Architecture And Planning In Urban Conservation Areas Environmental Sciences Essay

What are the elements that enable or inhibit development in these countries and what impact does the current heritage and planning system have in protecting bing edifices while supplying range for new development?


The Statutory definition of a Conservation Area is an ‘area of particular architectural or historic involvement, the character or visual aspect of which it is desirable to continue or heighten. ‘ Conservation Areas are usually centred on listed edifices and pleasant groups of other edifices, unfastened infinite, or an historic street form.

New development in Conservation Areas has frequently been peculiarly debatable for developers and land proprietors due to increased demands made by the local authorization. Developers and land proprietors are frequently deterred from geting land within Conservation Areas due to the extra hazards involved, every bit good as the clip it takes to get planning permission. Owners of non-listed edifices in Conservation Areas frequently suffer disproportionately due to the fact that the current planning government often imposes unreasonable demands caused by the slightly bleary difference between single listed edifice control and corporate preservation country policy ; such demands frequently appear to hold no legal footing. This sometimes creates a civilization of listed countries which is non the original purpose of Conservation Area position. As a consequence, Conservation Areas frequently stagnate due to economic world as the new development of empty sites, or the renovation of edifices at the terminal of their utile life, becomes excessively dearly-won for developers and long term land proprietors.

Current Conservation Area policy frequently causes complications due to excessively cumbersome limitations on development, and as such, frequently prevents high quality modern-day architecture in new developments, and high quality renovation of listed edifices.

Within the domain of belongings development in preservation countries are a figure of assorted histrions. Developers and landholders play a cardinal function, with fiscal viability and the clip development takes being cardinal factors finding actions and degrees of investing. Local Council ‘s normally use higher degrees of cautiousness and take a more conservative attack when covering with preservation countries, both in footings of sing applications for new edifices, and for changes to bing. Other groups play cardinal functions, such as English Heritage who act as a statutory consultee on preservation affairs to local governments. In certain fortunes local involvement groups play a function in community audience and engagement such as local occupant associations. Societies with involvements in certain architectural periods on occasion provide advice to determination shapers within local councils such as The Victorian Society who run for the protection of Victorian and Edwardian edifices, or, The Twentieth Century Society who run for the protection and listing of good quality edifices built from 1914 onwards.

It is clear that there are a larger figure of stakeholders involved with development within preservation countries compared with non designated sites. This survey aims to research the planning system within preservation countries from the position of many different stakeholders and analyze the effects it has on development.

Local governments ‘ planning policies are foremost directed from a national position from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, merely one time local governments have complied with the national way can they so create regional and local policies to determine their boroughs separately.

The following subdivision aims to transport out an initial reappraisal of national policies in relation to development within preservation countries foregrounding common jobs and gray countries from the position of a assortment of stakeholders.


National and London-Wide Policy Context

National planning policy is now chiefly provided in the signifier of Planing Policy Statements ( PPS ‘s ) . A figure are of relevancy to developments within preservation countries, viz. PPS1 on sustainable development, PPS3 on lodging, PPS4 on sustainable economic growing and PPS5 on the historic environment. This subdivision aims to foreground a few of the most relevant countries of national policy and how they affect developments in the rule instance analyze country.

When measuring applications, local planning governments should take to incorporate the four purposes of sustainable development: economic development, societal inclusion, environmental protection and prudent usage of resources, this is contained in PPS1. This is rather a obscure policy with a broad assortment of readings which consequences in confusion among developers and their advisers, and on occasion among local governments themselves.

PPS3 trades with lodging commissariats which explains that local planning governments must see the suitableness of all urban land for lodging proviso. They must measure its rightness on a ‘sequential footing ‘ with precedence given to antecedently developed land within urban countries. Local planning governments must seek to maximize the re-use of antecedently developed sites in sustainable locations while, at the same clip, guaranting that design is of a high quality. The definition of ‘sustainable locations ‘ is non ever clear in this context and of class, the argument about what is meant by ‘high quality design ‘ is ever a affair of gustatory sensation and reading.

PPS 4 trades with economic growing. Relevant to the chosen instance survey preservation country, PPS4 states that retail proviso, including eating houses, must be located in town Centres and guarantee no injury to the bing verve and viability of the town itself. With residential and retail/restaurant being the predominant two utilizations within the instance survey, this is a extremely relevant issue to the local authorization when finding applications.


