Page 1 of 43 - Lambeth Council · Page 7 of 43 2. Site description 2.1 The proposal site is located on the western side of Kennington Green on the corner of Montford Place and Kennington

Page 1 of 43

Page 2 of 43

ADDRESS: Kennington Green, Kennington Road

London, SE11

Application Number: 17/04261/DET Case Officer: Jeffrey Holt

Ward: Oval Date Received: 01/09/2017

Proposal:

Approval of details pursuant to condition 2A (material revisions to the details of scale

and external appearance), 2B (external materials) and 4 (landscaping) in respect of the

Kennington Green head-house. This application relates to those structures which fall

within the identified tunnelling and excavation settlement zone within Lambeth Council's

boundary.

A Transport and Works Act Order which authorises London Underground Limited

("LUL") to construct and operate a 3.2 kilometre extension of the Charing Cross Branch

of the Northern Line from Kennington to a new station at the site of the disused

Battersea Power Station, with an intermediate station at Nine Elms. The scheme

(referred to as "the NLE") includes permanent ventilation shafts and head-houses at

Kennington Park and Kennington Green and four new cross-passages at Kennington

station. The Order also authorises the compulsory acquisition and temporary use of land

for the purposes of the NLE.

Drawing numbers:

MMD-N202-2360000-CIV-DRW-50301 REV P03; MMD-N202-2360000-CIV-DRW-

50302 REV P03; MMD-N202-2360000-CIV-DRW-50305 REV P03; MMD-N202-

2360000-CIV-DRW-50306 REV P02; MMD-N202-2360000-CIV-DRW-50307 REV P03;

MMD-N202-2360000-CIV-DRW-50310 REV P01; MMD-N202-2360000-CIV-DRW-

50311 REV P01; MMD-N202-2360000-CIV-DRW-50312 REV P01; MMD-N202-

2360000-CIV-DRW-50314 REV P01; MMD-N202-2360000-CIV-DRW-50315 REV P01;

MMD-N202-2360000-UTY-DRW-50317 REV P01; MMD-N20-2360000-CIV-DRW-50318

REV P01; MMD-N202-2360000-ARC-DEW-30415 REV P05; MMD-N202-2360000-

ARC-DRW-30416 REV P05; MMD-N202-2360000-ARC-DRW-33090 REV P01; MMD-

N202-2360000-CIV-DRW-20316 REV P01.1;

Page 3 of 43

Documents:

Cover letter; Samples/Materials Board Schedule; Actions since Planning Committee

decision given on 29 November 2016;

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Resolve to grant approval of details in relation to conditions 2 part (a) and (b) and

Condition 4 of the Planning Direction insofar as those details relate to Kennington

Green Head House and Kennington Green.

Applicant:

Mr Peter Higginbottom

FLO

FLO JV Office

Camelford House

87-89 Albert Embankment

London

SE1 7TW

Agent:

n/a

Page 4 of 43

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

i. The London Underground (Northern Line Extension) Order 2014 (‘the Order’)

authorised London Underground to construct an extension to the Northern Line

from Kennington to a new station at Battersea Power Station. The scheme

includes permanent ventilation shafts and head houses at Kennington Park and

Kennington Green and four new cross-passages at Kennington station. A head

house is an above ground structure that performs a function relating to the

operation of a railway.

ii. The location of the head-house (approved pursuant to the Order and the

associated planning direction (‘the Planning Direction’) made by the Secretary of

State for Transport under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990) is on the western side of Kennington Green on the corner of Montford

Place. Currently, Kennington Green is being used as a worksite for the Northern

Line Extension. The surrounding area is residential in character however, to the

west is the gin distillery within a Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA) and to

the east are employment uses as part of the Stannary Street KIBA. The site falls

within the Kennington Green Conservation Area and is surrounded by a number

of local and statutory Listed Buildings. Kennington Green is also a protected

London Square.

iii. The Planning Direction permits the development of the Northern Line Extension

(‘NLE’) subject to a number of conditions. This application seeks to discharge

Condition 2 part (a) and part (b) and Condition 4 insofar only as those details

relate to Kennington Green Head House and Kennington Green

iv. Condition 2 relates to design details of the head house. Details for this condition

were submitted under an earlier application under reference 16/04115/DET. The

application was refused on 29 November 2016 because of the harmful impact on

the setting of the adjoining listed buildings and the character and appearance of

the conservation area, which were not considered to be outweighed by the public

benefits of the proposal. Following refusal of the earlier application, consultation

took place with the Georgian Group. A number of options were developed by

the applicant and canvassed with local residents. In the light of that exercise,

the present revised proposals were submitted. The current proposal builds on

the earlier proposal for a brick structure of uniform height with recessed brick fins

arranged in a series of bays. However, the now fins have been lengthened so

that they terminate 1.2m above ground level. This reinforces the verticality of the

head-house, reduces the heaviness of the plinth, allows the fins to be seen by

passers-by and discourages graffiti. The proposed brick has been changed to

Smeed Dead Islington Yellow Rustics, which was the most popular of a set of

options put forward to local residents. The proposed revised details are

considered to address the concerns raised by Members on 29 November 2016,

Page 5 of 43

to fulfil the requirements of the condition and applicable planning policies and

material considerations, and to result in a head house that does not cause harm

to the setting of the nearby listed buildings and which preserves the character

and appearance of the conservation area.

v. Condition 4 requires details of landscaping. A number of options were developed

with Lambeth parks officers and proposed to local residents. The most popular

elements were combined to create a landscaping scheme made up of a grassed

area with trees set in mounds, a perennial planted bed in the southern corner

and a partly raised kerb to allow for sitting. The proposed design results in an

acceptable landscaping scheme that fulfils the requirements of the condition and

applicable planning policies and material considerations, and which does not

cause harm to the setting of the nearby listed buildings and preserves the

character and appearance of the conservation area.

vi. Objections from local residents and others were considered in the assessment

of the application and officers consider that the concerns raised have been

adequately addressed..

vii. Officers therefore recommend that the details submitted in relation to Kennington

Green Head House and Kennington Green pursuant to the relevant conditions

be approved.

