This page is intentionally left blank - Lambeth Council Larkhall Rise.pdf · - The proposal would…‘jut out 5.5 metres forward of the building line’, to the detriment of the

This page is intentionally left blank

Location 25 Larkhall Rise London SW4 6HU

Ward Larkhall Proposal Erection of a single-storey (with partial basement) two-bedroom

dwellinghouse with 'green' sedum blanket roof within the existing rear garden of No.25 Larkhall Rise, with access from Sibella Road and the felling of five lime trees sited adjacent to the side boundary with No.2 Sibella Road.

Application Type Full Planning Permission Application No 06/02091/FUL/DC_NGR/34151 Applicant Mr & Mrs White Agent Stephen Buck - Chartered Architect Broadoak 11 Nightingale Lane London SW4 9AH Date Valid 27 June 2006 Considerations Conservation Area CA58: Sibella Road Conservation Area East London Rail Extension East London Rail Extension Approved Plans SR/PA/01, SR/PA/02 - A, SR/PA/03 - A, Report to Accompany

Planning Submission revised June 2006, and Tree Survey and Protection Assessment prepared by Clive Fowler Associates received 27 June 2006.

Recommendation Grant Permission

Officer Report 06/02091/FUL 1. Summary Of Main Issues 1.1 The considerations material to the assessment of the application are as

follows:

- the principle of the site as a development site;

- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Sibella Road Conservation Area;

- the impact of the proposal on the existing amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers in terms of potential unacceptable day/sunlight, privacy and outlook loss;

- the appropriateness of the accommodation proposed for its future occupiers in terms of received day/sunlight, outlook and room size;

- the highways implications of the proposal;

- the impact of the proposal on adjacent retained horse chestnut trees, and the appropriateness of felling 5 x existing lime trees; and

- the impact of the proposal on the biodiversity of the location.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site is located on the corner of Larkhall Rise and Sibella Road. The principal elevation of the site’s host property fronts Larkhall Rise, with its north-eastern facing bonded brickwork returning boundary wall enclosing its substantial rear garden. The site for the proposed new dwelling would be located towards the rear of this garden area. The proposal’s footprint would occupy the area of an existing single-storey with pitched roof vehicle garage which is sited adjacent to the flank elevation of No.2 Sibella Road. The site lies within the Sibella Road Conservation Area (the CA) and is also within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

2.2. The Sibella Road Conservation Area comprises an area of predominantly

semi-detached Victorian houses constructed during the middle of the 19th century. Many are of a similar appearance which can be attributed to the use of pattern books by the developers of the period. These properties are generally closely spaced and give an impression of being almost terraced, though gaps at the end of these rows allow glimpses or wider views of the rear garden areas. It is considered that the character of the conservation area stems mainly from the similar appearance of the houses and the quality of the workmanship and materials used that lend a homogenous feel to the area.

3. Planning History

3.1. Planning permission granted 08 June 1994 (Ref. 94/01112/PLANAP) for: The erection of a two-storey side extension (this permission has been implemented).

3.2. Tree application granted 02 October 2002 (Ref. 02/02631/TCA) for: To remove one Horse Chestnut tree in rear garden close to Sibella Road boundary. The tree was causing structural damage to the brick wall (this tree has been felled).

3.3. Planning permission refused 22 July 2003 (Ref. 03/01433/FUL) for:

Erection of a three storey building with basement for use as a single family dwelling together with associated alterations, adjacent to No 2 Sibella Road.

This application failed on detailed design grounds and its impact on the

conservation area through filling an existing established townscape gap. It was also considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking to the rear gardens and properties at the rear of the application site. Finally, the application failed on its unacceptable impact on the horse chestnut tree located towards the rear boundary with No.27 Larkhall Rise.

3.4. Conservation area consent granted 22 July 2003 (Ref. 03/01434/CON) for:

Demolition of existing garage adjacent to no. 2 Sibella Road (this consent is has not been implemented, the garage has not been demolished).

3.5. Planning permission refused 29 March 2004 (Ref. 04/00283/FUL) for:

Demolition of existing garage adjacent to no. 2 Sibella Road and erection of a three storey building with basement for use as a single family dwelling together with associated alterations, adjacent to No 2 Sibella Road.

This application failed on detailed design grounds and its impact on the conservation area through filling an existing established townscape gap. It also failed on its unacceptable impact on the horse-chestnut tree located on the rear boundary with No.27 Larkhall Rise. The overlooking reason for refusal sited within the above July 2003 refusal was addressed through the improved design of the proposal.

3.6. Subsequent appeal to Planning Inspectorate was dismissed on 20 January

2005 (APP/N5660/A/04/1154024). The Inspector dismissed this appeal on design detailed grounds and its impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, and the unacceptable impact that the proposal would have on the horse chestnut tree located towards the rear of the site.

3.7. Planning permission granted 25 November 2004 (Ref. 04/02967/FUL) for:

Demolition of existing front boundary wall to facilitate erection of a new boundary wall around enlarged front garden (this permission has been implemented).

3.8. Planning permission application withdrawn 16 May 2006 (Ref.

06/00838/FUL) for: Demolition of the existing garage within the rear garden, hardstanding, internal garden wall, fish tanks and the last 2 bays of the boundary wall to Sibella Road, and the removal of 5 Lime trees adjacent to the boundary with No 2 Sibella Road, to enable the erection of a single storey (with partial basement) 2 bedroom dwellinghouse within the rear garden, in addition to the reinstatement of the boundary wall to Sibella Road and associated landscaping.