PPS5 is the most relevant to development within preservation countries and is the most recent planning policy papers that provides national policy counsel for the planning system in relation to the historic environment. PPS5 updates be aftering policy impacting archeological sites, memorials, edifices, and landscapes. PPS5 was consulted on under the rubric ‘draft PPS15 ‘ .

PPG15 used to be the primary policy papers covering with the historic environment, which was replaced by PPS5 on 23 March 2010. Prior to the publication of this papers, a new Draft PPS15 uniting PPG15 ( Planning and the Historic Environment ) and PPG16 ( Archaeology ) was produced.

The bill of exchange PPS15 was widely consulted on before being published under the name PPS5.

The bill of exchange PPS15 was criticized for conveying together both streamlining with progressively complicated direction of the heritage environment. One of the primary issues included within this new policy certification, is that it declared that non-listed edifices that are non inside preservation countries adopted the ability to be treated as heritage assets. This meant that local governments had the authorization to take permitted development rights without audience. This had the ability to do increased barriers to development and put the control in the custodies of local preservation officers. The concluding PPS5 papers explains that local planning governments should see whether the exercising of permitted development rights would sabotage the purposes for the historic environment ( ‘historic environment ‘ can include all facets of the reinforced environment including all lasting remains of past human activity, including those seeable, buried, submerged and landscaped ) . If it is, so local be aftering governments can now see the usage of an article 4 way to guarantee any development is given due consideration. This therefore removes any permitted development rights necessitating a planning application.

PPS5 and its auxiliary papers ‘PPS PRACTICAL GUIDE ‘ describe a coveted attack in footings of protecting what is important while admiting the importance of high quality design. This alteration in permitted development rights has the possible to do some important confusion and badly restricts the freedom of developers and landholders. Prior to this alteration, if a belongings was non listed nor within a preservation country, the proprietor had the right to pulverize the edifice without necessitating to obtain consent.

Another important alteration within the new PPS5 policy certification is the intervention of heritage assets. Within the new PPS5, policy HE9.6 explains that there are many heritage assets with archeological involvement that are non presently designated as scheduled memorials that really have an equal importance. The new policy means that the absence of appellation for such heritage assets does non bespeak lower significance and they should be considered capable to other policies set out in the papers. If archeological remains with no appellation can be treated every bit of import as those with appellation, this creates a great trade of uncertainness for developers and landholders every bit good as involvement groups as it is close impossible to cognize where one stands, it besides calls to oppugn the point in denominating any archaeological remains if non-designated remains can be treated as of import. Many developers and designers have expressed concern here, as people argue this new policy leads to increased uncertainness and a deficiency of lucidity in the jurisprudence. Scheduled Memorials are protected by jurisprudence whereas archaeology outside of an archeological precedence zone is non. If not designated archeology can be treated as of import this opens up inquiries of what is legitimate and what is non in footings of development.

‘Heritage assets ‘ can include a edifice, site, topographic point, country or landscape ‘positively identified ‘ as holding a ‘degree of significance deserving consideration in be aftering determinations ‘ . Designated Heritage Assets can include universe heritage sites, scheduled memorials, listed edifices, protected wreck sites, and preservation countries. This broad definition of a Designated Heritage Asset suggests that this unsure pattern used in archeology could be spread into the kingdom of listed edifices and preservation countries which would do even farther confusion in finding planning applications.


While the national policies explored briefly above are common to most countries of England, regional planning policy varies dramatically, while local policies at a borough degree can be wholly different to one another.

For the intents of this reappraisal, as it is impossible to analyse all of the different attacks at a regional and local degree, and so I aim to transport this out by utilizing a instance survey preservation country to look at in item.

Many preservation countries were considered, with the focal point being on urban countries within London. After some 8 preservation countries were considered, the undermentioned three were found to be the most relevant to this survey due to their character, location, degree of development and control:

Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Borough High Street Conservation Area, London Borough of Southwark

Myrdle Street Conservation Area, London Borough of Tower Hamlets

The Borough High Street Conservation Area in the London Borough of Southwark has been chosen as the primary instance survey preservation country due to it being a strong illustration of a preservation country which includes a diverse scope of listed edifices every bit good as new developments. The country has been the location of many recent residential developments in recent old ages every bit good as the well known proposals by Network Rail which involves the extension of a railroad span line from London Bridge station and the destruction of assorted listed edifices. This preservation country will be used as the primary beginning of information and research, but, will be analyzed in concurrence with two other preservation countries.

