The following objections have been made to Lambeth on the proposed Higgs development.
15/01024/FUL Refurbishment and extension of the Sureway International Christian Ministries building
In spite of a number of changes from the previously submitted scheme to address the deficiencies raised by the planners and while LJAG acknowledges this scheme is an improvement, LJAG objects on the following grounds:
i) The revised scheme is independent from the scheme housing the majority of the new residences. There is a distinct prospect given that this scheme provides very little additional accommodation for the incumbent church, that this scheme may not go ahead and the other one will. The developers have also stated at a pubic meeting attended by Lambeth councillors and officers that he intends to relocate Sureway International Ministries to a site in another London borough. The reason for building Site 2 would, in this situation, no longer exist. This is of concern, as it would leave the community with the dangerous junction and narrow pavement on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Herne Hill Road, without the benefit of the set back to the façade provided to this new proposal, as recommended by the planners regarding the previous scheme. There will be significant additional pedestrian traffic both from the residential and the commercial element. The commercial element previously had significant car parking. The new scheme will be more reliant on public transport for access.
ii) The scheme does nothing to address the significant vehicular traffic generated when the church is open, and the inherent conflict that will inevitably exist when the large residential development adjacent is occupied.
iii) LJAG cannot accept that because the edge of this site is 800m from the boundary of the area defined as central Brixton, it can be classified as central (the highest classification) for the purposes of density, given it only has a Ptal of 3 and is 1.2km from transport connections at Brixton. Indeed the TFL Journey Planner shows an average pace walking time from SE24 0AU of 18 minutes to Brixton Underground Station.
iv) The Ptal classification presupposes that the services running have adequate capacity, which is something we know to be untrue in the peak hours with dangerously overcrowded trains where passengers are forced to wait for the next train.
v) Para 7.1.10 of the officer’s report states that “MDO33 of the UDP is a historic saved policy which has been superseded by transport infrastructure including the new Overground line and the potential location of a new station for this line to the west of LJ”. So if the MDO is historic and has been superseded, it can’t be used to justify super-density. The Mayor has all but ruled out LJ getting an Overground station on cost grounds in any case so unless it were a condition, this should not be used as justification for granting approval.
vi) Planning officers rightly designated the site as “urban” in their initial report on the last scheme. It is simply wrong to say that it is “central” and this incorrect designation opens the door to judicial review. The developments are simply too large for the infrastructure available in the area.
vii) The CIL contribution for the residential element is only required to be a fifth of that available in central locations within Lambeth. As a result the community will be forced to accept a CIL based on an ‘Urban’ rather than ‘Central’ density.
We are concerned that the scheme will set a dangerous precedent thereby encouraging similar dense schemes to come forward with no prospect of infrastructure improvements.
ix) Residents in nearby streets with no CPZ are already under parking pressure and this is likely to be increased as a result of this development.
In general neither scheme acknowledges the aspirations of the emerging masterplan. We would also urge that consideration be given to a condition that both sites be developed in tandem.
Higgs Industrial Estate, Herne Hill Road SE24 0AU
Planning application 15/01062/FUL
In spite of a number of changes from the previously submitted scheme to address the deficiencies raised by the planners and while LJAG acknowledges this scheme is an improvement, LJAG objects on the following grounds:
i) The improved play space which is now provided at ground level may meet minimum daylight criteria but is a lost opportunity to create a central space which could be of high design quality. This area is pivotal to the site. A reduction in height to the buildings to the block immediately to the south by at least two storeys would immeasurably improve the quality of the space.
ii) We recognize the value of a concierge service particularly on a car-free site for accepting deliveries. We would like a commitment to ensure that this facility is provided and operational in the final scheme as a condition of planning as we know this can often be excluded for operational budgetary reasons.
iii) While we acknowledge that the tower (block E) has been reduced in height and footprint, we remain concerned that there will be little demand for the office space proposed and we seek reassurance that permission will not be granted to create more residential units.
iv) LJAG cannot accept that because the edge of this site is 800m from the boundary of the area defined as central Brixton, it can be classified as central (the highest classification) for the purposes of density, given it only has a Ptal of 3 and is 1.2km from transport connections at Brixton. Indeed the TFL Journey Planner shows an average pace walking time from SE24 0AU of 18 minutes to Brixton Underground Station. The density proposed is almost 50 per cent greater than that recommended in a Central area and over double that recommended in an Urban area which we believe the area is.
v) The Ptal classification presupposes that the services running have adequate capacity, which is something we know to be untrue in the peak hours with dangerously overcrowded trains where passengers are forced to wait for the next train.
vi) Para 7.1.10 of the officer’s report states that “MDO33 of the UDP is a historic saved policy which has been superseded by transport infrasctructure including the new Overground line and the potential location of a new station for this line to the west of LJ”. So if the MDO is historic and has been superseded, it can’t be used to justify super-density. The Mayor has all but ruled out LJ getting an Overground station on cost grounds in any case so unless it were a condition, this should not be used as justification for granting approval.
vii) Planning officers rightly designated the site as “urban” in their initial report on the last scheme. It is simply wrong to say that it is “central” and this incorrect designation opens the door to judicial review. The development is simply too large for the infrastructure available in the area.
viii) The CIL contribution for the residential element is only required to be a fifth of that available in central locations within Lambeth. As a result the community will be forced to accept a CIL based on an ‘Urban’ rather than ‘Central’ density.
We are concerned that the scheme will set a dangerous precedent thereby encouraging similar dense schemes to come forward with no prospect of infrastructure improvements.
x) Residents in nearby streets with no CPZ are already under parking pressure and this is likely to be increased as a result of this development.
In general neither scheme acknowledges the aspirations of the emerging masterplan. We would also urge that consideration be given to a condition that both sites be developed in tandem.