This application was withdrawn upon officers’ advice in relation to the design

of the roof of the proposal, insofar as this element was considered too high

and failed to respect the established build line of properties fronting Sibella Road.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The proposal is for the erection of a two-bedroom single-storey with part basement dwellinghouse constructed in the modern idiom. The basement area would occupy approximately one third of the footprint of the proposal and would be located adjacent to the boundary with Sibella Road. The proposal’s footprint takes a rectangular form projecting into the site at right angles from its brick built boundary treatment with Sibella Road. The footprint of the proposal would occupy approximately 180sq.m out of an existing available garden area of approximately 400sq.m. The highest part of the proposal would be approximately 3.3 metres declining towards a central roof valley located towards the rear of the site. An internal courtyard area providing approximately 17sq.m of amenity space is also proposed.

4.2. The materials proposed for the construction of an approved scheme have

been indicated as being: softwood and hardwood cladding for the external elevations; metal framed windows with clear double glazing and obscure glazed cladding panels; ‘green’ sedum blanket roof covering; and cedar clad fascia with metallic clad eaves overhang.

4.3. It is noted that the principal difference between this proposal and the

proposal withdrawn in May of this year (Ref. 06/00838/FUL) relates to the roof detail. The front section of proposal’s roof (over one third of the total roof area) has been kept beneath the height of the existing boundary wall which stands at an approximate 2.3 metres. This roof detail increases in height to approximately 3.3 metres so as to correspond with the established building line of the adjacent development on Sibella Road which is located to the south-east of the site.

4.4. It is noted that demolition of the existing vehicle garage has been granted

conservation area consent in July 2003, and that no further application to the Council is required for its demolition.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. Consultation letters were sent to the following adjoining residential occupiers, as well as individuals who commented on the withdrawn proposal in May of this year (Ref. 06/00838/FUL), to which 40 letters of objection were received the grounds of which echo those contained with Section 5.4 below.

- 167 Abbeville Road - 43, 64, 84, 86, 88 Bromfelde Road SW4 - Burleigh House, Burleigh, Stroud, Gloucestershire GL5 2PQ - 4, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 32, 52, 54, 56, 1ST Floor Flat No.60,

Chelsham Road - 11, 12, Gauden Close - 21 Beckett House, Grantham Road SW9 - 1, 3, 5, 7, Basement Flat - Ground Floor Flat - 1st Floor Flat - 2nd Floor

Flat at No.9, 21, 25, 27 28, 33, 36, 39 Gauden Road - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 28 Sibella Road - 25 South Eaton Place SW1

- 1, Top Floor Flat at No.3, 5, 7, 9, 11, Flat 1 at No.13, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 25A, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, Basement Flat – Flat 2 – Flat 3 – Flat 4 at No.39, 41, 41A, 41B, 41C, 41D, 44, 47, 49, 51, 53, 63 Larkhall Rise

- 45 Rodenhurst Road SW4 - 53, 55, 57, 83 Union Road

5.2. The Clapham Society, Clapham Antiquarian Society, Chelsham Road

Community Association, Gauden Road Residents’ Association and the Sibella Road Conservation Area Residents’ Association were also consulted on the application.

5.3. A site notice was displayed and an advert was posted in the local press.

5.4. 64 letters objecting to the proposal have been received in relation to the

application. A petition containing 44 signatories entitled ‘Save Our Lime Trees’ has also been received. The grounds of objection have been summarised as follows:

- The proposal…‘is totally incongruous with the architecture, style and building materials of all the surrounding properties’.

- The proposal…‘would adversely affect the historical development pattern of the area [through its covering of usable garden space]’.

- The proposal would…‘jut out 5.5 metres forward of the building line’, to the detriment of the area’s street scene.

- The proposed rooflight would give rise to unacceptable light pollution within the area.

- The proposal would be…‘a clear target for vandals to break the glass and throw rubbish onto the flat roof [of the building]’.

- Because no garden has been proposed for the dwellinghouse a…‘strong temptation to use the roof for sunbathing, barbecues etc…giving rise to future disputes about noise and the invasion of privacy’.

- The proposal would compromise the future health of the horse-chestnut tree to the rear of the site through pressure to reduce its crown in order to control seasonal leaf litter issues.

- The ‘green’ sedum blanket roof covering would die leaving an unsightly roof detail within the location.

- Objection has been raised to the felling of 5 x lime tress sited along the front boundary with No.2 Sibella Road, as it is felt that they make a valuable visual contribution to the amenity of the area.

- The proposal would be directly responsible for unacceptably affecting the biodiversity of the area, resulting in the ‘dangerous’ decline of many species of flora and fauna to which it is alleged ‘thrive’ in the location.

- The demolition of the garage would harm a ‘family’ of bats to which it is alleged are roosting within its eaves.

- The proposal…‘would set a dangerous precedent for other developments in large gardens in the Conservation Area’. The anticipated number of planning applications in this regard has been estimated to be into the ‘hundreds’.

5.5. The Clapham Society have responded and state…‘Given that the proposed

house no longer projects significantly above the boundary wall its impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area is minimised and the Society has no further objections. However, the loss of associated trees is regrettable’.

5.6. The Gauden Road Residents’ Association have responded and raise three grounds of objection, being:

- ‘It is not in line with the Sibella Road building line’. - ‘In design, it is quite out of sympathy with its neighbouring buildings’. - ‘As such it does not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area’.

