Public Document Pack
PLANNING COMMITTEE B
Date of Meeting: THURSDAY 22 MARCH 20 12 TIME 7.30 PM
PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIV IC SUITE, LEWISHAM TOWN HALL, CATFORD, SE6 4RU
Members of the Committee are summoned to attend this meeting:
Membership Councillors:
Alan Till (Chair) John Muldoon (Vice-Chair) Anne Affiku Suzannah Clarke Patsy Foreman Vicky Foxcroft Alan Hall Chris Maines Jim Mallory
The public are welcome to attend our committee meetings, however, occasionally committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of reports can be made available in additional formats on request.
Barry Quirk For further information please contact: Chief Executive Yinka Ojo Lewisham Town Hall Committee Co-ordinator London SE6 4RU 5th Floor Laurence House Date: Tuesday 13 March 2012 Catford Road SE6 4RU
Telephone No: 020 8314 9785 Email: [email protected]
Order Of Business
Item Page Title of Report Ward No No.
1. Minutes 1 - 2
2. Declarations of Interests 3 - 4
3. St Clements Heights 165 Wells Park Road Sydenham 5 - 36
4. The Rear of 183-185 Lee High Road Blackheath 37 - 46
5. The Sydney Arms 122 Lewisham Road Lewisham 47 - 62 Central
6. Boones Almshouses Belmont Park 10.74143 Lewisham 63 - 90 Central
Agenda Item 1
Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (B) Report Title MINUTES Ward Contributors Class PART 1 Date 22 MARCH 2012
MINUTES
To approve the minutes of the meeting of Planning Committee (B) held on 16 February 2012
Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 2
Agenda Item 2
Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (B)
Report Title DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
Class PART 1 Date: 22 MARCH 2012
Declaration of interests
Members are asked to declare any personal interest they have in any item on the agenda.
Personal interests
There are two types of personal interest :- (a) an interest which you must enter in the Register of Members’ Interests* (b) an interest where the wellbeing or financial position of you, (or a “relevant person”) is likely to be affected by a matter more than it would affect the majority of in habitants of the ward or electoral division affected by the decision.
*Full details of registerable interests appear on the Council’s website.
(“Relevant” person includes you, a member of your family, a close associate, and their employer, a firm in which they are a partner, a company where they are a director, any body in which they have securities with a nominal value of £25,000 and (i) any body of which they are a member, or in a position of general control or management to which they were appointed or nominated by the Council, and (ii) any body exercising functions of a public nature, or directed to charitable purposes or one of whose principal purpose includes the influence of public opinion or policy, including any trade union or political party) where they hold a position of general management or control
If you have a personal interest you must declare the nature and extent of it before the matter is discussed or as soon as it becomes apparent, except in limited circumstances. Even if the interest is in the Register of Interests, you must declare it in meetings where matters relating to it are under discussion, unless an exemption applies.
Exemptions to the need to declare personal interest to the meeting
You do not need to declare a personal interest where it arises solely from membership of, or position of control or management on:
(a) any other body to which your were appointed or nominated by the Council (b) any other body exercising functions of a public nature.
In these exceptional cases, unless your interest is also prejudicial , you only need to declare your interest if and when you speak on the matter .
Sensitive information
If the entry of a personal interest in the Register of Interests would lead to the disclosure of information whose availability for inspection creates or is likely to create a serious risk of violence to you or a person living with you, the interest need not be Page 3
entered in the Register of Interests, provided the Monitoring Officer accepts that the information is sensitive. Where this is the case, if such an interest arises at a meeting, it must be declared but you need not disclose the sensitive information.
Prejudicial interests
Your personal interest will also be prejudicial if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) it does not fall into an exempt category (see below) (b) the matter affects either your financial interests or relates to regulatory matters - the determining of any consent, approval, licence, permission or registration (c) a member of the public who knows the relevant facts would reasonably think your personal interest so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.
Categories exempt from being prejudicial interest
(a) Housing – holding a tenancy or lease with the Council unless the matter relates to your particular tenancy or lease; (subject to arrears exception) (b) School meals, school transport and travelling expenses; if you are a parent or guardian of a child in full time education, or a school governor unless the matter relates particularly to the school your child attends or of which you are a governor; (c) Statutory sick pay; if you are in receipt (d) Allowances, payment or indemnity for members (e) Ceremonial honours for members (f) Setting Council Tax or precept (subject to arrears exception)
Effect of having a prejudicial interest
If your personal interest is also prejudicial, you must not speak on the matter. Subject to the exception below, you must leave the room when it is being discussed and not seek to influence the decision improperly in any way.
Exception
The exception to this general rule applies to allow a member to act as a community advocate notwithstanding the existence of a prejudicial interest. It only applies where members of the public also have a right to attend to make representation, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. Where this is the case, the member with a prejudicial interest may also attend the meeting for that purpose. However the member must still declare the prejudicial interest, and must leave the room once they have finished making representations, or when the meeting decides they have finished, if that is earlier. The member cannot vote on the matter, nor remain in the public gallery to observe the vote.
Prejudicial interests and overview and scrutiny
In addition, members also have a prejudicial interest in any matter before an Overview and Scrutiny body where the business relates to a decision by the Executive or by a committee or sub committee of the Council if at the time the decision was made the member was on the Executive/Council committee or sub- committee and was present when the decision was taken. In short, members are not allowed to scrutinise decisions to which they were party. Page 4
Agenda Item 3
Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (B) Report Title ST CLEMENTS HEIGHTS, 165 WELLS PARK ROAD, SE26 Ward Sydenham Contributors Geoff Whitington Class PART 1 Date: 22 MARCH 2012
Reg. No. DC/11/78207 as revised
Application dated 19 August 2011 and completed 21 December 2011
Applicant St Clement Danes Holborn Estate Charity.
Proposal The demolition of the existing buildings at St Clements Heights 165-171 Wells Park Road, SE26, and the construction of seven, 4 to 6 storey blocks comprising 50 one and two bedroom Almshouses, and 46 two, three and four bedroom self-contained flats and houses, together with the provision of 76 car-parking spaces, vehicular accesses onto Sydenham Hill and Wells Park Road, and associated landscaping (Outline application).
Applicant’s Plan Nos. 615/204/PL11A, PL12A, PL13A, Location Plan showing viewpoints 1 & 2, Design & Access Statement, Planning Statement, Sustainability & Energy Statement, Arboricultural Survey, Transport Statement, Daylight & Sunlight Analysis, Financial Viability Report & Addendum 15/12/2011, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Suggestions for Biodiversity Enhancement, Supplementary Accident & Visibility Splay Note, Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Desk Study Report (March 2011), Bat Surveys, Flood Risk Assessment, Statement of Community Involvement, Visualisation 1 & 2 and Letter dated 7 December 2011.
Background Papers (1) Case File LE/345/20/TP (2) Lewisham Development Framework: Residential Standards SPD (August 2006) (3) Lewisham Development Framework: Core Strategy (2011) (4) Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (5) The London Plan (2011) (6) PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) (7) Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to PPS 1 (2007) (8) PPS 3: Housing (2006) (9) PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (10) PPG 13: Transport (2001) (11) PPS 22: Renewable Energy (2004)
Page 5
(12) PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk (2006) (13) PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004) (14) Delivering Affordable Housing – Good Practice and Guidance (2006) (15) The Code for Sustainable Homes – Setting the Standard in Sustainability for New Homes (2008) (16) Planning and Access for Disabled People – A Good Practice Guide (2003) (17) Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations (18) Mayor of London’s Housing Strategy (2009) (19) Mayor of London’s Biodiversity Strategy (2002) (20) Mayor of London’s Energy Strategy (2004) (21) Mayor of London’s Housing SPG (2005) (22) Mayor of London’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2006) (23) Mayor of London’s Accessible London SPG (2004) (24) Living Roofs and Walls – Technical Report Supporting London Plan Policy (2008) (25) Mayor of London’s Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG (2007) (26) Interim London Housing Design Guide (August 2010) (27) Lewisham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2007, draft published 2008) (28) By Design – Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice (2000) (29) South East London Housing Partnership's Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines (2008)
Zoning Adopted UDP - Existing Use
1.0 Property/Site Description
1.1 The site is located at the corner of Wells Park Road and Sydenham Hill, lying opposite the borough boundary with Southwark. The site area measures 2.2 Hectares.
1.2 The site is currently occupied by St Clements Heights, a collection of buildings ranging in height between 1-3 stories, operating as Almshouses by the St Clement Danes Holborn Estate Charity that provides residential accommodation for poor women of not less than 50 years of age, and poor men of not less than 60 years of age.
Page 6
1.3 Whilst much of the site where the existing buildings lie is flat, to the east is a steep bank that slopes down toward an area that is a designated nature reserve. Existing trees lie around the perimeter of the site. 1.4 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. To the west of the site are 2-storey plus roofspace dwellings that lie within the Crouchmans Close estate, set-back from Sydenham Hill. To the south of that is Woodsyre, which is a narrow road set-back from Sydenham Hill, where 3-storey townhouses are located.
1.5 To the south of the site is Mountacre Close, which comprises 4-storey blocks of maisonettes, whilst to the north are low rise residential units.
1.6 The nearest local amenity is a public house to the north of the site on Crescent Wood Road. The closest grocery store is located approximately 800 metres away on Wells Park Road.
1.7 The only existing vehicular access into the application site is from Wells Park Road to the north. The site is served by two local bus routes, providing direct links to Sydenham and Crystal Palace. The PTAL for this particular area is 2.
1.8 The site is not located within a Conservation Area, neither would any listed buildings be affected by the proposal. The land is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and Areas of Special Character.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 In 1966, permission was granted for the construction of 2 and 3-storey buildings comprising 50 self-contained flats for elderly persons together with a chapel, 3 houses and 2 flats for staff, 6 garages and ancillary buildings.
2.2 In 1972, permission was granted for the erection of a 4-storey block of 30 three- roomed flats, 12, two roomed flats and 6 bedsitting room flats with 37 integral garages and a single-storey shop; a part three, part four-storey block of 5, four roomed self-contained flats, 9 three-roomed flats and 4 six roomed terraced houses with 18 integral garages; a two-storey terrace of 6, four-roomed houses and 1, five roomed house; a two-storey terrace of 4, four roomed houses together with 22 lock-up garages and access roads on land adjoining St Clements Heights.
2.3 Permission granted for the temporary siting of a mobile home for residential purposes.
2.4 In 1996, permission was granted for the erection of a 2 metre high close boarded timber fence on the boundaries with Sydenham hill and Wells Park road.
3.0 Current Planning Application
3.1 The current outline application seeks to establish the principle of further residential development upon the site, including the demolition of the existing buildings. All detailed matters are reserved, however the applicant has submitted indicative plans to demonstrate how the proposed development would be accommodated within the site.
Page 7
3.2 The development centres around the need for the replacement of the existing Almshouses buildings, which fail to meet with current building regulations and Code for Sustainable Homes standards. Structurally, the buildings are sound, however the applicant has confirmed that ongoing repairs are becoming increasingly expensive, with a £4m cost calculated over a 10 year period.
3.3 The new Almshouse development would be a 5-storey building (Block A) located to the south-west corner of the site, accommodating 50 units, three more than the existing. This would provide the affordable housing element of the scheme.
3.4 To assist in the funding of the development, the remainder of the site would be sold to provide a total of 46 private residential dwellings, including 14, two bedroom and 12, three bedroom self-contained flats, together with 20, four bedroom houses, accommodated within six separate blocks.
3.5 Block B was originally the tallest building at 6-storeys, however the height of the building was reduced to 5-storeys in response to neighbour objections. 26 private residential units would be accommodated, comprised of 15, two bedroom and 11, three bed self-contained flats.
3.6 Blocks C–G each comprise 4-storey single dwellings in a crescent style layout. Four bedrooms would be provided, whilst driveways and garages would be afforded at the front, and private gardens at the rear.
3.7 Renewable energy measures would include the provision of photovoltaic panels and solar thermal collectors. Overall, the development would achieve at least a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions.
3.8 All units would be of Lifetime Homes standards, whilst meeting Code Level 4 for Sustainable Homes. 10% of the proposed tenure would be disabled units, designed to SELHP standards.
3.9 76 car-parking spaces would be provided within the site, of which 10 would be allocated to the Almshouse element, including one disabled bay. 40 spaces would be allocated to the 20 dwelling-houses, including integral garages. The open market flats would have underground/ undercroft parking, including two disabled bays.
3.10 Secure cycle parking would be provided for 26 bicycles.
3.11 The proposed development would be phased to allow for minimal disruption to the existing almshouse occupiers. Phase 1 would involve the demolition of the western wing of the existing building, together with the construction of the replacement almshouses.
3.12 Phase 2 would see the occupation of the almshouses, with the demolition of the remaining original structures. Construction works on the open market dwellings would then commence.
Page 8
4.0 Consultations and Replies
Neighbours & Local Amenity Societies etc
4.1 Consultation letters were sent to the occupants of 145 neighbouring properties and the Sydenham Society. A notice was displayed on site and Ward Councillors were consulted.
4.2 A petition containing signatures from four separate properties and 27 letters were received from the occupiers of 29, 29a & 31 Sydenham Hill, 32 Kirkdale, 3, 5, 8, 18, 22, 26 & 31 Woodsyre, 22, 70 & 75 Mountacre Close, 7, 10, 11 & 14 Canbury Mews, 13, 89, 115 & 121 Longton Avenue, 2 Tunbridge Court and flat 1 St Clements Heights, objecting to the proposal on the following grounds;
(1) Height and scale of proposed development; (2) Visual impact upon neighbouring occupiers; (3) Poor design; (4) Out of character; (5) Construction traffic; (6) Loss of trees on site; (7) Insufficient provision of parking spaces for almshouse residents; (8) Site should be retained for the provision of homes for the elderly; (9) No consultation undertaken by applicants prior to formal submission.
4.3 3 Woodsyre & Rockhill Residents’ Association
• The main concern of Woodsyre residents centres on the vehicular access onto Sydenham Hill. This will impact on the visual amenity of those houses directly opposite, which look across the road to trees at the moment, but under the proposals the trees will be cleared for the access road.
4.4 Cllr Lewis Robinson (Southwark)
• Disappointed Southwark Councillors were not directly consulted;
Summarises concerns raised by local resident, include:
• Excessive height, and potential massing of the development along Sydenham Hill, and the impact that will have on the character of the neighbouring conservation area;
• The proposed driveway being built in close proximity to a bus stop and adjacent to the Woodsyre service road;
• Loss of trees and the need to retain or re-provide effective screening.
4.5 Cllr Helen Hayes (College Ward, Southwark)
• There is some strong opposition to having access to and egress from the site onto Sydenham Hill, which present some safety concerns;
• Residents generally support the principle of redeveloping this site, in particular, the proposed removal of the boundary fence along Sydenham Hill
Page 9
and wells Park Road – any boundary treatment should open up the development to the road.
• Whilst the set-back from the road is welcomed because it would preserve the amenity of Sydenham Hill and Woodsyre residents, it is considered the curved form of the building would create a confusion between the front and the back of the building. Potential to result in opportunities for crime and anti- social behaviour to the area facing Sydenham Hill.
4.6 Sydenham Society
• With regard to the application for demolition and development at St Clements Heights, the Sydenham Society would request that you formally lodge our objection to the scheme for the reasons set out in the letters you have received from the residents associations of Canbury Mews and Longton Avenue. In addition, the Society would like the following point to be noted:
• ‘Currently the St Clements Heights' estate only caters for elderly people and it is proposed that these will be relocated to new accommodation on site if the proposed scheme goes ahead.
• The proposed scheme with 3/4 bedroom houses, allowing for families with up to four or five children, will completely change the social mix on this site to the detriment, we believe, of the elderly people currently residing on the site.
• The Sydenham Society is aware of the applicant’s desire to increase the number of residential units on site and would suggest that a condition of living at St Clements Heights is that all residents are over 50 years of age.’
(Letters are available to Members)
4.7 In light of the number of objections, a local meeting was held at St Philip The Apostle Church Hall, Coombe Road, Sydenham on 2 November 2011. In the event, 17 residents attended the meeting, with a panel comprised of Cllr Best (Chair), planning agents, applicant and the Council’s planning officer.
4.8 The main concern raised by residents related to the perceived excessive height of the development, in particular Block B. Concerns were raised that it would impact upon natural light to neighbouring occupiers, whilst the applicant was advised to consider the views of the community and propose a more sensitive form of development.
4.9 An objector was of the opinion that it was unlikely that the number of units would be reduced, which was confirmed by the agent, however it was suggested that there may be scope to reduce the height of Block B.
4.10 Other matters discussed included:
• Poor mix of housing for elderly persons and private tenure within the same site;
• Insufficient parking within the site would result in on-street pressures within the surrounding area;
Page 10
• Concerns relating to the loss of trees, in particular to the Sydenham Hill frontage;
• The indicative plans show the proposed buildings to be out of character with the existing setting.
Minutes of the meeting may be seen in the attached appendices.
Environmental Health
4.11 No objections raised to the proposal.
Air Quality Officer
4.12 Raises no objections.
Highways and Transportation
4.13 Unobjectionable in principle.
Design and Conservation
4.14 The Council’s design officers were involved during the pre-application process, and advised that blocks A and B should be located in a purposeful manner that enables a maximum number of flats to enjoy the existing views down the hill, whilst the dwellings and flats should relate to the topography of the site. The communal amenity space should be carefully considered, whilst factors including overshadowing, daylight and sunlight should be addressed.
