Appeal Decisions The Planning Inspectorate

4/11 Eagle Wing

Temple Quay House
Inquiry held on 23, 24, 25 and 26 2 The Square
Temple Quay
February 2010 Bristol BS1 6PN
Site visit made on 8 March 2010
0117 372 6372
email:enquiries@pins.gsi.g
by Ava Wood DIP ARCH MRTPI ov.uk

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:

for Communities and Local Government 22 April 2010

Appeal A Ref: APP/C5690/A/09/2114257

Land off Tyson Road and Honor Oak Road, Forest Hill, Lewisham, London
SE23 3AA (Scheme A)
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Loromah Estates Limited against the decision of the Council of
the London Borough of Lewisham.
• The application Ref: DC/08/70207, dated 28 October 2008, was refused by notice dated
16 April 2009.
• The development proposed is demolition of existing residential buildings and general
industrial buildings and redevelopment for residential development; including open
space provision, car parking and associated infrastructure.

Appeal B Ref: APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

Land off Tyson Road and Honor Oak Road, Forest Hill, Lewisham, London
SE23 3AA (Scheme B)
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Loromah Estates Limited against the decision of the Council of
the London Borough of Lewisham.
• The application Ref:DC/09/71953, dated 6 July 2009, was refused by notice dated 6
October 2009.
• The development proposed is demolition of existing buildings on land to the rear of 39-
53 Honor Oak Road and 15-17A Tyson Road and construction of 9 blocks comprising up
to a maximum of 71 apartments; together with associated landscaping and
infrastructure.

Decisions

1. I dismiss Appeal A and allow Appeal B in the terms set out in the attached
Schedule and subject to the conditions listed.

Preliminary Matters

2. Appeal B concerns an outline application with landscaping reserved for

subsequent approval. All other matters of detail are to be determined as part
of the appeal.

Main issues

3. The two issues common to both appeals is whether the proposals would
achieve high quality housing in the terms set out in Planning Policy Statement
3 (PPS3), and whether the living conditions of existing local residents would be
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

harmed, notably by loss of privacy, loss of outlook or increased risk of

crime/anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

Design Quality

4. PPS3 recognises that good design is fundamental to the development of high

quality new housing. Paragraph 16 sets out a range of matters to be
considered in assessing design quality. These include relationship to
surroundings and to neighbouring buildings, accessibility, quality of the layout,
bio-diversity, amongst others. The aspects of design listed in PPS3, to which I
add standard of living accommodation and quality of the architecture,
correspond with the subjects considered at the inquiry.

5. Policy 3A.3 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations, February 2008)
(LP) urges boroughs to achieve maximum intensity of use compatible with local
context, design principles of Policy 4B.1 and public transport capacity. Policy
4B.1 reiterates the need for developments to respect local context, character
and communities. In a similar vein, Policy HSG8 of the Lewisham Unitary
Development Plan (UDP) looks for backland development to respect the
character of the area, while Policy HSG5 expects all new residential
development to be attractive and to meet the functional requirements of its
future inhabitants. UDP Policy URB3 sets out an extensive list of factors that
contribute to achievement of high standards of urban design.

6. The appeal schemes share similar design principles and there is much that is
common in the layout and appearances of the 9 blocks proposed. Therefore, I
have considered the proposals together, but differentiating between them on
matters of detail that eventually bear on my decisions.

Relationship to surroundings and to neighbouring buildings

7. The area in the vicinity of the appeals site has been variously described as
urban, suburban and even semi-urban. When looked at in terms of the LP
definitions (paragraph 3.23 of the LP), elements of both urban and suburban
prevail. In my view, there is little to be gained from categorising the area in
such absolute terms, given the disparity in densities and development patterns
locally. What matters is how the developments proposed respond to the site
and their relationship with different parts of the neighbourhood.

8. The most obvious changes would occur at Tyson Road. In both cases, Blocks 8
and 9 would consciously herald a departure from the Edwardian/Victorian style
of individual houses that mostly characterise the northern side of Tyson Road.
The new access road would break the continuity in street frontage but that is
inevitable, given the lack of access options and the Council’s acceptance in the
Statement of Common Ground that the site is suitable for residential
development. The 1992 permission allowed on appeal does not have as much
a bearing on the site’s suitability for development as the Council’s current
thinking informing the recent Local Development Framework process and the
housing capacity study.