5.7. Cllr. Pete Robbins has objected to the proposal in his capacity as a

Larkhall Ward Councillor. He requested the application to be ‘called-in’ to the Planning Applications Committee for determination within the public forum. His grounds of objection reflect those expressed by neighbouring residential occupiers recorded in the above Section 5.4.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1 Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998): CD2: Development in conservation areas CD15: Design of new development H1: Housing provision H10: Residential development standards H16: Backland, rear garden, corner and adjacent to corner sites ENV3: Wildlife habitats ENV7: Retention of existing trees in new development ENV8: Protection of trees on construction sites ENV9: Planting and landscaping on development sites ENV10: Tree preservation orders ENV23: Energy efficient buildings ENV24: Waste management and disposal ENV25: Recycling and re-use T9: Provision of vehicular access T12: Parking standards T17: Transport implications of development proposals T36: Cycle parking ST1: Layout and design ST2: Density ST3: Daylight and sunlight ST4: Security and safety ST5: Privacy and space between buildings ST6: Backland and tandem development ST11: Layout, parking, servicing, roads and footpaths ST13: Refuse storage and collection ST31: Protection of trees

6.1.2 Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004):

Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 15: Additional Housing Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout Policy 31a: Community Safety/Designing Out Crime Policy 32: Building Scale and Design Policy 32b: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 35: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas Policy 36: Street, Landscape & Public Realm Design Policy 42: Conservation Areas

Policy 46: Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment Policy 48: Pollution, Public Health and Safety Policy 50: Waste

6.1.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance 4: Internal Layout and Room Sizes 6.1.4 Proposed Sibella Road Conservation Area (CA No.58) (Larkhall

Ward): Report by Lambeth Planning CE’s Department (dated 11.12.2001)

6.1.5 The policies of the emerging replacement UDP normally carry

relatively less weight than the policies of the adopted UDP. Generally speaking the weight to be attached to such emerging policies depends upon the stage of plan preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached.

6.1.6 In the case of the Lambeth Replacement UDP, the Council has now

received the Inspector’s Report (17th February 2006) and is in the course of responding to the Inspector’s recommendations and preparing proposed modifications as part of the final stage of procedures leading to adoption of the Replacement UDP. This is a significant stage in the process of adoption of the Replacement UDP and as such considerable weight may be attached to policies in the Replacement UDP, which the Inspector has supported.

6.1.7 The Council’s approach to this has been approved under delegated

powers and is outlined in the Report on the Current Status of the Replacement UDP, which lists the policies the Inspector supports and states the Council will take this approach to all planning applications submitted from 1st August 2006.

6.2 Land Use

6.2.1 It is first considered necessary to establish the principle of the application site as a proposed development site. Adopted UDP policy H1 and Revised Deposit UDP Policy 15 identify housing as a priority land use of both adopted and emerging Borough plans. The proposal would make a positive contribution to the Borough's housing stock through the provision of a two-bedroom residential dwellinghouse, and in this respect, the proposal is considered acceptable and compliant with adopted and emerging policy objectives.

6.2.2 In support of the above, the Inspector, while determining the 20 January 2005 dismissed appeal (see above Section 3.5) stated…‘It is a matter of judgement as to whether any proposed scheme would preserve and/or enhance [the CA]. The width of this proposed dwelling, facing Sibella Road, would be substantially greater than its depth, a characteristic that would be out of keeping with its neighbours’. He continued, stating…‘The garden certainly provides a larger plot than others in the locality, but this new house would occupy a large proportion of it. In my view, it would appear cramped’.

6.2.3 It is important to note that in making the above comments, the Inspector was determining an appeal for a three-storey detached dwellinghouse. This proposal would have filled, to demonstrably

harmful proportions, an established gap in the townscape, which is considered to be an important contributor to the character and appearance of the CA. In his report, it is understood that the Inspector was referring to the ‘cramped’ appearance of the proposal as the result of its three-storey height in relation to its proximity with the existing frontage house, thus affecting the ‘openness’ of the CA. The Inspector did not preclude development which would have an acceptable impact upon this townscape gap. The current proposal would occupy less footprint, is single-storey, and would have approximately 2.5 metres less width (at roof level) than the 2005 dismissed scheme, contributing factors to which it is considered indicate this proposal’s acceptability.

6.2.4 Adopted UDP policy/standard H16/ST6 and emerging Policy 35 requires backland/in-curtilage development to…‘retain sufficient garden depth for the frontage house, which is commensurate with the building’s size and character’. It has been calculated that the proposal’s footprint would occupy approximately 180sq.m from a total existing 400sq.m of usable garden space. The donor property would be left with approximately 220sq.m of usable garden area, and would have an approximate average (mean) depth of 18 metres. This 18 metre mean depth, in conjunction with the remaining usable garden area of approximately 220sq.m is considered to be quite sufficient in order to continue the usable amenity value of this garden area, and no demonstrable harm would be resulted upon the future living conditions of the occupiers of this frontage house. As such, it is considered that the site as a development site has been justified, and the above adopted and emerging policy objectives are complied with.

6.3 Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1 Adopted UDP policies CD2 and CD15, and Revised Deposit UDP Policies 32 and 42 promote good quality design which relates to its surroundings while ensuring that the character and appearance of conservation areas are at a minimum preserved, and at best enhanced. Adopted UDP policy H16 and Revised Deposit UDP Policy 35 are concerned with controlling development in backland/in-curtilage locations, with special regard being paid in respect of:

(i) the density and height are subordinate to the frontage housing; (ii) privacy and outlook from the existing dwellinghouse and in

particular, gardens; (iii) any proposed demolition to form accesses which would result in

unattractive breaches in a consistent street frontage; (iv) access arrangements which would cause significant nuisance to

neighbouring properties will not be permitted; (v) sufficient garden depth and area should be retained by existing

dwellings commensurate with their size and character; (vi) the layout, scale and form of housing visible from the street

should be compatible with the predominant scale of housing on the street; and

(vii) the effect and cumulative impact of the development on the loss of garden habitat/biodiversity.