Design Panel
4.15 The Design Panel provided the following comments in relation to pre-application plans:
• Option 2 is preferred but this needs work, especially with the layout of blocks which seems quite arbitrary; • The most distinguishing thing about this site is the view, therefore the development should capitalise on this. Option 2 seems to do this; • The site is relatively hidden from view by a blanket of trees and there is no immediate adjacent buildings with distinctive character to take into consideration, therefore, there is an opportunity to propose an innovative contemporary style of architecture; • Houses and flats should be located in a complimentary fashion to the topography of the land • Units facing the slope should be dual aspect so that habitable rooms enjoy the view whilst also providing surveillance over the road. • Proposed blocks E and D should be relatively low so that other blocks to the West can enjoy the view over the tops of the buildings • If a building is to be located directly opposite the entrance point then an architecturally interesting end to the building should be designed as this would be the first thing people would see on entering the site.
Page 11
• Blocks A and B should be located in a more purposeful manor . They should also be orientated in a way which enables a maximum number of units to enjoy the view. They should be located so that communal amenity space is carefully considered and not just left over spaces. Issues such as overshadowing and daylight and sunlight should be factored in • As many private gardens as possible should be designed in addition to communal amenity space. 4.16 In response to the current application, the Panel stated the following:
‘The Panel were very disappointed that previous comments had not been noted and no changes made to the proposal.
‘Therefore the comments made at the Design Panel in March 2011 are still relevant.
‘In addition to those comments, the Panel felt that this design response does not respond well to the topography of the site. The Panel felt the proposal was too introverted. The Panel feel the scheme should relate better with the topography and associate itself more with the location and aspect. There would only be a limited number of private houses which would benefit from the view and the justification for the decanting of residents into block A is not a robust argument. The entire design of the proposal should not be dictated by the preference to retain the existing almshouses during construction of the new.
‘The Panel also noted that as the site is elevated, it would be highly visible from certain locations and these views up to the site should be illustrated, and which would effectively show the poor relation of the proposal to it’s surrounding context as the view up the slope would be to rear elevations and back gardens.
‘The Panel also noted the monotonous scaling of the houses and that more interest could have been added by varying the heights and breaking up the elevations in a less formal way.’
5.0 Policy Context
5.1 In considering and determining applications for planning permission the local planning authority must "have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations" (Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This approach is reflected in PPS 1, where, at paragraph 8 (and again at paragraphs 28 and 31), it is confirmed that, where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for Lewisham comprises the adopted Core Strategy Document (2011), saved policies in the Lewisham UDP (July 2004) and policies in the London Plan (2011).
Page 12
Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements
5.2 Planning Policy Guidance and Statements of relevance to the application are:
• PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) • Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to PPS 1 (2007) • PPS 3: Housing (2006) • PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (2009) • PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment • PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2005) • PPG 13: Transport (2001) • PPS 22: Renewable Energy (2004) • PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004) • PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk (2006)
Other National Guidance
5.3 The following national guidance is also considered relevant to the application:
• Delivering Affordable Housing – Good Practice and Guidance (2006) • The Code for Sustainable Homes – Setting the Standard in Sustainability for New Homes (2008) • Planning and Access for Disabled People – A Good Practice Guide (2003) • Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations • Mayor of London’s Housing Strategy (2009) • Mayor of London’s Biodiversity Strategy (2002) • Mayor of London’s Energy Strategy (2004) • Mayor of London’s Housing SPG (2005) • Mayor of London’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2006) • Mayor of London’s Accessible London SPG (2004) • Living Roofs and Walls – Technical Report Supporting London Plan Policy (2008) • Mayor of London’s The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition BPG (2006) • Mayor of London’s Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG (2007) • Interim London Housing Design Guide (August 2010)
London Plan
5.4 A new London Plan document was adopted on 22 July 2011. The policies considered relevant to this application include:
5.5 Policies 3.3 Increasing housing supply; 3.4 Optimising housing potential; 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments; 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities; 3.8 Housing choice; 3.10 Definition of affordable housing; 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure; 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions; Sustainable design and construction; 5.7 Renewable energy; 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs; 5.12 Flood risk management; 5.13 Sustainable drainage; 6.9 Cycling; 6.13 Parking; 7.3 Designing out crime; 7.4 Local character; 7.5 Public realm, 7.6 Architecture & Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation in the London Plan.
Page 13
5.6 The Mayor of London has also published a number of strategies, Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and Best Practice Guidance (BPG) notes in order to help implement London Plan policies. The following strategies, SPGs and BPGs are particularly relevant to this application:
Transport Strategy (2001) and draft Transport Strategy (2009); Biodiversity Strategy (2002); Energy Strategy (2004); Housing SPG (2005); Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2006); Accessible London SPG (2004); Planning for Equality and Diversity in London SPG (2007); Living Roofs and Walls – Technical Report Supporting London Plan Policy (2008); The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition BPG (2006); Tomorrow’s Suburbs: Tools for making London more sustainable (June 2006); and Development Plan Policies for Biodiversity (November 2005).
Wheelchair guidance
5.7 The South East London Housing Partnership's Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines (2008, updated 2009) are not published by the Mayor of London and do not set out planning policy, but are nonetheless considered relevant to this application.
Adopted Unitary Development Plan
5.8 The relevant saved policies of the UDP (adopted July 2004) are set out below.
• URB 3 Urban Design • URB 4 Designing out Crime • URB 12 Landscape and Development • URB 13 Trees • ENV PRO 15 Sustainable Surface Water Drainage in New Development • HSG 2 Housing on Previously Developed Land • HSG 4 Residential Amenity • HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development • HSG 6 Dwelling Mix • HSG 7 Gardens
5.9 Referring to the Council’s UDP Proposals Map adopted with the UDP in July 2004, the application site is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and Areas of Special Character.
Residential Development Standards SPD (August 2006)
5.10 In August 2006, the Council adopted the Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document. This document sets out guidance and standards relating to design, sustainable development, renewable energy, flood risk, sustainable drainage, dwelling mix, density, layout, neighbour amenity, the amenities of the future occupants of developments, backland development, safety and security, refuse, affordable housing, self containment, noise and room positioning, room and dwelling sizes, storage, recycling facilities and bin storage, noise insulation, parking, cycle parking and storage, gardens and amenity space, landscaping, play space, Lifetime Homes and accessibility and materials.
Page 14
Planning Obligations SPD (January 2011)
5.11 In January 2011, the Council adopted the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document. This document sets out guidance and standards relating to the provision of affordable housing within the Borough and provides detailed guidance on the likely type and quantum of financial obligations necessary to mitigate the impacts of different types of development.
Local Development Framework – Core Strategy
5.12 The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29 June 2011. The Core Strategy, together with the London Plan and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan, is the borough's statutory development plan. The following lists the relevant strategic objectives, spatial policies and cross cutting policies from the Lewisham Core Strategy as they relate to this application:
5.13 The following lists the relevant strategic objectives, spatial policies and cross cutting policies from the Lewisham Core Strategy as they relate to this application;
• Objective 1: Physical and socio-economic benefits • Objective 2: Housing provision and distribution • Objective 3: Local housing needs • Objective 5: Climate change • Objective 6: Flood risk reduction and water management • Objective 7: Open spaces and environmental assets • Objective 8: Waste management • Objective 9: Transport and accessibility • Objective 10: Protect and enhance Lewisham’s character • Objective 11: Community well-being • Spatial Policy 5 Areas of Stability and Managed Change • Policy 1: Housing provision, mix and affordability • Policy 7: Climate change and adapting to the effects • Policy 8: Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency • Policy 10: Managing and reducing the risk of flooding • Policy 12: Open space and environmental assets • Policy 14: Sustainable movement and transport • Policy 15: High quality design for Lewisham • Policy 21: Planning obligations
6.0 Planning Considerations
6.1 The current application is for outline approval only, with all matters reserved, therefore it is the principle of residential development which must be assessed. As such, issues relating to design, access, landscaping and layout would be assessed at reserved matters stage should the application be approved. In accordance with the Development Management Procedure Order where scale is also a reserved matter, details shall be submitted at outline stage to show the maximum height limit, width and length of each building.
6.2 It is considered that the issue of scale will have an impact upon the principle of the development of this site for the proposed scheme and will have implications for the outline issue of ‘layout’.
Page 15
6.3 The illustrative material also shows indicative design but as appearance is a reserved matter that can be addressed without affecting the principle of the development and will not have a direct impact on layout or access, this will not be considered as part of this application.
6.4 The level of visual impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers will also be assessed, together with the ability of the proposed Heads of Terms to mitigate the impact of development upon local infrastructure, affordable housing provision, sustainability, ecology and parking matters.
Principle of Development
6.5 The existing almshouse sheltered housing has been located at St Clements since the late 1960s, currently providing residential accommodation for 40 occupiers over the age of 50.
6.6 The planning statement advises that the need to keep the existing properties in good condition have created an untenable situation for the Charity, due to:
• Increasingly expensive repairs are required to maintain the existing structures. The scale of repairs required would cost approximately £4m over a ten year period;
• The existing dwellings fail to comply with current standards, including cramped rooms; lack of spacious bathrooms; lack of wheelchair accessibility; a predominance of small studio flats that do not meet Lifetime Home standards.
6.7 For these reasons, the Charity consider it imperative to redevelop the site to provide accommodation that meets with current standards. Any development must, however be self funding, therefore the Charity is dependent upon raising sufficient funds from the sale of the remainder of the site for open market housing.
6.8 Officers raise no objection to the principle of demolishing the existing collection of buildings, which are of a bland, 1960s design, subject to the provision of a development that befits this prominent site and complies with national and local policy guidelines.
6.9 The Development Plan seeks to retain buildings that are termed as ‘heritage assets’, i.e. Listed or Locally Listed Buildings. Buildings that are not heritage assets cannot be protected from demolition in their own right. PPS 5 Planning for the Historic Environment states "Those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are called heritage assets. Some heritage assets possess a level of interest that justifies designation and particular procedures apply to decisions that involve them. This statement also covers heritage assets that are not designated but which are of heritage interest and are thus a material planning consideration."
6.10 Design and Conservation officers have assessed the character of the building, and do not consider that the existing building is of any notable heritage interest, therefore Core Strategy Policy 15 (f), which seeks to ensure any development conserves and enhances the borough’s heritage assets, is not applicable in this case.
Page 16
6.11 Overall, officers consider the principle of new Almshouse accommodation and private dwellings to be acceptable, respecting the existing residential character of the surrounding area.
Scale, Height and Massing
6.12 The applicants have engaged in pre-application discussions with officers to seek advice on what would constitute an acceptable form of development upon the site, together with the constraints of the site, design, layout and relationship with surrounding development.
6.13 The Council’s assessment of the nature of the area is that the site falls within a suburban area, predominantly residential in character. Sydenham Hill experiences relatively high vehicular movement, providing a link between Forest Hill and Crystal Palace. Any development upon this site must respect the existing suburban character of this area.
6.14 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), which advises on design (para 38) states that: “local planning authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or supplementary planning documents on design.”
6.15 The original 6-storey height of the centrally located Block B was the cause of much concern from neighbouring residents, in terms of its visual impact and imposing nature. The applicant advised that it was unlikely the building would impact detrimentally upon existing residents, however he agreed to reduce the height to 5-stories.
6.16 The proposed reduction of Block B is considered to be a positive response to the comments raised by neighbours. Sydenham Hill provides a range of dwelling styles, sizes and heights. Whilst 2-3 stories appears to be the predominant height, to the south of the application site is a modern 4-storey residential block (Dulwich Wood Court), and to the north is Countisbury House, which is a 7-storey block of flats. The proposed 5-storey height of Block B is considered acceptable, and subject to design and facing materials, would not appear as a visually obtrusive or over-dominant form of development.
6.17 The development is considered to be sympathetic to the height of existing dwellings. The overall bulk and mass of Blocks A and B would have been greater without the proposed set-back of the upper stories, with the staggered appearance assisting in avoiding an over-dominant and excessive form of development.
6.18 No specific policy guidelines akin to the Bromley Road SPD are in place for this particular site whereby appropriate height restrictions are suggested, however having considered the positioning of the development within the site, the distances from existing 2/3-storey dwellings and the extent of screening provided by existing trees, a 5-storey development is appropriate for this locality.
6.19 A photomontage shown in the Design and access Statement demonstrates that when viewed from Sydenham Wells Park located to the lower end of the slope to
Page 17
the east, the development would not dominate in an unacceptable manner. The highest part of the scheme is set further within the site, whilst the 4-storey townhouses lie at least 10 metres from the edge of the slope. Existing trees would also serve to provide a level of screening.
6.20 The Design Panel commented that as the site is elevated, it is likely the proposal would relate poorly with the surrounding context, with the views up the hill onto the rear elevations of the townhouses.
6.21 Officers consider this can be addressed at the reserved matters stage when detailed elevations will be formally presented. The appearance of the rear elevations of the townhouses will be an important consideration, and should be designed sympathetically in light of the topography of the site.
6.22 In summary, the development is considered to be appropriate in scale, height and massing, respecting the general form of development within the immediate area, and befitting of this prominent location.
Density
6.23 The Council’s former density policy (HSG 16) was not among those saved by the Secretary of State, therefore the London Plan now contains the detailed density policies for Development Plan purposes.
6.24 The application site is located within a suburban setting on a relatively busy highway. The London Plan refers to ‘suburban’ as being areas with predominantly lower density development such as, for example, detached and semi-detached houses, predominantly residential, small building footprints and typically buildings of 2-3 stories.
6.25 Guidance states that the Council should make the best use of previously developed land, however such aspirations should not negate the requirement for developments to blend with the surrounding character. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) for the area is 2, and the London Plan Matrix table 3.2 advises that densities in suburban areas should be between 150 - 250 habitable rooms per hectare.
6.26 The density of the proposal is calculated to be 151 habitable rooms per hectare based on the total number of habitable rooms (334) divided by the site area of 2.2ha, thereby falling within the range stipulated. It is considered that the proposed density would not result in demonstrable harm to the character of the local area or the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers, and together with the overall quality of the proposal, officers consider the scheme to be compliant with density policies and therefore acceptable.
6.27 Objections have been raised toward the combination of Almshouse accommodation and private dwellings within the same site. The applicant considers this an opportunity to create a mini-community, with future residents encouraged to co-exist, whilst retaining a degree of separate living. The Almshouse would have a separate access into the site and private grounds at the rear, whilst the dwelling-houses would have their own private amenity spaces. Officers therefore raise no objections to the principle of the proposed use of the site.
Page 18
Impact Upon Neighbouring Occupiers
6.28 Officers are satisfied that the siting of the proposed development would not significantly harm the visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Objections have been received from residents who reside opposite the application site, stating that the development would be over-dominant, resulting in overshadowing and reduced outlook, in particular from Block B when boundary trees have shed their leaves.
6.29 As reported earlier, in light of neighbour comments, the height of Block B has been reduced to 5-stories (14 metres high), with the upper floor set-back from the frontage. The building would lie approximately 50 metres from the nearest dwellings to the east. Considering this distance, together with the existing boundary trees along the Sydenham Road frontage, and those on the opposite site that provide a natural screening, officers are satisfied the impact of the development would not significantly harm the visual amenities of those residents.
6.30 Whilst it is acknowledged the proposed development would be more apparent within the streetscene during the winter months when the trees have lost their leaves, the fact neighbours would be able to see a greater proportion of the building is not a justifiable reason to refuse the application.
6.31 The perimeter of the application site provides various species of trees, contributing significantly to the green, natural setting. The majority of the trees would remain, however at least 10 trees within the site would need to be felled, including Sycamores and a Maple, as they lie within, or close to the footprint of the proposed buildings.
6.32 The arboricultural report confirms that trees classified as Category’ A’ – high quality and value – would be retained, whilst those shown as Category ‘R’ are considered to be of a poor or dangerous condition, and are likely to be felled.
6.33 It is considered that a sufficient number of trees would be retained upon the site, maintaining the existing green setting along Sydenham Hill and Wells Park Road, whilst crucially, providing a level of natural screening that would assist in reducing the visual impact of the development.
6.34 The presence of the trees would be further enhanced by the proposed removal of the existing fencing upon the Sydenham Hill and Wells Park Road boundaries, which has a harsh impact upon the streetscene.
6.35 A Daylight/ Sunlight report has been submitted, which concludes the proposed development satisfies the Building Research Establishment (BRE) minimum requirements in relation to overshadowing. It states:
‘the overshadowing analysis indicates that the new development will have little or no overshadowing impact on the surrounding buildings. The only potential for overshadowing might be early in the morning and late afternoon in December, due to low angled sun and would only occur on sunny days. It is likely that the existing trees already shade the houses at this time, therefore the proposed development would have no impact.’
6.36 The indicative plans suggest the provision of upper floor balconies to the east facing elevation only of Block B. Should west facing balconies be proposed under
Page 19
reserved matters, officers would undertake a full assessment of the level of overlooking to the nearest neighbours.
6.37 In respect of Block A, which will accommodate the almshouses, the proposed height would be comparable with B, however the building would extend into the site away from the Sydenham Hill boundary, whilst sited approximately 20 metres from the southern boundary. Officers are satisfied the visual impact upon neighbouring occupiers would not be significant, assisted by the natural screening provided by the existing trees.
6.38 Blocks C-G are 4-storey townhouses, with the intended height attributed to the provision of integral garages. As a result of their proposed siting, officers are satisfied there would be no significant impact upon the visual amenities of existing dwellings or the streetscene generally.
6.39 The crescent style arrangement of the development is considered acceptable, and would not result in visual harm to future occupiers of the St Clements site.
Standard of Residential Accommodation/ Amenity Space
6.40 The Council requires all new residential development to provide 100% Lifetime Homes standards, in accordance with London Plan policies. The applicants have confirmed that the development is fully compliant with Lifetime Homes Standards.
6.41 10% of the units would be built in accordance with the South East London Housing Partnership Wheelchair Design Guidelines (August 2009).
6.42 The layout and circulation of the proposed units shown on the indicative plans is considered to be acceptable, and would provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupiers, in accordance with the minimum standards set out within the London Plan (2011) and the Council’s Residential Development Standards SDP. Each habitable room would be assured of sufficient natural light intake and outlook.
