Lambeth Design Guide SPD

Part 2: Design advice for all development contributions

Some people making comments

...

A person happy and a comment icon

...

over 1 year ago

0

Do you have any comments on the revised Part 2 of the SPD?

2.23 …….. ‘the fact that the BRE target criteria is based on a suburban location.’ This is factually incorrect; the BRE has stated very clearly in reports received by Lambeth and statements to public inquiries attended by Lambeth such as that on 8 Albert Embankment in December 2020, that their benchmarks are not suburban. In fact it is not based on any particular context. The BRE states that benchmarks are based on national and international standards of the requirements of daylight in property to be inhabited by human beings. Humans do not vary by context, they are the same whether they live in urban or suburban contexts. As with space standards there has to be a precise amount of daylight that a human being will receive in their habitat. The most accepted definitions are those of the BRE. 2.24 ‘Whilst daylight and sunlight levels will be considered flexibly taking into account site-specific circumstances designers will be expected to minimize adverse impacts.’ This again suggests that the daylight requirement can vary by context, when human beings need a standard of daylight provision irrespective of context. This is fundamentally incorrect and will lead to blighted and sub-standard housing being created. It will almost certainly affect the most disadvantaged who rely on the planning system for protection from over developments.

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.

over 1 year ago

0

Do you have any comments on the revised Part 2 of the SPD?

BRE guidelines should be upheld for existing buildings and amenities impacted by a proposed new developments as well as being fully adhered to when designing any new development. BRE guidelines must not be compromised by developers in their attempts to create as many units as possible with in a site to make higher returns in their investment. The quality of life for existing neighbours and new residents is of prime importance. Green spaces allowing bio-diversity, privacy, adequate sunlight and shade and outside space etc etc are all important in creating a thriving community and pride in one’s neighbourhood. New developments should sit comfortably alongside existing homes and not have negative impacts on existing residents. They should improve the neighbourhood not create discord or resentment.

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.

over 1 year ago

0

Do you have any comments on the revised Part 2 of the SPD?

I object to the idea in para 2.20 - 2.24 that the existing light of neighbouring dwellings could be reduced to a minimum standard rather than the council supporting and enforcing the right to light which currently exist. Additional buildings causing a light impact may/will change the circulation and flow of air which may be in turn severely reduced. This airflow in many areas of Lambeth is essential in aiding the removal of traffic fumes and pollution!

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.

over 1 year ago

0

Do you have any comments on the revised Part 2 of the SPD?

Comments on Lambeth SPD Part 2 Design Advice for All Development Daylight and Sunlight Paragraph Lambeth SPD Part 2 2.21 states: When assessing applications the Council will have regard to Building Research Establishment (BRE) Guidance Note 209 – ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice. Applicants should be aware of its content. Having awareness of the guidance note does not encourage or enforce compliance to adhere to it. This paragraph should be reworded please to ensure it has meaning and weight. With regards to Lambeth SPD Part 2 para 2.23, please note: 1) Paragraph 2.23 it is not clear as to what alternative target criteria will be applied to ensure that appropriate levels of daylight and sunlight levels are retained. 2) What actually are these so called “minimum levels”? There are significant equalities and human wellbeing issues that this approach will generate as it will permit humans in one site specific context to have to endure lower levels of daylight compared to other inhabitants who may reside in a less dense setting (even if they are in the same borough). Human beings are meant to be treated equally in the United Kingdom regardless of the setting of their location. 3) The focus on retained levels rather than scale of reductions is also contrary to the BRE guidelines which state that any reduction beyond 20% is likely to be noticeable to inhabitants. 4) Contrary to paragraph 2.23, BRE target criteria are not based on a suburban location. The BRE target criteria are based on national and international recommendations for daylight and sunlight provision. BRE guidelines do not exclude themselves from being applied based in an urban or suburban context such as Lambeth or any other contextual form. 5) It is not clear what “mirror assessments” are being referred to and what makes a “robust case” for their acceptability as a suitable methodology for assessing daylight and sunlight impacts of a development and in what “some” circumstances would meaningfully allow its application. The allowances proposed in paragraph 2.23 are completely contradictory to paragraph 2.24 which should have primary consideration in this specific matter: “Whilst daylight and sunlight levels will be considered flexibly taking into account site-specific circumstances designers will be expected to minimize adverse impacts. Careful siting and massing of new development is paramount to ensure adequate daylight and sunlight is retained to adjoining development.”

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.

over 1 year ago

0

Do you have any comments on the revised Part 2 of the SPD?

In 2.23 your document states: 'as well as reflecting the fact that the BRE target criteria is based on a suburban location'. As you are aware any new build, especially if higher than the existing surrounding and/or adjacent dwellings will obviously have a detrimental impact on residents daylight levels. You state that BRE levels are based on a suburban location but my understanding is that BRE levels are based on national and international recommendations which is a completely different scenario to that of suburban housing. I believe this statement needs to be clarified as any loss of daylight to existing homes because of a new development has a major impact on the lives and well being of those affected directly.

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.