6.3.2 The Inspector’s Report (17 February 2006) on the Revised Deposit UDP, in relation to the above discussed Policy 35, has considered that…‘The section of the policy dealing with backland development is adequate [and] it requires no strengthening.’ He continued, adding…‘The policy identifies the most common issues met where backland development is proposed. Imaginative designs are not precluded by the policy. Flexibility is always available under this policy, and or any other policy, where material considerations justify it.’ This policy remains largely unchanged, with the only recommended modification being to include the words ‘through good design’ within the first sentence of the first paragraph of this policy’s introduction. The Cabinet approved this recommended modification to Policy 35 on 18 September 2006.

6.3.3 Turing to the first above point (i) of Policy 35 regarding density and

height, it has been demonstrated that the principle and effect of the proposal on the urban grain of the location is considered to be acceptable (see Section 6.2 Land Use, above). In terms of the proposal’s height, it is noted that front (street facing) section of proposal’s roof (over one third of the total roof area) has been kept beneath the height of the existing boundary wall fronting Sibella Road, which stands at an approximate 2.3 metres. This roof detail increases in height to approximately 3.3 metres so as to correspond with the established building line of the adjacent development along Sibella Road. It is therefore considered that the inherent nature of a single-storey development, of which over a third would not be able to be viewed from the public realm as it is below the boundary wall with Sibella Road, achieves an acceptable degree of subordination to the frontage house (i.e. the host property and those on Sibella Road), and in this respect, the effects of the proposal are considered acceptable.

6.3.4 In relation to amenity matters, point (ii), this issue is expanded upon

below within Section 6.4, yet for the purposes of this point’s assessment, the following is considered appropriate at this stage. The main four external elevations of the proposal are windowless, while clerestory windows terminating at fascia height allow additional natural daylight into the proposal’s habitable floorspace. As such, no loss of neighbouring residential amenity would be resulted by the proposal through unacceptable privacy or outlook loss, and in this respect, the effects of the proposal are considered acceptable.

6.3.5 With regards to point (iii), the proposal seeks to replace the existing

double timber doors accessing the existing garage with facing brickwork to match that of the exiting boundary wall. A painted timber pedestrian access is proposed to the south-east of the existing garage doors. No unattractive breach in this consistent boundary treatment would be resulted through the infilling of the garage doors with matching facing brickwork, terminating at the same height as the existing boundary treatment, and in this respect, the effects of the proposal are considered acceptable.

6.3.6 Point (iv) relates to the effects of new accesses in relation to their

impact on existing residential amenity. First, it is necessary to note that no vehicle access is proposed for the development. A pedestrian access would be located on the boundary with No.2 Sibella Road;

serving the principal entry to the proposal’s living accommodation. As this access is solely for pedestrians, the disturbance caused (if any) would be experienced primarily by No.2 Sibella Road, to which no objection in relation to this matter has been raised. It is reasonable to assume that normal patterns of pedestrian traffic to and from the proposed two-bedroom house would be of a low-intensity and intermittent in its nature, thus preserving the residential amenity of No.2 Sibella Road, and in this respect, the effects of the proposal are considered acceptable.

6.3.7 The assessment with regards to point (v) of policy 35 has been

conducted within the above Section 6.2.4, yet in summary, it was considered that the remaining 18 metre average (mean) depth of the host property’s garden, in conjunction with a remaining usable garden area of approximately 220sq.m is considered to be quite sufficient in order to continue the amenity value of this garden area. It is considered that no demonstrable harm would be resulted upon the future living conditions of the occupiers of this host building, and in this respect, the effects of the proposal are considered acceptable.

6.3.8 It is important to identify the wording within point (vi) which talks

about…‘the layout, scale and form of the housing visible from the street should be compatible with…’. In this case, over a third of the built envelope of the proposal would be below the existing boundary wall with Sibella Road and out of view from the public realm. The development visible from the street would be the area of fascia to the roof sited 5 metres behind the boundary wall with the street, while projecting above the same wall by approximately 1 metre. Glimpses of a rooflight with a rectangular footprint sited centrally over the proposed living area would be afforded, only to what officers consider a nominal and acceptable degree. The projecting height of the roof would be inline with the existing building-line of the properties located to the south-east of the site along Sibella Road. It is considered that this visually unobtrusive element of the proposal’s built form would not be such an incongruous feature within the location’s street scene so as to identify demonstrable harm, and thus warrant refusal of the application, and in this respect, the effects of the proposal are considered acceptable.

6.3.9 Point (vii) relates to the effect and cumulative impact of development

on the loss of garden habitat/biodiversity. In terms of the proposal’s cumulative impact on garden spaces within the CA, it has been asserted that through granting this application planning permission, precedent would be established giving rise to ‘hundreds’ of applications to the Council for similar developments. It is considered that this is simply not the case. A study of the Ordnance Survey plan designating the Conservation Area indicates the application site as being unusually large corner site in comparison to other gardens within the CA. The Inspector, while determining the dismissed 2005 appeal, also made this observation. It is considered that, after a close study of the Ordnance Survey plan of the location, limited further opportunities for development such as this application could be afforded within the CA. It is the special physical attributes of this site which lends itself to the potential of sustaining a development which does not unacceptably impact on its surroundings (in a manner

described within the above points (i) to (vii)), and to this end, the effects of the proposal are considered acceptable. The matter of the proposal’s impact on the potential loss of habitat/biodiversity discussed within point (vii) are considered below in Section 6.7.1.

