SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations:

Park Hill Streets Under Conversion Stress

Conservation Area (CA17) Clapham Park Road and Northbourne Road Conservation Area

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area 0.064 hectares

Use Class Use Description

Existing C3 Garden

Proposed C3 Dwellinghouse

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for the erection of 3 x 2 storey houses with basement levels on land to the

ADDRESS:

Land At Mayfield Close And Land Rear Of 83 - 87 Park Hill, London, SW4

Application Number: 15/04274/FUL

Case Officer: Mark Heaney

Ward: Clapham Common

Date Received: 12.06.2015

Proposal: Erection of 3no. three storey (including basement level) houses (revised site layout removing all car parking spaces).

Drawing numbers: Existing Proposed Elevations And Section House 1 AC/MC/100003, Proposed Elevations And Section House 1 AC/MC/10004, Proposed Plans House 1 AC/MC/100005, Proposed Plans House 1 AC/MC/100006, Proposed Side Elevations House 1 AC/MC/100007, Proposed Elevations and Section AC/MC/100012, Proposed Side Elevations House 2 AC/MC/100015 (Received12.06.2015) Existing OS Site Plan AC/MC/PO/100001 (Received 11.09.2015) Proposed Side Elevations House 3 AC/MC/19004, Proposed Plans AC/KB/81016 House 2, Proposed Plans AC/KB/81016 House 3, House 2 Proposed Plans AC/KB/81017, House 3 Proposed Plans AC/KB/81017, Proposed Elevations and Section AC/MC/10004 (Received 23.10.2015) Proposed OS Block Site Plan 1:1250 AC/MC/PO/100001, Proposed OS Block Site Plan 1:100 AC/MC/PO/100001 (Received 24.08.2016)

Documents: Design and Access Statement, Syntegra Internal Daylight Report ref. 14-972, Syntegra Daylight Sunlight and Overshadowing Report ref.14-972, Syntegra Energy Strategy Report ref. 14-972, Coloured Sketch of Proposed Houses dated 05.01.15 (Received 05.10.2016) Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated 24th September 2015 (Received 01.10.2015) Landmark Trees Supporting Letter ref. ACD_83PH_AIA_Lttr_01, Savills Letter dated 25 November 2016

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in this report.

Applicant: Mr Padraic O'Sullivan C/o Agent

Agent: Mr Andrew Clinch Clinch Design 56 Westbourne Grove London

W2 5SH

rear of numbers 81, 83, 85 to 87 Park Hill together with associated amenity space, landscaping, parking, refuse and cycle storage. The application site is located in Clapham Park Road and Northbourne Road Conservation Area and is not located within the curtilage of a Listed Building. The application site is located to the rear of residential flats within numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill to the west. Access to the site is proposed from an existing access road to Mayfield Close to the east of the site. Mayfield Close is a housing complex operated by the Salvation Army and is comprised of a mix of flats, bungalows and a house. The use of the access road to Mayfield Close, which is not in the applicant’s ownership, would be subject to a separate civil agreement between the applicant and the Salvation Army. Securing this access arrangement is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration for the purposes of assessing this application. It is considered that the principle of constructing 3 dwelling houses to the scale and bulk proposed on part of the original rear gardens of numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill is unacceptable as it would erode the amenity value and habitat value of the application site. The Council’s conservation and Design team has advised that the proposed dwellings would cause unacceptable harm the character and appearance of the Clapham Park Road and Northbourne Road Conservation Area and there is an in-principle objection to the scheme in terms of land use, design and impact on the conservation area. Furthermore, the provision of 3 dwellinghouses in this location does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area of which this development is located within. Therefore the principle of residential development in this location would be contrary to paragraph 132 of the NPPF. Officers consider the scheme fails to be in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, The London Plan 2016, the Lambeth Local Plan 2015 and the Draft Clapham Park and Northbourne Road Draft Conservation Area Appraisal 2016 and recommend refusal of the proposed scheme. OFFICER’S REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: This application is required to be reported to the Planning Applications Committee in accordance with part 4 of the Committee’s terms of reference. A specific written request has been made by Councillor Bernard Gentry and Councillor Tim Briggs and has been agreed by the Chair for the case to be reported to the Committee.

Fig 1: Aerial Photo Showing Site in Context

Fig 2: Proposed Site Layout

1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is comprised of the large backland site to the rear of numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill to the west. Access to the site is proposed from an existing access road to Mayfield Close to the east of the site. Mayfield Close is a housing complex operated by the Salvation Army and is comprised of a mix of flats, bungalows and a house. An aerial photograph at Fig. 1 above, shows the indicative location of the site in context with Mayfield Close and properties at Park Hill. 1.2 The site has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 3 which is considered 'Moderate'. The site is located within Clapham 'L' Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The site is not situated within an Environment Agency Flood Risk Zone. Park Hill is classified as a street under conversion stress for the purposes of policy H6 of the Local Plan. 1.3 The application site is located in Clapham Park Road and Northbourne Road Conservation Area and is not located is within the curtilage of a Listed Building. 2. Relevant Planning History 2.1 The relevant planning history of the application site is as follows: 2.2 07/03298/FUL - 83 Park Hill London SW4 9NX - Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9 residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment. Application Permitted on the 15.10.2007. It is noted that the site Location Plan and Proposed Site Plan show the application site within the rear boundary of number 83 Park Hill. 2.3 07/03288/CON - 83 Park Hill London SW4 9NX - Demolition of the existing dwelling house to facilitate erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9 residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment. Application Permitted on the 15.10.2007.