6.43 The proposed single dwelling-houses would all have direct access to private gardens at the rear, in accordance with Council guidelines. The gardens, would measure approximately 8 metres deep.
6.44 All flatted accommodation would have access to the communal garden at the rear, together with use of private balconies. Children’s playspace has not been shown on the plans, therefore it is considered appropriate that a financial contribution should be paid toward existing play areas to the nearest park at Sydenham Wells Park on Wells Park Road.
6.45 Officers raise no concerns to the proposed standard of accommodation and internal layout within the development, and are satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that the site can suitably accommodate the proposed number of units.
Affordable Housing
6.46 The applicant’s Planning Statement states that the provision of almshouse accommodation is a form of specialist housing akin to affordable tenure, and should therefore be considered as such. Officers agree with this interpretation.
Page 20
6.47 Based upon number of units, the proposed provision of 50 almhouses would be close to achieving the Mayor’s 50% affordable housing requirement, which would be secured by way of a S106 Agreement.
6.48 The applicants have stated that the re-provision of the almshouses would constitute ‘equivalent rental arrangements’, where residents of the almshouses will be charged ‘contributions’ rather than rent, equating to £102 per week and £118 per week for the one and two bedroom units respectively. The Council’s SPD states affordable rents should be no more than 80% of open market rents. The average open market rent within the SE26 area has been found to be £138 and £162 for one and two bed units, therefore the intended affordable rent would be 59% of the open market, which is considered reasonable by officers. This however would need to be secured in a S106 to ensure the rent remains within affordable parameters.
6.49 In their Planning Statement (p5), the applicant confirms that 68% of the existing residents originate from Lewisham, with 12.5% from Southwark and 2.5% from Bromley. They state that whilst they would be open to Lewisham notifying them of any potential residents, any nominations agreement showing preference to Lewisham would be inconsistent with the Charity’s Scheme of Management, whereby every appointment of a resident shall be made by the Trustees at a special meeting. The circumstances of a potential occupier is assessed, and it is determined whether they meet the criteria, ie; poor women of not less than 50 years of age, and poor men of not less than 60 years of age, regardless of where they currently reside.
6.50 Overall, the proposed development would include a sufficient number of affordable housing units that would provide a good standard of accommodation, and an affordable weekly rent, to the benefit of Lewisham residents.
Highways and Parking
6.51 Policy 6.13 of The London Plan states; ‘The Mayor wishes to see an appropriate balance being struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car-parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use.’ ‘In locations with high PTAL, car-free developments should be promoted.’
6.52 In this case, the PTAL 2 rating for this area is not high, with only two bus routes operating locally. The nearest train stations are located less than 2 miles away at Sydenham and Sydenham Hill train stations.
6.53 76 car-parking spaces would be provided within the site, of which 40 would be allocated to the 20 dwelling-houses, including integral garages. The open market flats would have 26 underground/ undercroft parking, including two disabled bays, whilst 10 spaces would be allocated to the Almshouse element, including one disabled bay.
6.54 Table 6.2 of The London Plan refers to parking standards for residential developments. For 4 bedroom dwellings, 1.5 - 2 parking spaces would be expected, 1 - 1.5 spaces for 3 bedroom units and less than 1 space for 1-2 units. When considering the private dwellings only, this would equate to the provision of a maximum of 64 spaces. In this case, 66 spaces would be afforded
Page 21
6.55 Having assessed the application and the Transport Statement, the Highways officer has subsequently raised no objections to the principle of the development or the number of proposed parking spaces.
6.56 Vehicular accesses would be formed leading onto Wells Park Road and Sydenham Hill, however it is acknowledged that the issue of access is a reserved matter and shall be considered at a later stage.
Sustainability
6.57 Policy 5.2 of The London Plan (2011) states development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions, and should seek to Be lean: use less energy; Be clean: supply energy efficiently; and be green: use renewable energy.
6.58 The policy also requires that all new residential developments meet Code Level 4 for Sustainable Homes, together with a reduction in carbon emissions. In this case, the development would meet Code Level 4 requirements.
6.59 The development proposes to achieve a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions through the use of photovoltaic panels and solar thermal collectors, whilst the provision of green or brown biodiversity roofs would be considered.
6.60 Other measures include the use of double glazing, water efficient devices to reduce water consumption, internal and external facilities for recycling waste and energy efficient lighting.
6.61 Officers are satisfied with the sustainability methodology, and is considered compliant with London Plan guidance.
7.0 Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreement)
7.1 Circular 05/05 states that in dealing with planning applications, local planning authorities consider each on its merits and reach a decision based on whether the application accords with the relevant development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where applications do not meet these requirements, they may be refused. However, in some instances, it may be possible to make acceptable development proposals which might otherwise be unacceptable, through the use of planning conditions or, where this is not possible, through planning obligations.
7.2 Paragraph 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations sets out that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is –
(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable
(b) Directly related to the development; and
(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
7.3 Based upon an uplift of 47 new dwellings, the applicant has provided a planning obligations statement outlining the obligations that they consider are necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development as set out below:
Page 22
(1) Education contribution: £229,069.52; (2) Health contribution of £51,100; (3) Employment training £16,022.77; (4) Library £9,094.05; (5) Community Halls £5,666.79; (6) Children’s play £6,000; (7) Allotments £4,000; (8) A minimum provision of 50 almshouse units, as set out in the report; (9) 100% of the units to meet the Lifetime Homes Standard; (10) Development to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4; (11) 10% of the units to meet the SELHP Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines (August 2009); (12) Local Labour - In accordance with the Council’s adopted SPD, reasonable endeavours shall be undertaken to utilise local labour during demolition and construction phases. This will be secured through a S106 legal agreement; (13) Meeting the Council’s legal, professional, and monitoring costs associated with the drafting, finalising and monitoring of the Agreement.
7.4 Officers consider that the proposed obligations outlined above are appropriate and necessary in order to mitigate the impacts of the development and make the development acceptable in planning terms. Officers are satisfied the proposed obligations meet the three legal tests as set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (April 2010).
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 Officers consider the scale and massing of the proposed development to be acceptable, respecting the general character of the area and an appropriate replacement for the existing building. The proposal accords with Policy 15 of the adopted Core Strategy and saved policy URB 3 Urban Design, which expects a high standard of design that seeks to complement the scale and character of existing development and its setting and HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development, which expects all new residential development to be neighbourly and to meet the functional requirements of all future habitants.
8.2 The standard of proposed accommodation is in compliance with guidelines. Together with the provision of affordable housing within the scheme and the submission of an agreed Heads of Terms, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.
9.0 Summary of Reasons for Grant of Outline Planning Permission
9.1 The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the London Plan (2011), the adopted Core Strategy and saved policies in the Unitary Development Plan (July 2004), as set out below and all relevant material considerations, including comments received in response to third party consultation.
Page 23
9.2 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of the application against relevant planning policy set out in the London Plan (2011), the adopted Core Strategy (2011) and saved policies in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (July 2004). The local planning authority has further had regard to the Mayor of London’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and Best Practice Guidance; as well as Government Planning Policy Guidance and Statements, and other material considerations including the conditions to be imposed on the permission.
9.3 On balance, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the Council’s landscaping, ecology and biodiversity criteria and will not result in any material harm being in accordance with PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS 3: Housing, Table 3.2 Density Matrix, 3.3 Increasing housing supply; 3.4 Optimising housing potential; 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments; 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities; 3.8 Housing choice; 3.10 Definition of affordable housing; 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure; 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions; Sustainable design and construction; 5.7 Renewable energy; 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs; 5.12 Flood risk management; 5.13 Sustainable drainage; 6.9 Cycling; 6.13 Parking; 7.4 Local character; 7.5 Public realm, 7.6 Architecture & Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation in the London Plan (2011), Objective 1 Physical and socio-economic benefits, Objective 2 Housing provision and distribution, Objective 3 Local housing needs, Objective 5 Climate change, Objective 6 Flood risk reduction and water management, Objective 7 Open spaces and environmental assets, Objective 8 Waste management, Objective 9 Transport and accessibility, Objective 10 Protect and enhance Lewisham’s character, Objective 11 Community well-being, Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability, Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects, Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency, Policy 10 Managing and reducing the risk of flooding, Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets, Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham, and Policy 21 Planning obligations of the adopted Core Strategy (2011), saved policies URB 3 Urban Design, HSG 4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development and HSG 7 Gardens in the Council's Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) and the Residential Development Standards SPD (August 2006).
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 RECOMMENDATION (A )
Authorise officers to negotiate and complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to cover the following principal matters (as set out in more detail in part 8 of this report), including such other amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development:
(1) Education contribution: £229,069.52; (2) Health contribution of £51,100; (3) Employment training £16,022.77; (4) Library £9,094.05;
Page 24
(5) Community Halls £5,666.79; (6) Children’s play £6,000 (7) Allotments £4,000, (8) A minimum provision of 50 almshouse units; (9) 100% of the units to meet the Lifetime Homes Standard; (10) Development to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4; (11) 10% of the units to meet the SELHP Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines (August 2009); (12) Reasonable endeavours undertaken toward local labour during demolition and construction phases; (13) Meeting the Council’s legal, professional, and monitoring costs associated with the drafting, finalising and monitoring of the Agreement.
10.2 RECOMMENDATION (B)
Subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT OUTLINE PERMISSION subject to the following conditions, as set out below and such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development;
(1) Full particulars and detailed plans, sections and elevations of the proposed development, including the items below, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any works are commenced and shall be carried out as approved.
a) the siting of the buildings in relation to the site boundaries and neighbouring buildings;
b) the design of the buildings, (including floorspace, height, massing, internal layout, treatment of the roof and external appearance, together with details of facing materials to be used and their colour and texture);
c) the means of access to the buildings; d) the extent and position of accommodation for car-parking;
e) the level of each floor of the buildings in relation to the site and the adjoining highways.
(2) No development, (excluding demolition) shall commence on site until sample details of all facing materials (including their colour and texture) to be used on the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless the local planning authority agrees in writing to any variation.
(3) Notwithstanding information shown on the approved drawings, details of windows, balconies, terraces, screening, entrances and brick detailing at a scale of not less than 1:5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
Page 25
the local planning authority. No development shall commence beyond piling until the full details have been approved. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(4) All window and door openings shall be constructed with minimum 90mm deep external reveals.
(5) No development shall commence on site until a scheme to minimise the threat of dust pollution during site clearance and construction works (including any works of demolition of existing buildings, or breaking out or crushing of concrete) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall include a watering regime in the event of dry weather and shall be implemented in its entirety once development has commenced.
(6) No development, including demolition, shall commence on site until a construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The proposals for the plan shall include details of a display at the site entrance of a contact number for complaints, site access arrangements and details of how security will be maintained to neighbouring properties, in particular during and immediately after the demolition phase. The approved plan shall be rigidly adhered to throughout the construction process.
(7) Details of proposed lighting to external areas within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to first occupation of the residential units. Any such lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved drawings. The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed lighting is the minimum needed for security and working purposes and that the proposals minimise pollution from glare and spillage.
(8) (i) The buildings shall be constructed so as to provide sound insulation against external noise, to achieve levels not exceeding 30dB LAeq and 45dB LAmax (night) for bedrooms, 35dB LAeq (day) for other habitable rooms, with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided.
(ii) Development shall not commence until details of a sound insulation scheme complying with paragraph (i) of this condition have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(iii) The development shall not be occupied until the sound insulation scheme approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition has been implemented in its entirety. Thereafter, the sound insulation scheme shall be maintained in perpetuity.
(9) No extensions or alterations to the proposed development whether or not permitted under Article 3 and Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re- enactment thereof, shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.
Page 26
(10) No development, excluding demolition, shall commence on site until drawings showing the use of any part of the site not occupied by buildings and the treatment thereof (including planting, trees, paving, walls and fences), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and all works which form part of the scheme shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development, unless the local planning authority has given written consent to any variation. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority has given written approval to any variation.
(11) The refuse storage areas shown on the approved plans shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation and shall thereafter be retained for refuse storage purposes.
(12) Details of cycle stands within the approved cycle store shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and shall be provided prior to first occupation of the residential units hereby approved and shall thereafter be maintained.
(13) The external communal area and private amenity gardens shall be provided prior to first occupation of the dwellings to which they relate and shall thereafter be retained for such use.
(14) None of the trees shown as being retained on the permitted plans shall be lopped or felled without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.
(15) No development shall commence on site until adequate steps have been taken in accordance with Section 8 of BS 5837 Trees to safeguard all trees on the site against damage prior to or during building works, including the erection of fencing. These fences shall be erected to the extent of the crown spread of the trees, or where circumstances prevent this, to a minimum radius of 2 metres from the trunk of the tree and such protection shall be retained until the development has been completed. No excavations, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut, or pipes or services laid in such a way as to cause damage to the root structure of the trees.
(16) The flat roofs of the buildings shall be as set out in the application, and no development or the formation of any doors providing access to the roofs shall be carried out, nor shall the roof areas be used as balconies, roof gardens or similar amenity space, without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.
Reasons
(1) OT1R
(2), (3) & (4) BO1R Facing Materials – New Buildings
Page 27
(5) N10R Dust Minimisation Scheme
(6) In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied that the demolition and construction processes are carried out in a manner which will minimise possible dust and mud pollution of local roads and to comply with Policies ENV.PRO 9 Potentially Polluting Uses and saved policy HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
(7) N13R External Lighting - Residential
(8) N01 Sound Insulation Scheme
(9) PD1R No Extensions
(10) L01R Planting, Paving, Walls etc.
(11) RF2R Refuse Storage
(12) H12R Provision for Cyclists
(13) L10R Retention of Amenity Space
(14) L06R Trees to be Retained
(15) LO8R
(16) B11R Flat-Roof Extensions
Informatives
(1) Construction Sites Code of Practice or any other such codes applicable at the time of construction.
Thames Water
(2) With regard to surface water drainage, it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, watercourses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water, it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network, through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777.
Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.
Page 28
Street Numbering
(3) The proposal will require approval by the Council of a Street Naming and Numbering application. Application forms are available on the Council’s web site.
(4) A Part 31 Prior Notification shall be formally submitted to the Council prior to the commencement of demolition works.
Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 30 Local Meeting – St Clements Heights (DC/11/78207)
Venue : Philip The Apostle Church Hall, Coombe Road, Sydenham
Date : 2nd November 2011
Time : 7pm
Panel : Cllr Best (Chair)
Richard Carey (Applicant)
James Sharp Adam Greenhalgh Joe Pou (Pellings)
Geoff Whitington (Planning Officer)
Cllr Best opens meeting at 7.04pm, stating the description of the planning application, and introducing members of the panel.
Mr Carey gives a history of the site, and how the Alms House operates in terms of number of tenants and costs.
James Sharp (JS) advises the audience of the architectural approach to the scheme, whilst referring to a number of displays boards showing plans including elevations, and sections of the proposed buildings and the topology of the site. Describes the intended tenure of the proposed properties, and addresses the height, scale and mass of the buildings.
Cllr Best reads the main objections raised by local residents, and suggests each be addressed in turn during the meeting.
An objector (obj) stated concern for Sydenham Hill residents in regard to the height and visual impact of the development, in particular Block D, together with the proposed construction access.
Obj: Disagrees that the proposed height would not exceed that of the highest boundary tree.
Obj: No precedent for such development within the area.
Obj: Will impact upon natural light to neighbours opposite the application site.
Obj: The height of the tallest block is insensitive – you (the applicant) should consider the views of the community and propose a more sensitive form of development – not in favour of block of flats.
Obj: Another estate disaster – existing views of parks will be lost to existing residents.
Obj: Sound acoustics carry in this area – the development will impact detrimentally.
Page 31 JS: Reiterates the highest building would be no higher than the tallest tree – all trees have been accurately measured.
Obj: The trees currently have leaves – how about when they fall off in the winter months. The building would block the low winter sun.
Obj: Neighbouring residents should not have to rely upon the boundary trees to provide screening.
Obj: The development would not be entirely screened by the trees, even during the summer. The proposal is ugly.
Joe Pou (JP) Describes the application land as being an open site, whilst the existing buildings have no relationship with surrounding development. Lower height buildings spread across the site is not favoured – high buildings would retain a sense of openness.
Obj: Based on cost, it appears unlikely the applicant would be prepared to reduce the number of units to ensure a reduction in height.
JP: The number of units cannot change, however the height of the building/s can be reduced.
7.40pm
Obj: The highest part of Sydenham Hill is 110 metres – concerned about the level of impact the proposed height would have upon the surrounding area, including from further down the hill. Insufficient detail shown on plans.
Obj: The principle may be acceptable – it’s the height and scale that raises concern.
Obj: Wants more images to be produced before Council reaches a decision.
JS: Advises that further plans will be produced in light of the concerns raised.
Cllr: Time to move onto light concerns.
JS: All proposed buildings would be sited a sufficient distance away from all site boundaries, so not to impact upon the visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Is confident there would be no loss of natural light to existing residents.
Obj: This section of Sydenham Hill will be in darkness during the winter months.
JP: The development will not result in overshadowing.
Cllr: Acknowledges the plans are indicative, but considers them out of character.
Obj: Would external materials shown on plans be used.
JP: Only indicative at this stage – would be subject to change.
Obj: Concerned about loss of trees on site.
JP: 139 trees identified on site – only 6 would be felled.
Page 32
Obj: Asks for meeting to reconvene later or at another time due to church bells ringing, making it difficult for people to be heard.
Cllr: Satisfied to proceed with meeting.
Obj: The level of car parking provision within the site would adversely affect the surrounding area.
AG: The number of proposed parking spaces is dictated by Lewisham policies.
Obj: The applicants should take a considered approach to parking – do not blame this on Council policies.