The undermentioned subdivision purposes to transport out an initial reappraisal of regional and local policies which affect development within this preservation country.


This subdivision aims to transport out a regional policy reappraisal in relation to the chosen instance survey preservation country to find which policies would be applied to development sites.

Relevant Policy Considerations

The Borough High Street Conservation Area is within the London Borough of Southwark. When any local governments inside London come to see any development, renovation or re-use of edifices, they must take into account national and London-wide policy fortunes every bit good as to local Unitary Development Plan ( UDP ) certification which many local governments still use. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 well reformed the UK planning system and a UDP is now considered an ‘old manner ‘ which is now replaced by Local Development Frameworks and Development Plan paperss.

At the strategic degree Local Authorities need to hold respect to the ‘London Plan ‘ . This includes its updates and auxiliary counsel, both adopted and emerging ( some adopted counsel is frequently out of day of the month by the clip it is adopted and so rising counsel is frequently more of import ) .

The London Plan is chiefly a ‘spatial development scheme ‘ for Greater London and it has six chief purposes:

To suit London ‘s growing within its boundaries without infringing on unfastened infinites.

To do London a better metropolis for people to populate in.

To do London a more comfortable metropolis with strong and diverse economic growing.

To advance societal inclusion and tackle want and favoritism.

To better London ‘s handiness.

To do London a more attractive, good designed and green metropolis.

The undermentioned London broad policies are peculiarly relevant to the instance survey preservation country:

Policies 2A.1, 4B.1 and 4B.3, seeking to maximize usage of antecedently developed land, utilizing a design-led attack.

Policy 4B.5, seeking to make an inclusive environment, alongside Policy 3A.15 which seeks to protect and heighten societal substructure and community installations.

Policy 3A.2, seeking alteration of usage of unnecessary commercial land for residential usage, promoting small-scale residential infill and guaranting intensification of lodging proviso through development at higher densenesss, peculiarly where there is good entree to public conveyance.

Policy 3A.4 on lodging pick, necessitating local governments to guarantee that the full scope of lodging demand is met in their country, with all units to be ‘lifetime places ‘ and 10 % to be wheelchair accessible.

Policy 4A.7, necessitating new developments to include energy efficient and renewable energy engineering and design.

Policy 4B.11, necessitating the protection and sweetening of historic assets, alongside Policy 4B.14 which supports the designation, protection, reading and presentation of London ‘s archeological resources.

Unitary Development Plan ( UDP ) Policy Review

In footings of local policy, this comprises the London Borough of Southwark ‘s UDP adopted in July 2007, along with associated auxiliary planning counsel and paperss. In add-on, emergent certification associated with readying of a Local Development Framework ( LDF ) is besides highly relevant to this preservation country but this is still comparatively early on in the procedure of readying and so at the present clip is less importance and can non be used as ‘material ‘ relevancy when finding applications.

This subdivision considers the UDP policies of relevancy, as they apply to the instance survey preservation country

UDP Policy 3.1 ‘Environmental Effectss ‘

This resists development which would “ do material inauspicious effectsaˆ¦ ” It will be shown that the development proposed provides a positive sweetening to the local environment with any frights associated with the commercial eating house usage addressed in the DAS as it pertains to airing and noise, energy efficiency and sustainability.

UDP Policy 3.11 ‘Efficient Use of Land ‘

This policy seeks to guarantee that land is used in the most efficient mode, whilst besides protecting agreeableness, “ positively reacting to the local conte ” , and being of an appropriate graduated table, an purpose which is to the full met by the development proposed.

UDP Policy 3.12 ‘Quality in Design ‘ . This requires all development to be of high quality, both in footings of design and architecture.

UDP Policy 3.13 ‘Urban Design ‘ . Standards contained within this policy require that consideration be given to height, graduated table and massing, urban construction, infinite and motion, townscape, local context and character, site layout, streetscape, landscaping and inclusivity of design.

UDP Policy 3.14 ‘Designing out Crime ‘ . This policy requires the design to take into history the minimisation of offense chances.