2.4 09/02258/FUL - Site Of 83 Park Hill London - Demolition of an existing outbuilding in

the rear garden of 83 Park Hill and the erection of a single storey building to provide 2 self-

contained residential units along with the provision of refuse storage. [Town Planning and

Conservation Area Consent application received] Application REFUSED on the 26.01.2010

for the following reason(s):

1. The principle of providing a stand-alone residential building within the rear garden of the application site is unacceptable and wholly contrary to the aspirations of Policies 31 and 47 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

2. The proposal, by reason of its siting, form, footprint and design, would result in an

inappropriate and visually discordant form of development, which would fail to respect the local context in which it would be set, while failing either to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Clapham Park and Northbourne Road Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies 33, 38 and 47 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

3. The proposal has failed to demonstrate that the future welfare of the existing trees of

amenity value within the application site would not be unacceptably affected by the siting, construction and occupation of the proposed development in accordance with

BS5837:2005. As such, the proposal fails to comply with the objectives of Policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

2.5 09/02259/CON - Demolition of an existing studio outbuilding in the rear garden of 83 Park Hill. Application REFUSED on the 26.01.2010 for the following reason(s): 1. In the absence of an appropriate redevelopment scheme the proposed demolition

would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Clapham Park Road and Northbourne Road Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to PPG15 and Policy 47 (Conservation Areas) of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).

2.6 12/00230/DET - Approval of details pursuant to condition 5 (Landscaping) of planning permission ref 07/03298/FUL (Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9 residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment) Granted on 20.12.2007. Application Permitted on the 31.05.2012. 2.7 12/00228/DET - Approval of details pursuant to condition 8 (Arboricultural Method Statement) of planning permission ref 07/03298/FUL (Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9 residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment) Granted on 20.12.2007. Application Permitted on the 28.05.2012. 2.8 12/00226/DET - Approval of details pursuant to condition 6 (Cycle Parking) of planning permission ref 07/03298/FUL (Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9 residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment) Granted on 20.12.2007. Application Permitted on the 01.06.2012. 2.9 12/00180/DET - Approval of details pursuant to condition 4 (Windows) of planning permission ref 07/03298/FUL (Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9 residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment) Granted on 20.12.2007. Application Permitted on the 01.06.2012. 2.10 12/00227/DET - Approval of details pursuant to condition 10 (Method Of Construction Statement) of planning permission ref 07/03298/FUL (Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9 residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment) Granted on 20.12.2007. Application Permitted on the 31.05.2012. 2.11 12/02558/DET - Approval of details, pursuant to condition 2 (Sample ·& Schedule of Materials) of planning permission 07/03298/FUL (Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9 residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment.), granted on 16/08/2007. Application Permitted on the 13.07.2012. 2.12 12/02559/DET - Approval of details, pursuant to condition 9 (Details of a specification to protect existing mature Yew Tree) of planning permission 07/03298/FUL (Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9

residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment.), granted on 16/08/2007. Application Permitted on the 13.07.2012. 2.13 12/02560/DET - Approval of details, pursuant to condition 12 (prevent deposit of mud ·& debris on to highway) of planning permission 07/03298/FUL (Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of 5 storey building plus basement to provide 9 residential units comprising 7x2 bed flats and 2x4 bed maisonettes, together with provision of 4 car parking spaces, 15 cycle stands and boundary treatment.), granted on 16/08/2007. Application Permitted on the 13.07.2012. 3. Proposals 3.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the following proposals: "Erection of 3 x 2 storey houses with basement levels on land to the rear of numbers 81, 83, 85 to 87 Park Hill together with associated amenity space, landscaping, parking, refuse and cycle storage.” 3.2 The proposals would create 2 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom dwelling houses adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site as shown at fig 2 above. The layout and sizes of these houses are detailed at section 8 of this report below. 4. Consultations 4.1 Public consultation was undertaken in accordance with statutory requirements. 142 neighbouring properties were consulted and a press ad was published and a site notice was displayed in the vicinity of the application site. 1 letter of support has been received, which have supported the redevelopment of the site and 57 letters of objection have been received and related to the following issues:

Objections: Officer Response:

over-development of the site

The proposals would result in 3 dwelling houses located in part of the original rear gardens of numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill. Officers have concerns regarding the proposed development on the application site and this is assessed in detail within the land use and design sections of this report below.

Increase in noise and disturbance

It is considered that the proposed residential dwellings would not give rise to unacceptable noise emanating from the site. However had the application been recommended for approval then a construction management plan would have been secured by condition to ensure that there would be no unacceptable amenity impacts in terms of construction noise and traffic during excavation and construction works.

Loss of established trees and inaccuracies contained within the arboricultural supporting documents

The Councils Arboricultural Officer visited the application site and has raised no objection to the layout of the scheme or the recommendations set out in the submitted arboricultural supporting documents which states that poor quality trees would be removed. This arboricultural statement also demonstrates that tree protection measures would be implemented to protect existing trees of value on the site. The Councils Arboricultural Officer has also raised no objection to the proposed remedial pruning works which would be necessary to the retained trees on the site. However, these works

are not considered to be detrimental to the health or appearance of the subject trees. Furthermore, the proposed scheme would include new planting and as such officers consider that there would be no unacceptable loss of established trees on the site.

Impact on the amenity of surrounding properties and loss of privacy

The supporting documents include a daylight, sunlight and overshadowing report which demonstrates that none of nearest residential properties would be adversely affected by the proposed development. Officers have reviewed the supporting information and consider that the proposed scheme would not result in any unacceptable harm to residential properties along Park Hill and within Mayfield Close in terms of loss of daylight or overshadowing. Furthermore, it is noted that some of the existing trees which bound the site to the east provides screening to the rear of the properties within Mayfield Close. As such had the application been recommended for approval then a landscaping plan would have been secured by condition to ensure that sufficient soft landscaping would have been retained on the site to ensure that there would be no loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. In addition it is noted that due to the orientation, design and position of the fenestration of the proposed dwellings, it is not considered that they would have an unacceptable impact on privacy or overlook surrounding properties to result in a reason for refusal of the scheme.

