Planning application · Lambeth
20/02385/FUL.
Full / Other Planning at Land Fronting Southside Court, 86-88, 89-93 Clapham Common South Side And 1 Lynnette Ave London SW4 9DJ, received 16 Jul 2020 — refused on 10 Dec 2020 (delegated, Clare Taylor).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Dec 2020
21 wks
Decision time
13 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
99
Documents
99 linked
65
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Withdrawn
Record from the Lambeth planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Demolition and replacement of existing ground and first storey rear extensions. Replacement of existing roof and internal reconfiguration along with excavation to create a 5 storey basement extension to provide a total of 205 hotel rooms, improvements to external elevations along with landscaping, servicing and forecourt improvements.
Reference
20/02385/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
16 Jul 2020
Validated
11 Sep 2020
Target date
11 Dec 2020
Decision date
10 Dec 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Reference
20/02385/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
16 Jul 2020
Validated
11 Sep 2020
Target date
11 Dec 2020
Decision date
10 Dec 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Lambeth portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 10 Dec 2020, delegated decision by Clare Taylor — 21 weeks from submission (13 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Jul 2020
Application received
11 Sep 2020
Application validated
11 Dec 2020
Statutory target date
10 Dec 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Clare Taylor
Appeal
Withdrawn · Appeal Withdrawn
16 Jul 2020
Application received
11 Sep 2020
Application validated
11 Dec 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
10 Dec 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Clare Taylor
Appeal
Withdrawn · Appeal Withdrawn
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of the sites location outside of a town centre, opportunity area, CAZ
or CAZ fringe location results in the inappropriate intensification of the existing hotel use and fails to meet the
locational requirements of Policy 4.5 of the London Plan (2017). The extended hotel would fail to constitute a
'smaller scale' hotel use and is therefore contrary to Policy ED12 of the Lambeth Plan (2015).The proposed scale
of the hotel use situated in this predominately residential, out of centre location, would result in harm the vitality and
viability of the town centres, contrary to Policies 2.15 and 4.7 of the London Plan (2016), Policies ED6 and ED12
and the Lambeth Local Plan (2015), Draft Policies SD6 and E10 of the Draft London Plan (2019) and Draft Policy
ED14 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Proposed Submission Version January 2020). In addition, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable town centre sites, and therefore has
failed to demonstrate the suitability of this out of centre site for the proposed town centre use, contrary to the NPPF
(2019).
2
The proposed basement level hotel accommodation, due to the limited size of the rooms, their poor levels
of daylight, lack of outlook and poor levels of privacy would be substandard and would fail to deliver high quality
indoor spaces or a high standard of amenity for future users. The proposal would therefore fail to meet the
requirements for delivering high quality design. The rooms are not of sufficient quality to be able to be accredited
for the National Quality Assessment Scheme. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies ED12 and Q2 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2015), Policies 4.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan(2016), Policies ED14 and Q2 of the Draft
Revised Lambeth Local Plan (2020) and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF (2019).
3
A hotel of the scale proposed (205 rooms) is not supported in this location and would result in significant
and unacceptable additional activity and result in unacceptable harm to the existing balance and mix of uses
though the introduction of a highly intensive commercial hotel use that is out of keeping with the current,
predominantly residential character. The applicant has failed to adequately assess the likely amenity impacts
arising from off-site pedestrian movements, taxi pick up and drop off, parking and servicing activities or to
demonstrate that the noise generating events that are identified in the submitted Noise Assessment can be
adequately managed to ensure the assumptions set out in the submitted assessment are met. It has therefore not
been demonstrated that the proposal would sustain the existing stable neighbourhood in the vicinity of the site and
its high quality, liveable residential environment nor respect local amenity, contrary to Strategic Objective 13 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2015). The proposal is therefore contrary to Strategic Objective 13 and Policies ED12 and
Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015), Policy 4.5 and Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (2016), Draft Policy D14 of the
Draft London Plan (2019) and Policies ED14 and Q2 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Proposed
Submission Version January 2020).
4
The proposed development by way of increased car and van trips which would need to park on street
during operation and the loss of 8 parking bays during construction would result in unacceptable impacts to on-
street parking and exacerbate parking stress in the area. In addition, the proposed shared loading bay would result
in a conflict between users seeking to access the bay thereby adversely impacting on traffic flows and leading to
congestion on the local highway network. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies T1, T6 and T8 of Lambeth's
Local Plan (2015).
5
Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the likely impacts of the excavation and
construction of the proposed basement development can be adequately mitigated or that the mitigation measures
that will be necessary to make them acceptable are acceptable in planning terms. It has therefore not been
demonstrated that the construction impacts of the proposal in terms of noise would have an acceptable impact on
the health and quality of life of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Policies Q2 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan
(2015), Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (2016) and Policy D14 of the Draft London Plan (2019) and Paragraph 180
of the NPPF (2019).
