Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
One last push please!
A decision by Lambeth Planning and the Lambeth Planning Application Committee is expected in June 2023.
Simply put: now that we have a (likely) date, it is crunch time. If you (or anyone you know) hasn’t lodged objections against the most recent scheme, now is the time. The Planning Officer’s recommendation is a big deal, and we’ll know that by the end of this month (May 2023).
One more push please!
Lifestory Group (the developer of the former Woodlands nursing home site) are proposing to build 126 units in back land site in Kennington comprising of 3/4 storey perimeter buildings and a 14-storey block next to the Water Tower and Cinema Museum/Masters House (both Grade II listed buildings within a conservation area.
Lifestory Group were forced to make a couple of changes to their development proposals but have mostly chosen to ignore concerns over the fundamental issues of their plans. You can find copies of the latest plans, drawings and a copy of the main planning statement all on the Lambeth Planning portal here
The development proposal is still out of keeping with the lower rise nature of the surrounding urban area. A dense development can be achieved without the tower block and harmful impacts of the perimeter mansion blocks, as demonstrated by the precedent developments at the Bellway Water Tower estate, the Knight’s Walk development, 130 – 138 Newington Butts and Manor Place Depot, the latter two of which have a demonstrable higher density.
We want to see a more proportionate and much less harmful redevelopment of the site. We believe the current plans underplay the constraints of the site and harmful impacts which will affect everyone in the local and surrounding areas one way or another. It will also set a minimum baseline and precedent for any future developments in the Lambeth area, particularly as it is outside the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and regeneration opportunity area of Elephant and Castle in the nearby but distinct regeneration area in Southwark.
Things You Can Do - We need you to take action and help now...
The planning application reference number is 21/04356/FUL
If you want your voice to be heard and be taken into consideration in the decision of the outcome of this proposal we would encourage you to please ASAP but no later than the end of May 2023:
1) Chat with you family, neighbours and friends and raise awareness of the development plans and the issues of concern and objections (more information below).
2) Please send your comments and objections on the scheme directly to Lambeth Planning Office via their website at Lambeth Planning online or you can email the Planning Office directly at planning@lambeth.gov.uk .
You can find the planning application details on the Lambeth Planning website using the Planning Application Reference 21/04356/FUL and please quote this reference number in all your correspondence.
3) Send your comments and your concerns to your local ward councillor and MP. Further contact details for the local elected representatives can be found here.
We have seen before that scrutiny, comments and feedback of these proposals can play a significant and useful part in the challenge for a better, a more proportionate, mixed and balanced development for the benefit of new and current residents.
Please lodge your comments directly to Lambeth Planning Office using the button below.
Fundamental Planning and development issues not addressed
None of the fundamental issues and shortcomings of this proposed development in terms of the design, architecture, density, vehicle access, servicing, inadequate amenity for new residents and loss for existing residents, inadequate safeguarding of privacy and overlooking for new and existing residents have been adequately resolved or addressed. The serious loss of daylight and sunlight for residents next to the site of these proposals remains unresolved.
In light of the most recent changes and as of 29 March 2023 there is not an updated viability appraisal open to public consultation to examine the viability of this latest version of the scheme. Its absence does and the opaque heavily redacted earlier versions have prohibited the public from examining why the developer needs to build 126 units (fae beyond the circa 90 units that it could accommodate) on the site and why only 13% of those units will be marketed as "affordable". Also, there is no information to assess whether the private/market or "affordable" market units will be realistically priced for residents in this area.
We believe the latest changes in March 2023 coupled with the unaddressed fundamental issues and conflicts with planning policies do not and have not altered the balance in favour of development and planning permission should be refused.
"THE PLANNING BALANCE"
In paragraph 11.10 of the Planning Statement Addendum (March 2023) the planning agent on behalf of the developer summarises the benefits of their development proposals and tries to reason that they outweigh the harms; coupling with some further reasons and sound planning grounds to grant planning permission. Taking those suggested benefits one by one below (developer assertions in italic ) we believe that there are reasons why this proposed development should not be approved and should be significantly revised. To be clear we are not opposed to any redevelopment of the site, but any redevelopment must be balanced in terms of its benefits and impacts/harms.