UDP Policy 3.15 ‘The Historic Environment ‘ and Policy 3.16 ‘Conservation Areas ‘ . These policies require all developments within such countries to continue or heighten their character or visual aspect.

In add-on to these policies, LBS published in September 2008 a auxiliary planning papers entitled ‘Residential Design Standards ‘ . This is an of import beginning of counsel when sing affairs such as internal layout and unit sizes and therefore an associated reappraisal of densenesss. Table 1 of the counsel reflects UDP Policy 4.1 and associated Appendix 2.

Having carried out a reappraisal of the planning policies that Southwark Council usage when sing be aftering applications within the instance survey preservation country, I now aim to place


The Borough High Street Conservation Area is located in a really cardinal urban location and its boundaries are defined on the North by the river Thames. The country includes a little web of streets between London Bridge and the Cannon street railroad span within which Southwark Cathedral and the Borough Market are situated. The preservation country was foremost designated in 1968 and was subsequently extended in 1973 and 1980. The country includes certain sub-areas:

Borough High Street cardinal country

Borough High Street south and St George ‘s

The Riverside

St Thomas Street and Guys Hospital

In order to analyse what impact the current heritage and planning system has on protecting edifices while supplying range for new development, it is utile to transport out a reappraisal of the bing planning policies that are applied to development within this instance survey preservation country which will help in placing ‘problem countries ‘ in the policies. I will besides transport out interviews with designers, advisers and developers who have both succeeded every bit good as those who have failed to transport out developments within this country.

Before I start looking into new developments that have succeeded and failed in this country, it is utile to understand the historical background to this country as this is highly relevant to how planning and preservation policies have been formed and the context in which they operate.

The development of the country commenced with the building of a span across the Thames by the Romans. The importance of London Bridge as an entree point to London drew the two of import Roman Highways from the south together and the overall layout of the Borough was established by the fact that the same form exists today. In the sixteenth century, the country holding merely one span nexus across the river non merely acted as a service Centre to the City, but besides developed as an alternate location for concerns such as abattoir and brewing which led to associated trades in leather and hops.

In the eighteenth century, other Bridgess were built as links to the City. Borough Market was moved to its current location as a consequence of congestion in the high street. Guys Hospital and St Thomas ‘s Hospital were besides built around this clip. The hop trade flourished and the Hop and Malt Exchange was built as one of the chief developments on Southwark Street, now merely known as the ‘Hop Exchange ‘ .

twentieth century alterations in industrial and trading commercialism had an affect on the riverbank countries in Southwark. The little country of warehouses around Clink Street declined in concern and led to the transition of Minerva House and Nr. 1 London Bridge into esteemed office edifices. The Hop Exchange closed as a consequence of technological alterations in the brewing industry and has since been converted to offices while retaining much of the original characteristics and is now owned by the belongings company Peer Group PLC. The country ‘s propinquity to the City of London and transit links remain attractive to residential and office utilizations and Borough Market has remained the most typical component of the preservation country.

Riverside Sub Area

An early characteristic of the south bank of the river Thames was the presence of big houses and castles with easy entree to H2O, the premier illustration here being Winchester Palace, being the Palace to the Bishop ‘s of Winchester. The ruin of its Great Hall and Rose Window in Clink Street are all that remain of this above land today. The remains of this castle are designated as a scheduled antediluvian monument.. The interior tribunal of the castle formed the current layout of Winchester Square, and the death of the castle led to the country being redeveloped as warehouses with narrow streets and tall edifices being a response to the demand to maximise infinite.

There are a figure of recent developments within the riverbank sub country, most notably

Victor Wharf ( Clink Street, 2002 )

Evans Granary ( Clink Steet, 2009 )

Winchester Stables ( Winchester Walk, 2007 )

Tennis Court ( Winchester Square, 2006 )

All of these developments have been built over the scheduled archeological remains of Winchester Palace and the sites made up the evidences of the Palace in medieval times.