Increase in parking stress

The proposed scheme originally proposed parking spaces for the residential dwellings. However, these have now been removed from the proposals and a re-consultation on the applications was undertaken as a result of this change. The Councils Transport officer has raised no objection to the scheme and has requested that the proposed development is car free and that the occupiers of the proposed dwellings on the site would be restricted from obtaining parking permits. It is also noted that the application site is located within Clapham ‘C’ Controlled Parking Zone and any unlawful parking within this zone is enforced by the Council. Furthermore, the proposed scheme would have cycle parking provided on site and therefore officers consider that there would be no unacceptable impact on the surrounding highway network.

Design would detract from the surrounding Conservation Area

The application site comprises part of the original rear gardens of numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill. This part of Park Hill is characterised by large properties sited within generous plots of mature landscaping. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is existing a small scale development (the 1980’s salvation army housing development) in the former grounds of Alver Bank to the east. It is considered that the proposal located within part of these original gardens would fail to preserve or enhance the character of this part of the conservation area, as such, officers consider the principle of residential dwellings at this location is unacceptable.

The removal of the historic boundary wall with Mayfield Close

The existing boundary wall located between the application site and the rear of properties along Mayfield Close is not a listed wall, however it is located within a conservation area and therefore had the application been recommended for approval then further details of any replacement boundary treatment and soft landscaping would have been secured by condition to ensure that it would have been of acceptable design and would retain the

privacy to the rear windows of properties within Mayfield Close which adjoin the site.

Poor internal amenity: rooms within the basement would have limited outlook and poor internal daylight

Officers have concerns regarding the large subterranean extensions within the scheme. However, the applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight assessment which demonstrates that all internal rooms would receive adequate levels of daylight and would therefore provide an acceptable standard of amenity to future occupiers. A full assessment is included within the Standard of Accommodation section of this report below.

There is poor and inadequate access to the site

Access to the site would be provided from Mayfield Close. The Councils Transport officer has stated that this is a private access road and the applicant would have to secure agreement with the land owner to use this road for access and this would be a civil matter and is not a material planning consideration. It is noted that the Salvation Army Housing Association who own this access road have objected to this planning application. SAHA have stated within their objection, “due to the fact that the proposed development assumes rights of way and access over land in which the applicant has no legal interest. This land is owned by the Salvation Army Housing Association.” Whilst the Salvation Army have raised objection, it is noted that they have raised no in-principle objection to the use of this land for access to the site. The agent has also stated in an email that the Salvation Army has confirmed that there is opportunity to negotiate with them for the use of this road to access to the site. Therefore had the application been recommended for approval then the applicant would have needed to reach an agreement with the lawful owner (SAHA) for the use of this access road.

Loss of the garden and green space

Officers have concerns regarding the development of the site which originally formed part of the numbers 81, 83, 85 to 87 Park Hill. It is considered that the proposed scheme would result in erosion of amenity value and habitat value of the site. These issues are further assessed within the land use and design sections of this report below.

Impact on wildlife and environmental issues

The Councils Environmental Compliance officer has been consulted on the proposals and has raised no objection subject to a bat survey, bat emergence survey and an ecological assessment to be secured by condition. This would ensure that prior to any development commencing the applicant would have to demonstrate that there would be no harmful impact on wildlife or ecology on the site.

4.2 The remaining issues raised within the objections are included within the relevant sections of this report below. 4.3 A full copy of all responses received are included within the application file. 4.4 The following amenity groups/external stakeholders/internal consultees were notified of the application and provided comments: Conservation and Design: Objection. Transport/Highways: No objection subject to a s106 agreement. Flood Risk: No objection. Arboricultural Officer: No objection.

Climate Consulting: No response. Environmental Compliance Officer: No objection subject to condition. 5. Planning and Policy Considerations 5.1 The proposal has been considered against national planning policy, the Development Plan and associated Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). The following are the most relevant policies and documents to the application: 5.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012: Chapter 6: Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes Chapter 7: Requiring Good Design Chapter 8: Promoting Healthy Communities Chapter 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment 5.3 The London Plan 2016: Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London Policy 3.3: Increasing Housing Supply Policy 3.4: Optimising Housing Potential Policy 3.5: Quality and Design of Housing Developments Policy 5.2: Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions Policy 5.3: Sustainable design and construction Policy 5.7: Renewable energy Policy 5.12: Flood Risk Management Policy 6.3: Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity Policy 6.9: Cycling Policy 6.13: Parking Policy 7.3: Designing Out Crime Policy 7.4: Local Character Policy 7.6: Architecture Policy 7.8: Heritage assets and archaeology Policy 8.3: Community Infrastructure Levy 5.4 Lambeth Local Plan (2015): Policy D1: Delivering and monitoring Policy D2: Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy D4: Planning obligations Policy EN4: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy EN5: Flood Risk Policy EN6: Sustainable drainage systems and water management Policy EN7: Sustainable Waste Management Policy H1: Maximising Housing Growth Policy H2: Delivering Affordable Housing Policy H5: Housing Standards 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 Q11: Building alterations and extensions Policy Q12: Refuse/Recycling Storage Policy Q13: Cycle Storage Policy Q14: Development in Gardens and on Backland Sites Policy Q15: Boundary Treatments Policy Q20: Statutory listed buildings Policy Q22: Conservation areas Policy T1: Sustainable Travel Policy T3: Cycling Policy T6: Assessing the impacts of development on transport capacity Policy T7: Parking 5.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG): London Plan Housing SPG (2016) Building Alterations and Extensions SPD (2015) Lambeth Refuse and Recycling Design Guide (2013) Lambeth Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements (2013) Clapham Park and Northbourne Road Conservation Area Appraisal (2016) 6. Land Use 6.1 Policy H1 of the Local Plan states that the council will seek to maximise the supply of additional homes in the borough to meet and exceed the annual housing target for Lambeth as set out in the London Plan for the period 2015 to 2030. 6.2 The London Plan Housing SPG advises that gardens can play a number of important roles, including defining local context and character; providing safe, secure and sustainable environments and play spaces; supporting biodiversity; protecting London's trees; abating flood risk and enhancing the distinct character of suburban London. In accordance with London Plan policy 3.5 it is stated that there should be a presumption against development on private gardens and this has been justified in setting the London Plan's housing targets. 6.3 The application site is comprised of landlocked backland/garden site to the rear of numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill. Policy Q14 part c of the Local Plan states that development in rear gardens has the potential to erode amenity value and habitat value of rear gardens generally. For these reasons new buildings will only be supported where: (i) a significant proportion (no less than 70 per cent) of the existing garden is retained with the host building; (ii) the spatial character, gaps and views to the rear are maintained; (iii) established building lines are respected; and (iv) the built form is subordinate to its context. 6.4 The application proposes to create three additional dwellings within the original rear gardens of numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill. 6.5 It is acknowledged that the NPPF makes it clear that residential gardens are not Brownfield Land. The NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens for example where development would cause harm to the local area. This indicates therefore that appropriate development of former residential gardens would be acceptable in circumstances where it does not cause harm to the surrounding area or to the environment. The NPPF maintains the primacy of the local development plan. Therefore, the development proposal which was once land formerly