(7.55: Planning officer leaves room for 5 minutes to speak to caretaker. No minutes are taken during this time)
Cllr: Concern regarding the quantum of residents amongst existing occupiers – how will their quality of life be protected?
RC: The provision of good accommodation for existing alms house occupiers in the future relies upon the viability of the whole development. The views is something I need to sell to ensure residents have a roof over their heads.
Obj: Not a compatible mix – old people and maybe youngsters living within close proximity.
RC: Views this as an opportunity to create a mini-community.
Cllr Nisbet: Lammas Green is a good example of old and young living together.
Geoff Whitington advises of future procedures in relation to the determination of the application, and that all objectors would be invited to attend a committee meeting.
Cllr Best closes the meeting at 8.12pm.
Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 34 Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 36
Agenda Item 4
Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (B) Report Title LAND TO THE REAR OF 183-185 LEE HIGH ROAD SE13 Ward Blackheath Contributors Kate Hayler Class PART 1 Date: 22 MARCH 2012
Reg. No. DC/11/77403 as revised
Application dated 18.05.2011 revised 2.11.11, 16.02.12 and 6.03.12
Applicant Downes Planning Partnership on behalf of Mr Lee Powell
Proposal The construction of a two storey building to the rear of 183-185 Lee High Road SE13, to be used for storage with ancillary office (Use Class B1) together with provision of bin stores, 1 car parking space and 2 bicycle spaces.
Applicant’s Plan Nos. DPP/SD/10/77/01, 02 Rev B & 03 Rev A, Os Map (Received 6.03.12) and Design and Access Statement.
Background Papers (1) Case File LE/451/193/TP (2) Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (3) Local Development Framework Documents (4) The London Plan (July 2011)
Designation PTAL 2 Area of Archaeological Priority
Screening None
1.0 Property/Site Description
1.1 The application site is located adjacent to the single storey Lewisham Spiritualist Church in Boone Street. It is situated to the rear of a larger ‘T’ shaped plot of land, which includes the recent development at 183-185 Lee High Road. The four-storey building at 183-185 Lee High Road consists of a retail unit at ground floor level with six residential units on the upper floors, constructed in 1999. The residential part of this building is accessed off Boone Street between the church and the three storey Woodman public house on the corner of Boone Street and Lee High Road. These units are now known as Flats A-F of Meridian House, 71 Boone Street.
1.2 The application site is currently vacant, and is separated from Boone Street by the parking area for the residents of Meridian House and the retail unit. The site is currently partly fenced and overgrown. To the rear of the site is a service road and garages which serve the residential properties with rear gardens fronting Lee Church Street. There is no fence to the site from this access road and it appears
Page 37
that that this area had been used to dump garden and other waste. To the southeast of the site is a Petrol Filling Station.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 The application site originally formed part of 183-185 Lee High Road for which outline planning permission was granted in 1993 for the construction of a 4 storey building comprising ground floor retail space and 6 flats above.
2.2 A detailed scheme was approved on the 20 August 1993. The approved drawings showed the site of the currently proposed building to be planted with two flowering trees, and also showed a dustbin store on the site frontage adjacent to Boone Street. Neither of these have been provided, but no enforcement action has been taken.
2.3 A detailed planning application was refused on the 12 July 2001 for the construction of a new 3 storey dwelling house on the application site. The application was refused for three reasons:
• it would result in overdevelopment of the site with a residential density exceeding the Council’s policy requirements;
• the height and location of the dwelling being out of character and scale within the surrounding area; and
• the proposed dwelling would have an unsatisfactory pedestrian access through the adjacent car park and would fail to make provision for off street car parking.
3.0 Current Planning Application
3.1 The Proposal
3.2 The current application is for the construction of a two storey storage building that will provide 58sqm of B8 storage space and 44sqm of ancillary office space on a mezzanine floor. The proposed building would be accessed through the parking area off Boone Street and would include the provision of 1 car parking space, bin stores and two cycle spaces accessed through the rear of the building.
3.3 To provide the additional parking space, the scheme includes the reorganisation of the existing residential car parking spaces on the site and the replacement of the existing gate with a sliding gate. The proposed building would be set back approximately 20m from Boone Street. It would be within approximately 2m of the neighbouring (north facing) windows to the Lewisham Spiritualist Church.
3.4 Following comments from the Council’s Highways team and objections from occupiers of the existing flats in Meridian House, the applicant submitted revised drawings showing where the bins for the existing residential and commercial uses will be located in the new parking area layout as well as the location for the refuse storage for the proposed use. The applicant also amended the existing gate to a sliding gate to ensure that the revised car parking spaces could be used without interference from the existing gates.
Page 38
3.5 Supporting Documents
3.6 A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application which provides details of the site characteristics, design rationale and access arrangements for the proposal.
4.0 Consultation
4.1 This section outlines the consultation carried out by the Council following the submission of the application and summarises the responses received. The Council’s consultation exceeded the minimum statutory requirements and those required by the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement.
4.2 Letters of consultation were sent to 21 neighbouring properties as part of the planning application process, together with a notice displayed on site. Ward Councillors were also notified.
Written Responses received from Local Residents and Organisations
4.3 Three letters of objection have been received from the owners of Flats A and B of Meridian House and the owner of 58 Lee Church Street. A summary of objections is listed below:-
• Loss of privacy to gardens at Lee Church Street; • Disturbance and safety hazards resulting from construction; • Original plans were for single storey building and have been changed without informing residents; • Proposal would result in alterations to parking layout and worsen existing parking situation (which is already a nightmare); • Land belongs to flats and this would not be a legal build; • Space allocated for refuse storage is inadequate and will encroach on residential communal area and entrances to flats; • Deliveries by vans and large vehicles to storage facility would cause disturbance; • Additional pressure on existing parking situation; and • Will affect ability to remortgage property.
4.4 A further comment was received from the occupier of 54 Lee Church Street querying whether the access road to the rear of Lee Church Street would be used as an access for the proposed development and raising concerns that this might lead to the misuse of this area. The Applicant has no ownership rights to this access road and the proposed access is via the existing car park off Boone Street and not to the rear or the property.
(Letters are available to Members)
Highways and Transportation
4.5 Unobjectionable
Environmental Health
Page 39
4.6 Unobjectionable. Given the neighbouring petrol station, any future application for the change of use of the premises to residential use should consider the matter of site contamination. In this instance, the proposed/current structure may not then provide suitable protection to site end users.
5.0 Policy Context
Introduction
5.1 In considering and determining applications for planning permission the local planning authority must "have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations" (Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This approach is reflected in PPS 1, where, at paragraph 8 (and again at paragraphs 28 and 31), it is confirmed that, where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for Lewisham comprises the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) (adopted in June 2011), those saved policies in the adopted Lewisham UDP (July 2004) that have not been replaced by the Core Strategy and policies in the London Plan (July 2011).
Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth (23 March 2011)
5.2 The statement sets out that the planning system has a key role to play in rebuilding Britain’s economy by ensuring that the sustainable development needed to support economic growth is able to proceed as easily as possible. The Government’s expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.
London Plan (July 2011)
5.3 The London Plan policies relevant to this application are:
Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.6 Architecture
Core Strategy
5.4 The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29 June 2011. The Core Strategy, together with the London Plan and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan, is the borough's statutory development plan. The following lists the relevant strategic objectives, spatial policies and cross cutting policies from the Lewisham Core Strategy as they relate to this application:
Page 40
Objective 4: Economic activity and local businesses Core Strategy Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects Core Strategy Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency Core Strategy Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham
Unitary Development Plan (2004)
5.5 The saved policies of the UDP relevant to this application are:
URB 3 Urban Design HSG 4 Residential Amenity
6.0 Planning Considerations
6.1 The main issues to be considered in respect of this application are:
a) Principle of the proposed use b) Design c) Highways and servicing d) Impact on Adjoining Properties e) Sustainability and Energy
Principle of the proposed use
6.2 PPS1 promotes the efficient use of suitably located previously developed land. The site is currently overgrown and unused and the application seeks to bring it into an active use in association with a small antiques business. The building would provide storage space on the ground floor with office accommodation provided on the mezzanine floor above.
6.3 Paragraph 3.4 of the Core Strategy states that growing the relatively small borough economy is a priority for the Council. The proposed use will create jobs for 2 people and whilst modest, the proposal will make a contribution to this aim.
6.4 The application site is situated in a mixed use area with a number of shops and businesses operating on the ground floor along Lee High Road and residential uses above and behind. The proposed use is therefore considered acceptable provided that it will meet the requirements of Policy HSG 4 of the UDP by having an acceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residential occupiers.
Design
6.5 Policy URB 3 of the UDP states that the Council will expect a high standard of design in new buildings and will take into consideration the scale and height of new buildings; access arrangements; building materials and the contribution to natural resource efficiency.
6.6 The townscape of the surrounding area is mixed in terms of the character and ages of the existing buildings and the pattern of development. The proposal therefore seeks to use materials that complement those in the surrounding area including brickwork, slate tiled roof and grey powder coated aluminium windows and doors. The proposed building features a pitched roof between brick gable ends to mirror the shape of the residential properties along Boone Street. Whilst
Page 41
of simple design, the building is attractively detailed with stone coping and brick soldier courses.
6.7 The heights of the surrounding buildings vary from one to four storeys. The scale of the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable.
Highways and servicing
6.8 The applicant is the owner of the whole parcel of land that includes Meridian House and the car park around it and has rights to access the site through the existing car park. The proposals include the rearrangement of the 6 existing residential parking spaces to make space for an additional car parking space to serve the new use. Concerns have been raised by neighbouring occupiers that the rearrangement of the parking spaces will worsen the existing problems with resident’s parking. The Council’s Highways team have not objected to the proposal (they have confirmed that the application will substitute an unsatisfactory car parking layout with an alternative less than satisfactory layout but that this is not sufficient to raise an objection to the scheme).
6.9 The plans include the location of two wheelie bins to store waste from the new use. Concerns were raised by the Highways Team and residents of Meridian House as to where the existing residential and commercial refuse bins would be stored. The Applicant has submitted revised drawings showing the amended location of the bins and the Highways team have confirmed that they are satisfied with the amended arrangements.
6.10 Neighbouring occupiers have raised concerns about how a storage use will be serviced given the constraints of the existing car park. A parking space has been provided that would be suitable for a car or a van, but it is not clear how deliveries by larger vehicles would be accommodated. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring a delivery and servicing plan be submitted that sets out how this will be addressed.
6.11 The Application includes space for 2 bicycles to be parked to the rear of the site.
Impact on Adjoining Properties
6.12 Policy HSG 4 seeks to protect residential amenity by resisting the siting of incompatible development in residential areas. Given the limited scale of the floorspace proposed, it is not considered that the proposed use would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.
6.13 The closest neighbouring building to the site is the Lewisham Spiritualist Church and whilst the proposed building may cause some overshadowing to two of the windows nearest the site, the interior of this building is served by other windows that will be unaffected and it is considered that this use is less sensitive to any changes to daylight than if the neighbouring property were in residential use. The location of the site means that there would be no residential properties or amenity spaces that would be affected by the proposal in terms of daylight or overshadowing.
6.14 There are no windows in the flank walls which means that the proposal would not prejudice the redevelopment of the neighbouring non-residential sites for residential use. The windows in the gable ends are sufficiently separated from
Page 42
habitable windows along Boone Street and to the rear of Lee Church Street to avoid any loss of privacy.
Sustainability
6.15 The application is considered to represent a sustainable form of development in that it will allow the most efficient use of this currently vacant piece of brownfield land.
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 This application has been considered in the light of policies set out in the development plan and other material considerations including policies in the Core Strategy.
7.2 On balance it is considered that the proposed use will make a positive contribution towards the Borough’s economy and create two jobs.
7.3 The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers and will not affect the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.
7.4 The design of the scheme is considered to be acceptable.
7.5 While the servicing arrangements are not ideal in terms of parking and refuse storage for the existing uses on the larger site; the existing situation is not ideal and the proposal is not considered on balance to make the situation materially worse.
7.6 For these reasons, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.
8.0 Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
8.1 It is considered that the proposal is an acceptable form of development which will not result in unacceptable harm to visual or residential amenity. The proposal complies with Core Strategy Objectives 4: Economic activity and local and 10: Protect & enhance Lewisham's character; and Core Strategy Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies URB 3 Urban Design and HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
9.0 RECOMMENDATION GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:-
(1) AR2 – Archaeological Programme
(2) RF1 – Refuse Storage
(3) B01 – Facing Materials – New Buildings
(4) Details of a Delivery and Servicing Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved.
Page 43
Reason
(4) To protect the amenity of neighbouring residents and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) and Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011).
Page 44 Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 46
Agenda Item 5
Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (B) Report Title THE SYDNEY ARMS, 122 LEWISHAM ROAD SE13 Ward Lewisham Central Contributors Russell Penn Class PART 1 Date: 22 MARCH 2012
Reg. Nos. DC/11/77424
Application dated 30.06.11 as revised on 20.02.12
Applicant Point Hill Properties Ltd
Proposal The demolition of the building to the rear of The Sydney Arms, 122 Lewisham Road SE13, and the construction of a part 3, part 4 storey building fronting Morden Hill, with terraces to the rear and solar panels on the flat roof at fourth floor level, to provide 1 one bedroom, 5 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom self-contained flats.
Applicant’s Plan Nos. 1079/01, 02A, 03A, 04, 110, 111D, 112D, 113C, 114A (received 27/1/12), 121B, 122B, 123B (received 20/2/12), Design & Access Statement, Photographs, Statement of Compliance Lifetime Homes Standard, Statement of Intent to Compliance for Level 3/4 Code for Sustainable Homes (received 26/5/11).
Background Papers (1) Case File LE/133/122/TP (2) Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (3) Local Development Framework Documents (4) The London Plan
Designation Core Strategy or Adopted UDP - Existing Use
1.0 Property/Site Description
1.1 The Sydney Arms is a large Public House located on the west side of Lewisham Road on the junction with Morden Hill. On the adjacent corner of Morden Hill is the Orchard Community Hall, which is a wedge shaped building that reduces in mass and bulk as it descends down Morden Hill.
1.2 To the south of the site is the Orchard Estate, which is a mixture of tenanted and leasehold residential properties, totalling 107 units. The closest properties are the flats located at 126 to 148 Lewisham Road. The access decks to these properties are located facing the rear of the site at approximately 17m to the level of the existing facing elevation of the Public House. Rosewood Gardens immediately adjacent to the south west of the site is formed of two 5 unit terraces which descend sharply down Morden Hill with a prominent angular pitched roofscape.
Page 47
To the north of the site are 4 tower blocks which are also part of the Orchard Estate and are located off Quince Road.
1.3 The Public House is no longer in use and remains boarded up currently. The accommodation above the ground floor level was last used as a seven bedroom House of Multiple Occupation (HMO). Although the building does not sit within a Conservation Area and is not listed or locally listed, it is an attractive building that holds significance within the street scene with original tiling at ground floor level and is one of the only period buildings to remain in the immediate area.
1.4 The wider site has now been divided into two parcels of land with a boundary running approximately north east to south west through the middle of the site. The main Public House has recently gained permission for a separate redevelopment for the construction of a mansard roof extension, together with a three storey extension to the side and alterations to the basement, to provide useable floor space for the existing public house and an additional 3 HMO units and two studio flats.
1.5 The low rise buildings at the rear of the site which form the site area for this application separate to the redevelopment of the main building, consist of what was the rear reception area of the Public House and rear entrance and separate garage/storage area.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 In 2011 planning permission was approved for the construction of a mansard roof extension at 122 Lewisham Road SE13, together with a three storey extension to the side and alterations to the basement, to provide useable floor space for the existing public house and an additional 3 HMO units and two studio flats.
2.2 In 2011 planning permission was refused for the demolition of the building to the rear of The Sydney Arms, 122 Lewisham Road SE13 and the construction of a part 4/part 5 storey building fronting Morden Hill, with terraces to the rear and solar panels on the flat roof at fourth floor level, to provide 4 one bedroom, 4 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom self-contained flats. The main reasons for refusal related to excessive height, bulk, massing and design of the proposed part 4/part 5 storey building at the rear of The Sydney Arms. This was considered to have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring properties at Rosewood Gardens as it would dwarf the existing houses and have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of these properties.
2.3 In 2011 planning permission was refused for the construction of a mansard roof extension at 122 Lewisham Road SE13, together with a three storey extension to the side and alterations to the basement, to provide useable floor space for the existing public house and an additional 7 HMO units. The reasons for refusal related mainly to the design and appearance of the proposed side extension to the Sydney Arms Public House which was considered to compromise the integrity of the original building and impact on the significance of the period building within its setting. The design, bulk and massing of the proposed mansard roof was considered to be an over-dominant addition to the building.
Page 48
3.0 Current Planning Applications
3.1 The Proposals
3.2 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the building to the rear of The Sydney Arms, 122 Lewisham Road SE13 and the construction of a part 3, part 4 storey building fronting Morden Hill, with terraces to the rear and solar panels on the flat roof at fourth floor level, to provide 1 one bedroom, 5 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom self-contained flats.
3.3 The footprint of the replacement building will adjoin the rear elevation of the Public House and traverse the full width of the separated site fronting onto Morden Hill. This results in an approximate footprint of 16m width at the front tapering to 14.5m at the rear with an average depth of 11.5m. The four storey element of the building will reach a height of 11m and the three storey element will reach a height of 8.2m. The main entrance will be located centrally within the structure accessed from Morden Hill. Outlook is provided to the front and rear overlooking Morden Hill and to the Orchard Estate respectively. Seven balconies are located on the rear elevation and two private garden areas are located within the rear curtilage. A single lift core serves the first to third floors accessed from the front of the building. Flat roofs are utilised for each element of the building. In addition solar panels are located on the four storey element roof. Materials are indicated as a mixture of grey and white render, stone capping and grey panelling. Windows are to be powder coated aluminium.