The townscape of the preservation country is a mix of stuffs and inside informations germinating over a long period of clip. The preservation country covers some of the most historic parts of Southwark, the bulk of edifices in the preservation country are 18th and nineteenth century edifices that follow simple classical design principals. The chief edifice elements that contribute to the alone character are frogmans, they include:

Southwark Cathedral

5 and 6 floor warehouse edifices on and around Clink Street

The railroad arches and walls of Borough Market

Narrow fronted commercial premises on Borough High Street

Classical edifices on Southwark Street and St Thomas Street

Buildings in the old hostel courtyards on Borough High Street

Across the preservation country there is an eclectic mix of stuffs and inside informations including xanthous stock brick, ruddy facings, facade elements arranged in classical proportions, normally with parapet roofs to supply horizontal valance lines, Portland rock, terracotta or rubbed brick ornaments, rusticated or arcaded land floor lifts and painted lumber store foreparts and facias.

New developments

A figure of new developments in the Borough High Street Conservation Area have been completed in recent old ages. The country is physically rather restricted with many listed edifices every bit good as the railroad arches and market walls lending to the enclosed nature of the country. Development sites are hence limited, and many of the recent developments have been on empty sites.

As portion of this chapter, merely a twosome of developments were analysed and are briefly explained below, nevertheless, I envisage many more developments will be surveies as portion of the following chapter.

Victor Wharf, Clink Street, was designed by CZWG and is located on a outstanding corner site. The site was once a hop warehouse which was destroyed by an incendiary bomb in the 2nd universe war, which until 2002 was merely used as a auto park. It took the developers and architects a significant sum of clip to accomplish planning permission which was the topic of two planning entreaties. The edifice uses traditional stuffs but in a modern and unusual manner. Yellow stock brick in English bond, every bit good as hardwood lumber window frames are used. I conducted initial conversations with the designers of this development, who explained that the primary ground that be aftering permission was refused ab initio in 2002 was that Southwark Council decided that the strategy would ‘adversely impact the character and visual aspect of the preservation country ‘ and that it would ‘fail to continue or heighten the scene of the next listed edifice ‘ and so it was deemed to be contrary to three relevant be aftering policies – ‘Heights of Buildings ‘ , ‘Aesthetic Control ‘ and ‘Proposals impacting preservation countries ‘ . Prior to this development, the site was merely an empty auto park and so there was no bing edifices on the site for the council to protect, the lone ‘building ‘ to protect was the standing scheduled ancient memorial on the other side of the street, and archeological remains below land. The planning inspector clearly saw that doing manner for new development in this instance was the precedence.

Following planning advice, the designers and the applier, Oakmayne Properties, decided to continue with a planning entreaty which they won and so planning permission was granted by entreaty subsequently in 2002. In this entreaty determination the planning inspector decided against the council ‘s statements and decided in favour of the strategy. This procedure highlights the insufficiencies of the planning system at that clip, demoing how planning policies can be interpreted. Planing policies at that clip were clearly stipulated, nevertheless conformity with policies is merely a affair for consideration and is non a scientific procedure. The designers explained that when the original planning application was made, they received a recommendation for blessing from the designated planning officer ; nevertheless, as they had received more than four expostulations the determination was referred to commission determination where the local councilors voted on the proposals. This procedure is less than adequate as the councilors are seldom be aftering experts.

Evans Granary, Clink Street, was designed by Edward Cullinan Architects and is located on an opposite corner to Victor Wharf. The site was a 1960 ‘s warehouse that was creaky and fresh from 1980 onwards. The former warehouse adjoined the standing remains of Winchester Palace which formed a cardinal portion of the development proposals.

I have carried out interviews with Fisherking Developments, who played a cardinal function in accomplishing planning permission for these two developments. as portion of my interview procedure, I managed to obtain transcripts of the original study proposals from the designers. Long treatments with cardinal stakeholders took topographic point which resulted in rather different strategies obtaining planning permission. Planing permission was obtained for this development without entreaty, and the developers cited their long and elaborate treatments with English Heritage and Southwark Council as the chief ground for this. The development is bordering a listed scheduled ancient memorial and so in geting at their determination, the undermentioned policies were of peculiar relevancy to the council: E.4.3 Proposals impacting preservation countries, E.4.6 Proposals impacting listed edifices, E.4.10 Proposals impacting scheduled ancient memorials.

This proposed survey will research and measure the planning statute law and methodological analysiss applied to Urban Conservation Areas and the affect these have on the quality of architecture and visual aspect of new developments. I will analyze the effectivity and application of the current planning system, with peculiar accent placed on the restriction of new developments within these countries.