within the curtilage of residential properties including former garden land must still be assessed on its own merits in the context of development plan policies and other material planning considerations and the 6.6 It is noted that the existing plans of application ref. 07/03298/FUL show the application site was formerly part of the rear gardens of numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill. However, the site has since been separated from these properties by a boundary fence which has been erected and now separates the site and prevents access from the above properties. Furthermore, number 83 Park Hill has been demolished and rebuilt as a 5 storey building containing 9 self-contained flats approved under planning permission ref. 07/03298/FUL. In addition, condition 5 of planning permission ref 07/03298/FUL, required details of hard and soft landscaping to be submitted for approval. This condition has been discharged on the 01.06.2012 and the approved plan AC/NOV/1000 (Fig 4 below) shows part of the application site of the current proposals was approved as part of the rear garden of number 83. It appears that proposed site layout at number 83 has not been built out not in accordance with the approved plans of application ref. 12/00230/DET which approved 843 sqm of external amenity space to number 83 Park hill. 6.7 The submitted plan ref. AC/MC/PO/100001 (fig 5 below) received on the 24th of August 2016 shows that number 83 Park Hill would have 194sqm of external amenity space which is a loss 648sqm from what has been approved within application ref. 12/00230/DET (Fig 4 below). However, the existing rear amenity space of 194sqm provided to number 83 Park Hill would still comply with Policy H5 (b)(ii) which requires at least 50sqm of communal space to be provided for flatted developments. 6.8 The applicant has provided supporting information which shows that backland and garden development already forms part of the area’s established character, and has provided a map to show where these developments are situated. 6.9 Officers acknowledge that there are some examples of backland/garden development within the Clapham Park/Northbourne Road conservation area and the applicant has shown examples of these outlined in red on the map at Fig 3 below. However, officers do not agree with some examples included on the applicants map and many of which are not relevant to this part of the conservation area (the gardens of Park Hill) does not contain backland development (apart from garages in the rear of number 79 Park Hill). The application site comprises part of the gardens of numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill and the area is characterised by mainly 19th century suburban development of residential character and incorporates parts of Clapham Park Road, Northbourne Road, Park Hill, and West Road. It is leafy in character, with many of its properties sited within generous plots of mature landscaping.

Fig 3. Applicants Map Showing Examples of Backland and Garden Development 6.10 As stated above, there has been some garden development within the grounds of 79 Park Hill with the construction of single storey garages as shown at Fig 3 above. However despite this small encroachment, the 19th century gardens along Park Hill which remain largely unaltered and are a positive contributor to the character and appearance of the conservation area. West Road which runs perpendicular to Park Hill provides views and an appreciation of the rear and gardens of the properties along Park Hill, despite a small scale development in the former grounds of Alver Bank. To the South of West Road is the private road Mayfield Close, which also provides views of the rear of these properties and the mature gardens a backdrop to the 1980’s Salvation Army housing development within the grounds of Alver Bank. 6.11 The overall character is one of spacious leafy development and as such mature trees are a key component in defining the area as a generously planned and suburban

Number 79 Park Hill

development. Where the rear gardens can be glimpsed from differing and sometime unexpected viewpoints they provide an important community and visual amenity. The draft Conservation Appraisal identifies the view south to the trees and backs of properties on Park Hill from West Road of being a noteworthy view and given this, officers consider that existing landscaped features of value should be retained. 6.12 Therefore, whilst it is accepted that there is some (number 79 Park Hill) backland/garden development in the wider conservation area, it is not agreed that it forms the established character of this part of the conservation area. Therefore, the proposal would be detrimental to the character of this part of the Clapham Park Road and Northbourne Road Conservation Area, and given this, the principle cannot be supported. 6.13 It is noted within the objections received, that the site is stated to be of high ecological value and may have bats roosting in an existing outbuilding on the site which was once part of the rear garden of number 81 Park Hill. The Council’s Ecological Environmental Compliance Officer was consulted on the application and has raised no objection subject to a detailed ecological assessment and a bat survey and bat emergence survey to be secured by condition. As such had the application been recommended for approval then these surveys would be conditioned prior to any development being undertaken on the application site to ensure there is no unacceptable loss of biodiversity on the site. In any event the proposal has the potential to erode the amenity value and habitat value of rear original rear gardens and is contrary to Policy Q14 (part c)of the Local Plan. This is further assessed within the biodiversity section below. 6.14 Furthermore, the objections raised above also stated that access to the site would be through an existing private access road which is not within the applicant’s ownership. This access road is shown outlined in blue on the submitted site location plan and the applicant has given written notice to the landowner of this access road who has raised no in-principle objection to the use of this road for access. The Council’s Transport officer has confirmed that this access road is a private road and therefore the applicant’s proposed use of this access road is a civil matter and Nevertheless, officers have considered the transportation impacts of the use of this road for access and servicing and no transport issues have been raised. This is further discussed within the transport section below. 6.15 Overall, the proposal would increase housing for the Borough complying with Policy H1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015). However, it is considered that the principle of constructing 3 dwelling houses on this site is unacceptable and officers raise objection to the proposals in terms of land use. 7. Design 7.1 London Plan policy 3.5 is relevant and states the design of all new housing developments should enhance the quality of local places, taking into account physical context; local character; density; tenure and land use mix; and relationships with, and provision of public, communal and open spaces, taking particular account of the needs of children and older people. It is also stated that design of all new dwellings should take account of factors relating to 'arrival' at the building and the 'home as a place of retreat'. 7.2 Policy Q5 of the Lambeth Local Plan requires development to reflect the local distinctiveness of the area and states that proposals should respond to the positive aspects of the local context in terms of urban block and grain, pattern of space and relationship, townscape/landscape character; built form (bulk, scale, height and massing) including roofscapes; siting, orientation and layout and relationship with other buildings and spaces; materials; and quality of architectural detailing. Where development proposals deviate from

locally distinct development patterns, applicants will be required to show in their design statements that the proposal clearly delivers design excellence; and will make a positive contribution to its local and historic context. 7.3 Policy Q7 of the Lambeth Local Plan seeks new development of a high quality design, with a bulk, scale/mass, siting, building line and orientation which preserves or enhances the prevailing local character. It is further required that the development is built of durable, robust, low-maintenance materials; includes well-considered windows and doors, and any vehicular access, parking or servicing is designed so as to be well-related to the adjacent area and minimise impact on amenity and be visually attractive.

Fig 4: Approved Plan ref AC/NOV/1000 of Application ref 12/00230/DET

Fig 5: Proposed Plan ref. AC/MC/PO/100001Current Proposals 7.4 It is noted that the adjoining properties to the south of the site numbers 89 to 115 Park Hill are set in spacious rectangular open plots and the proposals when considered cumulatively with these adjoining block of gardens would fail to retain the spatial character of the area and would be detrimental to the visual amenity from adjoining sites which is considered unacceptable and contrary to Policies Q2 and Q7(ii) of the Local Plan. The proposed 3 buildings located on this plot would have a bulk, scale/mass, siting, building line and orientation which would fail to preserve or enhance the prevailing local character. 7.5 The front elevation of the proposed dwellings would front onto Mayfield Close as illustrated in Fig 6 above. The proposed use of brick is acceptable and would be supported in the conservation area. However, the proposed lightwell to house 1 and the proposed railings and hardstanding to the front of the site would prevent any soft landscaping and would appear hard and sterile. 7.6 Policy Q22 of the Local Plan states that development proposals affecting conservation areas will be permitted where they preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area by (i) respecting and reinforcing the established, positive characteristics of the area in terms of the building line, siting, design, height, forms, materials joinery, window detailing etc. The impact of the proposed scheme on the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area is considered in the following section.

Fig 6: Artist’s Illustration of the Proposed Dwellings viewed from Mayfield Close 7.7 Impact on the Conservation Area

7.8 Section 72(1) PLBCAA provides that in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of (amongst others) the planning Acts, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. 7.9 Paragraphs 131 and 132 of the NPPF provide as follows: 131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. 7.10 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF deals with substantial harm to or total loss of significance of significance of a designated heritage asset. 7.11 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF provides that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

7.12 Turning to consider the application of the legislative and policy requirements set out above, the first step is for the decision-maker to consider each of the designated heritage assets (referred to hereafter simply as “heritage assets”) which would be affected by the proposed development in turn and assess whether the proposed development would result in any harm to the heritage asset. 7.13 The decision of the Court of Appeal in Barnwell Manor confirms that the assessment of the degree of harm to the heritage asset is a matter for the planning judgement of the decision-maker. 7.14 However, where the decision-maker concludes that there would be some harm to the heritage asset, in deciding whether that harm would be outweighed by the advantages of the proposed development (in the course of undertaking the analysis required by s.38(6) PCPA 2004) the decision-maker is not free to give the harm such weight as the decision-maker thinks appropriate. Rather, Barnwell Manor establishes that a finding of harm to a heritage asset is a consideration to which the decision maker must give considerable importance and weight in carrying out the balancing exercise. 7.15 There is therefore a “strong presumption” against granting planning permission for development which would harm a heritage asset. In the Forge Field case the High Court explained that the presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrefutable. It can be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so. But a Local Planning Authority can only properly strike the balance between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning benefits on the other if it is conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of preservation and if it demonstrably applies that presumption to the proposal it is considering. 7.16 Character of the Clapham Park Road and Northbourne Road Conservation Area 7.17 The site is located within the gardens of 83 – 87 Park Hill, which is located within the

Clapham Park/Northbourne Road Conservation area. The area is characterised by mainly

19th century suburban development of residential character and incorporates parts of

Clapham Park Road, Northbourne Road, Park Hill, and West Road. It is leafy in character,

with many of its properties sited within generous plots of mature landscaping.

7.18 This part of the conservation area is characterised by Victorian semi-detached villas

set within spacious grounds. There has been some garden development within the grounds

of 79 Park Hill with the construction of single storey garages; but despite this small

encroachment, the 19th century gardens remain largely unaltered and are a positive

contributor to the character and appearance of the conservation area. West Road runs

perpendicular to Park Hill and provides views and an appreciation of the rear and gardens of

the properties along Park Hill, despite a small scale development in the former grounds of

Alver Bank. Off of West Road is the private road Mayfield Close, which also provides views

of the rear of these properties and the mature gardens a backdrop to the 1980’s Salvation

Army housing development within the grounds of Alver Bank.