Page 6 of 43

OFFICERS REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: The application is reported to the Planning Applications

Committee in accordance with (3) Applications which the Delivery Director –

Business, Growth & Regeneration or Assistant Director of Planning and

Development wishes to refer to the committee.

1. Summary

Designations

Designation/constraint

Conservation Area - CA8 : Kennington Conservation Area Flood Risk Zone 3 HSE Consultation Zone - Oval Gasholders HSE Consultation Zone Strategic Views: Primrose Hill to Palace of Westminster Local Views: Brixton Panoramic, Norwood Park to the City Kennington Green – Protected London Square

Adjacent/nearby:

Montford Place KIBA

Statutory Listed buildings (Grade II) – 346, 348, 354 and 356 Kennington Road Statutory Listed buildings (Grade II) – 362, 364 and 366 Kennington Rod (opposite the site - south) Statutory Listed buildings (Grade II*) – 350 and 352 Kennington Road

Site area

Total site area (m2) Total site area (hectares)

c. 2,700m2 c. 0.27ha

Floorspace comparison

Use class Description Existing

floorspace (GEA)

Proposed

floorspace (GEA)

Sui Generis Rail-related infrastructure n/a n/a

Housing details

Residential Type No. of bedrooms per unit

1 2 3 4 5+

N/A

Page 7 of 43

2. Site description

2.1 The proposal site is located on the western side of Kennington Green on the corner of

Montford Place and Kennington Road. The proposal site forms part of the ‘land to be

acquired and used’ within the red line boundary under the Order. . The NLE is currently

under construction with a worksite present at Kennington Green.

2.2 The proposal site currently comprises a boundary wall up to 6.5m high, presenting as a

‘false façade’ with arched window detailing onto the corner of Kennington Road (east)

and Montford Place (south). The existing boundary wall forms part of the wider gin

distillery site to the west. The boundary forms a consistent building line with the terrace

of residential properties to the south on Kennington Road.

2.3 The surrounding area is generally residential in character with residential uses to the

north and south. To the west is the gin distillery, which sits within a Key Industrial

Business Area (KIBA). To the east on the opposite side of Kennington Road is also

generally residential in character with employment uses as part of the Stannary Street

KIBA. The proposal site forms part of the Kennington Green Conservation Area and is

surrounded by a number of heritage assets, including Local and Statutory listed buildings

(Grade II and II*). The Green is also a protected London Square.

3. Proposed development

3.1 This application seeks to discharge condition 2, parts (a) and (b) and condition 4 of the

Planning Direction for the NLE in respect of the Kennington Green Head House. A head

house is an above ground structure that performs a function related to the operation of a

railway. In this instance, it provides ventilation, extraction an emergency access to the

underground shafts.

3.2 An application to discharge conditions 2 Parts (a) and (b) was refused on 29 November

2016. The current applications seek to address the reasons for refusal and the concerns

of Members on that occasion.

Condition 2 parts (a) and (b)

3.3 Condition 2 of the Planning Direction reads as follows:

2. Development in conservation area

Those aspects of the development comprising the construction of head-houses on land

at Kennington Park and at Kennington Green must be carried out in accordance with the

details shown on the following drawings:

Planning Direction Drawing 46;

Planning Direction Drawing 52A;



Page 8 of 43



Planning Direction Drawing 66; and

Planning Direction Drawing 67.

Before works relating to the above aspects of the development commence, further

drawings

of those aspects of the development—

(a) showing any material revisions proposed to be made to the details of scale and

external appearance provided within the above drawings; and

(b) at a scale of 1:50, or 1:20 if requested in writing by the local planning authority, along

with details, including samples, of external materials, must be submitted to and approved

by the local planning authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.4 The head house as approved under the Order is shown in plan and elevation on

Planning Direction drawings 60, 65, 66 and 67 (these are appended to this report for

information only (Appendix 1)). Planning Direction Drawings 46, 52A, 53A and 54A relate

to Kennington Park and are not relevant to this application.

3.5 As was the case with the earlier application to discharge condition 2 parts (a) and (b),

the design of the head house differs to that shown in the Planning Direction drawings.

The head house design submitted under the present application differs in both scale and

appearance from the drawings originally approved under the Planning Direction. This is

due to technical considerations through design and development, including evacuation

requirements defined by the London Fire Brigade, and the need to fit all the necessary

plant, ventilation and circulation space. The original drawings showed a head house

made up of two brick elements of different heights with an additional metal roof structure

on top of the taller element. The proposed design is for a single brick building with a

uniform height and no metal roof structure. The difference between this application and

the earlier application to discharge these conditions is that the façade has been

redesigned and a new brick type is proposed. This is explained below. The Order

permits a certain degree of variance from the authorised works, as explained further

below.

Earlier and proposed designs

3.6 Following public consultation (see section 5 for detail), a new design for the façade of the

head house was developed. The earlier design was for a brick structure with sections of

brick fins on the eastern and southern elevations. These fins commenced 2.9m above

ground level and terminated 1m below parapet level. The revised design maintains these

Page 9 of 43

fins but amends them so that they commence 1.2m above ground level. On the southern

elevation, the single vertical ventilation panel made up of bronze anodised aluminium

louvers remains as well as the bronze powder coated steel doors and panel at ground

level. On the western elevation, the proposal for a simple brick elevation remains

unchanged and on the northern elevation the bronzed anodised aluminium louver panel

is also retained.