1. 126 units of housing which includes 21% affordable housing
Of the 126 units proposed, 109 (87%) of the units are market housing. This is an increase from the 102 units from the scheme submitted in 2021 at the expense of the original quota of "affordable " units proposed. It is wrongly claimed in paragraph 9.5.8 of the Planning Statement-Addendum March 2023 that 20% of units are earmarked as being "affordable". Of the 13% affordable housing units, only 11 units (9% (down from 19% for the scheme submitted in 2021) are affordable rent units (social rented housing), with the remaining 6 (4% which is down from the original 15% put forward) being “intermediate”. Additionally the social rented provision is grouped together in Block F (affordable rented), and part of D (intermediate), which is contrary to development plan aspirations to co-locate all tenures in the same building.
2. The regeneration of a previously developed site and its highly sustainable location
The site of the former Woodlands Nursing Home requires redevelopment to provide much needed additional housing. However, the proposed development does not in any way seek to integrate with the surrounding neighbourhood. Instead it provides a 14 storey tower on a site of just 0.54 ha, massively out of scale with its immediate surroundings that will have a detrimental effect on existing listed buildings, and the amenity of dozens of existing homes, many of which, by the applicants own daylight and sunlight assessment would fail to meet the required standards that the proposed development has to meet. This is a development seeking to maximise profit, with the applicant acknowledging the proposal will cause harm to the many existing homes and the residents of those homes. This is not a development “integrating into the surrounding neighbourhood”.
Paragraph 124 of the NPPF requires that “Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account:… (d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting”. This development proposal does not maintain the area’s prevailing character and setting.
The peripheral blocks present significant overlooking issues for existing residents, particularly on Renfrew Road. The architecture of the peripheral blocks is reminiscent of nearby poor design from the 1980s which is being demolished.
3. Economic benefits for the Borough
Jobs and apprenticeships are to be welcomed but construction related employment would be transitory in nature and such employment would also be created by a smaller and more appropriately sized development which is respectful of its surroundings. The number of permanent jobs created by the operational phase of development is minimal - it is worth noting that the application form for the proposed development has the answer “no” to question 32: “Are there any existing employees on the site or will the proposed development increase or decrease the number of employees?”.
The proximity to the borough boundary and, eventually, shopping and other facilities, will mean that any supposed “trickledown” will be lost from Lambeth to Southwark, even if, unlikely as it will be, everyone works from home in the blocks. The only economic benefit to the borough will be additional council tax receipts. This is not a reason to downgrade existing residents’ quality of life.
4. Improvements to the immediate surroundings and setting of The Master’s House
The claim of enhancement of the Master’s House (home of The Cinema Museum) is not borne out by the quality of the architecture which will be within the setting of this listed building. The Master’s House will be marred by a hard and unrelenting wall of red brick that has no reference in the Master’s House. It is also difficult to understand how the pastiche of Spanish colonial style architecture that is used in the Block A tower block can be said to enhance the setting of the Master’s House.
The materials of the peripheral blocks will present a hard and unrelenting wall of bright red brick, and metal cladding that has no reference in the Master’s House or other heritage buildings. The design of the lower peripheral blocks is poor and reminiscent of council or office blocks from the 1980s.
The setting of the Water Tower has not been referenced by the applicant here. It is not clear how the developer and its consultants are able to justify that the 14 storey tall tower in close proximity to, and in the immediate setting of the principle views of 7 storey grade II listed Water Tower building. It is telling that the developer did not provide any visualisations of the view of the Water Tower from Dante Road with the proposed tower completed. It is also telling that the planning application documents to not show visuals indicating the full extent of the effect of the tower on the Master’s House.
5. Environmental improvements to the site
Removal of existing trees, significant additional traffic related to deliveries and servicing, overshadowing of substantial areas for significant parts of every day cannot be in any way considered as environmental improvements.
6. Increasing permeability around The Master’s House and the Water Tower Development
There will be an additional route from Dugard Way to Dante Road, but it is impractical and unsafe and it will be shared with refuse and delivery vehicles, in amongst an overwhelming expanse of planting and benches that will provide opportunities for loitering and the hiding of negative behaviour. The attractiveness of this ’new’ route is questionable, particularly at night.
The pedestrian link between the tower environs and Dugard Way will be in front of Master’s House, on a ‘shared space’ , shared with delivery and service vehicles and vehicles turning (the application documents predict 20 vehicle trips a day visiting the site, but going from the experience of “Uncle” more likely to be 100 or more per day). The pedestrian and cycle connections provided will simply replicate those already available through the Water Tower development and will not improve on these which already consist of a segregated pedestrian only route.
The route through the development is appears to feature planting along the road route which will quickly become either a mess of mud and dust or will be removed completely. The paved area being shared with heavy vehicles using it regularly is likely to lead to damage to the paving. The route is also set amongst an overwhelming expanse of planting and benches that will provide opportunities for loitering and the hiding of negative behaviour. The attractiveness of this ’new’ route is questionable.