7.19 The overall character is one of spacious leafy development and as such mature trees

are a key component in defining the area as a generously planned and suburban

development. Where the rear gardens can be glimpsed from differing and sometime

unexpected viewpoints they provide an important community and visual amenity. The draft

Conservation Appraisal identifies the view south to the trees and backs of properties on Park

Hill from West Road of being a noteworthy view.

7.20 Impact on the Clapham Park Road and Northbourne Road Conservation Area 7.21 Garden developments are not a characteristic of the properties along this part of the conservation area and this would introduce an incongruous development at the rear of the gardens, would obscure views of the rear gardens and necessitate the removal of mature trees; all of which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The subdivision of gardens is not a characteristic of this part of the conservation area; it erodes the character and qualities of the mature residential gardens. 7.22 The Council’s Conservation and Design team have considered the scheme to have an unacceptable and adverse impact on the surrounding conservation area amounting to less than substantial harm. The development of gardens is not a characteristic of this part of the conservation area, and it is considered that development of gardens with three large dwellings would erode the character and qualities of the adjoining mature residential gardens.

7.23 Assessment of harm and public benefit

7.24 Officers consider that the public benefits flowing from the proposed development (three new dwellings) do not outweigh the proposed less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Therefore the proposed development at this scale and bulk and at in this location would be contrary to paragraph 132 of the NPPF, and it is considered that the proposed scheme would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area, contrary to Policy Q22. 7.25 The development of gardens with additional dwellings is not a common or positive characteristic of this part of the conservation area; it erodes the character and qualities of the mature residential gardens. As stated above the applicant has provided land registry titles demonstrating that the rear gardens of numbers 81, 83, 85 to 87 Park Hill have been legally subdivided. Nevertheless, officers consider that this application to provide 3 dwellinghouses would be unacceptably harmful to the significance of the Clapham Park and Northbourne Road Conservation Area. The benefit of three new dwellings does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. 7.26 Biodiversity 7.27 As stated at section 6.11 above, the application site contains existing planting including trees and shrubs and the proposed development would involve site clearance works to facilitate construction. It also noted that an ecological assessment has not been submitted to demonstrate that there would be no harm to biodiversity within the site. The Councils Environmental Compliance Officer has stated that a detailed ecological assessment and a field botanical assessment is required in advance of any site clearance or demolition works. 7.28 As such officers consider that the current proposals do not acceptably demonstrate that proposed site clearance and construction works would not result in the loss, or be detrimental to biodiversity on the site. Furthermore, the Environmental Compliance Officer has also requested that a bat survey and bat emergence survey would be mandatory to demonstrate if there is any physical evidence of bat activity on the site. 7.29 The applicant has not provided ecological assessment or a bat survey to demonstrate the proposals would not be harmful to biodiversity on the site and as such the proposals are contrary to Policies EN1 and Q9 of the Local Plan (2015).

8. Trees

8.1 Policy Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan states that proposals for new development will

be required to take particular account of existing trees on the site and on adjoining land.

8.2. Policy Q10 further states that development will not be permitted that would result in

the loss of trees of significant amenity, historic or ecological/habitat conservation value, or

give rise to a threat, immediate or long term, to the continued wellbeing of such trees. Where

trees are located within a development site, the proposal will be supported only where it has

been demonstrated that trees of significant amenity, historic or ecological/habitat

conservation value have been retained as part of the site layout and the retained trees can

be satisfactorily protected from construction impacts and site works during the development

stage;

Fig 7: Arboricultural Impact Assessment Plan

8.3 The Councils Arboricultural officer was consulted on the application and had initially

raised objection however revised drawings have been received which set back the second

dwelling house 2 further from the Yew tree (T15) as shown on the plans and at Fig 7 above.

Subject to this revision the Arboricultural officer has raised no further objection to the

scheme subject to conditions. The arboricultural report shows that approx. 10 trees would be

felled and a linear group of conifers (G16) would be pruned and reduced in height to

alleviate the shade impact to the third proposed dwelling house which is welcomed. In

addition a condition would have secured further details of remedial pruning to ensure that

these works are acceptable. The Arboricultural officer is satisfied that all tree protection

measures can be implemented in line with the recommendations as set out in the

Arboricultural Report and remedial pruning to retained trees would not be detrimental to their

health or appearance. The Arboricultural officer has also requested a condition to show

details of all new soft landscaping and this would be attached to the decision notice had the

application been recommended for approval.

8.4 As such subject to conditions the application would not be contrary to Policies Q9 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan. 9. Standard of Accommodation 9.1 Policy H5 of the Local Plan sets out the minimum housing standards for new build, conversion and change of use residential schemes in Lambeth. Policy 3.5 of the London Plan seeks to secure a high standard of housing and sets a number of minimum standards to be achieved as shown at table 3.3 of this policy. The London Plan Housing SPG (2016) expands upon the standards outlined in Policy 3.5. 9.2 The proposed 3 dwellings would each exceed the minimum internal standards as stated above. House 1 would have gross internal floor area (GIA) of 134sqm. All of the room sizes within this dwelling would meet and exceed the minimum internal standards at table 3.3 of the London Plan. This house would have an internal floor area of 43sqm at lower ground floor level, 51sqm at ground floor level and 40sqm at first floor level. It would have a private rear garden of approx. 60sqm and a front garden of approx. 9sqm. 9.3 House 2 would have gross internal floor area (GIA) of 130sqm. All of the room sizes within this dwelling would meet and exceed the minimum internal standards at table 3.3 of the London Plan. This house would have an internal floor area of 46.5sqm at lower ground floor level, 46.5sqm at ground floor level and 37sqm at first floor level. It would have a private rear garden of approx. 67sqm and a front garden of approx. 15sqm. 9.4 House 3 would have gross internal floor area (GIA) of 134sqm. All of the room sizes within this dwelling would meet and exceed the minimum internal standards at table 3.3 of the London Plan. This house would have an internal floor area of 43sqm at lower ground floor level, 51sqm at ground floor level and 40sqm at first floor level. It would have a private rear garden of approx. 195sqm and a front garden of approx. 8sqm. 9.5 It is noted that the main living areas comprise of a living room, kitchen and dining area of each house are located at ground floor level and bedrooms, bathrooms and a gym are located both at first and at lower ground floor level. Officers have concerns regarding the excessive size of the subterranean extension at lower ground floor level within each dwelling as shown at Fig 8 below. However the applicant has submitted an internal daylight report which demonstrates that that all habitable rooms within each house would receive acceptable levels of internal daylight. Nevertheless, it is considered that these basement lightwells would have to be increased in sizes to improve outlook and mitigate any undue sense of enclosure to these rooms. As such subject to a condition which would secure further details of the lightwell dimensions the proposals would provide an acceptable standard of residential amenity to future occupiers.

Fig 8: Proposed Dwelling 9.6 The submitted plans show that each new dwelling would be provided with private amenity space. It is unclear how the rear gardens would be subdivided, however it is considered that a condition would secure further details of all proposed boundary treatment within the site. Furthermore, the proposed rear gardens of each dwelling would provide more than the required 30sqm of private amenity space (as required by Policy H5(b)(i) of the Local Plan). However, as stated above the proposed basement rooms within the dwellings would have poor outlook and sense of enclosure at basement level and would provide a poor standard of residential amenity to future occupiers. 10. Amenity of Neighbouring Properties 10.1 The Council's adopted policies state that development should acceptably relate to neighbouring properties and not have a detrimental impact upon neighbouring residential and local amenities Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) states that the residential amenity of existing and future occupiers in terms of privacy, natural light, overlooking, outlook and sense of enclosure should be protected. 10.2 With regard to privacy, it is not considered that any issues would arise as a result of this application. This is due to the orientation of the rooflights and orientation of the front elevation windows of House 3. In addition there would be separation distance of the upper floor windows facing onto the rear of properties on Park Hill at a distance of approx. 11m at its nearest point. Furthermore, the front elevation windows of house 3 would face onto existing trees and new landscaping would be planted at the front boundary of the site. This would ensure that there would be no impact on the privacy or overlooking of properties numbers 5 to 8 Mayfield Close, of which number 7 is located at a distance of approx. 9m at its nearest point. In addition a condition would restrict the permitted development rights of the new dwellings from creating any new upper floor windows to ensure the amenity of adjoining occupiers is protected in the long term. It is considered that the orientation, size and room uses of the upper floor rear elevation windows and rooflights would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties at Park Hill. 10.3 In conclusion, it is not considered that the proposed development would give rise to any unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity and therefore satisfies the requirements of Policy Q2 of the Local Plan.

11. Highways and Transport Considerations 11.1 Policies Q13 and T3 seek to secure cycle parking provision in new developments in accordance with the minimum standards set out in the London Plan. Policy Q13 states that cycle storage should be fully integrated into the proposals from the initial design stage. Policy T7 outlines parking requirements for new developments. The application site is located to the rear of residential flats within numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Park Hill to the west. Access to the site is proposed from an existing access road to Mayfield Close to the east of the site. Mayfield Close is a housing complex operated by the Salvation Army and is comprised of a mix of flats, bungalows and a house. The use of the access road to Mayfield Close, which is not in the applicant’s ownership, would be subject to a separate civil agreement between the applicant and the Salvation Army. Securing this access arrangement is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration for the purposes of assessing this application. 11.3 The application site has a PTAL score of 4 which is considered good and is located within a Clapham 'L' CPZ. The applicant proposes no off street parking spaces. However, the Councils transport team have raised no objection to a parking free scheme subject to s106 agreement to secure the scheme as parking permit free. 11.4 Furthermore, it is noted that a construction management plan has not been submitted. However officers consider that further details required to demonstrate that there would be no danger to pedestrians and demonstrate that there would not be an unacceptable impact of the construction traffic on the adjoining highways together with the existing resident parking within Mayfield Close. It is also considered that during the basement phase all vehicles leaving the site including vehicles removing excavated materials and debris would be required to have theirs wheels washed prior to leaving the site to mitigate against any debris and mud on the surrounding highway network. As such a final construction management plan would have been secured by condition to ensure there would be no negative traffic impacts of the scheme. 11.5 The scheme has now been revised and has removed the previously proposed parking spaces to the front of the site which is considered acceptable give the location and PTAL rating of the application site. Furthermore, the submitted information shows that cycle storage would be provided at the front of the site within the side gardens of the dwellings. The submitted information appears to show the cycle storage stands would be uncovered and unsecured which is considered unacceptable. Therefore, details of a solid brick or metal lockable structure would have been secured by condition to ensure that any cycle storage enclosure would have been constructed of brick or painted metal to ensure that it would be fit for purpose and to ensure its long term durability against prolonged use and weathering, and to ensure that it would be secure. Furthermore, all cycle storage would be required to be provided at ground floor level to ensure it is easily accessible and convenient for the daily needs of users. 12. Refuse, Storage and Recycling 12.1 Lambeth Local Plan policy EN7 and the NPPF seek to achieve sustainable waste management. The Council's 'Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide' (July 2013) supplements policy EN7 and sets out the required capacity of refuse and recycling storage for new dwellings. 12.2 It is considered that the proposed development could provide adequate provision for refuse and recycling to comply with Policy Q12 of the Lambeth Local Plan. A dedicated