3.4 Supporting Documents
• Design and Access Statement.
• Statement of Compliance with Lifetimes Homes Standards
• Statement of Intent with regard to compliance with Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
4.0 Consultation
4.1 This section outlines the consultation carried out by the Council following the submission of the application and summarises the responses received. The Council’s consultation exceeded the minimum statutory requirements and those required by the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement.
4.2 Notices were displayed on site and in the local press and letters were sent to residents and businesses in the surrounding area. The relevant ward Councillors and Transport for London were also consulted.
Written Responses received from Local Residents and Organisations
4.3 The Amenity Society panel has objected to the development on grounds of scale and design. The Society commented that the scale is too high in relation to the buildings in Morden Hill and thus considered poor design failing to relate to both the historic pub and the buildings in Morden Hill.
4.4 Five letters of objection have been received stating many of the same points. These have been summarised as follows:
Page 49
• More buildings will cause more overlooking and block views of the skyline.
• Loss of privacy.
• The area is already overcrowded and higher floors will overlook adjacent property.
(Letters are available to Members)
Environmental Health
4.5 No objection to the scheme on environmental protection grounds.
Highways and Transportation
4.6 Unobjectionable in principle subject to the submission of details of refuse and recycling storage.
Other
4.7 The London Borough of Greenwich has been consulted due to the proximity of the site to their boundary. No objection was raised except for minor concerns regarding the layout. The application has been amended since this consultation and changes to the layout have been accommodated.
5.0 Policy Context
Introduction
5.1 In considering and determining applications for planning permission the local planning authority must "have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations" (Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This approach is reflected in PPS 1, where, at paragraph 8 (and again at paragraphs 28 and 31), it is confirmed that, where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for Lewisham comprises the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) (adopted in June 2011), those saved policies in the adopted Lewisham UDP (July 2004) that have not been replaced by the Core Strategy and policies in the London Plan (July 2011).
Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)
5.2 A residential development on a site such as this has a wide-ranging policy context covering many national policy statements. Those of particular significance are:
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (2007) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (2010)
Page 50
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (2011) Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (2004) Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise (1994)
Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth (23 March 2011)
5.3 The statement sets out that the planning system has a key role to play in rebuilding Britain’s economy by ensuring that the sustainable development needed to support economic growth is able to proceed as easily as possible. The Government’s expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.`
Draft National Policy Framework (July 2011)
5.4 The Framework was issued in draft in July 2011 and gives an indication of the ‘direction of travel’ of the Government’s approach, in particular, on its approach to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. As such, it is a material consideration in determining this planning application.
5.5 Insofar as it is relevant to this proposal, it sets out draft national planning policy on sustainable transport, biodiversity, noise and light pollution, climate change, sustainable growth, housing and design, though many of the issues it raises are dealt with by the adopted LDF.
Other National Guidance
5.6 The other relevant national guidance is:
By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System - Towards Better Practice (CABE/DETR 2000) Code for Sustainable Homes Technical Guide (DCLG/BRE, November 2010)
London Plan (July 2011)
5.7 The London Plan policies relevant to this application are:
Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 5.7 Renewable energy Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage Policy 5.14 Water quality and wastewater Infrastructure Policy 5.15 Water use and supplies Policy 5.16 Waste self-sufficiency Policy 5.21 Contaminated land Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities
Page 51
Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.3 Designing out crime Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.6 Architecture
London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)
5.8 The London Plan SPG’s relevant to this application are:
Housing: Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance - December 2011
Core Strategy
5.9 The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29 June 2011. The Core Strategy, together with the London Plan and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan, is the borough's statutory development plan. The following lists the relevant strategic objectives, spatial policies and cross cutting policies from the Lewisham Core Strategy as they relate to this application:
Spatial Policy 2 Regeneration and Growth Areas Spatial Policy 5 Areas of Stability and Managed Change Core Strategy Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability Core Strategy Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects Core Strategy Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency Core Strategy Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport Core Strategy Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham Core Strategy Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment
Unitary Development Plan (2004)
5.10 The saved policies of the UDP relevant to this application are:
URB 3 Urban Design URB 12 Landscape and Development URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas ENV.PRO 9 Potentially Polluting Uses ENV.PRO 10 Contaminated Land ENV.PRO 11 Noise Generating Development ENV.PRO 12 Light Generating Development HSG 4 Residential Amenity HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development HSG 7 Gardens HSG 8 Backland and In-fill Development TRN 24 Off-Street Parking for Residential Conversions
Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document (August 2006)
5.11 This document sets out guidance and standards relating to design, sustainable development, renewable energy, flood risk, sustainable drainage, dwelling mix, density, layout, neighbour amenity, the amenities of the future occupants of developments, safety and security, refuse, affordable housing, self containment,
Page 52
noise and room positioning, room and dwelling sizes, storage, recycling facilities and bin storage, noise insulation, parking, cycle parking and storage, gardens and amenity space, landscaping, play space, Lifetime Homes and accessibility, and materials.
6.0 Planning Considerations
6.1 The main issues to be considered in respect of this application are:
a) Principle of Development b) Density c) Design of Development d) Standard of Residential Accommodation and Residential Mix e) Amenity Space f) Highways and Traffic Issues g) Impact on Adjoining Properties h) Sustainability and Energy
Principle of Development
6.2 The site is located within an Area of Stability and Managed Change. The site is also close to a Regeneration and Growth Area as identified in the Core Strategy 2011. Core Strategy Objective 2 advises that 3190 new dwellings are required over the plan period in the remainder of the Borough outside of Lewisham and Catford Major Town Centres and Deptford and New Cross District Centres
6.3 As such given the location of the site in a predominantly residential area the principle of the proposed development is therefore considered appropriate to the site. However for development at this site to be considered favourably, the Council must be satisfied that the proposals meet other policy criteria as set out in the adopted UDP, Core Strategy and London Plan. The proposals are considered against these criteria in the main body of this report.
Density
6.4 Policy 3.4 of the London Plan 2011 specifies that Boroughs should take into account local context and character, the design principles and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown as in Table 3.2 of the London Plan 2011. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.
6.5 The proposed development for 7 units as a whole has a density of 233 units per hectare. This falls only marginally outside the upper end of the range of 55-225 units per hectare specified for urban sites with an average of 3.1 – 3.7 habitable rooms per unit located within areas with a good public transport accessibility level of 6a as set out in table 3.2 in the London Plan 2011. On balance this is considered acceptable.
6.6 Core Strategy Policy 15 aims to optimise the potential of sites ensuring that they are sensitive to the local context and respond to local character. Therefore, while the density of development is acceptable this is subject to compliance with other planning policies.
Page 53
Design of the Development
6.7 Core Strategy Policy 15 states that for all development the Council will apply national and regional policy and guidance to ensure highest quality design and the protection or enhancement of the historic and natural environment, which is sustainable, accessible to all, optimises the potential of sites and is sensitive to the local context and responds to local character.
6.8 Retained Policy URB 3 states that the Council will expect to achieve a high standard of design in extensions or alterations to existing buildings, while ensuring that schemes are compatible with, or complement the scale and character of existing development. Scale and mass of development will be taken into consideration where a new development might be out of scale with the existing surrounding development.
6.9 Following on from a previous refused scheme on the site for nine units, extensive discussions have taken place with the applicant’s agent regarding the level of intensification that would be acceptable at the site and the resultant increase in massing and scale that could be accommodated on the site. This has resulted in a reduction in the number of units and a reduction in the scale of the scheme to a part three and four storey development that addresses the surrounding context and the consented scheme on the main Public House building.
6.10 The proposal now has an acceptable scale and mass which relates well to the sloping nature of the topography of the streetscene. The four storey element steps down from the original Public House by 2m and then again by 2.8m to the top of the three storey element. A separation gap of 4.4m will remain from the flank wall of the three storey section to the flank wall of No1 Rosewood Gardens. This allows the continuity in massing of buildings within the streetscene to relate well to their surroundings without a punctuation in the rhythm of the streetscene that a complete four storey building would have caused. Therefore the stepped design is considered to relate well to the existing character and scale of the streetscape fronting onto Morden Hill and to the consented scheme to renovate and extend the existing Public House.
6.11 The front elevation is divided visually by a change in materials and a minor 400mm projection centrally within the elevation clad in grey panelling. This corresponds with the location of a central access core. A regular pattern of windows is aligned either side of the divide within a rendered elevation. A further vertical panel divide separates the new building where it is attached to the existing Public House. It is considered that both changes to material provide a degree of vertical emphasis that relates well to the adjacent Public House.
6.12 The rear design is similarly stepped in form in its relationship with the main Public House building with part recessed balconies located at first and second floors. The fourth floor is also set back 2m from the projection of the ground floor rear elevation. Consequently, as a result of this design approach the rear elevation is considered to form a less imposing elevation by reducing any perceived overbearing impact to properties located to the rear of the site.
6.13 The flank elevation is tapered and follows the boundary line of the site. Concerns have previously been raised from residents regarding this relationship and the effect that it would have on skyline views. It is considered that the reduced height
Page 54
of the flank wall to 8.2m and resulting separation gap of a maximum of 4.5m to the flank wall of 1 Rosewood Gardens will maintain an acceptable relationship between the new building and properties adjacent fronting Morden Hill that will not significantly impact on surrounding residential development.
Standard of Residential Accommodation and Residential Mix
6.14 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (2011) Quality and Design of Housing Developments states the minimum internal floorspace required for residential units on the basis of the level of occupancy that could be reasonably expected within each unit. Insofar as the policy relates to the standard of residential accommodation, the policy states that housing developments should be of the highest quality and that new development should reflect the space standards of the London Plan.
6.15 Core Strategy Policy 1 states that the Council will seek an appropriate mix of dwellings within a development having regard to the physical character of the site, building and setting, the previous use, amenity space, car parking, surrounding housing mix and density, location of schools, open space and other infrastructure.
UNIT No Occupancy Floor area m² London Plan NO. bedrooms persons Requirements m²
1 3 4 80.8 70 √
2 1 2 52.5 50 √
3 2 3 83.2 61 √
4 2 3 61.2 61 √
5 2 3 67.5 61 √
6 2 3 61.2 61 √
7 2 3 61.5 61 √
6.16 With regard to the table above it is considered that all the proposed units comply with the minimum standards contained in the London Plan 2011 unit size standards.
6.17 The proposed size mix includes 1 unit as family-sized accommodation (3+ bedrooms) located on the ground floor, 5 units as 2-bed and 1 unit as 1-bed. The mix therefore includes a family sized (3-bed) unit in accordance with Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy. Given the location, officers consider the proposed unit mix is acceptable.
6.18 In addition, the shape, room size and layout of the rooms in the proposed building is considered satisfactory. None of the rooms would have a particularly convoluted layout which would limit their use. Stacking in the development is also considered to be satisfactory. None of the units are north facing single-aspect units and the applicant has shown that the vast majority of the units either meet or comfortably
Page 55
exceed the Council’s standards and the London Plan unit size standards. Officers consider that the proposed unit sizes and general arrangement of units is acceptable and welcome the extent of units where they exceed the standards of the London Plan.
6.19 Policy 3.8 of the London Plan and Core Strategy Policy 1 seek to ensure that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes standards. The practical application of the Lifetime Homes Standard is to apply the criteria where relevant as many sites will not lend themselves to all of the criteria and some flexibility in their application is required. The applicant has provided a Statement of Compliance and stated that the residential units have been designed to meet applicable Lifetime Homes standards. In general officers are satisfied that the standards of the residential units are acceptable.
Amenity Space
6.20 The proposed scheme provides two garden spaces at ground floor with direct access for each ground floor flat. The three bed unit has 47.9sqm and the one bed unit, 34.6sqm. the units on the upper floors are all provided with recessed balcony spaces and terraces ranging in size from 3.4sqm to 7.5sqm. Glazed privacy screens surround the provision. While the provision is welcomed a degree of overlooking will occur to surrounding areas. However, given the separation distances provided and recessed nature of the balconies this is not considered a reason for refusal in this case.
Highways and Traffic Issues
a) Cycle Parking
6.21 Cycle parking is generally required to be 1:1 for residential development. In this case provision is shown in an intergral room accessed from the ground floor front elevation that will accommodate enough spaces for seven flats within a secure area for the building as a whole. On this basis provision is considered to be in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 14 and Policy 6.9 and Table 6.3 of the London Plan (2011).
b) Car Parking
6.22 No car parking spaces are provided on site. The site is within a CPZ on Lewisham Road with limited areas available for parking. Adequate cycle parking is provided within the development as described above. The applicant’s assessment of parking within the area shows that given the location of the site near to Lewisham mainline rail station and also the DLR, car ownership by residents is likely to be minimised. Although ‘parking stress’ within the area would increase, when taking account of other developments, this would likely be by only a small percentage. Therefore, given the majority expected tenure of the property by non family occupants, it is considered that future occupiers are less likely to seek car ownership. Therefore due to the relatively minor impact that the additional seven units will have on parking issues in the vicinity, it is considered the proposal would generally be in accordance with CS Policy 14 and Policy 6.13 of the London Plan (2011).
Page 56
c) Refuse and servicing
6.23 Residential Development Standards SPD (2006) seeks to ensure that all new developments have adequate facilities for refuse and recycling. The applicant has provided a secure area for storage in this regard with direct access from Morden Hill in accordance with retained Policy URB 3 of the UDP.
Impact on Adjoining Properties
6.24 In terms of the relationship of the building to its surrounding, the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application has highlighted the main impact to be to the flats located at No’s 126 to 148 Lewisham Road and No’s 1 and 22 Rosewood Gardens. To the front, the outlook of windows will remain overlooking public areas as currently existing at the site. No windows are located on the flank elevation. At the rear, windows and balconies are provided overlooking the front access decks of the flats at No’s 126 to 148 at a distance of approximately 12m to the boundary and 16.5m between elevation facades. The ground level units are also set down into the ground with split level gardens. As stated above the building is recessed in the balcony areas and the third floor is set back an additional 2m to the ground floor. As such this creates an acceptable distance between facing blocks that is in excess of what is provided elsewhere in the immediate locality that will maintain suitable levels of privacy and overlooking. Therefore any conflict with public realm and private amenity to adjoining properties is likely to be minimal. The detailing of recessed balconies should also address these issues and can be conditioned appropriately.
Sustainability and Energy
a) Renewable Energy
6.25 London Plan Policy 5.2 requires developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change through a combination of using less energy (be lean) the efficient supply of energy (be clean) and using renewable energy sources (be green). It also requires a reduction of 25% carbon savings against 2010 Building Regulations, rising to 40% in 2013-16 and beyond that, developments are expected to be zero carbon. Policy 5.3 seeks to ensure that developments meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction. Policy 5.7 seeks a proportion of energy to be provided by renewables as part of total carbon savings, where feasible.
6.26 The applicant’s Statement of Intent with regard to the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) pre-assessment indicates that the building would meet Code 3 Sustainable Homes. In order to meet the relevant policies of the Core Strategy and London Plan, the scheme would be required to meet CfSH 4. Therefore in order to do so it is recommended that this level of compliance be secured by a condition on a planning permission.
6.27 Solar photo voltaic cells have been indicated to be located on the roof of the four storey element of the building. London Plan Policy 5.7 only requires this on all major applications. Core Strategy Policy 8 advises that the Council ‘supports and encourages’ sustainable design measures in all development and therefore the measures are welcomed.
Page 57
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 This application has been considered in the light of policies set out in the development plan and other material considerations including policies in the Core Strategy.
7.2 On balance, Officers consider that the scheme would deliver an acceptable development of the site, for uses and at a density identified as being appropriate within the development plan. Officers have considered the standard of residential accommodation proposed and the effect of the proposal on surrounding uses and found the scheme to be acceptable.
7.3 Detailed discussions were held with the applicant at pre-application stage regarding the configuration of some of the residential units in relation to size and effect on the general arrangement of scheme. Consequently, officers consider the layout and architectural approach of the scheme acceptable and that it would achieve a high quality design for the site and create a strong sense of place.
8.0 Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
8.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of the application against relevant planning policy set out in the London Plan (July 2011), saved policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) and the adopted Local Development Framework – Core Strategy (June 2011). The local planning authority has further had regard to the local planning authority’s Adopted Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document (August 2006), Government Planning Policy Guidance and Statements, and all other material considerations. The local planning authority considers that:
8.2 The proposal satisfies the Council’s Land Use and environmental criteria, and is in accordance with Spatial Policy 5 Areas of stability and managed change, Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability, Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency, Policy 14 Sustainable transport and movement, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and retained Policies URB 3 Urban Design, HSG 4 Residential Amenities, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development, HSG 7 Gardens in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
8.3 The proposal is appropriate in terms of its form and design and would not result in material harm to the appearance or character of the surrounding area, or the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is thereby in accordance with Policies 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability, Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency, Policy 14 Sustainable transport and movement, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and retained Policies URB 3 Urban Design, HSG 4 Residential Amenities, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development, HSG 7 Gardens in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
Page 58
9.0 RECOMMENDATION
GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:-
(1) B01 Facing materials (including windows and doors) – New buildings
(2) L01 Planting, Paving, Walls etc.
(3) C11 Construction Hours.
(4) B09 Plumbing or Pipes
(5) The provision indicated for cycle parking on Plan No 1079/111D shall be provided before the building hereby permitted is occupied and retained permanently thereafter.
(6) None of the dwelling units hereby approved shall be occupied until a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 post-construction certificate and verified Code for Sustainable Homes report for that dwelling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(7) Details of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development commences. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
(8) No works (including demolition and construction) shall commence until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan, including but not limited to means of protection, wheel washing, dust minimisation, noise mitigation relating to on-site crushing, deliveries, a method statement for constructing and dismantling scaffolding, details of compliance with the relevant Code of Construction Practice, and incorporating a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Construction Logistics Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No works (including demolition and construction) shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.