9. The scale, footprint and heights of the two frontage blocks would be
comparable to the domestic scale of individual buildings nearby, thus neither

2
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

dominating nor appearing out of scale in this residential environment. In the

context of the marked visual and physical changes that would occur on the
Tyson Road frontage, I consider that the effects of stepping Blocks 8 and 9
forward of the established building line are overstated. In any case, there is
townscape logic to the proposed infringement, insofar as the two blocks would
mark the entrance to the development, and in so doing would provide natural
points of surveillance.

10. While recognising the desire to preserve a familiar and well loved style, the
architectural language of the two blocks facing Tyson Road would appropriately
reflect the style of buildings within the body of the site. Views into the site
between the two street fronting blocks would reinforce the contemporary and
distinctive nature of the new development.

11. I agree the layouts would mark a clear departure from the grain and pattern of
development on Fairlie Gardens and northern side of Tyson Road. However,
the backland nature of the site justifies a different approach. The concept of
“pavilions within a mature landscape” and informal arrangement of blocks
within a landscaped setting would, in my view, represent a unique but
appropriate response to this contained site.

12. Plans submitted to the inquiry demonstrate relative heights of existing houses
on Fairlie Gardens and the proposed 3-4 storeys of Blocks 4, 5, 6 and 7. The
site’s topography would accentuate the differences. Such differentials of height
and scale are not uncommon in the area, as evidenced by the elevated
properties on Honor Oak Road to the west. With distances of between 15.5m
and over 30m from houses on Fairlie Gardens, oblique positioning of the
buildings at the eastern end of the site and separated in the way proposed, the
blocks would not be perceived as “walls of development”, nor would they
dominate or visually oppress the existing properties.

13. Provided the design is of a high enough quality, I see no harm in the
development being visible. Save for views into the site from the opening on
Tyson Road, public views would in any case be limited to glimpses between
existing buildings. There would be ample scope to soften the effects of the
new buildings with new and existing planting on the site’s boundaries.

14. Taken overall, I consider that both schemes demonstrate that a development
of such unabashedly modern themes and concept has the capacity to relate
well to the immediate and wider surroundings without impacting adversely on
the character or appearance of the area.

Accessibility, density and layout

15. The site’s accessibility to local facilities and amenities by a range of sustainable
means is not in question. Entrance into the site would be clearly delineated by
Blocks 8 and 9. Access within the development would comprise a logical
arrangement of a single driveway linking the blocks.

16. The layout of Appeal Scheme A, however, troubles me for the extent to which
the site would be dominated by hard surfacing and engineering works. The
vehicular route to Block 7 in particular appears tortuous but more significantly
would mean the loss of protected trees and a layout unacceptably
compromising open space about buildings. Scheme B overcomes those

3
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

shortcomings by eliminating the undercroft parking to Block 7 and is a better

scheme for that.

17. The proposals would fall within the scope of the LP Density Matrix for either
urban or suburban settings, albeit towards the higher end of the suburban
range. Effective use would be made of a site cast as previously developed.
While the scheme forming the subject of Appeal A would not achieve this
without compromising on trees and open space, the layout of the second
scheme shows ingenuity in the way the development would be integrated with
existing trees and vegetation. The degree to which the layout has been
designed with the natural and new landscaping is key to its success. The
appellant’s commitment to a management plan is further indication of the
importance attached to landscaping as an integral part of the design concept,
as required by UDP Policy URB12.

18. On layout I conclude that Scheme B would achieve a good balance of openness
and built development. There would be sufficient high quality, open and
supervised space about buildings for future residents to enjoy, without feeling
hemmed in or overshadowed. The scheme would comply with the
Government’s recent response to concerns about the treatment of previously
developed land.

Standard of accommodation

19. Provision of 100% Lifetime Homes on developments is a policy aspiration not a

mandatory requirement (LP Policy 3A.5 and text to UDP Policy HSG5).
Nevertheless, material submitted to the inquiry adequately demonstrates that
both schemes are capable of accommodating that standard. The proposals are
therefore pre-empting policy requirements. Furthermore, the 10% wheelchair
accessible housing secured by condition would go some way to meeting policy
goals.

20. The designs may not comply fully with the quantitative requirements of UDP
Policy HSG7 in terms of private amenity space. A combination of terraces,
balconies and some private amenity spaces would however ensure satisfactory
residential environments for occupiers of either proposal. The quantity and
quality of shared open space would add to that environment and the
acceptability of either scheme.