6
In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking or a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the necessary
mitigation measures identified in relation to impact on trees, highway and transport, carbon offset and employment
and skills contribution, the proposal is contrary to Policies D4, T1, T2, T3, T6, T7 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan
(2016), Policy 5.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policy SI 2 of the Draft London Plan (2019) and the Employment and
Skills SPD (adopted 2018).
1
The proposed development, by reason of the sites location outside of a town centre, opportunity area, CAZ
or CAZ fringe location results in the inappropriate intensification of the existing hotel use and fails to meet the
locational requirements of Policy 4.5 of the London Plan (2017). The extended hotel would fail to constitute a
'smaller scale' hotel use and is therefore contrary to Policy ED12 of the Lambeth Plan (2015).The proposed scale
of the hotel use situated in this predominately residential, out of centre location, would result in harm the vitality and
viability of the town centres, contrary to Policies 2.15 and 4.7 of the London Plan (2016), Policies ED6 and ED12
and the Lambeth Local Plan (2015), Draft Policies SD6 and E10 of the Draft London Plan (2019) and Draft Policy
ED14 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Proposed Submission Version January 2020). In addition, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable town centre sites, and therefore has
failed to demonstrate the suitability of this out of centre site for the proposed town centre use, contrary to the NPPF
(2019).
2
The proposed basement level hotel accommodation, due to the limited size of the rooms, their poor levels
of daylight, lack of outlook and poor levels of privacy would be substandard and would fail to deliver high quality
indoor spaces or a high standard of amenity for future users. The proposal would therefore fail to meet the
requirements for delivering high quality design. The rooms are not of sufficient quality to be able to be accredited
for the National Quality Assessment Scheme. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies ED12 and Q2 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2015), Policies 4.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan(2016), Policies ED14 and Q2 of the Draft
Revised Lambeth Local Plan (2020) and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF (2019).
3
A hotel of the scale proposed (205 rooms) is not supported in this location and would result in significant
and unacceptable additional activity and result in unacceptable harm to the existing balance and mix of uses
though the introduction of a highly intensive commercial hotel use that is out of keeping with the current,
predominantly residential character. The applicant has failed to adequately assess the likely amenity impacts
arising from off-site pedestrian movements, taxi pick up and drop off, parking and servicing activities or to
demonstrate that the noise generating events that are identified in the submitted Noise Assessment can be
adequately managed to ensure the assumptions set out in the submitted assessment are met. It has therefore not
been demonstrated that the proposal would sustain the existing stable neighbourhood in the vicinity of the site and
its high quality, liveable residential environment nor respect local amenity, contrary to Strategic Objective 13 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2015). The proposal is therefore contrary to Strategic Objective 13 and Policies ED12 and
Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015), Policy 4.5 and Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (2016), Draft Policy D14 of the
Draft London Plan (2019) and Policies ED14 and Q2 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Proposed
Submission Version January 2020).
Show all 6 rows
4
The proposed development by way of increased car and van trips which would need to park on street
during operation and the loss of 8 parking bays during construction would result in unacceptable impacts to on-
street parking and exacerbate parking stress in the area. In addition, the proposed shared loading bay would result
in a conflict between users seeking to access the bay thereby adversely impacting on traffic flows and leading to
congestion on the local highway network. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies T1, T6 and T8 of Lambeth's
Local Plan (2015).
5
Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the likely impacts of the excavation and
construction of the proposed basement development can be adequately mitigated or that the mitigation measures
that will be necessary to make them acceptable are acceptable in planning terms. It has therefore not been
demonstrated that the construction impacts of the proposal in terms of noise would have an acceptable impact on
the health and quality of life of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Policies Q2 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan
(2015), Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (2016) and Policy D14 of the Draft London Plan (2019) and Paragraph 180
of the NPPF (2019).
6
In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking or a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the necessary
mitigation measures identified in relation to impact on trees, highway and transport, carbon offset and employment
and skills contribution, the proposal is contrary to Policies D4, T1, T2, T3, T6, T7 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan
(2016), Policy 5.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policy SI 2 of the Draft London Plan (2019) and the Employment and
Skills SPD (adopted 2018).
Policies cited
London Plan 4.5ED12London Plan 2.15London Plan 4.7SD6E10ED14NPPFQ2London Plan 7.6Lambeth Local Plan 13London Plan 7.15D14T1T6T8D4T2T3T7London Plan 5.2SI2
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Withdrawn
Outcome: Appeal Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Outcome: Appeal Withdrawn
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
65
In support
0
Total comments
66
Objections
65
In support
0
Total comments
66
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.