(9) Details of any additional external lighting to be installed at the site, including measures to prevent light spillage, that are not contained within the submission documents shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any works on site are commenced. Any such external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved drawings and any directional hoods shall be retained permanently. The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed lighting is the minimum needed for security and working purposes and that the proposals minimise pollution from glare and spillage.
(10) No telecommunications installations, whether or not permitted under Article 3 and Schedule 2 (Part 24) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.
Page 59
Reasons
(5) In order to ensure adequate provision for cycle parking and to comply with Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011).
(6) To ensure the use of sustainably-sourced and recycled materials and aggregates and the sustainable use of water, and to meet the requirements of Policy 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction in the adopted London Plan (July 2011).
(7) To ensure the development reduces the rate and volume at which rainwater reaches watercourses in times of heavy or prolonged rainfall and to maximise its reuse within the development, in accordance with Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects and Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011), 5.13 Sustainable drainage of the London Plan (July 2011) and Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) and Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (2010).
(8) To ensure that the demolition and construction processes are carried out in a manner which will minimise noise, vibration, dust and mud pollution and minimise disturbance from road traffic and safeguards road safety and the amenities of adjacent occupants in accordance with Policies ENV.PRO 9 Potentially Polluting Uses, ENV.PRO 11 Noise Generating Development and HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)
(9) In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied that the lighting is installed and maintained in a manner which will minimise possible light pollution to neighbouring properties and to comply with Policies ENV.PRO 12 Light Generating Development and HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
(10) To ensure that, in view of the nature of the development hereby permitted, the local planning authority may have the opportunity of assessing the impact of any further development.
Page 60 Page 61 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 62
Agenda Item 6
Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (B) Report Title CHRISTOPHER BOONE’S ALMSHOUSES, BELMONT PARK SE13 Ward Lewisham Central Contributors Jan Mondrzejewski Class PART 1 Date: 22 MARCH 2012
Reg. No . DC/10/74143 and DC/10/74143A
Application dated 20.4.10 completed 30.4.10 and revised 4.6.10
Applicant Drivers Jonas Deloitte on behalf of Christopher Boone’s Charity
Proposal The demolition of the existing buildings at Christopher Boone's Almshouses, Belmont Park SE13 and the redevelopment to provide 32, one bedroom and 30, two bedroom almshouses within a part three/part four storey block of flats, 1, two bedroom, 9 three bedroom self-contained flats, 8, three bedroom and 8, four/five bedroom self-contained maisonettes and a sub-station, together with the creation of additional vehicle and servicing access, 34 on-site car parking spaces, bike stores, electric buggy stores, landscaping including alterations to the existing boundary wall and associated works.
Applicant’s Plan Nos. AA1098/2.0/007, 008, 011, 012_A, 013_A, 014_A, 015_A, 016_A, 017_A, 018, AA1098_2.0_019, 020_A, 021, 022_A, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 7421/01B, 02, 03, MT7, 23/1, 26/1 32, AA1098/2.3/P01, Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment CA Project: 3038, CA Report: 100026 (Cotswold Archaeology April 2010), Design & Access Statement AA1098 (PRP Architects), Energy Options Appraisal & Sustainability Strategy (Maxfordham April 2010), Transport Statement (Motion April 2010), Statement of Community Involvement (Drivers Jonas Deloitte 20 April 2010), Planning Statement (Drivers Jonas Deloitte 20 April 10), Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implication Assessment & Method Statement Project No: 1866 (Haydens 19 April 10), Preliminary Geo- Environmental Assessment (TEC April 2010), Air Quality Assessment Project Ref: 23606/001-b, Doc ref: R1b/rev001 (pba April 2010), Desk Study, Extended Phase 1 Habitat and Bat Scoping Survey LDRJ111/001/002 (Thomson Ecology April 2010), Environmental Noise Assessment Acoustics Report A892/R02 (Fleming & Barron 8 April 10), Overshadowing Analysis (Maxfordham) Issue 1 / 04.2010
Page 63
Background Papers (1) Case File - LE/728/8/TP (2) Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (3) The London Plan (June 2011) (4) The Core Strategy (June 2011) (5) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (6) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (7) PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. (8) Planning Obligations SPD (9) Residential Design Standards SPD
Designation Adopted UDP - Existing Use
1.0 Background
1.1 On 19 th August 2010, Committee B Members resolved to authorise the Head of Planning to grant permission in respect of Application Nos. DC/10/74143 & DC/10/74143A subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of (a) the provision of affordable housing and (b) meeting the Council’s legal and professional costs associated with the drafting, finalising and monitoring the Agreement.
1.2 Due to changes in the funding arrangements for this development, it has been necessary to alter the basis of the Section 106 undertaking on affordable housing which underpins the scheme. This is discussed more fully in the ‘Planning Considerations’ section of the report.
2.0 Site Description
2.1 The application site is bounded by Belmont Park, Middleton Way and Blessington Road to the east, the site adjoins No. 29 Belmont Park and the rear gardens of properties in John Woolley Close. Although the site lies outside the Blackheath Conservation Area, redevelopment of the site would have a potential impact on Nos. 29-33 (odd) and Nos. 6-26 (even) Belmont Park opposite the site which are attractive period buildings of the 1860s located within the Conservation Area. The application site comprises 28 almshouses and two staff units dating from the early 1960s and arranged around a central green. The dwellings comprise single and two storey units. Vehicular access is from Belmont Park and Blessington Road and there is pedestrian access from these streets and from Middleton Way. There is a high brick boundary wall on the road frontages. There are a significant number of trees on site, mainly located close to the boundary with adjoining streets. There are currently no TPOs on any of the trees. The site slopes from the northeast corner down to the southwest corner by approximately 10m and by approximately 5m along each of its boundaries. However due to the sloping site, access to this area is difficult for many of the existing elderly almshouse residents as they need to climb or descend flights of steps to access their homes.
2.2 To the west of the site is a relatively high density housing estate comprising a 14 storey tower and 4 storey blocks. There is open space between the tower and
Page 64
the site which includes play/ball park areas and lawns. To the north, on the far side of Blessington Road, there are back gardens behind high walls.
3.0 Planning History
3.1 Prior to development in the 1960s the site was occupied by two large Victorian detached houses fronting Belmont Park, with one and a half pairs of Victorian semi detached houses and one large detached house fronting Blessington Road. These buildings are likely to have been similar in scale and appearance to the existing period properties in Belmont Park which are now included within the Blackheath Conservation Area. The detached house fronting Blessington Road had a very large garden extending the whole length of Middleton Way and it is likely that much of the existing boundary wall of the site to Middleton Way is the original garden wall of this property.
3.2 In 1961 planning permission was granted for the redevelopment of the sites of 8- 14 Blessington Road and Nos. 5-21 Belmont Park to provide almshouses with matron's quarters and a gardener's house together with ancillary buildings.
3.3 On 19 th August 2010, Planning Committee (B) resolved to authorise the Head of Planning to grant permission in respect of the redevelopment of Christopher Boone's Almshouses Application Ref. DC/10/74143 & DC/10/74143A subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of (a) the provision of affordable housing and (b) meeting the Council’s legal and professional costs associated with the drafting, finalising and monitoring the Agreement.
Related Development
3.4 In December 2010 listed building consent was granted for the alteration and conversion of the Merchant Taylor's Almshouses (MTA) in Brandram Road to larger dwellings by the amalgamation of the 34 almshouses to form 19 dwellings, Ref.DC/10/74140. It is intended that the charities responsible for the almshouses will market the Merchant Taylor's Almshouses site in order to enable the redevelopment of the Christopher Boone's Almshouses site.
4.0 Present Application
4.1 The scheme is for the same physical development as that considered by Planning Committee (B) on 19 August 2010 and seeks to redevelop the site with 62 new ‘almshouse’ flats, with the remainder of the development as general needs housing. The background to this proposal is that the Merchant Taylor’s and Christopher Boone's Charities, which currently operate several facilities for elderly people, including almshouses and nursing homes in the Borough, face a funding crisis which requires a radical review of the way such accommodation is provided. It is also the case that both the Merchant Taylor’s Almshouses at Brandram Road and the existing Christopher Boone's Almshouses are not fully suitable for the elderly residents, due to the presence of stairs within the properties and in the case of the current application site, steps within the external parts of the site. The Charities consider that they cannot afford to continue to operate the existing almshouses which make a loss on a monthly basis, nor do they have the resources to fund the new development. Therefore the scheme would need to be funded from a number of sources. These include the refurbishment and sale of the Merchant Taylors’ Almshouses on a long leasehold
Page 65
basis for private residential units, along with the long leasehold sale of 26 new private units on the balance of the Christopher Boone Almshouses site. This approach is intended to facilitate the on-going maintenance of the new almshouses, and secure the viability of the operation over the long-term.
4.2 The relocation of the almshouse accommodation at the Merchant Taylor’s almshouses (MTA) in Brandram Road to a redeveloped Christopher Boone (CBA) is also necessitated by the difficulties of the adaptation of the Grade II listed buildings at the MTA site to the modern needs of elderly people, particularly those with mobility problems who may require wheelchairs or motorised buggies.
4.3 The application proposes the redevelopment of the existing 1960’s Christopher Boone’s Almshouses to allow for the almshouse accommodation provided by both charities (CBA and MTA) to be located on this single site. As stated above, part of the funding for the project will be raised by developing part of the CBA site for market housing, which was originally intended to be located along the southern edge of the site fronting Belmont Park.
4.4 The new almshouses will contain 62 apartments consisting of 32 No.1 bedroom flats and 30 No.2 bedroom flats, with the majority of them enclosing 3 sides of a south facing garden court. The proposal also includes a 1 bedroom apartment for visiting relatives or overnight assistance if required by any of the residents. The proposal is to build a part 3/part 4 storey building that works with the sloping site to enable level access to all the apartments and the main communal areas. All of the accommodation will conform to recognised wheelchair standards, with a number of apartments complying in full with the South East London Housing Partnership ‘Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines’ dated August 2009.
4.5 The remainder of the development would comprise general needs housing on the south part of the site fronting Belmont Park. This part of the development would have a scale and massing modelled on the nearby period buildings within the Blackheath Conservation Area, with 4 linked ‘villa’ buildings stepping down the hill towards the corner with Middleton Way. These 4 storey units are a mixture of 4/5 bedroom family units with private gardens and 3 bedroom maisonettes over the 2nd and 3rd floor levels, providing 16 dwellings. The large family units are designed to a Lifetime Homes standard. The lowest point on the site is at the corner of Belmont Park and Middleton Way where a 6 storey apartment block is proposed. This has a mixture of 2 and 3 bedroom apartments, generally with 2 units per floor, providing 10 dwellings.
4.6 All of the new homes on the site will be provided with private outside space in the form of a garden, terrace or balcony, with larger communal gardens also provided for the Almshouses and the corner apartment block. The existing garden/boundary walls will be retained as far as possible, but will have areas opened up with metal railings inserted to open the site to its surroundings. A new electricity sub-station is proposed close to the frontage to Middleton Way.
4.7 The buildings will be constructed using a concrete frame, but with the external walls generally finished in a brick that will match the buildings of the nearby conservation areas. The design picks up on the white stucco feature bands and detailing to windows and doors that are evident in this area, although applied in a more contemporary manner. There are areas of stone used to form plinths and
Page 66
walls along the external cloistered walkways to the Almshouses and as relief panels on other buildings. The buildings will generally have green roofs, and there are areas of metal finish to the villas and corner block.
4.8 The basis of the affordable housing provision as reported to Planning Committee on 19 th August 2010 was that 31 of the 62 almshouses would be managed as affordable housing, with the remaining 31 managed as charitable almshouses, which due to restrictions on tenure and management, overseen by the Charities Commission, would in fact very similar to affordable housing.
4.9 The financing of the proposal was partly dependent on grant funding from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). As this funding is no longer available at previously envisaged levels this will impact on the level of affordable housing within the proposed development. However, the Applicant remains committed to delivering the proposed scheme, despite its poor viability. A revised viability report submitted by the applicant shows that without grant funding the provision of affordable housing is reduced from 31 Units to 2 - 4 units or circa six beds. It is still proposed that 31 of the 62 almshouse apartments would be subject to the restrictions which previously applied to almshouses managed by the charity. However, the remaining almshouse apartments, previously earmarked for affordable housing, would become general retirement flats to be sold or rented at market rates. This is discussed in more detail in Section 7.0 Planning Considerations.
5.0 Consultation and Replies
5.1 The responses set out below are those received in respect of the application when originally submitted and reported to Planning Committee A on 14 August 2010.
English Heritage
5.2 No objections raised to the archaeological assessment submitted with the application. Recommend no further archaeological requirement.
Neighbours & Local Amenity Societies
5.3 Letters of consultation were sent to the occupiers of 208 properties within the application site and within 50 metres of the site boundary together the Blackheath Society. Notices were displayed on site and in the local press. Ward Councillors were also consulted.
5.4 Blackheath Society
5.5 The Society supports the overall form now being proposed for this site. It is a great improvement on earlier proposals. The Society shares the views of the Design Panel and their request for further information. The quality of the landscaping is very high, which is welcomed, and conditions should be imposed to ensure that these standards are achieved.
5.6 A model of the scheme would be helpful in understanding the changes in levels across the site and in particular the relationship between the stepped gardens at the rear of the villas and the walled gardens of the new almshouses.
Page 67
Blackheath Historic Buildings Trust
Summary :
5.7 We would have preferred that the existing cottages and mature landscaped setting were retained in their existing form and use, as they provide attractive accommodation for the existing residents despite the limitations for wheelchair access. However, if it is now accepted that the Merchant Taylors have no option but to restructure their current provision in order to sustain almshouse provision in the long term, then we would support the application for this scheme in principle. The new almshouse development will provide good quality accommodation, level access and good quality shared spaces for 61 older people. We share and value the ambitions for this project, which, if it is delivered to a high standard, could be a building of high architectural merit.
Scale, character and massing:
5.8 The existing character of the area is quiet residential with many mature trees and generous green spaces. We support the mixture of building types proposed for this site which addresses the scale, storey heights and building line of the neighbouring C19th buildings.
5.9 The proposed new buildings are contemporary in detail while respecting the materials, scale and character of the existing C19th buildings.
5.10 A physical model showing the buildings in their context would ensure that local people and future residents would have a better understanding of what is proposed and the effect of the changing ground levels.
5.11 The proposal for 4 linked 'villas', comprising a mixture of 4/5 bedroom units and 3 bedroom maisonettes is an unusual arrangement for which we would have liked to have seen some precedents. We think there may be some issues of privacy at the back, which may have been addressed by the introduction of the curved garden wall and pergola. A physical model and larger scale site sections would help explain how these issues would be addressed in the detail.
5.12 We note that the private rear gardens of the linked villas, and the south side of the courtyard will suffer from overshadowing most of the time.
5.13 It is our view that the 6 storey tower makes a positive addition, punctuating the corner of the site and that the sloping site provides the opportunity for a taller building at this end.
5.14 We note that the Arboricultural report identifies several perimeter trees for removal, but these are retained in the plan drawings and the perspective views. We would very much prefer to see the retention of all the mature perimeter trees on this site.
Architectural details:
5.15 We support the excellent landscape elements of the scheme including the photovoltaic cells, green roofs, quiet and formal gardens, raised beds, and summer room.
Page 68
5.16 The planted wall to the internal courtyard could encourage plant and bird species and provide interesting green views to all accommodation on all floors. We would like to know what is the specific construction of this wall and how would it be maintained.
5.17 In particular we note the generous wide corridors outside each apartment with seats for residents to enjoy the view of the courtyard which are based on existing almshouse models. It is the social aspects of this scheme, including the provision of a residents lounge, gardens and summer house that will be of greatest benefit to the residents.
5.18 We welcome the stated future engagement with other local groups who might provide creative activities for residents, and as such we request that the communal lounge is planned with these activities in mind.
5.19 We support the treatment of the boundary wall, which retains the existing fabric but introduces sections of railings to provide better visual connections whilst retaining privacy and security for residents.
Neighbours
5.20 Six replies were received from the occupiers of Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, Blessington Close and 23 Christopher Boone’s Almshouses, together with a letter from outside the Borough on behalf of a resident of the Almshouses, objecting to the development on the following grounds:-
(1) The proposal will cause disruption to the existing residents of the almshouses who will have to be found replacement accommodation.
(2) The height of the proposed buildings greatly exceed the height of the existing almshouses.
(3) The increased number of units represents overdevelopment.
(4) The style and materials proposed are not in keeping with the character of properties in the surrounding area.
(5) The rear gardens of the properties on the south side of Blessington Close will be overlooked by large windows and balconies in the proposed development.
(6) Blessington Road is currently used as a rat run and the increased numbers of vehicles accessing the site from this road is objectionable on highway safety grounds.
(7) The scheme is underprovided with car parking which will lead to traffic hazards caused by increased on-street parking.
(8) As the houses in Blessington Close were specifically designed to protect the privacy of residents in Belmont Hill, who have extremely long gardens, residents of Belmont Close would expect the Council to protect the privacy of their much smaller gardens from over-looking by the new almshouses.
Page 69
(9) Residents have no objection to the almshouses being modernised but not to the detriment of the local area.
(Letters are available to Members)
Design Panel
Pre application Comments .
5.21 The Panel commended the design team at this stage of the design process. The Panel considered the success of the scheme is dependent on achieving a nurturing environment for the residents of the almshouses.
Site layout
5.22 The overall layout was supported, including the ‘villa’ layout of the private housing facing Belmont Park, although there was limited information on this element at this stage.
5.23 The Panel was enthusiastic about the courtyard arrangements and generous associated balcony access for the sheltered housing element. The Panel considered it could be a very interesting social space and an attractive communal area, but would like to see further options for the layout of the apartments which could have a stronger relationship with the communal garden. The Panel was clear however that the development should not become too inward looking but should keep a strong interaction with the public realm/street. Further exploration as to how and where internal living areas could be orientated (towards the communal garden and / or street) to provide more connection with and overlooking of communal areas would be advised. More details of the retaining green wall and how it would provide apartments with enough sun and light is required.
