity near this site since the early 1970s, when the bottling plant (on the west side of Montford Place) was moved elsewhere. So challengeable.

 

5.  Although the proposed use would ‘generate more noise and movement, . . . it is not considered that the level of noise generated from such a use would necessarily be inappropriate in an employment site’. But surely not any employment site. The matter needs to be considered in relation to this specific site. So challengeable.

 

6. ‘It is not considered that the proposed use would significantly increase air pollution in the area.’ How can this be stated, when it is admitted that there is insufficient information of the amount of traffic movement involved? So challengeable.

 

7.  Objectors argued that floodlighting would be intrusive. The Planning Officer’s response is that ‘no application for flood lighting has been made’. This raises the whole issue of inadequate information on what the granting of planning permission would lead to. This means that, even if permission were granted, there would have to be further permissions before the business could be run: not just lighting, but temporary office buildings and perimeter screening. Clearly for security reasons a high level of lighting would be required. Floodlighting is a reasonable assumption in the absence of more specific detail. So challengeable.

 

8.  On inadequate provision of detail, the report says: ‘the repair of the ground surface is the only physical alteration proposed’. That simply adds to concern about the casual way in which this important plot of land, ripe for imaginative development, is being offered by its owners for unsympathetic ‘temporary’ (but five years minimum) use. So challengeable.

 

9.  ‘’The proposed use would not be a significant employment generator according to Council Policy. However, it would bring a vacant site back into use for a temporary period.’ If the UDP planning guideline is to mean anything, then the number of employees on a redeveloped  KIBA site is of primary importance. This raises the question of how the landowner Tesco regards this site and the interest it has in releasing it for suitable development. We may reasonably conclude that Tesco’s motivation is not the public interest or the local community’s interests. Challengable.

 

10.  In response to the view that the use would attract criminals, the report says: ‘It is a usethat could attract criminal activity but would be staffed . . .’ But it would not be staffed at night. So challengeable.

 

11.  In response to my statement that Tesco had previously been refused permission to use the site as a car-park, the Planning Officer’s report says: ‘There is no record of planning permission being refused on this site as part of the Tesco development’. According to my records, however, planning application 99/02207/FUL lodged while the new store was being built, sought to extend the store by (we calculated) 28% and to extend the car park by 43% across Montford Place and to include the vacant site on the east side of Monford Place. That application was strongly opposed by local residents and discouraged by the Planning Officers and in February 2001 was withdrawn. Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association opposed the plan on the grounds of ‘traffic congestion, pollution and noise, and unsightly and unsuitable land-use next to a major Conservation Area’. So challengeable.

 

12.  ‘The application is for change of use only. Boundary treatment and landscaping can be secured by conditions.’  See 8 above. But simply relying on the addition of conditions to a permission, when the application itself should have dealt with these issues as essential items, is surely not enough. It would be a sticking-plaster approach when there is need for surgery. So challengeable.

 

Planning Officer’s summing-up: additional points

 

(a)  The report says, with reference to the MDO definition: ‘Some residential and other non-employment uses are acceptable. . . However the overall development on a site should be predominantly employment based.’  This defines the long-term prospects for redevelopment.

 

(b)  The Land Use section of the summing-up concludes with: ‘It is considered that the proposed use is an appropriate land use for the site’. Challengeable in my opinion.

 

(c)  The report says: ‘The applicant can be advised that the application is for a change of use only and any other alterations would be the subject of further applications.’ If a new application is made, we may have to argue against that approach. We would not want a change of use on those terms. We would want the implications of the change of use to be understood and considered as part of the formal application.

 

(d)  The Council’s Conservation Officer says he would not object to security fencing in this location ‘subject to its appearance’. Our view must be that any site use that requires security fencing is likely to be inappropriate for this site. The site should be redeveloped in a way that integrates new buildings with the local environment and community. It should, as MDO 56 states, ‘complete the street pattern in character with Georgian houses on Montford Place (south) and facing Kennington Green’.

 

(e)  On amenity the report concludes: ‘Any development on the site would increase the disturbance to neighbouring occupiers, but some level of disturbance should be expected given the site’s location within a KIBA’. This is negative and unacceptable. The test should not be just the definition of the site. Equally or more important is the past and present impact of the site’s use on neighbouring residents. That has been benign, certainly for the past 30 years and more.

