One Blackfriars - Planning Statement FINAL VERSION - Southwark ...

CBRE | ST GEORGE SOUTH LONDON LTD8.0 Planning Policy Assessmentthe height and materials of the Implemented Permission were carefully designed soas not to damage the viewer's appreciation of the buildings and landscape thesubject of the view. It finds the Proposed Development has been designed to appearexactly the same as the Implemented Permission in this view.8.195 The Implemented Permission was approved by the Secretary of State who concludedthat it would accord with the LVMF SPG (2007) and "would not have a harmful effecton the view" (para. 16, 25 March 2009). Subsequently, the LVMF SPG has beenrepublished (March 2012) with revised Visual Management Guidance for this View26A.1. The Proposed Development, whilst of the same appearance in this view asthe Implemented Permission, will not fully accord with the current (2012) LVMF SPGGuidance.8.196 The TCVIA states that the Proposed Development will accord with a significant partof the current (2012) LVMF SPG Guidance: it will be of "exceptional design quality, inparticular with regard to [its] roof line, material, shape and silhouette" and it will "notdominate, overpower or compete with either of the existing two groups of built formor the landscape elements between and either side of them" (Ref 1-2, P.223).However, it will also appear above the central part of Duck Island in this view andthe LVMF SPG (2012) states that such a proposal "should be refused". This isobviously a change in circumstances since the Secretary of State's decision relating tothe Implemented Permission in March 2009.8.197 In deciding how to approach this part of the LVMF SPG (2012), it will be appropriatefor the Planning Authorities to determine the weight to be given to the ImplementedPermission as a material consideration. The Implemented Permission is a materialconsideration because, if planning permission was refused for the New Applicationon the basis of the revised guidance, the Implemented Permission is a developmentwhich is capable of being built out at any time in the future. As such, it is consideredthat the weight which should be given to the Implemented Permission is verysignificant.Page 48PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT8.198 Since the Proposed Development and the Implemented Permission would appear thesame in this view, it is concluded that the impact would be no different between thetwo proposals. In view of the weight which should be given to the ImplementedPermission, it is considered that the Implemented Permission as a materialconsideration significantly outweighs the change to the LVMF Visual ManagementGuidance.8.199 The TCVIA concludes that the impact of the Proposed Development is the same asthe impact which was assessed in relation to the Implemented Permission and istherefore ‘Moderate Beneficial’.Conservation Areas and Heritage Considerations8.200 The Site is adjacent to a number of Conservation Areas and listed buildingsincluding the Grade II listed Mad Hatter hotel at 3-7 Stamford Street and adjacent 1Stamford Street. An assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on thesignificance of designated heritage assets including the setting of listed buildings,world heritage sites, and the character and appearance of conservation areas, bothin Southwark and in other boroughs has been assessed in the TCVIA and consideredin the design process.8.201 The TCVIA concludes that the Proposed Development would not have a harmfulimpact on any designated heritage assets.