storage area is shown on the plans within the front boundary of each of the proposed dwellinghouses which is considered acceptable. Nevertheless it is considered that further information would have been secured by condition to demonstrate that the detailed design, materials and capacity of the refuse storage enclosure would be provided in line with Lambeth design guidance. 13. Affordable Housing 13.1 Policy H2 of the Lambeth Local Plan requires developments providing less than 10 residential units to make a financial contribution towards the delivery of off-site affordable housing. However, since the adoption of the Local Plan in September 2015, a written ministerial statement (WMS) has been issued together with a subsequent update to planning policy guidance (PPG), advising that the Council should not seek affordable housing contributions on sites of less than 10 residential units. 13.2 The WMS and PPG are material considerations and in this case officers consider that the WMS outweighs the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and as such no affordable housing contribution would be due in this instance. 14. Community Safety 14.1 Policy Q3 of the Lambeth Local Plan requires development to create a safe Borough for all users and requires development to design out opportunistic crime. The access to the new dwellings would be from an existing access road from Mayfield Close and would be adjacent to 3 existing vehicle parking spaces at numbers 1 to 3 Mayfield Close. It is considered that a condition would have secured lighting and CCTV to be provided at the entrance to the new dwellings, however no detailed information has been provided. A condition would also have been attached to a planning consent requiring clarification of the new entrances boundary treatment and measures that could be taken to prevent crime. 16. Flooding Risk 16.1 Part (f) of policy EN5 of the Lambeth Local Plan requires basement proposals (excluding self-contained dwellings in Flood Zone 3) to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to ensure the development is safe from all forms of flooding and does not increase flood risk elsewhere. 16.2 It is noted that the application site is not located in a flood risk zone, and is not at risk from surface water flooding, however it is located in an area which has the potential for increase groundwater levels. The Council’s Flood Risk officer was consulted on the application and has raised no objection to the scheme. The submitted plans show that the proposed scheme would increase the footprint of a non-permeable surface within the site and it is therefore required by Policy EN6 to introduce a method of treating/retaining water at source. As such should permission be granted then a condition would ensure that all new hardstanding and its sub base is permeable and surface runoff is directed to a soak away in compliance with the Department of Communities and Local Government guidance 'a guide to permeable surfacing front gardens'. 16.3 Furthermore, it is necessary to consider whether the additional basement excavation would be likely to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, for example, through the displacement of groundwater and detailed information is also required to demonstrate that the excavation works would not impact on the structural stability of adjoining properties. As

such a condition precedent (as this goes to the heart of the acceptability of the scheme) would have been attached to the consent requiring the submission and approval of a Basement Construction Method Statement and Assessment. This is to include an assessment of flood risk and any proposed mitigation measures in accordance with paragraph 121 of the NPPF which states that it is necessary to have regard to the suitability of the site for the proposed development in terms of ground conditions and land instability. 16.4 In the absence of ground impact assessment, and details of any measures to address land instability which might arise the proposals fail to comply with paragraph 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policy EN5 and EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015). 17. Sustainability 17.1 Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan requires all development to meet high standards of sustainable design and construction, relating to the scale, nature and form of the proposal. 17.2 Whilst the applicant has indicated that development is driven by sustainable design and construction, it is considered that inadequate information has been provided in order to satisfy the requirements of this policy, which is of particular importance given the proposed location of the 3 dwelling houses within the application site. However, it is considered that this information can be secured by condition had the application been recommended for approval. 18. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 18.1 Development which involves 100sqm gross internal floor area or consists of one or more new residential dwellings is liable for CIL. 18.2 Development within the Borough that is CIL liable is liable for payment towards the Mayoral CIL, which is charged at a rate of £35 per square metre of all development. 18.3 In addition to this, from 1st October 2014 onwards, Lambeth have introduced its CIL levy which will be applied to any development that in CIL liable. The site is within Zone B as set out within the CIL charging schedule which would mean a charge of £150 per square metre of gross internal floor area of residential development. 18.4 As such had the application been recommended for approval then approx. £59,700. of Lambeth CIL would have been payable and £13,930 Mayoral CIL would have been payable. 19. Conclusion 19.1 The development as proposed would provide an additional 3 family sized dwellings and would contribute to the boroughs housing target. However, the development of gardens is not a characteristic of this part of the conservation area as it erodes the character and qualities of the adjoining mature residential gardens. It is considered that the development would fail to respond to positive aspects of the local context and would impact on the visual amenity of adjoining properties contrary to policies Q2, Q5 and Q7 of the Lambeth Local Plan. 19.2 The proposed development would unacceptably harm the Clapham Park Road and

Northbourne Road Conservation Area. In particular the proposed development would introduce an incongruous from of development at the rear of the gardens, would obscure views of other rear gardens, would impact on the conservation areas sense of openness and greenness, and necessitate the removal of mature trees. In having special regard to the significance of the conservation area, officers are of the opinion that the proposal results in less than substantial harm to this heritage asset and that the harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits (three family homes) flowing from the scheme. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies Q5, Q7 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015. 20. Recommendation 20.1 REFUSE Planning Permission. Reasons: 1. The proposed three dwellings, by virtue of their height, bulk, mass and placement within a rear garden/backland setting would cause harm to the significance of the Clapham Park and Northbourne Road Conservation Area. In particular the dwellings would introduce an incongruous from of development at the rear of the gardens, would obscure views of other rear gardens, would impact on the conservation areas sense of openness and greenness, and necessitate the removal of mature trees. This harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the development and is contrary to policies Q5, Q7 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015). 2. The proposed three dwellings, by virtue of their height, bulk, mass and placement within a rear garden/backland setting would harm the visual amenity of adjoining properties and is contrary to policies Q2, Q5 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015). 3. The proposed three dwellings, by virtue of their bulk, mass and placement within a rear garden/backland setting would fail to respond to positive aspects of the local context and would fail to adequately preserve or enhance the prevailing local character. The development is contrary to Policies Q5 and Q7(ii) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).