21. While there may be pockets of the site that are not overlooked, I am satisfied
that openings are positioned and the blocks arranged to encourage active
supervision of public spaces. Scheme B additionally includes fenced and gated
measures to prevent misuse of the undercroft parking areas, which would be
naturally lit and ventilated to lessen the feeling of insecurity normally
associated with such spaces.

22. I share some of the concerns about internal space standards, legibility and the
inconvenience of parking arrangements for the occupiers of Block 7. However,
in the context of the design merits of the scheme as a whole, such
shortcomings are overcome by the overall quality and merits of the schemes,
which would generally provide good quality accommodation.

4
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

Quality of the architecture

23. In order to assess the quality of the development, it is necessary also to take a
view on the architectural merits of the buildings. The architects have striven to
respect and draw from the natural aspects of the site, but not at the expense
of compromising the modernity of the designs. Elevations are devoid of
unnecessary decoration, with clean, uncluttered lines adding to their appeal.
The wooded setting would be reflected in the rich timber surfaces with smooth
and textured finishes differentiating between open and closed facades. The
bulk of the 3-4 storeys buildings would be tempered by cut outs at upper
levels; terraces, balconies and green roofs creating points of interest. In my
view, options for reducing the accommodation at Blocks 1, 3 and 7 in Scheme
B would unbalance the composition of the individual buildings concerned and
unacceptably compromise the designs. For that reason, I endorse the option
that would bring forward 71 units.

24. The Design and Access Statements, Sustainability Strategy and Energy
Assessment Reports demonstrate a commitment to achieving Codes for
Sustainable Homes Level 3, reducing energy demands and compliance with
principles of sustainable construction. The means by which the schemes seek
to reduce the impact of climate change add to their design success. Using
good quality materials and high standards of execution, Schemes A and B
promise to deliver architecture of a high quality, though the former fails on
other grounds.

Biodiversity of the site

25. The arboricultural statement supporting the Council’s case largely focuses on
the screening properties of the trees on site, reflecting on adverse impact on
public and private views as a consequence of the loss of trees. The fact that a
development is visible does not inevitably point to its unacceptability. Provided
that they were of high quality, properly integrated with their surroundings and
not harmful to neighbours’ residential environment, I see no reason to reject
the proposals on the basis of exposure to views – public or private.

26. It has to be said that both schemes would radically alter the character of the
land through removal of trees and vegetation within the body of the site. Many
of the trees likely to be removed are self seeding or in poor condition, but
valued by local people. The losses and changes would be compensated to a
large extent by the comprehensive replacement planting scheme and
management plan proposed for Scheme A, and potentially replicated in Scheme
B. Furthermore, many of the trees to be removed have small crown masses
whereas the crown mass of taller trees to be retained have the greater visual
significance within and from outside the site.

27. Appeal A, however, would have the unacceptable effect of removing a number
of protected trees, including those forming part of Groups G3 and G4. Setting
aside the Grade B or C classification accorded to these trees, their amenity
value to the area cannot be underestimated. The grouped and individual trees
along the western boundary of the site are important markers, while the group
of four trees (white poplar, copper beech, sycamore and oak) towards the
north eastern part of the site is an attractive focal point and worthy of
retention. Loss of these important trees adds to the unacceptability of Scheme

5
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

A, in addition to which removal of Group G3 would unacceptably diminish the

site’s amenity value.

28. Appeal B, on the other hand, has been designed with the protected trees in
mind, and responds effectively to this element of the site’s biodiversity.
Existing boundary screening, to be retained and reinforced, would soften the
visual impact of the new blocks. Images presented to the inquiry show how
the dense planted boundaries would provide the separation valued by residents
of Fairlie Gardens. Trees at the northern and western edges of the site would
similarly shield existing residents at Montgomerie Mews and Honor Oak Road
from the full impact of the new blocks.

29. The evidence demonstrates a considered and thoughtful approach to

safeguarding trees during construction and in the long term. I am confident
that the measures proposed are workable and could be secured by conditions.
Examples locally (Walters Way) and in London demonstrate the capacity for
trees to healthily co-exist close to houses. Pressure to have trees removed
may not be as commonplace as feared.

30. Objectors point to the site’s contributions to biodiversity – as a habitat and in

preventing habitat isolation. Surveys establish a total of 39 different bird
species. Numerous sightings of stag beetles have emerged in local residents’
records, the credibility of which cannot be doubted.