3.7 The proposed brick has changed from Buff London Stock Brick (Mystique) to Smeed

Dean Islington Yellow Rustics. This choice was informed by the pre-application public

consultation (see section 5 below).

Page 10 of 43

Figure 1. Head House approved under the

planning direction (drawing no. 1453-KG-

F000-E-01 rev 07)

Figure 2. Head House design refused under

earlier application 16/04115/DET.

Figure 3. Proposed Head House east

elevation

Page 11 of 43

Figure 4. CGI view of the proposed design looking north-west

Figure 5. CGI view of proposed design looking west

Page 12 of 43

Condition 4

3.8 Condition 4 reads as follows:

No landscape works relating to the development are to commence until a landscape

scheme has been submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority. The

landscape scheme must—

(a) provide for the landscape works at Kennington Park and Kennington Green to be

completed no later than the end of the first available planting season following

completion of the development at Kennington Park and Kennington Green;

(b) include an implementation timetable for all other landscape works; and

(c) where relevant, include details of the following—

(i) Hard landscape proposals Proposed finished ground levels; Pedestrian access; Hard

surfacing materials; Proposed and existing functional services above and below ground

level such as drainage, pipelines, power and communications cables; Minor artefacts

and structures such as street furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs and lighting

(including lighting levels); Fencing; and Cycle storage facilities;

(ii) Soft landscape proposals Proposed planting noting species, planting sizes and

proposed numbers/densities; Schedules and plans of existing trees to be retained or

removed; Written specifications including cultivation and other operations associated

with plant and grass establishment; Ground levels; and Boundary levels; and

(iii) a maintenance management plan for the landscape works on the land at Kennington

Park to be retained by the person or body responsible for carrying out the development

or its successor.

Reason: To provide a suitable setting for the development in the interests of visual

amenity and to enhance flora and fauna.

3.9 Details of landscaping for Kennington Green have not been submitted previously but the

proposals were consulted on at the same time as the head house proposals.

Landscaping details for Kennington Park will be submitted under a separate application.

Information about how the consultation influenced the landscaping design is provided in

section 5.

3.10 The proposal for Kennington Green is for a raised bed of grass following the triangular

shape of the green. The grass would be raised 200mm above pavement level and

supported by a granite-clad retaining wall. The wall would vary in height so that in some

places it could function as a bench. The north-western edge would be 200mm high,

rising to 400mm high along the eastern edge then falling back to 200mm high on the

south-western edge. The bottom of the wall would be set back by 6.5cm to allow for a

feature lighting strip. Formal access to the Green is provided by steps in the northern

Page 13 of 43

and western corners and a sloped access in the southern corner. The grassed area

would feature two mounds along the eastern side which would rise gently to 500mm and

700mm above the grass level. Each of these mounds would have three Juneberry trees

and bulbs around their base. The southern tip of the Green would feature a planted area

for small perennial plants.

3.11 The pavement on the streets surrounding the Green would be granite. The street surface

would be granite setts (small stones). Six street trees (5 x London Plane and 1 x

Maidenhair) would be planted along Kennington Road, one tree (Tulip Tree) to the north-

west of the green opposite 354 Kennington Road and one Hornbeam Fastigiatia to the

south of the Head House on Montford Place. Finally, two granite planters are proposed

in front of the head house.

3.12 Six street trees (5 x London Plane and 1 x Maidenhair) would be planted along

Kennington Road, one tree (Tulip Tree) to the north-west of the green opposite 354

Kennington Road and one Hornbeam Fastigiatia to the south of the Head House on

Montford Place. Finally, two granite planters are proposed in front of the head house.

Figure 6. CGI view of proposed landscaping to Kennington Green

Page 14 of 43

Figure 7. CGI View looking south-west over Kennington Green

4. Relevant planning history

4.1 The proposal site itself has a significant planning application history as part of the

distillery. However, it is not considered relevant to the current application. The recent

planning history for this site and the wider Kennington Green worksite is set out below

and relates solely to the NLE proposals.

4.2 An application was made by London Underground under the Transport and Works Act

1992 for the Order. The proposal sought to construct and subsequently operate a 3.2

kilometre extension of the Charing Cross Branch of the Northern Line from Kennington

to a new station at the site of the disused Battersea Power Station, with an intermediate

station at Nine Elms. The scheme included permanent ventilation shafts and head-

houses at Kennington Park and Kennington Green and four new cross-passages at

Kennington station.

4.3 Following a public inquiry (19/11/13 – 20/12/13) the Secretary of State approved the

Order, and deemed planning permission was granted for the extension on 12 November

2014. The permission was subject to a number of conditions, including the two in respect

of which approval of details is sought in the current application..

4.4 An application (ref: 16/04115/DET) to discharge conditions 2A and 2B was refused on 29

November 2016 for the following reason:

Page 15 of 43

1. The proposal would have a harmful impact on the setting of adjoining listed

buildings and the character and appearance of the conservation area due to (a)

external appearance and (b) external materials, which would not be outweighed

by the public benefits.

4.5 The minutes to the meeting state that the Committee had the following concerns:

The design of the plinth was too heavy and unbalanced the proposed design

The application would not preserve or enhance the conservation area, as

required by policy Q22 of the Local Plan.

As landscaping details for the Green would be submitted later, it was difficult to

make a judgement of the impact of the proposal in its entirety. It was likely that

landscaping would mitigate some issues.

The bulk and massing were acceptable, due to the technical requirements of

the building and the industrial uses nearby. Its utilitarian appearance was not

necessarily an issue.

Although the efforts made by officers and the applicant in developing an

acceptable proposal were evident, the detailed design was an issue.

It was not clear that the brick would be subservient to the conservation area.

Harm was considered to be ‘less than substantial’

4.6 A number of other applications have been made to discharge conditions. These are

listed below:

15/00186/DET - Application Withdrawn - Decision date: 22.05.2015

Approval of details pursuant to Condition C: Conservation Area Consent

(reinstatement of fencing, hard and soft landscaping) at Kennington Green

Construction site.

The application relates to the (Transport and Works Act 1982) - Application for

London Underground (Northern line Extension), to extend the Charing Cross Branch

of the Northern Line from Kennington to a new station at Battersea Power Station,

with an intermediate station at Nine Elms. Granted 12.11.2014

Application relates to demolition of boundary wall located at the Kennington Green

end of the Beefeater Gin Distillery site, to facilitate the Northern Line extension

15/00887/DET - Application Permitted - Decision date: 05.05.2015

Page 16 of 43

Approval of details pursuant to Condition 7: Code of Construction practice part B (Air

quality, archaeology and heritage, ecology management, energy management, noise

and vibration management, resource efficiency management, sustainable travel,

traffic management and water management) at Kennington Green Construction site.






Part-approval of details pursuant to Condition 10: (Archaeology) at Kennington

Green Construction site.






Part-approval of details pursuant to Condition 5a: (works to tree within a

Conservation Area) at Kennington Green Construction site.






Part approval of details, pursuant to Condition 11 (Monitoring methodology and

programme for monitoring equipment to be affixed to listed buildings) at Kennington

Green Construction Site.


("LUL") to construct and operate a 3.2 kilometre extension of the Charing Cross

Branch of the Northern Line from Kennington to a new station at the site of the

disused Battersea Power Station, with an intermediate station at Nine Elms. The

Page 17 of 43

scheme (referred to as "the NLE") includes permanent ventilation shafts and head-


Kennington station. The Order also authorises the compulsory acquisition and

temporary use of land for the purposes of the NLE.


Part-approval of details pursuant to Condition 5a: (works to tree within a

Conservation Area) at Kennington Green Construction site.






Approval of details pursuant to condition 11 (Monitoring methodology and

programme for monitoring equipment to be affixed to listed buildings). This

application relates to those structures which fall within the identified tunnelling and

excavation settlement zone within the Lambeth Council's boundary.










Approval of details pursuant to condition 14B (Airborne noise from the operation of

fixed plant or machinery) in respect of the Kennington Green head-house. This

application relates to those structures which fall within the identified tunnelling and

excavation settlement zone within the Lambeth Council's boundary.




Page 18 of 43






Planning Enforcement History (EN):

None relevant.

Planning Appeal History (AP):

None.

5. Consultation

Pre-application consultation

5.1 Following the refusual of the application under reference 16/04115/DET , the

applicant engaged with The Georgian Group to discuss key aspects of the head

house design. These were the design of the base on the eastern elevation, brick

detailing, brick type and proportions. Following this engagement, a number of design

options were developed for public consultation. Design options for the landscaping

of Kennington were also put forward. Landscaping had not been consulted on

previously but it was considered appropriate to consult on both the proposed head

house and landscaping together. This public consultation built upon regular

discussions with some members of the community, through dedicated meetings and

quarterly community liaison groups.

5.2 Consultation was carried out in the following ways:

4,875 letters sent to local residents and businesses, including immediate

neighbours

Letters and emails sent to local, London-wide and national statutory/non-statutory

stakeholder groups and individuals

Meetings with residents

Public exhibition held at Henry Fawcett Primary School, Bowling Green Street,

SE11 on:

o Thursday 23 March 2017 17:00-20:00

o Friday 24 March 2017 17:00-20:00

o Saturday 25 March 2017 10:00-13:00

5.3 Members of the applicant’s project team, including the architects were present at the

public exhibition to discuss the scheme and answer questions. In total, 64 people

attended the exhibition.

Page 19 of 43

5.4 The scope of the consultation was focussed on the proposed designs. Whether to

build a head house at all, or not at not Kennington Green, the location of the head

house and the size of the head house were all questions outside the scope of the

consultation, as these were fixed by the Order and the Planning Direction and

subject only to any variations authorised by those instruments..

5.5 A total of 112 responses were received from the public consultation. The great

majority of these (c.80%) were from local residents with others from local

businesses, commuters or other interested persons. Responses were also received

from The Georgian Group and the Woodland Trust.

5.6 Options were proposed for the following:

Head House

The east and south elevations of the head house

The west elevation of the head house

The type of brick for the head house

Kennington Green

The landscaping for Kennington Green

The type of kerb around Kennington Green

The type of trees to be planted on Kennington Green

5.7 These are shown and summarised on the following pages.

Page 20 of 43

Figure 8. Head House Option 1 – Brick fin panel extended to ground level and recessed 50mm

Page 21 of 43

Figure 9. Head House Option 2 – More gently sloping brickwork from brick fins to base with

the bottom of the fins ending at 2.1m above ground level

Page 22 of 43

Figure 10. Head House West Elevation Options

Option 1 – Free of patterning Option 2 – Vertical brick fin patterning

Option 3 – Recessed rectangular vertical areas Option 4 – Projecting brick courses

Page 23 of 43

Figure 11. Head House brick options

Page 24 of 43

5.8 The applicant received 110 responses to the proposal for the head house east and

south elevations and the results were as follows:

27% preferred the recessed panel (Option 1)

25% preferred the extended fins (Option 2)

10% had no preference

38% did not like either option

5.9 There was no clear preference for either option.

5.10 110 responses were received in relation to the options for the west elevation

(percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding):

7% preferred no patterning (Option 1)

25% preferred vertical brick patterning (Option 2)

18% preferred rectangular vertical areas (Option 3)

8% projecting brick courses (Option 4)


35% did not like any of the options

5.11 Of the preferred options, option 2 was most popular however just over a third did not

like any option.

5.12 109 responses were received in relation to the brick options. The results were as

follows (percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding):

36% preferred the Smeed Dean Islington Yellow Rustics (Option 1)

22% preferred the Smeed Dean London Stock (Option 2)

17% preferred the Hammersmth London Stock (Option 3)

6% Lambeth Yellow Multi (Option 4)

6% Mystique (Option 5) (this was refused under the earlier application)


5.13 It was clear that Option 1 was the most popular.

5.14 109 responses were received in relation to the landscaping options.

5% preferred hard standing in the southern corner (Option 1)

33% preferred planted perennial bed in the southern corner (Option 2)

27% preferred grass in the southern corner (Option 3)

6% preferred hard landscaping and planters (Option 4)

Page 25 of 43



5.15 Option 2 was the most popular however just over a quarter did not like any option.

5.16 Options were also proposed for the kerb around Kennington Green. 111 responses

were received and the results were as follows:

19% preferred a conventional perimeter kerb

55% preferred a raised kerb that would form a continuous bench



5.17 There was a clear preference for a raised kerb.

5.18 Finally, options for tree species were proposed. 110 responses were received and

the results were as follows:

38% preferred Juneberry

19% preferred Silver Birch

12% preferred Quince

2% preferred Medlar



5.19 Juneberry was the most popular however a quarter did not like any of the proposals.

Page 26 of 43

Figure 12. Landscaping Options

Option 1 – Hard landscaping to southern corner Option 2 – Planted perennial bed to southern corner

Option 3 – Grass to southern corner Option 4 – Hard landscaping with planters

Page 27 of 43

Other comments

5.20 Those attending the exhibition were also invited to make any comment they wish

about the proposals. As is common for open questions, the responses varied

however the following sentiments stood out:

The head house should be more in keeping with nearby houses

The applicant has not addressed the planning committee’s and local

residents’ concerns

The building is ugly/dull/disliked

The landscaping should be kept simple/low cost for maintenance

Trees should be of mature size

Responses from Stakeholders

5.21 A response was received from The Georgian Group. The Georgian Group were

engaged prior to the development of the head house options but they responded to

the consultation as well. Their comments are summarised below:

They were supportive of the options presented to the community

Lengthening the fins to the full height of the head house is not preferable

Partial lengthening of the fins is preferred.

Subtle horizontal banding may be considered however it is acknowledged

that this would be a departure from the architectural intent

5.22 A response was received from the Woodland Trust, summarised below:

The Trust preferred landscaping Option 2 (a perennial planted bed in the

southern corner)

They encouraged more trees to be planted than as shown on the illustrations

They preferred Silver Birch to be planted.

Applicant design response – head house

5.23 Mindful of the consultation responses and the planning committee’s reason for

refusal the applicant revised the proposals. For the east and southern elevations of

the Head House, there was no clear preference between Options 1 and 2 so the

proposed design combines the principle of having brick detailing at a lower level as

shown in Option 1 with the longer sloping brickwork between the fins shown in

Option 2. This proposal was presented to senior Lambeth officers responsible for

planning including the Executive Director, Director and Assistant Director. Following

Page 28 of 43

this consultation, the brick fins were brought down 1.2m above ground level. This is

to emphasise the vertical effect, make the fins visible at eye-level for passers-by and

discourage graffiti. For the western elevation, there was no clear preference among

residents so this was left un-patterned. For the brick, there was a clear preference

for the Smead Dean Islington Yellow Rustic so this was chosen. The subsequent

proposed design can be seen in Figures 1 to 5, earlier in this report.

Applicant design response – Kennington Green

5.24 The most popular option was for a perennial planted bed in the southern corner. This

was combined with the preference for a raised kerb to create a bench and the

preference for Juneberry trees. The subsequent proposal can be seen in Figure 6

and 7 earlier in this report.

Lambeth local resident consultation

5.25 Applications for the discharge of conditions pursuant to a planning permission are

not generally subject to formal public consultation, as there is no statutory

requirement to do so. However, as was the case in the earlier application, officers

considered it appropriate to consult local residents on this application given the

nature of the proposals.

5.26 Letters were sent to all adjoining properties, nearby neighbours and those who

commented on the earlier application via the council’s website.

Number of neighbours consulted: 197

Number of objections: 24 (as of 25/10/2017)

Number in support: 1

Number neither supporting nor objecting: 1

Comments can be summarised as follows:

Summary of objections Summarised response

Head House

Harmful impact on conservation area and

listed buildings

The revised design is considered to

address the committee’s concerns. See

section 7.9

Does not address reason for refusal See above

Page 29 of 43

Inappropriate/lack of detailing The industrial character of the head house

is considered appropriate. Officers do not

support pastiche or imitative detailing

Unsympathetic to local development The head house bulk, scale and proportions

are in keeping with local development. See

sections 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9

Inappropriate brick The brick was chosen following consultation

with local residents and was considered

appropriate by officers. See section 5.

Harm to heritage assets is not outweigh by

public benefits

The proposals are considered to preserve

the character of the conservation area or

setting of the listed buildings. The public

benefit of the NLE is considerable.

Too large. The head house design departs

too far from the original design in the Order

It within the limits of deviation and is

appropriate See sections 7.7 and 7.8.

Does not respond to residents’ concerns The proposals were developed with local

resident consultation, within the parameters

set by the Order and the reasons for refusal

on the earlier scheme. See section 5.

Landscaping

The landscaping proposals are

dull/uninspiring

The landscaping scheme is considered

robust and appropriate for the location. See

section 7.10

The raised kerb would encourage people to

loiter, generate litter and noise

The raised kerb was the preferred option

and would encourage use of the Green.

