26/00528/FUL

In the absence of a robust marketing report, it has not been demonstrated that the use of the site as a Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180 PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk London planning@lambeth.gov.uk SW2 9QQ REFULZ public house (Sui Generis), which has been identified to have heritage, cultural, economic and social value, is not viable, nor has it been demonstrated that other community uses have been explored. The proposed loss of the public house use (Sui Generis) would be contrary to Policies ED9 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), HC7 of the London Plan (2021) and the Lambeth Marketing of Commercial Premises and Sites Guidance Note (2023), and would cause adverse impacts to the local community.

By reason of there being nine one-bedroom flats proposed, and a loss of one three-bedroom family-sized dwelling unit, the proposal would fail to provide a suitable mix of housing sizes and would fail to provide any family- sized accommodation. The proposal would fail to comply with Policy H4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).

It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would provide high quality residential accommodation. Insufficient information has been provided with regards to the floor to ceiling heights for the units, and Apartment 1 falls short of the NDSS in terms of its GIA. In the absence of a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, Officers are unable to determine whether the units would receive adequate levels of daylight and sunlight. The majority of the apartments would have insufficient levels of outlook and would be adversely overlooked. It has not been demonstrated that the basement-level bedrooms in Apartments 1 and 2 would be safe from the risk of flooding. The provision of front gardens for Apartments 1, 2 and 3 would not be achievable given that this land is part of the public highway, rendering these apartments highly exposed to overlooking from the street. The proposal would fail to provide high quality residential accommodation and would be contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies H5, Q2 and Q27 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).

By reason of the substantial demolition of a locally listed building (non-designated heritage asset) and the introduction of unsympathetic contemporary alterations to the building, and by reason of the position of the proposed cycle and bin storage, the proposal would cause harm to the significance of the locally listed public house which has not been justified or outweighed. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with paragraph 216 of the NPPF (2024), Policies Q5, Q8, Q11 and Q23 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Lambeth Design Guide SPD (2023).

In the absence of further investigation, as recommended by the submitted Basement Impact Assessment, Officers are unable to determine whether the proposed excavation would adversely impact subterranean ground flow, slope stability or surface flow. It is not clear whether the proposal would adversely impact tree roots, nor whether there would be structural implications for neighbouring properties or the retained frontage of the locally listed building. It has not been demonstrated that the bedroom accommodation would be safe against the risk of flooding. The proposal would fail to comply with Policies Q27, ED5 and ED6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Lambeth Design Guide SPD Part 5 (2023).

In the absence of a BRE-compliant Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, and in the absence of sufficient details in relation to the Air Source Heat Pumps, Officers are unable to determine the impact of the proposal on neighbouring daylight and sunlight, or the potential noise or vibration impacts of the development. In the absence of a proposed western elevation drawing, Officers are unable to determine the full impact of the boundary treatments on the adjoining properties. However, it is considered that the proposed two storey boundary walls would cause an adverse enclosure and overshadowing issues for the rear gardens of no. 64 Gipsy Hill and no. 12 Cawnpore Street. The proximity and raised vantage of the proposed balconies would also cause adverse impacts to no. 12 Cawnpore Street in terms of perceived overlooking. The proposal would fail to comply with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).

By reason of the number of spaces, and the type of stands, the proposal would fail to provide sufficient and accessible cycle parking provision. The cycle parking proposed would fail to comply with Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy Q13 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).

In the absence of a Tree Roots Assessment undertaken by a qualified Arboriculturist, it is unclear whether the proposal would cause adverse impacts to the tree roots of nearby mature trees. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Policy Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).

In the absence of any supporting evidence to demonstrate either compliance with the 10% BNG uplift, or exemption for any reason, it is considered the proposed development would fail to comply with the aims and objectives of Policy G6 of the London Plan, Policy EN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan, paragraphs 180-186 of the NPPF and is not considered to be acceptable, having regard to the impacts on ecology and biodiversity.

In the absence of a Parking Stress Survey demonstrating that the site would not cause impacts upon highway safety, the free-flow of traffic, amenity, access by emergency vehicles, refuse collection and delivery of goods, it is considered that the provision of nine residential units would likely cause an uplift in car parking on Cawnpore Street causing parking stress and highway safety implications, contrary to Policies T1, T6 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021).

In the absence of any agreement to enter a S106 with regards to providing car and cycle club memberships, contributing towards the introduction of a CPZ, securing each unit as car permit-free in the event of a CPZ being introduced, and in the absence of any agreement to enter a S278 agreement for the removal of the dropped kerb at the site, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not cause adverse impacts to the local area in terms of parking displacement, nor has it been demonstrated that the proposal would promote sustainable modes of transport. The proposal would be contrary to Policies T1, T3 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policies T4, T5, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021).