31. Planning Policy Statement 9 reiterates the Government’s emphasis on using

previously developed land, in the interest of sustainable planning. Where such
sites have significant biodiversity or geological interest of recognised local
importance, it goes on to urge retention of this interest or incorporate it into
any development. Even in the face of sightings of stag beetles, the site’s
interests cannot be categorised as significant; its ecological characteristics are
typical of a large garden. Stage beetles are protected species but the appeal
schemes provide a suitable means for accommodating the beetles on the site.
Furthermore, with scope for enhancing habitats for birds, the site’s biodiversity
interests would be protected by either of the two developments.

32. In concluding on the first issue I turn to Mr Grace and Mr Ridgewell’s eloquent
assessment of their neighbourhood around Fairlie Gardens. They describe it as
“enchanting”, “desirable, safe and secure family environment” and refer to the
“backdrop of trees” that helps create a “sense of place”. Given my views
above, these qualities can be ascribed to the scheme forming the subject of
Appeal B. The density, style of architecture and form of accommodation may
be very different to the pattern of development or buildings on Fairlie Gardens,
but Scheme B would similarly provide a comfortable, attractive and safe
environment for future residents, with the added advantage of increasing the
Borough’s stock of affordable homes. While the shortcomings of Scheme A
would render it unacceptable against the policy requirements of LP Policy 4B.1
and UDP Policies HSG5, HSG8 and URB13, Scheme B in the form of option 1
(i.e. with 71 residential units) would be compliant.

Effect on the Living Conditions of Neighbours

33. The “open and closed facades” approach to design of the blocks is an ingenious
device to reduce overlooking to neighbouring properties. Windows serving
habitable rooms would be orientated to face into the site. With adequate

6
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

separation distances between windows, as illustrated on plans, I am satisfied

that existing and new residents would maintain good levels of privacy.
Conditions preventing access on to flat roofs and obscured glazing to particular
openings would assist with securing the privacy measures intended. To my
mind, the overlooking feared by the occupiers of Montgomerie Mews would be
no more intrusive than under current circumstances of existing houses
positioned with oblique views into neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the
way the new blocks would be modelled and separated, lead me to conclude
that they would not appear overly dominant or oppressive to the neighbours at
Fairlie Gardens, Montgomerie Mews or Honor Oak Road. The sunlight and
daylight assessments demonstrate how the layout and modelling of the blocks
have been designed to mitigate overshadowing of existing properties.

34. Many of the representations made in writing and at the inquiry raise the
prospect of the developments creating conditions to exacerbate anti-social
behaviour and crime in the area. The concerns centre mainly on the undercroft
parking areas. However, as naturally lit, fenced and gated spaces, their
potential for harbouring or attracting unwanted behaviour or activities would be
limited. Many of the public spaces would be overlooked with defensible areas
created to enable supervision, or landscaped specifically to discourage
unwanted entry.

35. I find that the proposed developments have been designed with neighbours’
residential amenity and security in mind, and therefore comply with Policy 4B.1
of the London Plan as well as UDP Policy HSG5. Nevertheless, for the reasons
given earlier, the deficiencies of Scheme A would not be overcome by the
matter of acceptable impact on neighbours. In allowing Scheme B, I turn to
look at the planning obligation submitted and conditions to be imposed.

Planning Obligations

36. The Community Infrastructure Regulation 2010 came into force on 6 April 2010
and I have considered the planning obligation submitted in the form of the
unilateral undertaking against the tests under Regulation 122.

37. The affordable housing units would be secured with the level of contributions
commensurate with the total of 71 residential units to be delivered by Scheme
B. The unilateral undertaking also provides contributions towards education,
health, transport and play space facilities to mitigate the impact of the
development in those areas. The sums calculated are based on specific local
shortfalls. The need for employment/training is supported by an evidence base
of the Lewisham Sustainable Community Strategy and specific programmes are
identified. I am satisfied that these provisions of the undertaking are
necessary to make the development acceptable, related to the proposed
development and commensurate with its scale and kind.

38. However, the relevance and specifics of the public art contributions are less
clear cut. Furthermore, the sustainability measures and refuse bins
management strategy can be covered by conditions. The monitoring and
professional fees contribution is for the authority to perform its general
statutory duty of ensuring compliance with planning controls rather than it
taking on some liability which will lead to it incurring extra costs. While it may
be a charge imposed by the local planning authority on all S106 planning

7
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

obligations, its validity in terms of the Regulation tests is questionable. The

matters addressed in this paragraph do not satisfy the Regulation 122 tests
and I am unable to take them into account in determining Appeal B.