Elevations
5.24 Generally the Panel considered that the roofline needs more definition and although there is potential in the articulation of the piano nobile on the façade (if the concrete and the windows are elegantly detailed) it was suggested that this element has been pushed too far in this case.
5.25 The Panel considered that the south corner building needs further work to make a more exciting and dynamic building on this key corner. The roof line becomes weakest at this corner and the concave corner layout appears introverted. A convex alterative may also provide scope for more floorspace.
Materials
5.26 The Panel was not convinced about brown brick on the lower part of the façade. Further exploration of the materiality is invited.
5.27 For future presentations, the Panel would like to see the boundary treatment illustrated, as it will have an impact on the appearance and provide a historic reference for the site. A model will also be important.
Page 70
The Current Application
5.28 The Panel was concerned about overdevelopment of the site. This would not only affect the quality of the central courtyard but also the private nature of the north facing gardens of the properties proposed along Belmont Park. The Panel considered that the communal courtyard area was mean and inadequate. However, the illustrations on the Design and Access Statement were not large enough to really appreciate the level differences, scale and massing, enclosure and overshadowing of the Almshouses and the courtyard. Better drawings need to be provided for the Panel to make further comments and be convinced that this quality of accommodation and communal open space is adequate. A model of the development and its immediate surrounding would also help clarify the level differences and the way the proposals deal with them.
5.29 Adding to this, the Design Panel considered it was not clear from the plans if the courtyard had a southern entrance and if so, how this would be used. The Panel felt that if this entrance provides the most direct and easy access from the street to the courtyard, this entrance would need to be more celebrated. The landscape strategy seems to be missing and indicative trees on the plan misleading.
5.30 From the illustrations, the Panel was not convinced about the choice of materials. The Panel requested samples of materials.
Highways and Transportation
5.31 Unobjectionable in principle subject to modifications of road markings within the CPZ to reflect the layout of the new development (Grampian condition or Section 106 Agreement required).
Environmental Health
5.32 The acoustic report has found the site to be in category B of PPG24 for daytime and category C for night-time. Appropriate suitable mitigation measures in terms of glazing have been suggested. Fixed plant noise of 10dB below the background noise has also been suggested but the consultant could not confirm the full details of the type of plants to be installed, and therefore, the following is recommended as a condition:
(i) Fixed plant and operational noise condition (i). The rating level of the noise emitted from fixed plant and from the premises on the site shall be 5dB below the existing background level at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at the façade of any noise sensitive property. The measurements and assessments shall be made by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant according to BS4142:1997.
(ii) Development shall not commence until details of the scheme complying with paragraph (i) of this condition have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(iii) The development shall not be occupied until the scheme approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition has been implemented in its entirety. Thereafter, the scheme shall be maintained in perpetuity."
Page 71
Informative
Assessment of the scheme should be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant.
5.33 With regards to the Air Quality Assessments submitted for the above proposed developments, the results from the air quality modelling is satisfactory and it is unlikely that there will be problems with air quality as a result of this development.
5.34 While some minor errors appear in the report, these are not significant and unlikely to change the results greatly. However, the height of the stack serving the CHP unit is given in Table B.1 as being 1.5m and that this was used in the modelling. Please can the consultant confirm the height of the stack and whether the correct height was used in the model. If 1.5m was used, it is likely to give higher predicted results for pollutant concentrations so it will not affect the outcome in a negative way.
5.35 Condition N10 (dust minimisation) should also be applied and the informative on construction included. This should also make reference to the Code of Construction Practice produced by London Councils.
5.36 With regard to potential contamination and the report supplied, the following comments are provided:-
5.37 Agreement in principle that an intrusive investigation should be undertaken providing this fully characterises the site for potential contamination with soil sampling targeting sensitive site areas e.g. proposed private garden and communal landscaped areas.
5.38 Land gas testing should be targeted on areas of the site proposed for the new buildings.
5.39 The current buildings should be assessed for the presence of asbestos containing materials.
5.40 Soils should be sampled and tested for the presence of contaminants in the vicinity of the adjacent electrical sub station.
5.41 Agreement with the report recommendation that a detailed UXO assessment is undertaken.
6.0 Policy Context
Introduction
6.1 In considering and determining applications for planning permission the local planning authority must "have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations" (Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This approach is reflected in PPS 1, where, at paragraph 8 (and again at paragraphs 28 and 31), it is confirmed that, where the development plan contains relevant
Page 72
policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for Lewisham comprises the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) (adopted in June 2011), those saved policies in the adopted Lewisham UDP (July 2004) that have not been replaced by the Core Strategy and policies in the London Plan (July 2011).
Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)
6.2 The development of a site such as this has a wide-ranging policy context covering many national policy statements. Those of particular significance are:
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (2007) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (2010) Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS 5) 2010 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (2011) Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (2004) Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004)
Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth (23 March 2011)
6.3 The statement sets out that the planning system has a key role to play in rebuilding Britain’s economy by ensuring that the sustainable development needed to support economic growth is able to proceed as easily as possible. The Government’s expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.
Other National Guidance
6.4 The other relevant national guidance is:
By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System - Towards Better Practice (CABE/DETR 2000) Planning and Access for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide (ODPM, March 2003) Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention (ODPM, April 2004) Code for Sustainable Homes Technical Guide (DCLG/BRE, November 2010)
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
6.5 This guidance was published in February 2005 and sets out the planning policies for the delivery of sustainable development. It stresses the importance of good design, noting that it is indivisible from good planning. Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing
6.6 PPS 3 sets out how the planning system supports the growth in housing completions needed in England. It indicates the importance of achieving high quality housing and a suitable mix, including affordable housing. The PPS states that housing should be sustainable and linked with public transport provision and lower overall levels of off-street parking. Mixed use development should be
Page 73
promoted where possible with proposals making the best use (most efficient use) of land. The guidance was recently amended to remove domestic gardens from the definition of previously developed or Brownfield land.
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS 5) 2010
6.7 This guidance sets out the Government's planning policies on the conservation of the historic environment. This replaces Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15) published on 14 September 1994; and Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning (PPG16), published on 21 November 1990. PPS5, policy HE9.1 states that: - “Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated asset should require clear and convincing justification’..
PPS 5, policy HE10.1 relates to setting and states:-
“When considering applications for development that affects the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably application that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any negative harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval”.
The London Plan (June 2011)
6.8 Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.5 Public realm Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology Policy 8.2 Planning obligations
Core Strategy (Adopted June 2011)
6.9 Policies relevant to this application are:-
Spatial Policy 1 Lewisham Spatial Strategy Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham
Page 74
Policy 16 Conservation Areas, heritage assets and the historic environment Policy 21 Planning obligations
Unitary Development Plan (Adopted July 2004)
6.10 The saved policies relevant to this application are:-
URB 3 Urban Design URB 12 Landscape and Development URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas. HSG 4 Residential Amenity HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development
Supplementary Planning Documents
6.11 Residential Design Standards (August 2006). Planning Obligations SPG
7.0 Planning Considerations
7.1 Given that the proposed development has not physically changed since the decision taken by Planning Committee (B) in August 2010, that resolution is a material planning consideration, however the proposed development needs to be assessed in the light of the adoption of the Core Strategy and the latest version of the London Plan. The main planning considerations are (a) whether the development is acceptable in urban design terms given the context of the site, (b) whether the proposal would have any detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the adjoining Blackheath Conservation area, (c) whether the proposal would have any detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbours in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight, overlooking or loss of privacy, (d) whether the proposal will have any detrimental impact on highway safety, (e) whether the development is acceptable in terms of sustainability and (f) whether the new accommodation will provide satisfactory living accommodation and whether the provision of affordable housing is satisfactory.
Urban Design
7.2 Core Strategy Policy 15 (High quality design for Lewisham) seeks to ensure that any new development protects and enhances the historic and natural environment creating sustainable and accessible buildings, optimising the potential of the site. The policy also states that the site should be sensitive to the local context and respond to local character. Saved UDP Policies HSG 4 and HSG 5 seek to improve and safeguard the character and amenities of residential areas in the borough and to ensure that new housing is of high quality design.
7.3 Saved UDP Policy URB 3 Urban Design states that the Council will expect a high standard of design in extensions and alterations to existing buildings whilst ensuring that schemes are compatible with, or complement the scale and character of existing development, and its setting. The policy lists a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration, including scale and mass, layout
Page 75
and access, context, delineation of public and private domain (including public routes) and quality of materials.
7.4 This scheme was the subject of extensive pre-application discussions with officers, local residents and amenity societies. As explained previously, the applicant’s strategy for the replacement of its almshouse accommodation in the Borough requires a considerable increase in the number of residential units to be provided on this site. This inevitably means that the proposed buildings will be at a greater scale. However, the context of the site includes Victorian Villas and 1960s blocks of flats which are significantly taller than the existing almshouses. This, and exploiting the fact that the site is located on a natural hill slope, has allowed a design to be evolved which is in keeping with the context of the site. Apart from the Belmont Park entrance, the existing almshouses had no real street presence. By contrast the proposed new development does and in this respect is compliant with policy URB 3 Urban Design in the adopted UDP. Despite the significant increase in the amount of development accommodated on the site, the proposed scheme still retains a significant amount of garden area and soft landscaping. In response to the query raised by the Blackheath Historic Buildings Trust, the applicant confirms that the case copy plans and not the Arboricultural Assessment (dated Sept 2009) are definitive in terms of which of the existing trees are to be retained. The case copy plans show the majority of trees surrounding the site as well as a large Catalpa in the centre of the site as being retained.
7.5 In terms of density, the number of units proposed is equivalent to 125 units per hectare or 390 habitable rooms to the hectare. The average unit size is 3.1 habitable rooms and the PTAL for the site is 2. Table 3.2 Density Matrix (habitable rooms and dwellings per hectare) of the London Plan states that for a site in an urban location where the average unit size is 3.1-3.7 hr/unit, the appropriate density range is 55 -145 u/ha. In terms of habitable rooms to the hectare, 200-450 is indicated as the acceptable range for a site of this type. In terms of units and habitable rooms to the hectare, the development proposal is within the range stipulated in the London Plan. It would therefore be difficult on policy grounds to support the argument that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.
Impact on Blackheath Conservation Area
7.6 The chief impact on the Conservation Area will be from the Belmont Park frontage of the proposed development and the block on the corner of Belmont Park and Middleton Way. The Belmont Park frontage respects the building line, scale and spacing of the surviving Victorian detached houses on this side of the street at Nos. 29-33 (odd). Although contemporary in design and appearance, the new buildings, when compared with the much smaller 1960s buildings, represent a slight improvement to the setting of the Conservation Area. The taller corner block is still considered appropriate in scale and has a neutral effect on the setting of the adjoining Conservation Area. The retention of most of the existing trees on the periphery of the site will also help to soften the impact of the new development and preserve the setting of the Conservation Area. As the Conservation Area comprises a ‘heritage asset’ within the meaning of PPS 5, officers consider that the proposal satisfies policy HE10.1 of PPS 5 which relates to the setting of heritage assets.
Page 76
Impact on Neighbour Amenity
7.7 The applicant has provided an overshadowing analysis which shows that the proposed development will have an insignificant impact on its surroundings. In most cases the overshadowing occurs during early mornings or late evenings when the sun is low on the horizon. The most significant impact is on the side (west) elevation of 14 Blessington Road which adjoins the application site. However, a more detailed study on the impact of the development on any windows in this elevation shows the impact to be slight.
7.8 The plans also include a number of cross sections through the site which compare the mass of the proposed buildings to that of the existing (shown in red). This shows that the block backing onto the houses in John Woolley Close, which are at a higher level, is taller than the existing roof ridge of the existing almshouses by 2- 4 metres. However, the proposed block is located further away from the houses in John Woolley Close. In terms of distances between rear facing habitable rooms, the separation between the houses in John Woolley Close and the proposed block which runs parallel to these properties is between 22 and 19.5 metres. This is greater than the 18 metres minimum separation between rear facing habitable rooms normally applied to new residential development. If the rear balconies to this block are taken into account, this distance is reduced to between 18 metres and 19.5 metres. While this is unlikely to have any adverse impact on privacy to rear facing windows of habitable rooms in John Woolley Close, the balconies at first and second floor level would be 8 to 11 metres from the rear gardens of these houses. Although balconies and roof terraces in new development are encouraged as a means of providing amenity space provision for occupiers of upper floor flats, care must be taken to ensure that the ability of near neighbours to use their gardens without overlooking and loss of privacy is not compromised. In this case the distances are considered acceptable and the balconies in question relate to almshouses for the accommodation of older people.
7.9 Regarding the properties in Blessington Close, these have comparatively short rear gardens onto Blessington Road. In this case the separation between the rear elevations of these properties and the balconies of the nearest blocks on the application site is 23 to 30 metres. The distance between the rear garden boundaries of these properties and the balconies of the new blocks is 16.5 to 23 metres. This distance includes an intervening roadway and the forecourt/front gardens of the proposed development which contains several large mature trees proposed for retention. Officers therefore feel that the proposed development would have no significant adverse loss of privacy or overlooking impact on the Blessington Close houses.
Traffic Parking and Highway Safety
7.10 The 11 spaces proposed for the almshouses (including staff and visitors) compares with only one off-street space in the case of both the existing CBA and MTA sites, which is clearly an under-provision for this type of accommodation. In terms of the 23 spaces for the 26 private sale homes, the maximum provision which would be permitted for this part of the development under policy TRN 26 in the adopted UDP is 37 spaces. This reflects the fact that the majority of these units have 3 bedrooms or more and could, therefore, be provided with 1.5 spaces
Page 77
per unit. In addition, the proposed redevelopment has secure cycle storage for 75 bicycles and 62 electric buggies.
7.11 The application is submitted with a Transport Statement which concludes that the car parking provision is in accordance with adopted policy and considered appropriate for the site location, that the impact of the proposals will not be detrimental to the operation of the local highway network and that development is not expected to have any adverse impact on on-street parking. The Council’s Highways and Transportation Section concur with this view subject to an appropriate Grampian style condition to ensure that the developer reimburses the Council for any amendments to road markings in the CPZ as a consequence of the proposed development.
Quality of Accommodation
7.12 At national level, PPS 1 and PPS 3 recognise the need to develop socially inclusive communities, creating a suitable mix of housing. PPS 3 requires the Council to set a plan-wide target for affordable housing, and targets relating to the mix in terms of social and intermediate housing, size and type. In addition, PPS 3 requires the Council to set a threshold above which developments would be expected to achieve such targets and an approach for seeking developer contributions towards the provision of affordable housing.
7.13 London Plan Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply outlines that the Mayor recognises the pressing need for more homes in London in order to promote opportunities and provide real choice for all Londoners. Policy 4.4 Optimising Housing potential requires development to optimise housing output subject to site constraints and local context. Policy 3.8 seeks to provide Londoners with a genuine choice of homes that they can afford and meet the requirements for different sizes and types of dwellings. The application meets the requirements of this policy by providing a range of housing types including family and a different kind of unique accommodation which is new to the Borough.
7.14 All room sizes comply with the Council’s residential design standards. The almshouses include lift access to wide entrance decks. All the almshouse accommodation will conform to recognised wheelchair standards, with a number of apartments complying in full with the South East London Housing Partnership ‘Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines’ dated May 2008.
7.15 The new almshouse apartments are intended to provide independent living to the elderly residents, but will be built to ‘Extra Care’ standards in terms of size, access and general provision. This is intended to future-proof the development should the residents require additional assistance in the future. The scheme provides a degree of communal facilities including a lounge with kitchen, a summer house, a laundry, buggy store and informal seating areas at all levels. All units are double aspect providing both light and natural through ventilation. They are all accessed from external cloistered walkways at each level, all of which overlook a communal garden area, either the main courtyard or the quiet garden. The walkways are wide and spacious providing opportunities for them to be used and personalised by the residents. To the garden side there are generally planters (at all levels) which will be planted from the outset, but could be supplemented by the residents. There are also protruding balconies which push out beyond the walkways and into the central courtyard. It is intended for these to have loose seating and tables to
Page 78
allow people to meet socially. On the inside face of the walkways, there are bay windows to the dining areas of most of the 2-bed apartments, with planters adjacent to each entrance door, together with fixed seating and lightwells. The garden side of the building has cloistered walkways around three sides of the court and incorporates a communal summer room with toilet facilities. Unlike the existing almshouses the communal areas will have no abrupt changes in level requiring steps or stairs.
7.16 The large family units are designed to be Lifetime Homes, and would allow a member of the family to live at ground floor level with a possible bedroom and wet room located at this level. All of the new homes on the site will be provided with private outside space in the form of a garden, terrace or balcony.
7.17 Officers consider that the residential accommodation proposing a range of accommodation designed for older people, is of a satisfactory standard and in the case of the proposed almshouses, a clear improvement on the existing accommodation at the CBA and MTA sites. To comply with Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency of the Council’s recently Adopted Core Strategy, all new residential development must comply with Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Should Members be minded to grant permission for this development on the basis of the proposed revised Section 106 agreement on affordable housing, a condition requiring compliance with Code Level 4 is proposed.
Affordable Housing and Viability
7.18 London Plan Policy 3.11 Affordable Housing Targets seeks to maximise affordable housing provision. Section F of the policy emphasises the importance of viability of developments. Policy 3.12 Negotiating Affordable Housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes states that the ‘maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing’ should be sought when negotiating on mixed use schemes, ensuring that development is encouraged rather than restrained. Core Strategy policy 1 (CSP 1) states that the Council will seek the maximum provision of affordable housing. Contributions to affordable housing will be sought on sites capable of providing 10 or more dwellings. The starting point for negotiations will be a contribution of 50% affordable housing on qualifying sites across the borough, This would be subject to a financial viability report.