There are existing safe, permeable routes for pedestrians through the Water Tower development. If anything, the proposal, with the predicted 20 vehicle trips a day visiting the site (but going from the experience of “Uncle” more likely to be 100 or more per day), will make existing walking routes less safe by introducing more vehicle pedestrian conflicts, particularly with additional large vehicles during construction and once completed vehicles both delivering and existing through the narrow roads and gateway along Dugard Way.
7. Car free credentials of the development
The development may be ‘car free’ but it will not be vehicle free. There is rightly the mandatory amount of parking for vehicles adapted for residents who have accessibility requirements. However, for the substantial number of delivery and servicing vehicles there is only one parking bay which will lead to congested parking on and off site particularly with taxi vehicles coming to collect or drop off residents.
8.Retention of the Cinema Museum
The retention of the Cinema Museum is listed as having moderate weight in paragraph 11.5 of the Planning Statement Addendum (March 2023); however the Planning inspector did not consider this matter as a planning benefit for consideration as part of the planning balance exercise for any decision maker. The uncertainty about the status of the Cinema Museum has been entirely Lifestory Group/Anthology’s doing since the site was purchased. In the period during which the previous planning application for a taller tower on site was being determined, Anthology stated in a letter that, if there was a planning appeal then Anthology would need to use money previously allocated to the Cinema Museum on that appeal.
As it currently stands the Cinema Museum has been granted a 4 year lease with the option to buy the building at £1 million (confirmed on the Cinema Museum website http://www.cinemamuseum.org.uk/). It would appear therefore that the retention of the Cinema Museum is no longer relevant as a reason for granting this application. It would also follow therefore that the retention of the Cinema Museum should no longer form part of the description of the application, and that the site area should exclude the Master’s House in which the Cinema Museum is housed.
Although there were some changes in the autumn of 2022 to reduce the negative features of the density and design of the proposals the actual outcomes of those changes made have been minimal as they do not tackle the fundamental issue that the density of the proposals far exceeds what this constrained site can suitably accommodate. The overwhelming majority of the community is in favour of redevelopment of the site but with adherence and respect to the constraints of the site in this urban location.
The key fundamental issues which the developer has not addressed and remain are:
1) Inappropriate design, layout and density adversely affecting residential amenity
2) Detrimental impact on heritage assets and conservation areas
3) Impact on surrounding Kennington area
4) The current planning application does not address all of the six issues that the Planning Inspector raised with the previous proposal at the site and are a material consideration for this planning application
Issues with the most recent changes from March 2023
1) We have long argued for the safety of new residents and specifically in the 45m tall building that there needed to be a second staircase in the tall Block A. There are concerns that placing a second staircase next to the main staircase both of which can only be accessed in the same direction from those leaving their flats does not alleviate the risk if a fire occurs or spreads to that area. It is not a genuine means of exit/escape if there is an issue with a stairwell/staircase if your only means of escape/exit is to have to go in the direction of that risk to escape from it. The second staircase has to be accessible from an alternative direction away from the first staircase to provide a safer alternative exit route.
2) As a result of the second staircase the developer has increased the number of private studio and 1 bed flats while continuing to under provide much needed two and three bed private/market homes needed by the community. Whilst demographics, ownership patterns, the location of the site and its transport links may provide the basis to argue for a higher proportion of one and two bed units in urban locations it does not justify proposing that the majority (57%) of units should be studio and one bed units. The dwelling mix is disproportionate and unbalanced to genuinely meet the community's current and future needs.
The proposal by Lifestory Group (the developer) is for 126 units on the 0.54 hectare Woodlands forming nursing home site on Dugard Way in Kennington.
As well as our original concerns detailed further below, you may find useful:
* Our key findings on the latest November 2022 planning application documents which you can find here
* An anonymised sample letter recently written by a local resident to Lambeth Planning having their say on the scheme which you can find here
* Informative comments on the heritage and architectural matters of the proposed scheme from:
Feedback from Lifestory Group on the questions raised by residents at the public meeting we held on 4 October 2022 at The Cinema Museum which you can find here
Dugard Way - Proposed View (from page 155 of 271 of THVIA)
This re-consultation on the Woodlands scheme is mostly due to an addendum to the financial viability appraisal which sets out essentially how the developer can only provide under 14% of the units to be "affordable" and for the scheme still be viable (profitable) for them. We have completed an initial assessment on the latest information published which you can find here
To summarise our key points:
1. The Financial Viability Assessment October 2022 (FVA) Addendum is not fit for the purposes of public examination. The FVA fails to justify why the maximum amount of affordable housing that the Applicant can viably provide on this former public land site is only 20% on a habitable room basis (which is less than 14% of the total 126 units proposed) where the policy expectation is that 50% affordable housing on a habitable room basis is expected to be provided (London Plan Policy H5). The reduction in the number of units since August 2021 (from 155 to 126) has primarily come from the affordable housing allocation of units while there has been a 7% increase in the number of private market units. The Applicant’s profit allowance has not been disclosed which is a reversal of them publishing their original estimate.