The cogency and necessity of specially designated Conservation Areas will be examined. The function of Conservation Areas in today ‘s planning system will be explored with respect to the publicity of good quality architecture and preservation. The construct of ‘good quality architecture ‘ will necessitate to be defined with respect to plan reappraisal panels such as CABE ( The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment ) every bit good as Local Authority Design Review Panels.


Research Aims

To place and analyze control methods of the current planning government placing effects these limitations have on assorted stakeholders, including developers, be aftering governments, designers, occupants and involvement groups.

To suggest balanced alterations to the current planning system to get the better of the insufficiencies which are identified with respect to underlying theories of preservation and planning.

To prove the proposed alterations in order to set up if they would efficaciously decide the insufficiencies and jobs identified, analyzing the relationship these alterations may hold on assorted histrions.

To supply recommendations from the position of each stakeholder in the development procedure.

All of the above must be examined in theory every bit good as in pattern.

Research Methods

Data aggregation methods

Data aggregation within the chosen instance survey preservation country


With be aftering officers at the LPA

English Heritage

With land proprietors and belongings developers

With designers, townscape advisers and planning advisers


A survey/questionnaire to set up the positions of local occupants

A survey/questionnaire to set up the positions of local concerns

Economic studies

Analyse development assessments for development sites within preservation countries

Identify cardinal cost drivers

Identify cardinal economic factors impacting development

Property Values – interior preservation country and outside

Existing edifices

Development sites

Interviews with the assorted histrions will be of import as this will supply cardinal qualitative informations. The positions of be aftering officers, proprietors, developers and assorted other histrions will be established. The method of interview will be peculiarly helpful as this method can supply in depth treatment on the topic and reveal existent jobs with the current planning system. Interviews can besides supply a platform for discoursing possible solutions to any jobs found. Interviews could follow either inductive or deductive methods, depending on how the inquiries are poised ; i.e. get downing with a theory and so discoursing observations ( deductive ) or, get downing with a planning observation and so discoursing forms, hypothesis and so theories.

Surveies and questionnaires of local occupants and concerns will be of import as I will be able to analyze the positions of the general populace when it comes to development within preservation countries. Many people live and work within these vivacious communities and frequently take a cardinal involvement in their saving or sweetening. The questionnaires will take to set up what views people have any what degree of engagement in be aftering determinations they desire.

Transporting out research into the fiscal consequence policy in preservation countries has will be of import as this can assist place how the current government is either encouraging development, or, impeding it. Analyzing development assessments in concurrence with local developers will hopefully uncover whether or non development costs are higher within preservation countries and the grounds behind this. Analysing belongings values will besides be interesting as I will hopefully be able to place whether any economic zoning exists and how this relates to conservation country appellation.


Consequences of preliminary findings

Identify chief issues

Discuss mensurable standards

( methods of analysis can be farther established one time literature reappraisal is completed )


Revisit original aims and remark on success

Summarise findings

Discuss what implications the research has on:

Current and historical theory

Current planning policy

The pattern of belongings development in preservation countries from the position of assorted stakeholders.

Discuss the restrictions of the research undertaken.

Discuss the ability to generalize from the specific nature of the research.

Research how the findings can be applied other instance surveies

Identify countries for farther research



Cadman, D. & A ; Topping, R. 1995. Property Development ( Fourth Edition ) . Oxon: Spon Press.

Catchpole, T. ( 1987 ) London skylines: a survey of high edifices and positions. London: London Research Centre.

Cole, D. ( 1991 ) Listed edifices: are belongings developers deterred from redeveloping them? LSBU MSc Project Management thesis, unpublished.

Dixon, Martin. 1994. Modern land jurisprudence. Australia: Cavendish Publishing.

English Heritage. ( 2005 ) Guidance on the direction of preservation countries. London: EH.

English Heritage. ( 2005 ) Guidance on preservation country assessments. London: EH.

English Heritage. ( 2000 ) Power of Place. London: EH.

Humberstone, N. ( 1988 ) Briefings for Surveyors 18 – Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. London: Henry Stewart Publications.

Jones, A. ( 1993 ) The character of preservation countries: a survey commissioned from Chesterton Consulting and the University of Central England. London: Royal Town Planning Institute.