6.3.10 The materials proposed for the construction of an approved scheme

have been indicated as: red cedar cladding ribbed with iroko hardwood for the external elevations (which would not be visually prominent within the location’s street scene due to the approximate 2.3 metre boundary wall with Sibella Road); metal framed windows with clear double glazing and obscure glazed cladding panels; ‘green’ sedum blanket roof covering; and cedar clad fascia with metallic clad eaves overhang. These materials are considered appropriate to the contemporary built form of the proposal, and would not appear as incongruous within the context of the location as a CA. Conditions requiring samples and details to be submitted to the Council for approval prior to commencement of work on site will be imposed in order to guarantee the quality of the build. It is therefore considered that the above assessment, in conjunction with suitability of the proposed materials, indicates the overall acceptability of the proposal’s impact on the street scene of the location, and to this end, it is considered that character and appearance of the CA would be preserved. The proposal is therefore considered compliant with the above and emerging policy objectives, and is acceptable.

6.4 Amenity Impact

6.4.1 Adopted Policy H10 and Policy 32 of the RDUDP, as well as advice contained within SPG4, requires developments to meet certain specified minimum room sizes, so as to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for its future residential occupiers. The proposal meets and exceeds the above minimum room sizes, and in this respect, the proposal complies with adopted and emerging policy objectives and is considered acceptable. An internal courtyard has been proposed in order to allow natural daylight into the adjacent habitable rooms to which it would serve. The amount of daylight received to these habitable rooms is considered adequate, and would offer an acceptable degree of living standard for its future occupiers, and in this respect, the proposal is considered to accord with the above adopted and emerging policy objectives.

6.4.2 Adopted policies H10 and CD15 and development standards ST3 and

ST5, and Revised Deposit UDP Policy 32 are concerned with ensuring that the existing residential amenity enjoyed by neighbouring residential occupiers is not unacceptably eroded through loss of privacy, outlook or daylight/sunlight. As the walls of the proposal are not fenestrated (other than the clerestory windows which by definition do not afford outlook), no unacceptable loss of privacy would be experience by any neighbouring residential occupiers adjacent to the proposal. The built envelope of the proposal would not be located adjacent to any neighbouring window serving a habitable or non-habitable room so as to result an unacceptable loss of outlook. The single-storey nature of the proposal, in conjunction with the existing boundary treatments enclosing the site, results in the proposal neutral impact on received day/sunlight to windows serving habitable rooms

within adjacent properties. It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with the above adopted and emerging policy objectives, and is acceptable.

6.4.3 In addition to the above, it has been asserted that the flat roof of the

proposal could potentially be used as an amenity space, and thus overlook neighbouring properties and gardens to the detriment of their amenities. It is noted that an internal courtyard area has been proposed which would not include any means of direct access to the roof area. No other physical measures are proposed through the provision of stairs or ladders to this roof area. Notwithstanding this, in order to ensure that the roof is not used as an amenity area, a condition will be imposed on any permission preventing its use as such, other than for the purposes of seasonal maintenance i.e. to the sedum blanket roof covering.

6.5 Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1 Adopted policies T12, T17 and T36 consider the access and transport implications of proposals, and ensure that adequate cycle parking is provided within a scheme. Revised Deposit UDP Policies 9 and 14 mirror the objectives of the adopted policies while advising on maximum standards for parking of cars and minimum cycle parking standards. Ample opportunities to store cycles adjacent to the principal access to the proposed dwellinghouse have been provided, and in this respect, the proposal is considered compliant with adopted and emerging policy objectives, and is acceptable.

6.5.2 The proposal attracts the requirement of 1 car parking space as specified within Table 6 of Revised Deposit UDP Policy 14. The development proposes no off-street parking, so this provision will have to be met on-street within the existing CPZ. Transport officers raise no objection to the loss of the garage as capacity for parking within the CPZ exists. An existing crossover is located in front of the existing timber vehicle access doors which are proposed to be infilled with facing brickwork upon their redundancy. The Council’s Highways team raised no objection to the proposal provided that the crossover is ‘stopped up’ by raising the existing dropped kerb and reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line. This is in order to provide improved highway saftey to pedestrians unsing the footway. A condition to this effect will be imposed on any permission. Highways officers also require the linking of the CPZ to conjoin the existing two bays where the crossover to the garage used to exist. The CPZs extension would compensate for the additional requirement for an additional car parking within the location, thus rendering the proposal’s effects on local highways conditions to be neutral. These works will be required to be implemented prior to the first occupation of the proposal through the imposition of a Grampian styled condition. It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with the above adopted and emerging policy objectives, and is acceptable.

6.6 Trees Issues

6.6.1 The thrust of adopted policies ENV7, ENV8 and ENV10 and Revised Deposit UDP Policy 36 states that trees of high amenity value will be protected, including during construction, through the use of planning conditions and Tree Preservation Orders’.

6.6.2 Two horse chestnut trees are located outside of the host property’s

curtilage, yet are sited adjacent to the boundary treatment with No.27 Larkhall Rise located to the south-west of the site. As indicated on the supporting location plan within the Tree Survey and Assessment Report prepared by Clive Fowler Associates received 27/06/2006 (the Tree Report), horse chestnut T7 would be approximately 9 metres from the proposal, and as such, would remain unaffected by any associated works of excavation for the proposal, which is considered acceptable.

6.6.3 Horse chestnut T1 is located adjacent to the existing vehicle garage,

and is within the curtilage of No.27 Larkhall Lane. The unacceptable effects of the dismissed 2005 appeal scheme (for the three-storey dwellinghouse) on horse chestnut T1 contributed to the overall failure of this scheme. The Inspector while determining this appeal concluded that…‘it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not harm the horse chestnut tree and that there would not be further pressure to remove it or reduce it [through the proximity of the proposal to the tree and its three-storey height]’. The superstructure of this single-storey plus partial basement area proposal consists of a steel frame raised from ground beams bearing on an insitu reinforced concrete partial basement structure with piling. This ground design is to ensure that the development adjacent to tree T1 would be cantilevered from the proposal’s basement area, thus avoiding any ground disturbance within the root protection area as specified in BS 5837 (2005) Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations. The Council’s Arboricultural officer raises no objection to this construction methodology, and is also satisfied that the height of the proposal would provide sufficient access and working space during construction resulting in an improved and more integrated structure in terms of the proximity of T1’s overhead canopy. Rainwater from the proposal’s roof area will be channelled down to the underside of the structure for the benefit of the tree, a welcome measure, to which officers raise no objection. The issue of falling debris has been mitigated by the use of a proposed ‘green’ sedum blanket roof which can tolerate these seasonal occurrences, provided the correct maintenance regime is in place (see below Section 6.7.5). It has therefore been demonstrated that no material harm would be resulted to tree T1, and with the imposition of standard conditions relating to the tree’s protection during construction, the proposal is considered compliant with the above adopted and emerging policy objectives.

6.6.4 It is also proposed to fell 5 x existing mature common lime trees

situated in front of the existing vehicle garage and inline with the boundary treatment separating the application site and No.2 Sibella Road. The trees are numbered T2 to T6 within the Tree Report, with T6 being the most dominant tree (approximately 4.6 metres high to the pollard knuckle), and sited closest to the street boundary with Sibella Road. Neighbouring occupiers requested the Council to serve a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on T6 during the course of the application.

The Tree Report has identified that a three metre ‘column of decay’ exists within the eastern framework stem (a condition to which the Council’s Arboricultural officer has also identified), resulting in the limited useful life expectancy of this tree (approximately 10 years), thus justifying its removal. The Council has received information from residents suggesting the contrary. It is contended that T6’s amenity value outweighs its shortened life expectancy, and that the proposal should be ‘pulled back’ by approximately 1 metre in order to afford tree the appropriate root protection zone. However, it is the view of the Council’s Arboricultural officer that the tree is not worthy of statutory protection through service of a TPO, and is recommended to be removed at the build stage, and a replacement tree planted upon completion of the development. It is also considered that any replacement tree could be of fastigiate (upright) habit, so that a larger specimen could be planted to provide screening and visual amenity value to the surrounding location. A condition will be imposed requiring the detail of any replacement tree to be approved by the Council prior to works commencing on site. No tree officer objection is raised to felling the remaining inferior T2 to T5 lime trees as they are not considered to make a significant contribution to the visual amenity of the location, and are not worthy of statutory protection through serving a TPO. It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with adopted and emerging policy objectives, and is acceptable.

6.7 Other Matters

6.7.1 In terms of the proposal’s impact on the potential loss of habitat/biodiversity within the location, adopted UDP policies ENV3 and H16 and Revised Deposit UDP Policies 35 and 46 are pertinent to this assessment. It is first noted that the garden is not within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and has no other ecological designation within the adopted or emerging UDP, and as such, is no different to any other garden within the Borough. It has been asserted that the proposal would result in the ‘dangerous’ decline of many species of flora and fauna to which it is alleged ‘thrive’ in the location. No ecological evidence has been submitted to the Council in order to substantiate this claim. It is reasonable to consider that through developing an area of established garden, the displacement of a nominal degree of the local ecology would occur. However, it is just as reasonable to consider that, when this displacement is measured within the context of the all the remaining undeveloped garden areas within the area, as well as the opportunities that the nearby Larkhall Park afford local ecosystems, no demonstrable harm can be identified, and in this respect, the proposal is considered acceptable.

6.7.2 It has also been alleged that a colony of bats are roosting within the

eaves of the existing vehicle garage, to which no supporting ecological evidence has been submitted to substantiate this claim. Conservation area consent was granted for the demolition of the existing garage in July 2003. No allegations of bats roosting within this space was made during the determination of this consent. No legal planning mechanisms exists within the determination of this planning application to resist the demolition of the garage in connection with this assertion. However, legislation in the form of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) protects bats and their roosts in England, Scotland and Wales. In summary, it is a criminal offence for any person to, amongst other things, intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place that a bat uses for protection. This offence is one of ‘strict liability’ which negates any individual claims of ignorance as to their existence at the time of any alleged disturbance or destruction. Upon the commencement of works, if it is the case that bats are roosting within the garage, the applicant must immediately contact the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation for England (which is English Nature), who will be able to advise on the necessary steps in order to mitigate any harmful effects on the bats. The applicant will be made aware of their statutory obligations under the WCA through an informative attached to any planning permission.

6.7.3 Adopted UDP policies ST13, ENV24 and ENV25 and Policy 50 of the

Revised Deposit UDP are pertinent to the assessment of refuse collection and waste/recycling management. A bin store and access has been indicated to be sited adjacent to the principal entrance to the proposed dwellinghouse. The provision of the bin store is considered acceptable in this location, and therefore, the above adopted and emerging policy objectives are considered to have been met.