Conditions

39. Where necessary I have changed the wording of conditions suggested by the
parties to accord with advice in Circular 11/95 or in the interest of clarity1.

40. The time limit conditions for the outline application are standard. Landscaping
is the only reserved matter and to which the 3 year time limit for submission of
its detail would apply. Otherwise than is set out in this decision and the
conditions, it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt, and in the
interest of proper planning. A condition is included and the approved plans
listed in Schedule B. As landscaping is a reserved matter, the illustrative
layout plan (PS.FH.DR01.RevC ) and remaining landscaping plans
(PS.FH.DR02.RevC; PS.FH.DR03.RevC; PS.FH.DR04.RevD;P S.FH.DR05.RevD;
PS.FH.DR06.RevB; PS.FH.DR07.RevC, PS.FH.L01 (08.06.09)) do not form part
of the approved list and I have not included these plans in Schedule B.

41. Conditions are imposed to exercise control over elements crucial to the success
of the design. These include: external materials of constructions, exterior
fittings, living roofs, external lighting, landscaping and management of the
landscaping scheme. The sustainability strategy, as an important element of
the design concept, is secured through conditions specifying the Code Level,
20% energy reduction and provision of a sustainable drainage system. For
reasons given earlier, it is important to secure proper protection of trees to be
retained during and after construction. Planting of new tress is also an
important part of the landscaping and design principles. Conditions are
imposed accordingly.

42. In the interest of protecting existing and new residents’ living conditions,
obscure glazed windows on closed facades, limited access to roof areas and
sound proofing of plant are secured by conditions. To ensure compliance with
policy standards on Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible homes,
conditions are imposed accordingly. Conditions covering vehicular access,
parking arrangements (including parking for disabled users) for cars and
cyclists are necessary, in the interest of highway concerns and for reasons of
proper site management. Equally, storage and management of refuse facilities
need to be controlled by conditions to prevent random placing of such facilities
to the detriment of the site’s appearance. A condition is also included to bring
forward details of security measures and operation of the undercroft car
parking, which would help overcome concerns about safety on site.

43. To safeguard the site’s ecological assets, I have included conditions allowing for
protection of stag beetles and bird habitats, details of which would need to be
submitted and agreed. I am substituting two conditions in place of suggested
conditions 20, 24-27, in the interest of brevity and to allow for appropriate
schemes to be submitted and agreed. A Construction Method Statement is

1
The conditions list was modified in the light of my observations and following discussion at the inquiry. The list
was circulated to all parties by email on 22 March 2010.

8
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

necessary to protect the amenities of local residents, and would be forthcoming

as part of the condition imposed.

Conclusions

44. I have taken account of all other matters raised but find nothing in the
representations made to alter the balance of my conclusions or my decision to
dismiss Appeal A and allow Appeal B.

Ava Wood
Inspector

9
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

Schedule A

I allow Appeal B, and grant outline planning permission for demolition of existing
buildings on land to the rear of 39-53 Honor Oak Road and 15-17A Tyson Road and
construction of 9 blocks comprising 71 apartments; together with associated
landscaping and infrastructure, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
DC/09/71953, dated 6 July 2009, and subject to the following conditions:
Time Limits and Plans
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matter to be
approved.
2) Details of the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved
matter") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority before any development begins and the development
shall be carried out as approved.
3) Application for approval of the reserved matter shall be made to the local
planning authority not later than three years from the date of this
permission.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved plans listed in Schedule B
Design and Construction Details
5) The development hereby permitted shall not commence on site until
details of all facing materials have been submitted, including sample
panels of facing brickwork and wood cladding showing the proposed
colour, texture, facebond and pointing have been provided on site, and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
6) Before the development hereby approved commences, a detailed scheme
for the fixing of external plumbing, pipework and plant shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
scheme.
7) Before the development hereby approved commences, details of the
green and brown roofs, including plans and cross sections, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
8) Details of proposed lighting, including lux levels readings, to external
areas within the site, including the proposed parking areas, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
before any building work on the site is commenced. The proposed
lighting scheme should be designed to provide minimum lighting levels
needed for security and working purposes and minimise pollution from
glare and spillage. The scheme shall include details of light spillage into
areas identified as a bat habitat. The lighting scheme shall be fully
implemented on a phased basis to be agreed in writing with the local
planning authority, with each phase implemented prior to first occupation
of each building hereby approved and permanently retained thereafter.