Millington, A.F. ( 2000 ) Property Development. London: EG Books.

Ratcliffe, John, Michael Stubbs and Mark Sheperd. 1996. urban planning and existent estate development 2nd edition. Oxon: Spon Press.

Richard Coleman Consultancy. ( 2002 ) Revise PPG 15! : the instance for alterations for PPG 15. London: Wordsearch.

Richards, J. ( 1994 ) Facadism. London: Routledge.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. ( 1984 ) Urban preservation and historic edifices: a usher to the statute law. London: Architectural Press.

Suddards, R, and Hargreaves, J. ( 1996 ) Listed Buildings: The Law and Practice of Historic Buildings, ancient Memorials, and Conservation Areas. London: Sweet & A ; Maxwell.

The Conservation Studio. ( 2004 ) Measuring alteration in preservation countries: A research study for English Heritage. London: EH.

Walker, R. 1995. The Cambridgeshire usher to historic edifices jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridgeshire County Council.

Wealthy, P. ( 1984 ) Conservation countries: studies of occupants attitudes. Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council.

Willis, K.G. 1980. The Economics of Town and Country Planning. Great Britain: Granada.

Word Count: 1933

Note: ( tabular arraies, rubrics and bibliography are non included within word count )


Following the termination of Southwark Council ‘s Unitary Development Plan ( UDP, adopted 1995 ) , be aftering applications for this country are now assessed against the Southwark Plan ( July 2007 ) and London Plan ( adoptive 2004 ) . The London Plan is a ‘material consideration ‘ in the appraisal of planning applications. Development sites within the primary instance survey preservation country, the Borough High Street Conservation Area, are besides capable to the Thames Particular Policy Area appellations as set out in the Southwark Plan. Some developments within the instance survey country will be within a designated Central Activity Zone ( CAZ ) and those that are merely outside the Central Activity Zone ( CAZ ) should at least still see this.

The undermentioned tabular array provides a sum-up of be aftering policies contained within the Southwark UDP ( 1995 ) which are relevant to the instance survey preservation country, and shows a comparing of these policies against tantamount policies now contained within the adopted Southwark Plan ( July 2007 ) .

Planing Considerations

Policy Heading

UDP ( 1995 )

Southwark Plan ( 2007 )


Protection of Warehouses

Policy B.1.3

Proposed developments should hold greater employment bring forthing possible, or be good to the local economic system

Developments can replace excess or ill located warehouses

This is non applicable to the Southwark Plan.

Employment Areas or Sites

Policy B.2.1

The Council will back up employment usage in appropriate locations

Policy 1.2 and 1.3 screens Preferred Office Locations – Development sites that are within these countries must take this into history.

Entree to Employment Opportunities


Policy 1.1

For strategies of more than 1,000 sq.m, development should do planning duties towards:

Training for unemployed

Secure kids ‘s installations

Public kingdom substructure for people with disablements


Low-cost Housing

Policy H.1.4

Low-cost Threshold – 20 units

The Council will seek to negociate the maximal possible proportion

Policy 4.4

There is an overall mark of 50 % across the whole Borough. Most developments do non accomplish this degree in world, particularly within preservation countries as most developers argue this per centum is commercially non feasible.

Brooding Mix

Policy H.1.5

Majority of units should be two or more beds

If more than 3-bed so there should be direct entree to private garden infinite

Policy 4.3

Majority of units should be 2 or more beds

If more than 15 homes – 10 % must be 3 or more bed with entree to private garden infinite ( balconies are provided, see appendix for floor layout )

Studios must non transcend 5 % of entire homes

Housing Density

Policy H.1.7

Where suited for household lodging – 175-210 HRPH ( Habitable suites per hectare )

There is range to increase the scheme denseness if the site location is non suited for household lodging

Appendix 2

CAZ – 650-1,100 HRPH ( Habitable suites per hectare )

Standards of New Residential Development

Policy H.1.8

Specific criterions contained within Appendix 1 of UDP

Policy 4.2 – Quality of Residential Accommodation

Achieve good quality life conditions and includes high criterions of agreeableness


Parking Space in New Development

Policy T.6.3

Refers to criterions contained in Appendix 1 of UDP

Residential – 1 / 1 unit

Cycle parking criterions non stated – refers to ‘London Cycle Form Advice Note 6 ‘