See section 5 and 7.10

The raised kerb would make mowing

difficult

The proposals have been approved by

Lambeth Parks

The replacement tree planting is inadequate The tree planting is in accordance with that

required by the Order and results in more

trees than there are at present

The proposals do not respond to the public

consultation

The scheme has taken the most popular

elements from the public consultation. See

section 5

The proposed trees do not follow the

Secretary of States direction

The tree species proposed are the same as

those shown in the original planning

direction drawings except for 2 x silver birch

trees, which are now proposed to be

Page 30 of 43

Juneberry, following the results of the public

consultation.

5.27 Consultees

Parks and Open Spaces officer

o No objection subject to proposed Box plants (Buxus sempivirens)

being replaced with Holly (Ilex crenata) [Officer response: the

applicant has followed this advice]

Conservation and Design

o No objection

5.28 At the time of writing, no response had been received from the following groups. Any

responses received will be reported by way of addendum in due course.

Ward Councillors.

Oval and Kennington Residents Association.

Vauxhall One Business Improvement District.

Kennington Association.

Regents Bridge Gardens.

Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum.

The Vauxhall Society.

Friends of Vauxhall Spring Gardens.

Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum.

Tradescant Area Residents Association.

Heart of Kennington Resident’s Association.

Friends of Lambeth High Street Recreation Ground.

6. Policy

6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning

decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise.

6.2 The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (MALP 2016), and the

Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015). Together with the Council’s Supplementary

Planning Documents, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National

Page 31 of 43

Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) are material considerations alongside the

council’s development plan.

Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

6.3 The Local Planning Authority is statutorily required pursuant to s.66 of the Listed

Buildings Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed

building, its setting and any features of special architectural or historic interest. In

addition, the Local Planning Authority is statutorily required under s72 of the Listed

Buildings Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or

enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

6.4 Set out below are those policies most relevant to the application, however,

consideration is made against the development plan as a whole.

London Plan (2016) policies:

Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London

Policy 6.2 Providing Public Transport Capacity and Safeguarding Land for Transport

Policy 7.3 Designing out Crime

Policy 7.4 Local Character

Policy 7.5 Public Realm

Policy 7.6 Architecture

Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology

Lambeth Local Plan (2015) policies:

Policy D2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Policy T4 Public Transport Infrastructure

Policy Q2 Amenity

Policy Q3 Community safety

Policy Q5 Local distinctiveness

Policy Q6 Urban design: public realm

Policy Q7 Urban design: new development

Policy Q8 Design quality: construction detailing

Policy Q9 Landscaping

Policy Q10 Trees

Policy Q15 Boundary Treatments

Policy Q20 Statutory listed buildings

Policy Q22 Conservation Areas

Policy PN2 Vauxhall

Page 32 of 43

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPDs):

Lambeth

Kennington Conservation Area, Conservation Area Statement March 2012

London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

Character and Context (June 2014)

Sustainable Design and Construction (April 2014)

7. Planning considerations

7.1 This application seeks to discharge condition 2 (development in conservation area)

parts (a) and (b) and condition 4 (landscaping) in respect of the proposed head

house for Kennington Green. The principle of constructing the head house in this

location was established via the approval of Work No. 8 of the Order and the

drawings approved by the Planning Direction.

7.2 Work No. 8 in the Order defines the works as, “Construction in Kennington Green,

for ventilation and intervention purposes, of a vertical shaft linked to Work No.2, a

sub-surface horizontal adit and a head house on adjacent land in the Beefeater Gin

distillery (Work No.8).”

7.3 The planning merits of the Northern Line Extension, including the location of the

Head House, were considered in the making of the Order and the associated

Planning Direction. These matters cannot be reconsidered under this application.

What can be considered in discharging conditions 2(a) and (b) and condition 4 in

relation to the head house are the following matters:

Whether the proposed head house sits within the horizontal and vertical

limits of deviation set out by the Order;

Whether the proposed changes to the head house scale and massing from

the approved drawings under the planning direction are acceptable in terms

of its impact on the surrounding conservation area, listed buildings and

residential amenity,

Whether the proposed architectural detailing and materials are of sufficiently

high quality

Whether the proposed landscaping is of acceptable quality, appearance and

ecology

7.4 With the exception of the consideration of landscaping, the above points were

considered under the earlier refused application. That application was refused for

the following reason:

1. The proposal would have a harmful impact on the setting of adjoining listed

buildings and the character and appearance of the conservation area due to (a)

Page 33 of 43

external appearance and (b) external materials, which would not be outweighed

by the public benefits.

7.5 However, the minutes to the meeting record that Members were satisfied with the

bulk and massing of the head house. The minutes also state that “the design of the

plinth was too heavy and unbalanced the proposed design” and that it was “not clear

that the brick would be subservient to the conservation area” (see section 4).

Consequently, the outstanding matters to be considered, in addition to the new

matter of the landscaping, are the following:

The design of the elevations

The type of brick

7.6 The limits of deviation contained in the Order, and the bulk and massing of the head

house are discussed in this report, however, the above matters are the key

considerations.

7.7 The Limits of Deviation contained in the Order

7.7.1 The bulk and massing of the head house were accepted under the earlier details

application.It was not disputed that the dimensions of the proposed head house fell

within the limits set out in the Order. The limits of deviation are set out in Article 5(1)

of the Order:

“5. (1) In constructing or maintaining any of the scheduled works, LUL may – (a) deviate laterally from the lines or situations shown on the deposited plans within the limits of deviation and within the limits of land to be used only temporarily; and (b) deviate vertically from the levels shown on the deposited sections –

(i) to any extent upwards not exceeding 3 metres except in relation to the parts of the scheduled works referred to in column (1) of the table below, where the extent of permitted upwards deviation for each such part is set out in the corresponding entry in column (2) of that table; and

(ii) to any extent downwards as may be found to be necessary or convenient.

