Plots 9-14, Oldchurch Hospital, Romford
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report PDU/0287g/02 14 July 2010 Plots 9-14, Oldchurch Hospital, Romford in the London Borough of Havering planning application no. P1638.09 Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal Redevelopment of the former Oldchurch Hospital site to provide of 493 residential units, a local park, and an energy centre. The applicant The applicant is Taylor Wimpey East London, and the architect is PRP. Strategic issues The proposal will continue the regeneration of a brownfield site to provide town centre housing although affordable housing provision will be minimal. The design is acceptable, and a new local park with play facilities will be created. Outstanding design, transport and sustainable development issues have been resolved. Recommendation That Havering Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 18 December 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Havering Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1A of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats.” 2 On 20 January 2010, the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0287g/01, and subsequently advised Havering Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 65 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 67 of that report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance page 1 are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 17 June 2010, Havering Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, subject to the verification of a financial viability assessment and the applicant entering into a section 106 agreement for the revised application, and on 1 July 2010, it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Havering Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Havering Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application. The Mayor has until 21 July 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 5 At the consultation stage Havering Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 65 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 67 of that report could address these deficiencies: Affordable housing: Potential for a review of affordable housing provision prior to the commencement of each build stage of the proposal. Urban design: Review of the elevational treatment used across the site to minimise repetitiveness across multiple buildings Access: Confirmation that the proposed disabled parking bays will be available to or reserved for disabled users. Transport: Additional assessment of the cumulative impact of development is required, as is work to identify local improvements in the pedestrian environment. Clarification of s106 issues relating to bus stop accessibility, land ownership for future transport improvements, and highway improvements. Sustainable development: The applicant should provide further information regarding district heating (in particular, the hospital and Swan Housing site), as well as the ways in which connections would be made. The applicant should also provide heat profiles to show that the size of the CHP has been optimised. The need and locations required for active cooling should be provided. 6 The application has been amended to address these comments. These amendments are described within the following sections. Affordable housing 7 The consultation stage noted that although the scheme has low affordable housing provision, consideration of the scheme in conjunction with the provision across the wider outline site results in the provision of 31% of housing being affordable. This was acceptable, but the Council was requested to investigate the inclusion of a ‘clawback’ mechanism within the section 106 agreement, whereby affordable housing provision would be reviewed prior to each phase of construction, subject to prevailing economic conditions. 8 Following the consultation stage, the applicant submitted a viability assessment that demonstrated that the scheme has limited potential for the provision of additional housing. The present application is a response to the changed economic conditions resulting in the previous page 2 scheme becoming unviable. The Council has made its approval of the scheme conditional on the independent verification of the viability assessment. It has declined to add a ‘clawback’ mechanism due to the limited viability. Given the evolving economic and political background, and the acceptable overall level of affordable housing provision, officers will not pursue the inclusion of a mechanism. Urban design 9 The applicant has declined to revise the appearance of the buildings, citing their improved appearance when compared with the previously approved scheme. This improvement is not disputed, however at consultation stage, additional design details or variation were requested, to introduce visual breaks into the development where multiple buildings would be visible in long views, for example along Waterloo Road. Havering Council supports the original approach and notes that the design is “consistently good” throughout the development. Matters of appearance are often subjective and officers note that other features of the buildings, notably the scale and massing, are appropriate. As such, while officers still do not consider the buildings’ appearance to be wholly satisfactory, the overall design approach is generally sound. 10 The applicant has also noted the improvements made to the scheme between the pre- application and consultation stages, notably the differentiation and improvement of the two east- west routes through the centre of the site. Access 11 The applicant has prepared a plan showing that 10% of spaces are designed for disabled parking bays. These spaces will not be reserved at the outset; rather, a flexible approach will be adopted once the amount of disabled residents is established. Permanent visitor bays are encouraged. To ensure that an adequate disabled parking strategy is in place, the Council has recommended that a condition be placed on the decision notice, stating that disabled parking plans be submitted to and approved by the council upon the commencement of each phase of development. Transport 12 During the consultation stage, Transport for London (TfL) requested that a construction logistics plan and delivery and servicing plan be secured for the site by condition and that the contributions and safeguarded strip of land, previously secured from the original application for the site, all be retained as part of these revised proposals. TfL additionally raised concerns in relation to the car parking and the quality of the travel plan, and suggested that the applicant provide additional electric vehicle charging points, alongside undertaking a pedestrian audit of the site, and its surrounding area. 13 Additional information has been submitted by the applicant to address the above concerns, and as a result, TfL is now satisfied that the issues raised at the consultation stage have been adequately dealt with. As such, TfL welcomes Havering Council’s committee report, dated 17 June 2010, which secures by condition the requirement for cycle parking provision, a construction logistics plan and delivery and servicing plan, the provision of electric vehicle charging points and a scheme for the proposed changes to the highway network, all to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement on site. 14 TfL also welcomes the transport aspects of draft section 106 heads of terms, which secures i) a £20,000 contribution towards the improvement of bus stops in the vicinity of the site, ii) a £200,000 contribution, payable to LB Havering, towards the provision of a surface level pedestrian crossing on Waterloo Road along the boundary of the site, or the improvement of pedestrian access between the site and Romford Town Centre and station, iii) the safeguarding of a strip of land adjacent to Oldchurch Road for the potential purposes of road widening and/or extension to page 3 the existing bus lane, iv) the restriction of residents and their visitors from applying for parking permits within any controlled parking zone in the vicinity of the site, and v) the agreement and implementation of a travel plan for the development. Sustainable development 15 The applicant has acknowledged that the 50kWe CHP unit size originally proposed was very small in relation to the thermal load of the proposed development. Without committing to a larger size at this stage, they have also indicated that a CHP size between 100kWe and 150kWe is likely to be pursued when implementation of the proposed development is progressed. A system of this size would be more in keeping with the likely heating demand profile for a development such as this.