10
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

Sustainability
9) The dwellings hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 3 in
accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes:
Technical Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for house
design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling shall be occupied until a
Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3
has been achieved.
10) No development shall commence until such time as a renewable energy
statement demonstrating that at least 20% of the site’s total predicted
carbon emissions will be reduced through implementation of on-site
renewable energy sources, has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall include the
total predicted carbon emissions in the form of an Energy Statement of
the development and shall set out a schedule of proposed on-site
renewable energy technologies, their respective carbon reduction
contributions, size specification, location, design and a maintenance
programme.
11) The approved renewable energy technologies shall be fully installed and
operational prior to occupation of any approved buildings and shall
thereafter be maintained permanently and remain fully operational in
accordance with the approved maintenance programme.
12) No development shall take place until details of the implementation,
adoption, maintenance and management of a sustainable drainage
system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The system shall be implemented and thereafter
managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those
details shall include a timetable for its implementation, and a
management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development
which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or
statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure effective
operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime.
Landscaping
13) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft
landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. These details shall include :-
i. proposed finished levels or contours;
ii. means of enclosure;
iii. car parking layouts;
iv. other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;
v. hard surfacing materials;
vi. minor artifacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment,
refuse or other storage units, signs etc.);
vii. proposed and existing functional services above and below ground
viii. communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes,
supports.

11
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications

(including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and
grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and
proposed numbers/densities where appropriate.
14) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the
occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a
programme agreed with the local planning authority.
15) A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives,
management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape
areas, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority
prior to occupation of the development or any phase of the development,
whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape
management plan shall be carried out as approved.
Trees
Retained Trees
Note: “Retained tree” means an existing tree which is identified in the plan and
particulars as being retained
16) No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until
a scheme for the protection of the retained trees (the tree protection
plan) and the appropriate working methods (the arboricultural method
statement) in accordance with Clause 7 of British Standard BS5837 -
Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations has been agreed in
writing by the local planning authority. These measures shall be carried
out as described and approved.
17) All tree work shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard
BS3998 - Recommendations for Tree Work.
18) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or
damaged in any manner within 5 years of the date of full occupation of
the development permitted, other than in accordance with the approved
plans and particulars, without the prior written approval of the local
planning authority.
19) If any retained tree is cut down, uprooted or destroyed or dies another
tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size
and species and planted, in accordance with condition 27), at such time
as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.
20) No fires shall be lit within 10 metres of the nearest point of the canopy of
any retained tree.
21) No equipment, machinery or structure shall be attached to or supported
by a retained tree.
22) No mixing of cement or use of other contaminating materials or
substances shall take place within, or close enough to, a root protection
area that seepage or displacement could cause them to enter a root
protection area.

12
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

23) No alterations or variations to the approved works or tree protection

schemes shall be made without prior written consent of the local planning
authority.
Site Supervision
24) No works or development shall take place until a scheme of supervision
for the arboricultural protection measures required by condition 16) has
been approved in writing by the local planning authority. This scheme will
be appropriate to the scale and duration of the works and will include
details of:
a. Induction and personnel awareness of arboricultural matters

b. Identification of individual responsibilities and key personnel

c. Statement of delegated powers

d. Timing and methods of site visiting and record keeping, including

updates

e. Procedures for dealing with variations and incidents.

f. The scheme of supervision shall be carried out as agreed.

g. The scheme of supervision will be administered by a qualified

arboriculturist instructed by the applicant and approved by the local
planning authority.

Provision for Tree Planting

25) No works or development shall take place until a full specification of all
proposed tree planting has been approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The specification shall include the quantity, size, species, and
positions or density of all trees to be planted, how they will be protected
and the proposed time of planting.
26) A schedule of maintenance of the trees until successfully established is to
be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and implemented.
The schedule shall include provision for replacement planting should
establishment fail.
27) All trees shall be planted in accordance with the details and times stated
in the specification required by condition 25) and in accordance with
British Standard [BS4043 - Transplanting Root-balled Trees][BS4428 -
Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (excluding hard
surfaces)].
28) If within a period of 5 years from the date of planting the tree (or any
tree planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or
dies or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously
damaged or defective, another tree of the same size and species as that
originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first
planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of
the original tree unless the local planning authority gives its written
consent to any variation.