(1) Part of Scheduled Work (2) Upwards Vertical deviation limit

Work No. 7 (excluding head house)

Work No. 8 (shaft and adit)

Work no. 8 (hatch at top of shaft)

0.5 metres

0.5 metres

Ground level

Page 34 of 43

7.7.2 In terms of horizontal deviation, the proposed head house footprint remains in the

same place as originally approved and continues to reflect the building line of

properties 362-366 Kennington Road to the south.

7.7.3 When considering vertical deviation it is noted that the general rule allows for

deviation upwards of not more than 3m, with no limit downwards. Work No. 8

includes provision of an underground shaft and adit (an underground horizontal

tunnel), which has a more restricted level of deviation permissible. This does not

relate to external mass or appearance of the head house structure itself and

therefore the general “3m rule” under article 5(1)(b)(i) applies here.

7.7.4 The design approved under the planning direction shows a predominantly brick

structure at 11.8m AOD (8.4m actual) stepping up on the northern side with a metal

louvered roof element to a maximum roof height of 14.5m AOD (11.1m). Under the

earlier proposal, it was proposed to remove the roof element and to bring the whole

head house (as a brick structure) up to a maximum height of 14.5m (11.1m). This

means that it would remain within the vertical limits of deviation as an overall

composition. Where the structure increases in height at the southern end, the

increase is measured at 2.7m, also within the 3m limit. The current proposal

considered under this application has the same dimensions.

7.7.5 As under the earlier previous proposal, officers are satisfied that the proposed

structure remains in accordance with The Order.

7.8 Bulk and massing of the head house

7.8.1 The bulk and massing of the head house was accepted under the earlier application,

however its merits are considered here.

7.8.2 Noting that the proposed alterations in terms of scale and mass are in accordance

with the Order, the proposed changes must be considered in terms of their impact

on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the surrounding

listed buildings.

7.8.3 The head house as consented under the planning direction is the starting point for

this assessment as it was considered acceptable by the Inspector. The Planning

Inspector in assessing the original proposal considered in his report (para. 3.280)

that the head house would appropriately address the gap between the terraces

fronting Kennington Road. In design terms the Inspector also reached the conclusion

that,

Page 35 of 43

“So far as the other aspects of the design are concerned, it would be entirely

appropriate and would reflect, but not slavishly copy the buildings in the vicinity. It

would be reflective of the verticality of proximate buildings and their proportions

and, also, of their materials and detailing, providing a subtle combination of new

textures, as well as seeking to blend in with the local architectural character.

Crucially, this would be better than the existing situation.” (para. 3.284).

7.8.4 In the assessment of the earlier application, officers considered that the head house

to be a functional building that is designed to be a contemporary response to its

surroundings and residential setting. The increase in height at the southern end of

the building enables the various elements of plant and venting at roof level to be fully

enclosed, thereby helping to transition between the overtly industrial character of the

gin distillery and gasworks to the west and the residential character to the east. As

such, while the changes in height and massing are clearly evident, the proposal

would be in keeping with the local pattern of development, including that created by

the nearby listed terrace houses. The changes to the design approved under the

planning direction are considered to cause no harm to the quality of the building, the

character and appearance of the conservation area or the setting of the listed

buildings.

7.8.5 Paragraphs 6.15 and 6.16 of the officer’s report for the earlier application further

assessed the massing of the scheme:

The overall composition of the building would remain as two distinct elements (as

described in para. 3.6 and Figure 2) and the removal of the metal roof and the full

enclosure with brick ensures a more coherent and simple presence within the

street scene that is sympathetic to the surrounding listed buildings without trying

to fully replicate them. The surrounding buildings fronting onto Kennington Road

provide their own consistency in terms of overall form, ornamental detailing and

roof shape, while more recent additions to these blocks appear subordinate,

albeit not always complimentary to the original. The proportions of the listed

townhouses generally read as three horizontal elements with a lower level

detailing (rusticated base and stucco detailing in white), brick detailing up to

parapet (piano nobile) and then a mansard roof (attic). The vertical elements are

then emphasised by vertically aligned windows in 2 and 3 bay widths. As for the

head house itself, the readjusted proportions on the southern and eastern

elevations; in terms of shape, along with the reduction in number of, and

increased width of the vertical elements are considered to better refer to the

Page 36 of 43

existing proportions of the Georgian townhouses while remaining at an overall

height that is subordinate to these properties.

The head house with its greater massing would not impede or distract from views

to or from the listed buildings towards the green, nor would longer views from the

Green of heritage assets (e.g. Oval Gasworks) be restricted (as noted in the

Conservation Area Statement, para. 2.137). The proposal does not appear in

wider local or strategic views.

7.8.6 The report confirmed that Historic England and the Georgian Group had no objection

to the scale of the head house. The Georgian Group were more concerned with the

detailing of the facades. The Georgian Group was consulted prior to submission of

the current application and were satisfied with the proposals. This is discussed in the

next section. At the time of writing, Historic England have not commented on the

proposals.

7.8.7 Therefore, as was the case under the earlier application, the bulk and massing of the

head house are considered acceptable in line with Policies Q5, Q7, Q20 and Q22 of

the Local Plan and that its meets the requirements under sections 66 and 72 of the

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

7.9 Head House details

7.9.1 As discussed earlier, the key outstanding matters are the design of the elevations, in

particular the size and visual ‘weight’ of the plinth and the type of brick. The current

proposal is an evolution of the previous proposal with the input of the Georgian

Group, local residents and Lambeth officers.

