34-36 Bedford Road, London SW4 - Lambeth Council
34-36 Bedford Road, London SW4 - Lambeth Council
34-36 Bedford Road, London SW4 - Lambeth Council
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
no. 3 Aristotle <strong>Road</strong> are to a stairwell, reducing the potential for loss of privacy<br />
here. The distance between habitable room windows for the properties from 11-<br />
23 Aristotle <strong>Road</strong> are over 30m away, and at no.9 Aristotle <strong>Road</strong> the proposed<br />
windows are 19.3m away from the closest point, this is not considered to result<br />
in an unacceptable impact on overlooking or privacy between these houses.<br />
The properties from 54-72 <strong>Bedford</strong> <strong>Road</strong> are set at an obscure angle, and due<br />
to this arrangement should not result in any loss of privacy between the<br />
windows. To the north, there is a 17m separation distance with Cadmus House<br />
which exceeds the 16.5m distance between the three storey properties across<br />
Aristotle <strong>Road</strong>, and therefore given the surrounding context, this relationship is<br />
considered to be acceptable and the levels of overlooking would be similar to<br />
those in the surrounding area. Overall it is considered that whilst there would be<br />
windows in close proximity to the rear of 1-7 Aristotle <strong>Road</strong>, this report<br />
concludes that, on balance, the proposed development would not have such a<br />
negative impact on overlooking and privacy to neighbouring properties to justify<br />
refusal on this ground.<br />
11 Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of<br />
sunlight/daylight, overlooking and loss of privacy and sense of enclosure<br />
11.1 The applicants have submitted a daylight and sunlight assessment, which<br />
demonstrates that there would not be any detrimental impacts to the daylight<br />
and sunlight of the majority of the surrounding rooms. However, a total of 11<br />
windows would not pass the required daylighting VSC standard. All but one of<br />
these windows are located to the north-east elevation of the properties at 1-7<br />
Aristotle <strong>Road</strong> and the affected windows generally serve kitchens or are<br />
secondary windows to kitchen/living/dining rooms. Additionally one window at<br />
the ground floor south-east elevation at 3 Aristotle <strong>Road</strong> would not pass the<br />
VSC standards. This would achieve an appropriate Average Daylight Factor<br />
(1%) for a bedroom, which is the likely use of this room. Two windows fail the<br />
APSH tests, one located at the ground floor south-east elevation at 3 Aristotle<br />
<strong>Road</strong> and one at the ground floor of 27 Cadmus Close. The impact on the<br />
amenity of these properties is regrettable, however on balance given the<br />
infrequency of this occurance it is considered that this would not be sufficient to<br />
refuse planning permission on this basis given the planning benefits that would<br />
be accrued by this scheme.<br />
12.2 Balconies are proposed to the west elevation of the proposed block, however,<br />
as detailed above, a condition is recommended to ensure that screening is put<br />
in place which should also be required to mitigate any potential for any loss of<br />
privacy or overlooking back to the <strong>Bedford</strong> <strong>Road</strong> properties from the proposed<br />
balconies.<br />
12.3 The proposed building would result in the development of an area which is<br />
currently used as a car parking area, therefore any buildings on this site will<br />
alter the relationship with the nearby dwellings. However, due to the separation<br />
distances between the main aspect of the nearby buildings (which are set out<br />
above), and the design of the building which steps back away from the closest<br />
properties at Cadmus Close and 1-7 Aristotle <strong>Road</strong>, it is not considered that the<br />
increased sense of enclosure would exist to the extent that would justify the<br />
refusal of planning permission on these grounds.