SCECO is a local cooperative, set up 39 years ago to preserve and enhance Streatham Common.
We ask Lambeth Planning to reject this application and give residents' views and consideration of the application itself. We have not had sufficient time to give a thorough response. This application was posted during the Christmas period.
The planning application 23/03943/FUL is explicitly for:
Implicitly in the supporting documentation it is for:
This is a list of the submitted documents as of 2024-01-07.
Class B8 is defined in The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as Use for storage or as a distribution centre.
It is not been subsequently modified up to Use Classes Order of 2020.
The Planing Geek also has some more colour on what is possible an the case law for class B8 is:
The judgment in Newbury DC v SoS for the Environment (1981) A.C.578, states that
“…storage does not have to be part of the businesses, and that as long as storage was the principal use it could be a USe Class B8 use”.Appeals have been won where classic cars were stored in a unit away from a domestic dwelling. It is still Use Class B8, despite it looking like a garage.
Use Class B8 could also be a warehouse used for distribution. Screwfix with a trade counter would fall under B8. If an office or shop is attached to the warehouse or distribution centre then that shop or office would also be use Class B8 as it will be ancillary to the main use.
Savills has a nice document showing what further changes are then allowed:
Carter Jonas has a description of what open storage is for:
Traditionally, open storage has been seen as low-quality space dedicated to scrap metal recycling, waste disposal or low-end HGV parking, however needs and growth of demand have transformed these often overlooked industrial lands into high quality storage spaces that can host high-end services and facilities. ... ... Modern urban distribution warehouses are designed to maximise the size of the building relative to the site and in many cases site coverage is now reaching 65% or more. This leaves minimal external space for HGV movement and parking; the large fleet of vans often required to carry out last mile home deliveries; or other service uses such as staff parking and general storage. Parcel operators, for example, would normally want to operate with a site cover of 25%-35%. As a result, there has been a huge increase in requirements for urban open storage facilities to cater for these ‘overspill’ parking and storage needs.
Followed by a very noisy and vibration intensive waste sorting site.
The illegal incursion was caused by a lack of security on the site. This shows a real world example of how the site could operate as an open access storage facility.
All of this is to the detriment of the planning social objectives of supporting strong and vibrant communities and of the environmental objectives of enhancing our historic environment.
This seems wholly inappropriate for a long established conservation area.
The development plan:
The Development Plan is supported by a range of SPDs:
Material Considerations:
Betterment as referred to in the applicants Heritage Assessment is not defined in the National planning framework. Instead the National Planning Framework talks of:
8. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives):
So the applicants net gain will be considered in terms of these objectives.
The Planning Practice Guidance has guidance on conserving the historic environment
Number 9 Streatham Common is Grade 2 listed and the curtilage is partly defined by a boundary wall with number 6 Streatham Common South.
Other buildings in the neighbourhood are the locally listed
First we will examine the historical record and then look at the details in the planning submissions.
The hours of opening of Lewis and Co were recorded on their web site update of May 11th, 2015 and stored in the internet archive. The hours of operation were on the website from 2013 to 2015. In 2015 the website hosting expired and was renewed in 2019. At this time the hours of operation were not on the website.
Local residents have not noticed any change in operations during the last 20 years and possible longer.
Lewis and Co (Streatham) Ltd
020 8679 2494
6 Streatham Common South, London, SW16 3BT
Monday to Friday: 07:30AM to 5PM
Saturday: 8AM to 1PM
This data concurs with the local residents. Note:
Around 2000 an injunction was obtained to prevent Lewis and Co moving large articulated lorries in and out of the builders yard.
This was causing danger to those using the pedestrian crossing to Streatham Common South. So the evolved custom
was to load and unload articulated trucks with forklifts with the lorries parked on what became double yellow lines
opposite the park. The deliveries would not start until about 8am but still interfered with parents taking
their children to school.
It will become apparent that essentially the planning application is to go from normal business hours to 24 x 7 operation.
All the submitted documents assume there are no trees but there is at least one tree growing between the bund walls and the boundary wall of number 9 Streatham Common South. There should have been a tree survey and an plan to improve the environmental aspect by adding more trees to enhance the environment.
Lewis by custom and by agreement with the council operated deliveries from 7:30am to 5pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturday. The yard opened at 7am. This is recognised in the 1950’s planning application as “No nuisance or annoyance being caused which may injuriously affect the amenities of the surround properties”
So although 1.1.2 states that “it is understood the extant planning permission places not restictions on its use, in terms operation hours or noise emissions” That is clearly not true.
No real data was available so a modelling exercise was undertaken.
1.14 instead of betterment is planning to make worse the hours from 8:00 to 17:00 Mon to Fri to 7:00 to 19:00 Monday to Saturday 09:00 to 18:00 Sundays and Bank holidays.
Fig 1.1 is of course inaccurately drawn and includes part of number 9’s garden
The absolute ultimate insult is then to allow deliveries loading and unloading at any time.
We need to check the calculations and assumptions which are supposed to conform to BS 4142.
In section 3.3.6 they average noise over an hour.
5.0 refers to a completely different application.
The use of a builders yard had 2 and then fork lift truck and a couple of lorries used for deliveries. The numbers used by the consultants seem vastly bumped up for previous use eg reversing alarm, assume more van movements by a tiny amount, don’t do like for like forklift measurements
The noise management plan contradicts the noise modelling by allowing gas or electric trucks rather than electric.
The noise plan is flawed in comparing old technology with modern technology. This is not a planning betterment but the result of progress. For example the replacement of noisy diesel fork lift trucks with quieter electric fork lift trucks, the replacement of noisy reversing warnings with quieter broadband ones.
The modelling is based and only works because of these unrealistic modelling parameters which are designed to produce the results the applicant desires.
Table 6.5 of the noise assessment is flawed as it uses Laq 15 min values rather than the Lmax. In page 15 of the report it states that Section 3.4 of the guideline states...sleep disturbance best with LAmax of 45dB or less
The transport statement has spelling mistakes eg page 2
The transport statement seems to use different data on the vehicle movements to the noise statement. The noise impact has cherry picked data from a video which has not been provided and the transport statement relies on data from a refused submission in 2021.
The 2021 submission for the residential site calculated data from an industry standard TRICS database but did not take into account
The applicant has failed to provide a Tree Survey as is required
The applicant has filed to provide a Sustainable Urban Drainage System to deal with local flooding as per second C 2.92
The applicant has failed to enhance the quality of open space D 5
The loss of the existing builder’s yard use would compromise the council’s employment objectives. As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan (2021) policies E2C and E7A and Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) policy ED4.
Contravention of the London Borough of Lambeth’s obligations for the preservation and enhancement of a Conservation area under Sections 72 (1) and (2) of the Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
The Heritage Assessment provides no evidence that the previous refusal for use as B8 in terms of employment and retention of the builders yard is in any different to the current application. As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan (2021) policies E2C and E7A and Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) policy ED4.
The Heritage Assessment is clearly wrong to say that an increase in operating hours agreed as a planning condition meets the object
The noise assessment should be redone on a like for a like basis and correcting the mistakes in operation
The proposed operating hours and inadequate Noise Management Plan would result in the proposal failing to ensure that noise and other nuisances will be managed and mitigated in accordance with London Plan (2021) policy D13 and Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) policy Q2.
The noise management plan is detrimental in planning terms due to the increase in operating hours.
The planning application is wrong as there is at least one tree on the site and a tree survey is required.
There is at least one tree on the site so the answer to Trees and Hedges is wrong.
There are large trees adjacent to the site that might have to be pruned so I believe the second part is wrong
A number of pine trees have been cut down and removed from and adjacent garden presumably in preparation for this work and this will have affected the view from Streatham Common.
The site does regularly flood during heavy rain.
The increased traffic and congestion is going to lead to loss and so change of use of adjacent Streatham Common South.
The Land registry title register denote two owners of the land but this application only shows one owner Nw1 IOS 1 Unit Trust.
The applicant has failed to provide the requested Lighting Plan to demonstrate that there would be no harm to neighbouring amenity during winter hours and minimise light spill on key habitats to ensure no loss of biodiversity. As such, the proposals would fail to comply with London Plan (2021) policy G6 and Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) policies Q2 and EN1.
The currently proposed demolition of the existing boundary structures which provide screening and baffle sound would harm neighbouring amenity in respect of privacy, outlook and noise. As such the proposal fails to comply with Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) policy Q2. New baffles and boundary structures would be needed to keep the same level of screening but no proposals have been made.
The travel statement is inaccurate and inadequate as it relies on data from a previously rejected residental proposal which calculated traffic movements using an estimation from TRICS database and the wrong opening hours.
The applicant has not agreed to the recommended condition requiring an Operational Management Plan detailing the use of the proposed on-site car parking spaces. In addition, the applicant has not agreed for the use to be permit free following the introduction of a future Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the area. As such the proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with London Plan (2021) policy T6 and Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) policy T6 which require a reduction in car ownership and private car trips.
The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with London Plan 2021 policy SI 1 which requires the construction works and operation of the site to be Air Quality Neutral or Air Quality Positive.
Number 6 Old planning applications
Old applications do constrain the nuisance. It is misleading to say that there were no noise orders on previous operations as the first noise abatement act was in 1960. This defines that a statutory nuisance can be due to noise or vibration. They were however not at all comprehensive or fully enforceable.
The 1950’s planning permission which granted permission for the use of Number 6 Streatham Common South as a builders yard did have constraints appropriate for the that time of law:
“No nuisance or annoyance being caused which may injuriously affect the amenities of the surrounding properties”
Over time, legal injunction and practice and the advertising and practice of operation the builders yard came to operate in a way that reached compromise with the surrounding properties. Over time the surrounding properties have changed. So for instance the Greenvale Specialist Nursing unit for 20 patients with dementia was built in 1993 and coexisted with the operation as a builders yard.
Dialogue was maintained with the owners on noise shaping to avoid noisy operations at the begining of the day, to deal with pollution, the height of stacking of units so as to operate without injurious effect.
The Heritage Assessment states that site has operated quite happily for the last 70 years. This is because due to injunctions, refusal of planning permission acceptable working hours and working compromise was reached. This application breaks with that to the detriment
Reasons for Refusal for 22/03283/FUL