6.7.4 Adopted UDP policy CD15 and Revised Deposit UDP Policy 31a

relate to the effect of a proposal in terms of its impact on community safety. It has been asserted that the proposal’s flat roof would be…‘a clear target for vandals to break the glass and throw rubbish onto the flat roof [of the proposed building]’. The opportunity to despoil the environment and break windows is already present in the form of the existing dwellinghouses which make up this neighbourhood. No evidence of litter being thrown into the existing garden area was observed during officer’s visits to the site. In addition to this, no evidence exists to suggest that through specifically granting planning permission for the proposal, anti-social behaviour and opportunistic crime would rise to harmful levels within the location. It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with both adopted and emerging policy objectives, and is acceptable.

6.7.5 Adopted UDP policy ENV23 and emerging Revised Deposit UDP

Policy 32b, encourages all development proposals to incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. The hard and softwood timber proposed for its external cladding has been indicated as being supplied from sustainable sources, which is considered acceptable. The proposal has indicated that its roof would be a ‘green’ sedum blanket roofing system. It is noted that, in terms of the proposal’s visual amenity, the roof detail would have been considered acceptable without the inclusion of this element. Notwithstanding this, in terms of the proposal’s impact on the consumption of energy and finite recourses, green roof systems are recognised as providing greater thermal performance and roof insulation than conventional types of roofing systems. This leads to the habitable areas beneath green roof systems being cooler during summer months, and warmer within winter months, thus reducing energy demand for air conditioning and central heating and ultimately improving the carbon efficiency of the proposal, which is accords with the above emerging policy objectives.

6.7.6 Objectors have asserted that the proposed sedum blanket roof would

die after installation resulting in detriment to the visual amenity of the location. In order to ensure that this would not happen, conditions will be imposed for this element to be provided within an appropriate growing season in the first instance, and for its permanent retention thereafter with its total replacement (if it dies for what ever reason), within the next available planting season. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the above emerging policy objectives, and is acceptable.

6.7.7 It has been asserted that the proposed rooflight to the front (street)

section of the roof would result in unacceptable light pollution within the area. The adopted UDP is silent on this matter, while the Revised Deposit UDP Policy 48 controls lighting within and around commercial premises, not residential. Notwithstanding this, it is reasonable to consider that the normal illumination of habitable volume within residential development would not result in harmful levels of light pollution within a location, and in this respect, the proposal is considered acceptable.

6.7.8 In the interests of visual and residential amenity, it is considered

necessary to remove the potential to develop, which would otherwise permitted by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. This will ensure that any future alterations would require a formal submission to the Council for planning permission.

6.7.9 Revised Deposit UDP Policy 31(F) states that the design of

development should include full access for the whole community including, amongst other things, disabled persons. Steps leading to the front door of the dwellinghouse are proposed, which indicates that the proposal is not wheelchair accessible. The constraints and sensitivities of the site have dictated its design, and it is not considered necessary for the proposal to be redesigned in order for it to be accessible by wheelchair.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal would have an acceptable impact in land use terms, and the principle of the site as a development site is also considered acceptable.

7.2. The detailed design, size and siting of the proposal would not result in an

incongruous feature within the Sibella Road street scene, nor would result in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the Sibella Road Conservation Area.

7.3. No unacceptable impact on the existing amenities of the neighbouring

residential occupiers would be experienced through the implementation of an approved scheme. The proposal would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for its future occupiers.

7.4. The highways impact of the proposal is considered neutral, and therefore

acceptable.

7.5. The impact of the proposal on the existing 2 x horse chestnut trees is considered acceptable, while no unacceptable harm to the location’s visual amenity would be experience through the loss of the 5 x common lime trees.

7.6. The proposal would not unacceptably impact on the biodiversity of the

location, while its refuse provision and community safety impact would be acceptable.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant Planning Permission (Subject to Conditions).

Summary of Reasons:

In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Policies were relevant: • Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998): CD2: Development in conservation

areas, CD15: Design of new development, H1: Housing provision, H10: Residential development standards, H16: Backland, rear garden, corner and adjacent to corner sites, ENV3: Wildlife habitats, ENV7: Retention of existing trees in new development, ENV8: Protection of trees on construction sites, ENV9: Planting and landscaping on development sites, ENV10: Tree preservation orders, ENV23: Energy efficient buildings, ENV24: Waste management and disposal, ENV25: Recycling and re-use, T12: Parking standards, T17: Transport implications of development proposals, T36: Cycle parking, ST1: Layout and design, ST2: Density, ST3: Daylight and sunlight, ST4: Security and safety, ST5: Privacy and space between buildings, ST6: Backland and tandem development, ST11: Layout, parking, servicing, roads and footpaths, ST13: Refuse storage and collection, ST31: Protection of trees.

• Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004): Policy 9: Transport Impact,

Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 15: Additional Housing, Policy 31a: Community Safety/Designing Out Crime, Policy 32: Building Scale and Design, Policy 32b: Sustainable Design and Construction, Policy 35: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas, Policy 36: Street, Landscape & Public Realm Design, Policy 42: Conservation Areas, Policy 46: Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Policy 50: Waste.