13
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

Residential Amenities
29) The roof areas, identified as green and brown roof types, shall not be
used as roof gardens, terraces or similar amenity areas.
30) The windows to be installed in the closed elevations of the buildings, as
identified within the Design and Access Statement and the approved
plans, shall be fitted and maintained permanently in obscured glazing.
31) No single building hereby permitted shall be occupied until:-

(a) Details of the plant and machinery to be used on the site have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority:
(b) Details of a sound insulation scheme in relation to that plant and
machinery have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority: and
(c) The approved sound insulation scheme has been implemented for
that specific building.
The sound insulation measures shall be maintained permanently in
accordance with the approved scheme/s.
Residential Standards
32) All ground floor flats and flats with lift access shall be built to mobility
standards and maintained permanently thereafter, in accordance with the
adopted Lewisham wheelchair standards for Southeast London Housing
Partnership May 2007.
33) Details demonstrating how the residential units shall be constructed in
accordance with Lifetime Home Standards should be submitted and
approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the
development. The development shall be completed in accordance with
the approved details.
Roads and Parking
34) The buildings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicular
access from Tyson Road shown on plan no. 278.001.DR.PL.200. P19
(Masterplan Undercroft Level) has been constructed in accordance with
the permitted plan.
35) The vehicle car parking and associated access arrangements shown on
plan no: 278.001.DR.PL.200. P19 (Masterplan Undercroft Level) shall be
implemented prior to first occupation of each building.
36) The development hereby permitted shall include secure parking provision
for cycles, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority before any works on site are
commenced. The approved cycle parking arrangements shall be provided
prior to first occupation of each building and retained permanently
thereafter.
37) The car parking spaces designed in accordance with the local planning
authority's adopted car parking standards for people with disabilities and
shown on the permitted drawings shall be provided prior to first

14
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

occupation of each building and shall be maintained permanently

thereafter.
Refuse
38) Details of the construction, including facing materials, of the proposed
refuse storage areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority and the areas shall be constructed in accordance
with the approved details and implemented on a phased basis to be
agreed in writing with the local planning authority, with each phase
implemented prior to first occupation of each building hereby approved
and permanently retained thereafter.
39) Details of a refuse collection management plan shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority and such collection
points/plans shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
drawings / details and implemented on a phased basis to be agreed in
writing with the local planning authority, with each phase implemented
prior to first occupation of each building hereby approved and
permanently retained thereafter.
Stag Beetles and Bird Habitats
40) Before the development hereby approved commences a report detailing
methods for recognition, management and translocation of stag beetles
and their larvae shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. Construction on site and translocation measures
shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details of the
report.
41) Before the development hereby permitted begins a report detailing the
timing of tree and shrub clearance work and measures for introducing
bird nesting boxes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. Clearance and construction on site shall take
place in accordance with the approved details.
Construction Method Statement
42) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until
a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall
be adhered to throughout the demolition and construction period. The
Statement shall provide for:

(i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

(ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials
(iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the
development
(iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including
decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where
appropriate
(v) wheel washing facilities
(vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during
construction
(vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from
demolition and construction works

15
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

Schedule B

Approved Plans and drawings

− Plans – Block 1 (278.001.DR.PL.100);

− Plans – Block 2 (278.001.DR.PL.101);
− Plans – Block 3 (278.001.DR.PL.102);
− Plans – Block 4 (278.001.DR.PL.103);
− Plans – Block 5 (278.001.DR.PL.104);
− Plans – Block 6 (278.001.DR.PL.105);
− Plans – Block 7 (278.001.DR.PL.106);
− Plans – Block 8 (278.001.DR.PL.107);
− Plans – Block 8 & 9 (278.001.DR.PL.108);
− Masterplan – Undercroft Level (278.001.DR.PL.200);
− Masterplan – Ground Floor Level (278.001.DR.PL.201);
− Masterplan – First Floor Level (278.001.DR.PL.202);
− Masterplan – Second Floor Level (278.001.DR.PL.203);
− Masterplan – Third Floor Level (278.001.DR.PL.204);
− Masterplan – Roof Level (278.001.DR.PL.205);
− Masterplan – Bin Collection Points (278.001.DR.PL.207);
− Masterplan – Ground Floor Level Amendment Plan
(278.001.DR.PL.208);
− Sections 2 – PS.FH.SK02 (26.07.05);
− Sections 3 – PS.FH.SK03 (24.03.08);
− Sections 4 – PS.FH.SK04 (21.04.08);
− Sections 5 – PS.FH.SK05 (12.06.09);
− Sections 6 – PS.FH.SK06 (08.10.08);
− Sections 7 – PS.FH.SK07 (09.06.09);
− Block 1 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.300);
− Block 2 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.301);
− Block 3 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.302);
− Block 2 & 3 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.303);
− Block 4 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.304);
− Block 5 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.305);
− Block 4 & 5 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.306);
− Block 6 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.307);
− Block 7 Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.308);
− Existing Elevation (278.001.DR.EL.309);
− Block 8 & 9 Front and rear Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.310);
− Block 8 & 9 Side Elevations (278.001.DR.EL.311);
− Sections AA, BB, CC, DD (278.001.DR.SEC.01);