 

(f)  Without further information on traffic movements, concludes the report, ‘the Council cannot be certain that the proposed activity would not unacceptably increase the levels of noise and disturbance experienced by neighbouring occupiers, contrary to [UDP] Policy 7’.

 

(g)  On transport and traffic, Transport for London (Tf`L) is quoted as expressing concern that Kennington Lane ‘is very heavily trafficked for most of the day’ and that the potential increase of vehicular movements generated by a car-pound would ‘increase congestion problems that already exist in the network’.

 

(h)  TfL also says that ‘the basis of the assumptions adopted’ by the applicant ‘has not been clearly stated and properly justified’ and is therefore ‘not sufficiently robust’.

 

(j)  TfL also considers that such a site ‘would attract a much larger number of vehicle trips’ than has been estimated by the applicant. ‘A site with 180 parking spaces would allow for a much larger number of vehicles (than the 24 stated) to be brought  to the site each day.’

 

(k)  TfL is also concerned about the impact on the major road network, especially as ‘it is not clearly stated where the impounded vehicles will be from and how many vehicles will be transported to the applicant’s site in North London’. Overall, the impact of the proposed development on highways ‘is unclear’.

 

I have written the above analysis mainly for my own record, but I hope you will also find it useful. If or when this application is brought back, we must be prepared to make the strongest possible case  against it.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Chris Cossey

Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

11:38:42 o'clock BST
Dear All

Just in case you do not already know, the above planning application  will not go to committee now on 20 May, as we were advised earlier.  That is because the planning officer is seeking more information / clarification on the claimed traffic movements per day in relation to the size of the proposed pound. Let us hope that is not the only key 
issue being considered. I think we must be even more concerned about the unsuitability of this use in this location on vacant land that deserves proper and suitable development.

I'll keep you informed of any other committee dates decisions.

Chris Cossey

Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

11:36:02 o'clock BST

Please find attached information about a possible development on the corner of Wyvil Road and Wandsworth Road and a 30 storey tower block at the railway end of the Wandsworth Road frontage opposite Sainsbury’s at Nine Elms.

Any member of the public is welcome to attend the exhibition on Friday 16th May.

And of course any member of the public is also welcome to attend on Saturday 17th May – 1pm to  5.30pm

Andrew,

The public exhibition is being hosted in St Anne’s Church, Miles Street and will be open from 5.30pm to 8.30pm on Friday 16 May and from 1pm to 5.30pm on Saturday 17 May. The exhibition will feature two scale models of the proposed development as well as about a dozen large colour exhibition boards explaining key features of the development and lots of good images and plans. The exhibition will be staffed by members of the development team including the developers (Frasers Property), architect, planners and engineers.

Invitation letters to residents and other stakeholders will be going out either tonight or tomorrow.

We would welcome the opportunity to meet any residents groups or local amenity groups either in advance or at the exhibition itself to brief them along the lines of the discussion we had this morning. To organise meetings contact should be made through me (details below).

As agreed I will let you know in advance of any meetings weorganise so you or Cllr Banks can attend.

In the meantime please don’t hesitate to contact me or anyone else in the development team if you have any questions. As promised I will email a set of pdf images of the exhibition boards once they are available.

Thanks again

Chris

Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

11:49:55 o'clock BST
Have Your Say
Lambeth Council is consulting on the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy ‘Issues and Options’ between Monday 28 April and Monday 9 June 2008 and would like to hear your views. The Core Strategy will help to shape the future development of the borough over the next 10-15 years. For further information and to complete the consultation questionnaire, please go to www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning <http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning>.
MBrown2@lambeth.gov.uk


Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

11:47:24 o'clock BST

For local negotiations, I would like to flag an issue to a) the KA Planning Committee and b) Lambeth PCT – are you able to consider this please?

If the developments referred to in the KA letter below are bringing more people to Kennington, it is really important that the LA take a wide perspective on who / what will be affected. In particular, if the impact on the NHS is not taken into account, existing local people like me will suffer.

I know that some LAs require developers to make a contribution to the NHS, either under S106 or as an additional condition for planning consent, while others take only their own narrow LA interests into account (housing, environmental services, social services etc). Do Lambeth LA doe this? If not, why not? [I believe London Strategic Health Authority have a tool for identifying the financial impact on the NHS of developments (HUDU) for PCT use in exactly these sort of discussions.]

Hope this can be taken into account and look forward to hearing what, if anything, you’re doing about this.

Simone

simone@bayes109.fsnet.co.uk

Written by kaplanning Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own