7.19 To ensure a mixed tenure and promote mixed and balanced communities, the Core Strategy states that the affordable housing component is to be provided as 70% social rented and 30% intermediate housing.
7.20 The original submission was accompanied by a financial appraisal that considered the viability of the scheme. As outlined above the originally envisaged funding of the proposal was in part dependent on grant funding from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). Unfortunately, this funding is no longer available at previously envisaged levels and this will impact on the level of affordable housing within the proposed development. However, the Applicant remains committed to delivering the proposed scheme, despite its poor viability. A revised viability report submitted by the applicant indicates that without grant funding the provision of affordable housing is reduced from 31 Units to 2 - 4 units or circa six bedrooms. It is possible that these could be provided off-site. It is still proposed that 31 of the
Page 79
62 almshouses would be subject to the restrictions which previously applied to almshouses managed by the charity.
7.21 In a letter dated 22 February 2012, the applicant’s agents have asked for the following points to be brought to the attention of the Planning Committee:-
‘’We always maintained that the s106 agreement would need to be explicit in stating that the 31 units could only be delivered as affordable housing if £7,700,000 of grant funding was forthcoming from the HCA. It was subsequently confirmed that, if this level of grant was not forthcoming, a proportional cascade mechanism would then be required which allowed the affordable housing obligation to pro-rata up or down.’’
‘’In the period from August 2010 and October 2011, the affordable housing funding picture changed enormously, driven by the Government’s Spending Review in late 2010, and the HCA’s subsequent 2011/15 Affordable Homes Programme announced in February 2011. Grant funding for affordable housing was cut by around 70% per annum from levels of investment available in their 2008/11 programme.’’
‘’During this period, the Applicant’s affordable housing partner, London & Quadrant, bid to the HCA for grant funding to provide the affordable homes on the Site and, whilst they bid for the £7,700,000 initially anticipated, were only able to secure £930,000 based on a £30,000 cap per unit). The pro-rata approach previously agreed would therefore deliver four affordable housing units/equivalent to six bedrooms.’’
‘’The toolkit shows that, even at this reduced level of affordable housing, the schemes viability is very challenged, although the Applicant is committed to delivering the proposed scheme. The Applicant has also indicated that, as an alternative to the provision of four affordable units (1 and 2 bed units, totalling six bedspaces) on site, they would be prepared to agree either:
i) a commuted payment in lieu, which the Council may feel can be better spent provided family units elsewhere; or
ii) the provision of two family units on land which the Charity owns in the vicinity of the site but not comprising part of this current application boundary.’’
‘’Finally, whilst Members may be concerned that the 31 affordable housing units they thought were going to be secured as “affordable” via the s106 were always meant to be subject to a cascade mechanism it is worth reiterating that, whilst the affordable obligation via the s106 is only for four units (or a cash alternative), the balance of the almshouses remain in the ownership of the Applicant, Christopher Boone’s Charity, whose sole object is to let the units under the tight tenancy restrictions as prescribed under the charity’s governing document. This will ensure that at least 31 of the almshouses will be occupied by those meeting the charity’s criteria of being in housing need, as defined below:-‘’
‘’Fifty percent of the homes will be used for the Merchant Taylors beneficiaries, and fifty percent for the Christopher Boone’s beneficiaries.’’
‘’The Merchant Taylors beneficiaries are defined as being people in need by reason of age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage with
Page 80
preference being given to freemen of the Company of Merchant Taylors and their widows, widowers, children or other dependants.’’
‘‘The Christopher Boone’s beneficiaries are defined as being people in need by reason of age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage of not less than 57 years who have been resident in the London Boroughs of Lewisham or Greenwich for not less than 5 years, with a preference being given to residents of the Ancient Parish of Lee in the Borough of Lewisham.’’
‘’The term ‘financial hardship’ is defined by English Law. Any charges levied by the charity must, in accordance with the Governing Document, not “cause hardship” and will therefore, by definition, be “affordable rents.”
‘’‘From our clients perspective, therefore, the occupation of these units would be controlled in any event by the virtue of the charity’s legal objects. However, officers felt that further restrictions via the s106 were necessary.’’
‘’I would hope that, once Members of the Committee are informed of the negotiations and agreements that preceded committee, and the fact that 31 of the other units (35% by unit) on the Site will be let by a Charity in accordance with it’s own legal restrictions to local people in housing need, this will be of comfort to them. In effect, this will deliver at least 31 “affordable” one and two bedroom housing units.’’
7.22 Officers commissioned consultants to analyse and report on the applicant’s financial appraisal. The applicant has agreed to meet the cost of the report. The full document is available to the Committee. The consultant’s findings were as follows:-
Viability Conclusions
4.11 “Our analysis has shown that on balance the assumptions contained within the submitted viability appraisal are reasonable. There are opportunities for certain assumptions to be challenged, notably build cost and private sales revenues, however any potential viability gains are likely to be offset by other areas where the applicant has taken significant commercial views by reducing the required profit margin and ignoring existing use value. We recommend that the submitted viability appraisal should therefore be accepted by the Council.
4.12 The applicant has shown that with 62 alms houses delivered at the stated target rents the scheme delivers a negative residual value of approximately £7.74m. We accept their argument that to make such a scheme viable will require this level of grant or cross subsidy, and as such this scheme cannot support financial S106 contributions.
4.13 We recommend that the Council makes further detailed enquiries of the applicant or its agent to understand precisely how this viability gap is to be met, as we understand that the Council would not wish to grant planning permission based on an exceptional S106 position for a scheme that cannot be delivered.
Page 81
4.14 This does not mean that we accept the applicant ’s argument that the scheme cannot support affordable housing on the basis of the viability appraisal submitted. Indeed to the contrary, the alms houses have been entered into the appraisal at affordable capital values based on rents at affordable levels. The Council should therefore seek assurances that that the alms houses are to be provided at the rent levels stated by the applicant in perpetuity.
The Delivery of Affordable Homes
4.15 The definitions and assessment of whether this scheme provides Affordable Housing in accordance with Lewisham’s policy can be found both in the Planning Committee report and the Toolkit evaluation provided by applicant ’s agent. Affordable Housing includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Affordable housing should: meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices and include provision for the home to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or, if these restrictions are lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.
4.16 Both the Merchant Taylors and Christopher Boone Alms houses provide accommodation that fits within this definition ‘in need by reason of age, ill- health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage’ however, they further restrict access to persons who qualify in accordance with their Charitable aims ‘with preference given to .. residents in the London Boroughs of Lewisham or Greenwich for not less than 5 years’.
4.17 Currently, the Boone Almshouses are managed by Merchant Taylors in accordance with the former’s charitable aims. This would mean that, apart from the residency qualification, Lewisham Residents would have direct access to the properties.
4.18 These Charities are regulated by both the Charities Commission and TSA/HCA and as such would not be able to change use/dispose of/let to other client groups
4.19 In order to secure this provision, and not unduly restrict the Almshouse charitable activities, the Council may get comfort from a loosely worded S106 provision which would set down their basic requirements but give the Alms houses flexibility to develop the scheme with or without grant - along the lines of a minimum of 50% of the properties are be let in perpetuity as affordable housing (in accordance with Borough policy) at no more than affordable rents (as defined).
Conclusion
4.20 The viability appraisal shows a very significant financial deficit which the Council should satisfy itself the applicant is able to meet from other sources, otherwise the scheme as proposed is unlikely to be delivered.
Page 82
4.21 The viability appraisal does not support the applicant’s claim that the scheme is unable to support affordable housing. Indeed, it shows that the alms houses are to be delivered at rents which can be considered as affordable in the Borough. This is the very reason why the substantial viability gap exists. The applicant has not presented a scheme with an alternative private/alms house/affordable mix to demonstrate what would be deliverable without reliance on significant subsidy or cross funding.
4.22 The Council should therefore consider taking legal advice and any further steps it deems necessary to ensure that the units are retained at affordable rental levels. This may require a flexible S106 agreement to be entered in to, or alternatively, the applicant may be able to provide sufficient evidence to the Council ’s legal advisors to demonstrate that the units will be secured as affordable by some alternative mechanism
7.23 The applicants have provided the following response to the consultant’s report:-
We note that the consultant has agreed with the findings of our viability report, in that without grant funding, the scheme cannot provide any affordable housing via a traditional section 106 agreement.
The viability of this development as with any other development should be considered on its own merits, however, the charity is obliged to consider how this project can best be funded for the benefit of its existing and future beneficiaries under the Charities Act 1993. This being the primary objective of the Charity.
In considering this, the Charity has the option of taking a commercial mortgage offsetting the interest and repayments from the rental income, disposal of other investment assets or as likely a combination of both.
With the position on viability now agreed we do not see the basis for a "loosely worded s106 provision". The applicant has remained true to their commitment as part of the original application to provide some affordable housing via section 106, this would reflect the maximum £900k grant that has been secured from HCA and being the 6 beds/2 units either provided on-site, by commuted payment or provided off-site. We therefore assume that your report will detail these potential heads of terms, which we then need to quickly turn into a full s106 agreement.
As we have always maintained the identified 31 almshouse units at affordable rents will be secured by alternative means outside of a section 106 agreement.
The almshouse units are owned and managed by a registered charity, the Merchant Taylors' Boone's Charity (the "Charity") (registered charity number 214262). The Charity's use of the almshouses is governed by a Scheme of the Charity Commission dated 31 December 2010 (the "Scheme"). The trustee’s of the Charity have to ensure at all times (in accordance with the Charities Act 1993 and Trust law) that it acts in accordance with the Scheme.
As such, the assets of the Charity can only be used in the furtherance of its charitable objects (as set out in the Scheme), for the public benefit and for no other purpose. The objects of the Charity are the relief of poverty by the provision of almshouse accommodation for the beneficiaries of the Charity and such
Page 83
charitable purposes for the benefit of the residents of the almshouses as the trustees decide. The Scheme provides that:
50% of the thirty one almshouse units must be occupied by people in need by reason of age, ill health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage with preference being given to freemen of the Company of Merchant Taylors and their widows, widowers, children or other dependents,
and
50% of the thirty one almshouse units must be used for people in need by reason of their age, ill health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage of not less than 57 years who have been resident in the London Borough of Lewisham or Greenwich for not less than 5 years with a preference being given to residents of the Ancient Parish of Lee in the Borough of Lewisham. The trustee may in exceptional circumstances appoint a resident who is not a beneficiary of the Charity (as set out above), but such person must be otherwise qualified (i.e. in need)
A third party cannot require the trustee to use the units for some other purpose and Charity Commission consent would be required if an amendment of the Scheme was sought. The use of the almshouses (as they are charitable assets) are subject to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission and the courts and cannot be used for some other purpose. The jurisdiction of the Charity Commission over charities is set out in the Charities Act 2006 (and in the Charities Act 2011 which comes into force on 14 March 2012).
The charity is also registered with the Tenant Services Authority ("TSA") and is a provider of social housing. The powers of the TSA over social housing providers are set out in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (the "Act"). As a social housing provider, the charity must comply with the regulatory framework set by the TSA and is required under the Act to ensure that the rent charged to residents is below market rate and that the accommodation is available to people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market." The governing scheme also states that the rental levels should “not cause hardship” which equates to what is an “affordable rent” and as such will follow the current and future TSA capped rental levels”.
7.24 With regard to paragraph 4.21 of the consultant’s report, the applicant considers that the restrictions placed upon the charity in terms of the need to retain 31 almshouses on site, means that these units can never be offered at market levels to provide 100% private units across the whole development.
7.25 It is considered that the development would secure a development, including ‘almshouses’ within the Borough suited to the needs of present and future generations. This will replace aging stock within the Borough which is now largely unsuitable for the elderly and infirm. The Grade II listed Merchant Taylors Almshouses in Brandram Road are to be converted to family housing with some sensitively designed in-fill development. None of this housing will be affordable as the proceeds of sale will largely be used to fund the development of the current application site. Although the reduced size of the HCA grant means that 31 of the 62 units can no longer be secured as affordable housing by means of a Section 106 Agreement, the applicant’s status as a charity effectively means that at least
Page 84
31 of the proposed units will be managed in a manner more akin to affordable than market housing. Up to 31 of the remaining almshouses would be let at market rents as retirement homes. The HCA funding which is available does, however, permit a small amount of affordable housing to be provided. Although the applicant has offered to provide the 2 -4 units (6 bed-space) affordable housing provision in a variety of ways, officers consider that on-site provision, outside of the 31 proposed ‘charity’ almshouses, would be preferable. which seeks to achieve a range of housing choice, and with Lewisham Saved UDP policy HSG 5, which requires that all new residential development is attractive, neighbourly and meets the functional requirements of its future inhabitants.
7.26 On this basis the revised provision of affordable housing is considered to be acceptable.
Sustainability
7.27 It is intended that the scheme will comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 and will incorporate renewable energy in the form of a gas fired Combined Heat and Power Plant and photovoltaic cells on the roof of the almshouses. The applicants have submitted an energy options and sustainability strategy which states that these measures will meet the London Plan policy requirement of reducing CO2 emissions from the building by 20%. A green roof on the almshouses will also contribute to the insulation of the buildings, nature conservation and the reduction of rainwater run-off into the drainage system. Although no grey water harvesting is proposed, the proposed private sale ‘villas’ within the development will have rain water butts to collect rain water for garden use. 8.0 Conclusion
8.1 The decision to recommend that planning permission be granted has had regard to the policies and proposals in the London Plan (July 2011), the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (June 2011) and the saved policies in the Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) as set out below, and all relevant material considerations, including comments received in response to third party consultation.
8.2 The Local Planning Authority has considered the particular circumstances of the application against relevant planning policy set out in The London Plan (2011), the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and saved policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004). The Local Planning Authority has further had regard to the Mayor of London’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and Best Practice Guidance, as well as the Local Planning Authority’s Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document (August 2006), Government Planning Policy Guidance and Statements, and all other material considerations, and the obligations that are to be entered into in the planning agreement in connection with the development and the conditions to be imposed on the permission. The Local Planning Authority considers that:
(1) The development of the site is in accordance with London Plan policy 3.8 in respect of housing choice which seeks to achieve a range of housing choice, and with Lewisham Saved UDP policy HSG 5, which requires that all new residential development is attractive, neighbourly and meets the functional requirements of its future inhabitants.
Page 85
(2) The provision of residential accommodation at the density proposed at this site is in accordance with London Plan policy 3.4 which states that development proposals should seek to optimise residential and non- residential output and densities, provide necessary social and other infrastructure to sustain growth.
(3) The proposed dwelling mix and provision of affordable housing, which is controlled by planning obligations agreed as part of the permission, is considered to be the maximum reasonable that can be achieved on this site taking account of targets and scheme viability and the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development in accordance with London Plan policy 3.12 regarding the provision of affordable housing, and with Core Strategy policy 1 regarding housing provision, mix and affordability.
(4) The energy demand of the proposed development has been assessed in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and Core Strategy policy 8 regarding energy and carbon dioxide savings through a lean, clean and green strategy. The CO2 saving achieved is considered acceptable.
(5) The proposed level of cycle parking and associated measures to reduce car use are in accordance with Core Strategy policy 14 regarding sustainable movement and transport.
(6) Consideration has also been given to the objections made to the proposed development, as set out in the report. It is considered that none of the material objections outweigh the reasons for granting planning permission.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 RECOMMENDATION (A)
Authorise officers to negotiate a Section 106 Agreement in respect of the provision of affordable housing as detailed above.
9.2 RECOMMENDATION (B)
Upon completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement, the Head of Planning be authorised to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:-
The standard condition requiring implementation within 3 years to be amended to allow 5 years for the reasons set out in Para. 6.8.5 of the report.
(1) B01 Facing Materials - New Buildings
(2) B09 Plumbing or Pipes
(3) C11 Construction Hours
(4) H12 Provision for Cyclists
(5) L01 Planting, Paving, Walls etc
(6) L08 Trees - Protection during Works
Page 86
(7) N10 Dust Minimisation Scheme
(8) RF1 Refuse Storage
(9) RF2 Refuse Collection
(10) No development shall commence on site until an agreement under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 has been agreed and completed to secure the highways works as shown on drawing no. AA1098/2.0/013_A. The development shall not be commenced until the applicant has secured amendments to the controlled parking zone markings outside the premises to permit the creation of the new vehicular access points detailed in the plans hereby approved.
(11) (i) The rating level of the noise emitted from fixed plant and from the premises on the site shall be 5dB below the existing background level at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at the façade of any noise sensitive property. The measurements and assessments shall be made by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant according to BS4142:1997.
(ii) Development shall not commence until details of the scheme complying with paragraph (i) of this condition have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(iii) The development shall not be occupied until the scheme approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition has been implemented in its entirety. Thereafter, the scheme shall be maintained in perpetuity.
(12) (i) The development hereby approved shall achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes rating of minimum Code Level 4.
(ii) Prior to commencement of development, a Design Stage Assessment undertaken by a suitably qualified Assessor shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to demonstrate compliance with (i).
(iii) Within 3 months of the building being occupied, evidence shall be submitted to demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of this condition, which shall include a Post Construction Certificate issued by a suitably qualified Assessor.
Reasons
(10) & (11)
In order to ensure that satisfactory means of access is provided and to comply with the Policies in Chapter 6 Sustainable Transport & Parking in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
(12) To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally and to comply with Policies ENV.PRO 9 Potentially Polluting Uses, ENV.PRO 11 Noise Generating Development and HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
Page 87
(13) To ensure the development achieves the maximum possible in respect of energy and carbon emissions and to comply with Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011).
Informatives
(1) Construction Sites Code of Practice With regard to Condition (12), the noise assessment of fixed plant and machinery should be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant.
Page 88 Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 90