16
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

− Sections (278.001.DR.SEC.02);
− Sections (278.001.DR.SEC.03);
− Sections (278.001.DR.SEC.04)
− Location Plan (278-001-DR-SP-400);
− Site Plan (278-001.DR.SP.401)
− Detail Section (278-BWA-DR-X-SEC-05);
− Proposed Estate Road & Pathway General Lighting Design – Drawing
No. E(90)100 (14/11/08);

17
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Daniel Kolinsky of counsel Instructed by Solicitor, London Borough of

Lewisham (LBL)
He called:
Mr Nick Edwards Building Design Partnership
BA(Hons) MA (UD)
Ms Tessa O’Neill Building Design Partnership
BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI

FOR THE FOREST HILL SOCIETY

Mr John Hutchinson Local Resident and member of Forest Hill Society

BSc(Hons) Dip Arch
RIBA MCIArb
Mr Michael Abrahams Vice Chairman Forest Hill Society
Mr Andrew Wood Local Resident and Friend of the Devonshire
Road Nature Reserve

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Keith Lindblom QC Instructed by Mr Andrew Frost of Jones Lang

Lasalle Ltd.
He called:
Mr Richard Coleman Richard Coleman Citydesigner
DipArch (Cantab) RIBA
Mr Paul Beswick Enzygo Limited
BA(Hons) Dip LA
Mr Andrew Virtue
BSc(Hons) MSc MIEEM
Mr James Quaife Quaife Woodlands
FArbor.A, DipArb(RFS)
CEnv
Mr Andrew Frost MA Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd
MRTPI

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Cllr John Russell Councillor, LBL

Mr Mark Ridgewell Local Resident
Mr Paul Amos Local Resident
Mr Paul Grace Local Resident

18
Appeal Decisions APP/C5690/A/09/2114257, APP/C5690/A/09/2114438

DOCUMENTS

1 Letter of notification of the inquiry

2 Mr Lindblom’s opening statement on behalf of the appellants
3 Mr Kolinsky’s opening statement on behalf of LBL
4 Mr Grace’s opening statement on behalf of the Forest Hill
Society
5 Extract from LBL’s Annual Monitoring Statement 2008-2009
6a&b Draft Unilateral Undertakings
7 Cllr Russell’s statement and copy of objection to application
08/70207
8 Documents and plans demonstrating scope for compliance
with Lifetime Homes standards.
9 Mr Brown’s email of 23 February 2010, setting out his
objections to the proposals
10 Mr Grace’s written statement
11 Mr Ridgewell’s written statement
12 Note from LBL’s Senior Policy Officer, re: Core Strategy
Options report of February 2009
13 Note from LBL’s Planning Policy Manager, re: process for
2004 Housing Capacity Study
14 Note re: contributions towards affordable housing in Appeal
B
15 Mr Quaife’s Appendix 12 – Screening trees to be removed
16 Mr Quaife’s Appendix 13 – Height of retained trees adjacent
to blocks
17 Committee Report for 2006 application

18 Density ranges for Appeal B

19 LPA note regarding planning obligation contributions
20 Closing statement on behalf of the Forest Hill Society
21 Closing submissions on behalf of LBL
22 Closing submissions on behalf of appellants
23 a & b Completed Unilateral Undertakings

PLANS

A Spot Heights – Appeal A

B Spot Heights – Appeal B
C Bundle of Application Plans – Appeal A
D Bundle of Application Plans – Appeal B

19