Conditions:

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Classes A, B & E of

Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of, or to, any dwellinghouse the subject of this permission shall be carried out without planning permission having first been obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority; nor shall any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of any said dwellinghouse as such be constructed or placed on any part of the land covered by this permission without such planning permission having been obtained. Reason: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the nature and density of the layout requires strict control over the form of any

additional development which may be proposed in the interests of maintaining a satisfactory residential environment in accordance with Policies CD2, CD15, H10, ST1, ST2 and ST8 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 31, 32 and 42 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

3 Samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations of

the development hereby approved, including typical details at a scale of 1:20 of the development's windows and rooflight, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building work commences and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies CD2 and CD15 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 32 and 42 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

4 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on

the external faces of the building. Reason: Such works would detract from the appearance of the building and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality and the Sibella Road Conservation Area in accordance with Policies CD2 and CD15 and of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 32 and 42 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

5 The roof area of the dwellinghouse hereby approved shall not be used

as a balcony, sitting out area or other amenity area. Reason: To preserve the privacy and amenities of the adjacent property occupiers in accordance with Policies CD15, ST5 and ST8 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 32 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

6 The facing brickwork to be used for infilling the former location of the

timber garage doors fronting Sibella Road adjacent to the boundary with No.2 Sibella Road, shall match the adjacent work within the unaltered boundary treatment with regards to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation, or except where otherwise stated on the approved drawings. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies CD2 and CD15 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 32 and 42 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

7 No trees other than those shown to be removed on the Tree Protection

Plan (Appendix 1 of Tree Survey and Assessment by Clive Fowler Associates) received 27/06/06, shall be felled or pruned, nor shall any roots be removed or pruned without the prior written consent of the

Local Planning Authority. All reasonable precautions shall be taken (including any detailed in other conditions) to protect the branch structure and main trunks of the trees to be retained and to protect the root system from damage during site works. Reason: To ensure that the crowns, boles and root systems of the trees are not damaged during the period of construction and in the long term interests of local amenities in accordance with Policies H10, ST31 and ENV8 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

8 All retained trees as specified in the hereby approved plans shall be

protected in strict accordance with the details contained in Appendix 'd' (Tree Protection Statement) of the hereby approved document Tree Survey and Assessment by Clive Fowler Associates received 27/06/06. Reason: To ensure that the crowns, boles and root systems of the trees are not damaged during the period of construction and in the long term interests of local amenities in accordance with Policies H10, ST31 and ENV8 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

9 No works or development shall take place until a specification of all

proposed tree planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This specification will include details of the quantity, size, species, position, methodology and the proposed time of planting of all trees to be planted, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term and with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details and implemented within the first available planting season. Reason: To maintain the visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy ENV7 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

10 If within a period of 5 years from the date of planting of any tree, or any

tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective), another tree of the same species and size originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variations. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development in accordance with Policies CD15, ENV7, ENV9, H10, and ST31 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

11 No works or development shall take place until a specification of the

proposed installation/establishment of the 'green' sedum blanket roof has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority. This specification will include details of the methodology and the proposed time of planting of the 'green' sedum blanket roof, together with an indication and schedule of anticipated maintenance measures. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To maintain the visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy ENV7 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

12 If within a period of 5 years from the date of installation/establishment

of the 'green' sedum blanket roof, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective), another 'green' sedum blanket roof of the same species and size originally installed/established shall be installed/established at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variations. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development in accordance with Policies CD15, ENV7, ENV9, H10, and ST31 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

13 Within one month of the first occupation of the building hereby

approved, the existing access point on Sibella Road not incorporated in the development shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb and reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary. Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users in accordance with Policies T9 and CD15 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9 and 31 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

14 Within one month of the first occupation of the building hereby

approved the residents' parking bay shall be extended across the redundant vehicular access located adjacent to the boundary with No.2 Sibella Road, and certified in writing as complete by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the highways impact of the proposal does not unacceptably contribute to parking stress and therefore compromise highway safety within the location in accordance with Policy T17 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 9 and 14 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

15 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied or used

until the provision for the refuse and recycling storage shown on the application drawing SR/PA/02-A has been implemented in full. The refuse and recycling storage shall thereafter be retained solely for their designated use. Reason: To ensure adequate refuse and recycling storage is available on site, in the interests of the amenities of the area

in accordance with Policies ENV24, ENV25, T17 and ST13 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9 and 50 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).

Notes to Applicants: 1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be

required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the

Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

3 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and

related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.

4 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team

within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities.

5 As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the

Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to name a new or existing building or apply new street numbers to a new or existing building. This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are Rachel Harrison, Street Naming and Numbering Officer, e-mail: [email protected], tel: 020 7926 2283, fax: 020 7926 9131.

6 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Highways team on

020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary prior approval for undertaking any works within the public highway including scaffolding, temporary/permanent crossovers, oversailing/undersailing of the highway, drainage/sewer connections and repairs on the highways, hoarding, excavations, temporary full/part road closures, craneage licences etc.

7 It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new

vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on telephone number 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.

8 You are advised to contact the Metropolitan Police Service's Crime

Prevention Design Adviser in relation to matters concerning Secured by Design. Contact details are PC Robert Harrison, tel: 020 8649 2503.

9 You are reminded of your statutory obligations in relation to legislation

protecting bats contained within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. If upon commencement of the demolition of the vehicle garage you suspect or identify that bats are roosting within the space, you must contact English Nature (the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation for England), who will be able to advise on the necessary steps in order to mitigate any harmful effects on the bats. Contact at English Nature can be made through the following: Samantha Lyme, Conservation Officer, Essex, Hertfordshire and London Team, English Nature, Devon House, 12-15 Dartmouth Street, Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9BL, T: 020 7340 4873, F: 020 7340 48