2. There have been no significant changes to the external design of the Applicant’s proposed buildings; internal and external separation distances, building heights, floor plans and elevations which could mitigate the harms of the flawed proposals.
3. STB recommends that the Council refuses this scheme on the grounds of all the issues previously identified in two previous reports (December 2021 and October 2022) submitted by STB on this scheme on the grounds of non-compliant national, strategic, and regional policy issues, conflicts with the development plan and harms, and deficiencies in information. The harms and dis-benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the benefits and alter the planning balance in favour of approval
1) Inappropriate design, layout and density adversely affecting residential amenity
2) Detrimental impact on heritage assets and conservation areas
3) Impact on surrounding Kennington area
4) The current planning application does not address all of the six issues that the Planning Inspector raised with the previous proposal at the site and are a material consideration for this planning application
Go directly to the planning application's public comment section with this weblink HERE
Make sure it is for Planning Application Reference No: 21/04356/FUL
Click ‘comments’ then ‘make a comment’
Write to: Lambeth Planning, PO Box 734, Winchester, SO23 5DG
Also, contact your local councillor and MP See the contact list here
Please Quote Application Ref No: 21/04356/FUL
KENNINGTON STAGE-Woodlands Nursing Home 1 Dugard Way London LONDON SE11 4TH
THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO SECURE PLANNING PERMISSION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THIS LIVE PLANNING APPLICATION BEFORE LAMBETH COUNCIL DECIDE THE APPLICATION
Developer Lifestory has submitted a revised planning application for 126 flats across bulky blocks between 3 and 14 storeys on the former Woodlands Nursing home site in Kennington.
Full details of the planning application and a feedback/comments form can be found here
The Kennington Stage proposals are for the:
OUR CONCERNS
The "Kennington Stage" proposal is overbearing and its massing, scale and the poor design of the development is not appropriate for a small constrained site in an urban low-rise part of Kennington. If approved it will set a precedent for more similar and taller buildings across Kennington.
We want a lower density development that would protect the significance of the listed buildings, Conservation Areas and respect the prevailing building heights, density and massing of the surrounding residential properties.
An example of a more sensitive and proportionate development, a mixed and balanced community is already evident and it is possible as demonstrated by the Bellway/Water Tower Estate Development which is adjacent to the "Kennington Stage" proposal site.
There is a short window to comment on this LIVE PLANNING APPLICATION before Lambeth Council decide the application.
COMMENT NOW TO HAVE YOUR SAY
Stop the Blocks Community Action Group (StB) in an open and collaborative effort worked with Lifestory Group (the developer of the Woodland Nursing Home site), Lambeth Planning and elected representatives (Councillors Jon Davies, Joanne Simpson and David Amos) and we have been running an exercise to share information and facilitate discussions on the initial design proposals for the former Woodlands nursing home site on Dugard Way with the local community.
On 29 June 2021 Lifestory Group put forward its initial revised design solutions for the former Woodlands nursing home site on Dugard Way in Kennington. The developer has arrived at these initial design solutions following discussions with Lambeth Planning. Lifestory has developed a presentation for resident's information and you can download an updated version of the presentation HERE
There is also a shorter document available HERE
Lifestory's Key Points of their revised design proposal
Online Public Consultation
Lifestory Group are running an online public consultation regarding their current proposals.
Key Details
Our position
In June 2021 Lifestory Group informed StB that they wished to rebuild trust and improve lines of communication with the community. StB are pleased to share the additional information provided
StB and its volunteers remain committed to working constructively with the developer and all parties to ensure any development proposal for the site reflects the matters that are important to the current and future residents in the community. For the purposes of clarity the developer has made no changes in these proposals first published on 29th June 2021 and republished with additional information on 3rd August 2021.
Site Masterplan(Excerpt from 21015 Residents Presentation 2021-06-29.pdf, Page 43)
Copyright © 2023 Stop The Blocks - All Rights Reserved.
Stop the Blocks Community Action Group
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data. Privacy Policy