7.9.2 The character of the head house is similar to that of the earlier proposal. The

proposed head house design avoids pastiche and is an honest expression of its

function. As was the case previously, officers consider features such as false

facades/shopfronts or other imitative detailing to be inappropriate and detracting

from the genuine detailing and ornamentation of nearby listed properties. A simple

material palette and restrained detailing ensures that the head house remains

recessive compared to the more ornate houses on Kennington Green. The current

design also retains the strong verticality of the earlier design through the use of

recessed fins arranged in a series of bays. The changes to the design apply to these

fins and the proposed brick.

7.9.3 In the earlier design, concerns were raised over the expanse of plain brick at the

bottom of the structure (the plinth). It was considered to be too large and resulted in

Page 37 of 43

a heavy and blank appearance, particularly as the fins would begin above head

height. The current proposal responds to this by lengthening the fins and having a

more gradual transition between the fins and the plinth. The fins would now

terminate at 1.2m above ground level. This height reduces the visual ‘weight’ of the

plinth, allows the fins to be seen by passers-by and discourages graffiti. The longer

fins and more gradual transition reinforces the vertical character of the head house,

which was a key positive characteristic that the Inspector identified when assessing

the original design under the Planning Direction.

7.9.4 The pre-application consultation showed that there was no clear preference between

the proposed amendments and the applicant sought to combine the strongest

elements from both options. Officers consider the Committee’s concern in respect of

the plinth now to have been addressed. The positioning of doors and louvres

elsewhere on the head house remains unchanged and as under the earlier

application are considered acceptable.

Materials

7.9.5 The local area is characterised by brick buildings however the type and colours of

brick varies. Officers note that there is a mix of yellow stock (predominant on the

Georgian townhouses), but also a range of paler tones, darker browns and some red

brick. There are even instances of multiple brick colours/tones being present in a

single structure. The brick proposed under the earlier application was not considered

to be appropriate to the conservation area due to its pale tone. Consequently, a

number of brick options were proposed to local residents and the Smeed Dean

Islington Yellow Rustics was the most popular. Officers agree that this brick would

be appropriate to the Head House and in keeping with the brick palette in the local.

Conclusion

7.9.6 The proposed design for the head house is considered acceptable. With the input of

local residents, it is considered that concerns of the planning committee have been

addressed. It is considered that the head house causes no harm to the character of

the conservation area and the setting of the nearby listed buildings in compliance

with Policies Q5, Q7, Q8, Q20 and Q22 of the Local Plan and meet the requirements

under sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)

Act 1990. The submitted details fulfil the requirements of the condition as they relate

to Kennington Green.

7.10 Landscaping details

Page 38 of 43

7.10.1 The proposed landscaping scheme was developed in consultation with local

residents (as discussed in section 5) and Lambeth’s parks officers. The landscaping

scheme approved under the Planning Direction was for a grassed area enclosed by

a granite kerb with six trees (Juneberry) plus seven trees (London Plane) set in the

pavement around the green. The street and footway would be paved in granite.

7.10.2 The detailed proposal builds upon the approved design. It retains all of the above

features but adds the following:

a perennial planted bed in the southern corner (the most popular option in the

public consultation)

the two sets of three Juneberry trees (the most popular species from the public

consultation) would be set in small mounds planted with bulbs

the granite edge would be raised to 400mm along the eastern edge to allow for

sitting

two planters are proposed in front of the head house

7.10.3 Furthermore, the species of tree set in the pavement is now proposed to be 5 x

London Plane Tree and 1 x Maidenhair along Kennington Road, 1 x Tulip Tree to the

north-west of the green opposite 354 Kennington Road and 1 x Hornbeam

Fastigiatia to the south of the Head House on Montford Place.

7.10.4 Lambeth parks officers are happy with the proposal, both in terms of quality, species

and maintenance costs.

7.10.5 The scheme maximises opportunities for greening and uses appropriate plant

species. It is a simple, robust and uncluttered design that is suitable to its location. It

would reinstate the open character of Kennington Green and its contribution to the

Kennington Conservation Area and the setting of the listed buildings around the

Green. Therefore, it would preserve the character and appearance of the

conservation area and the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

7.10.6 The proposed details are compliant with policies Q5, Q6, Q8, Q9, Q20 and Q22 of

the Local Plan and fulfil the requirements of the condition as they relate to

Kennington Green meet the requirements under sections 66 and 72 of the Planning

(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

8. Conclusion

8.1 Upon full assessment of the submitted material supporting the application, taking

into account all material considerations, it is considered the objectives of the

development plan have been met.

Page 39 of 43

9. EQUALITY DUTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

9.1 In line with the Public Sector Equality Duty the council must have due regard to the

need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity, as set out in

section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In making this recommendation, regard has

been given to the Public Sector Equality Duty and the relevant protected

characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race,

religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation).

9.2 In line with the Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a

way which is incompatible with a Convention right, as per the European Convention

on Human Rights. The human rights impact have been considered, with particular

reference to Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of property), Article 8 (Right to

respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the

Convention.

9.3 The Human Rights Act 1998 does not impair the right of the state to make decisions

and enforce laws as deemed necessary in the public interest. The recommendation

is considered appropriate in upholding the council's adopted and emerging policies

and is not outweighed by any engaged rights.

10. RECOMMENDATION

Grant approval of details in relation to conditions 2 part (a) and (b) and Condition 4

of the Planning Direction insofar as those details relate to Kennington Green Head

House and Kennington Green

11. INFORMATIVES

1. The details approved under Condition 2 parts (a) and (b) relate only to Kennington

Green. Details in respect of the head house at Kennington Park must be submitted in

order for the condition to be fully discharged.

2. The details approved under Condition 4 relate only to Kennington Green. Details in

respect of the head house at Kennington Park must be submitted in order for the

condition to be fully discharged.

Page 40 of 43

Appendix 1 – Head House as consented under the original order

Page 41 of 43

Page 42 of 43

Page 43 of 43