To: tpac@lambeth.gov.uk
Cc: lcampbell@lambeth.gov.uk, mharrison@lambeth.gov.uk, srmorgan@lambeth.gov.uk, dmmorris@lambeth.gov.uk
Date: Monday, 22 November, 2010, 16:51
FAO Mrs Ruth Smithson
This is a representation from the Kennington Association, opposing, as it presently stands without further conditions, the renewal of planning permission for A2/B1 office use on this site, because, as the developer himself told the council, there is little prospect of such a permission being implemented.
Given the community concerns about the decade long disuse of this site, I am copying this to Prince's Ward councillors. I invite them to ensure that this application comes to committee, and is not dealt with by officers under delegated powers.
David Boardman
Chair
Kennington Association Planning Forum
Application 10/03318/FUL – Renewal application for A2/B1 permission at the south end of the Old Regal Cinema/Bingo Hall site – Representation by the Kennington Association
Who we are
1 The Kennington Association is a voluntary membership association of around 430 members drawn from the wider Kennington area, whose aim is to promote and maintain Kennington as a good place to live and work. The Kennington Association Planning Forum (KAPF) is a group of Association members with interest in and experience of planning and development issues, which develops planning policies and makes planning representations on behalf of the wider Association.
Summary
2 We oppose renewal of this office permission, because it is, as the developer himself says, unlikely to be implemented. If it goes ahead, it should be limited to two years only, and community uses (D1) should be explored meanwhile.
Background to development on this site
3 This is a complicated case. The key developments in planning terms appear to be as follows:
- Community/church use of the former Regal cinema/bingo hall was granted, under Permission 97/01041/FUL of 16 December 1997. This was implemented, with use for about two years by a church group, whose activities raised amenity issues of noise and traffic congestion. Because this use was actually implemented, community/church use (Use Class D1) is the last lawful use of the cinema end, and could be resumed without the need for further planning permission [We note that this interpretation may not be shared by the council, who seem to say that the D2 leisure use is the current last lawful use]
- Permission 00/00431/FUL granted 20 October 2001 permitted the part demolition and extension of the then existing building to provide 62 flats, and a change of use for the cinema end to leisure use (Use Class D2). Because this permission was commenced (and indeed implemented as regards the flats), it endures without time limit, and D2 use for the cinema end could also be taken up without the need for further planning permission for change of use. As we read the S106 agreement, it was solely about affordable housing on site, (a not particularly generous 16 affordable units out of 62, or 26%) and had no provision for the payment of any community sums
- Permission 07/01817/FUL granted 17 January 2008 for a period of 3 years (and which is about to expire, hence the renewal application) allowed a change in use of the cinema end to financial and professional services/business office use (Use Class A2/B1(a) ), along with 8 more flats. The developer successfully argued that there had been extensive marketing of the cinema end for D2 uses, but no takers, apart from what he described as an "insubstantial" interest in D1 community use. It was therefore time (said the developer) to widen the net of potential users by extending the permitted uses to include office uses, which were consistent with the location as on the fringe of the retail area of Kennington Cross. There was no new S106 agreement
- Permission 09/03384/FUL granted 20 April 2010 for a period of 3 years allowed a change of use of the cinema end to retail use (Use Class A1), along with the 8 flats previously contemplated. Again the developer successfully argued that the cinema end had been widely marketed, this time for A2/B1 use, to no avail, and that it was time to cast the net wider again. On the basis of a retail study that this Association regards as both factually wrong (no other top up retail in the vicinity, it says, when there are 3 such outlets, 2 within line of sight) and wholly unrealistic in its estimates of surplus top up spending in the area, A1 use was allowed, despite the site being outside the Kennington Cross retail area in the local plan. There was no new S106 agreement, and this retail permission will endure till April 2013 irrespective of what happens in relation to this renewal application for the 2008 office use permission
Argument
4 The continued decade long disuse of this corner site in a prominent position at the heart of Kennington is a reproach not only to its developers but also to the planning system that permits it
- There is no good reason for renewing this permission for office use, which would merely continue a process of planning leapfrog
- First, there has been a substantial procedural failure in giving appropriate notice of this application to the public, in that a site notice was posted for a single day (12 October 2010, before the nominal posting date) after which it disappeared. It follows that no site notice has been posted at any time during the statutory site notice period. The Committee should mark this irregularity and decline to entertain the application until assured that a site notice has been posted and not removed for a relevant 21 day period
- Second, there has been a material change in circumstances since the grant of the original office permission in 2008, namely that there is good reason to believe it will never be implemented. As the developer’s own design and access statement declares in September 2009, in relation to the retail use application, “However the January 2008 planning permission has not been implemented due to the lack of interest in the ground floor commercial floorspace. The marketing evidence in Section 5 shows that no Class D2, A2 or B1 occupier has been interested in the ground floor unit over a 20 month period” [I note that the developer omitted to inform the planning committee of the D1 interest from the local church, which had been repeatedly fobbed off by the developer’s agents]
- Nor is there any likelihood that this position will change if the developer continues to market the property half heartedly (only D2 use noted expressly on the developer’s agent’s website) at a rent well over the odds (£23 per square foot for a shell building, quoted in the marketing survey for the 2009 retail application, “price on application” currently : cf £17 per square foot being asked currently for similar sized but actually refurbished office accommodation in the next street (Messrs Kalmars, for 6 Sancroft St))
- As the planning law notes, the likelihood that a permission will not be implemented is a material consideration which may warrant refusal (Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State [1979] AC 144 )
- Should the planning committee nonetheless be minded to extend the office use permission we ask that
- The committee makes it clear that it expects the developer to engage seriously with the community about viable D1 uses for the building, and in particular with the neighbouring St Anselm’s Church, and
- Any extension be limited to a life of two years, not three, so that it expires at the same time as the retail permission granted in April 2010, to encourage a decision about the use of the site, rather than repeated leapfrogging of permissions
- The committee should be aware that we regard the retail study that persuaded its predecessors to grant the retail permission earlier in 2010 as vitiated by material misstatements of fact and wildly overoptimistic estimates of surplus retail spending, and we shall oppose any attempt to renew the retail permission.
D J Boardman
Chair
Kennington Association Planning Forum
Flat 1
39 Chester Way
Kennington
London SE11 4UR
22 November 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment