planning report GLA/3633d/02 20 May 2019 Footzie Social Club, Lower Sydenham in the London Borough of Bromley planning application no.18/05236/FULL1
Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The proposal Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site by the erection of a 4 to 8- storey development with basement parking, comprising 151 residential units together with the construction of an estate road and ancillary car and cycle parking and the landscaping of the east part of the site to form open space accessible to the public. The applicant The applicant is Relta Limited & Dylon 2 Limited and the architect is Ian Ritchie Architects. Key dates Stage 1 report: 11 February 2019 Bromley Council Planning Committee: 30 April 2019 Strategic issues summary Bromley Council has resolved to refuse permission for this application. The Mayor needs to consider whether he should issue a Direction pursuant to Article 7 of the Mayor of London Order 2008 (“the 2008 Order”) that he should be the local planning authority and determine the application or whether he wishes Bromley Council’s decision to proceed unchanged.
Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the committee report, the outstanding issues from Stage I described in this report and the Council’s draft decision notice to refuse the application, there are no sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case and therefore no basis to issue a direction under under Article 7 of the Order 2008.
The Council’s decision In this instance, Bromley Council has resolved to refuse planning permission. Recommendation That Bromley Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct that he is to be the local planning authority.
Page 1
Context
1 On 10 December 2018 the Mayor of London received documents from Bromley Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1A and 3D of the Schedule to the Order 2008: • Category 1A: “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”.
• Category 3D: “Development on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land…which would involve the construction of a building with a floorspace of more than 1,000 square metres or a material change in the use of such a building.”
2 On 11 February 2019, the Mayor considered planning report (GLA/3633d/01), and subsequently advised Bromley Council that the application did not fully comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 76 of the above-mentioned report. A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. 3 Under the provisions of Article 7 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application. A Direction may only be issued where the criteria in Article 7(1) (a) to (c) of the 2008 Order are all satisfied. In deciding whether to issue such a Direction the Mayor must take account of the extent to which Bromley Council is achieving, and has achieved, the applicable development plan targets for new housing, including affordable housing. If the Mayor determines to issue a Direction there is a requirement that the reasons for doing so specify how these matters have affected his decision. The Mayor has until 21 May 2019 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The Council’s draft decision notice includes the following reasons for refusal: • “The proposed redevelopment of this site designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) for residential purposes is considered to be inappropriate development in principle. The applicant has failed to demonstrate very special circumstances or that the proposal is a sustainable form of development. In particular, the substantial level of harm that would arise from the development by way of harm to the MOL and visual harm is considered to outweigh any housing land supply or other socio-economic benefits that would arise or the benefits of opening up public access to the MOL and enhancing its landscape. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2018) and Policy 7.17 of the London Plan (2016), Policy 50 of the Local Plan (2019).”
• “This site is considered to be an inappropriate location for tall buildings as it fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy 47 of the Bromley Local Plan. Furthermore, the proposal by virtue of its scale and massing, number of single aspect units, adverse impact on the landscape and failure to improve or enhance the character of the area fails to provide a scheme of outstanding design and architectural merits. The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site. This is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2019), Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan, Bromley Local Plan Policies 4, 37, 47, 48, 50, 77, The Mayor's Housing SPG and SPG1 Good Design Principles and SPG2 Residential Design Guidance.”
5 The decision on this case and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.
Page 2
Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority
6 In order to exercise the power to direct that he is to be the local planning authority and to determine a PSI application (within categories 1 and 2 of the schedule to the Order 2008), the Mayor must be satisfied that certain statutory tests set out in article 7 of that Order are met. These tests relate to a decision as to who the decision maker in respect of the application should be, and not whether planning permission should ultimately be granted or refused.
7 The relevant statutory tests comprise the following three parts, all of which (subject to paragraph 15 below) must be met in order for the Mayor to take over the application:
a) the development or any of the issues it raises must be of such a nature or scale that it would have a significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan.
b) the development or any of the issues it raises must have significant effects that are likely to affect more than one London Borough; and
c) there must be sound planning reasons for issuing a direction.
8 Parts (a) and (b) of the test concern the impact an application would have on the Mayor’s policies and the geographical extent of the impact, whilst part (c) deals with the overall planning reasons for the Mayor’s intervention. These tests are intended to ensure that the Mayor’s powers of intervention are exercised only in respect of the most significant of applications which are referred to him.
9 As set out above, the application is for up to 151 residential units. Article 7(4) of the Order sets out that where a development falls within Category 1A of the Schedule, namely that over 150 residential units will be delivered, part (b) does not apply. As such, only parts (a) and (c) of the statutory tests are engaged in respect of the present application.
10 Moreover, article 7(3) of the 2008 Order requires the Mayor, when considering whether to exercise his power to become local planning authority in respect of a PSI application, to take account of certain matters. Where the proposed development falls within Category 1A of the Schedule to the 2008 Order, the Mayor is required to take account of the extent to which the relevant Council, has achieved their targets for new housing including affordable housing, and in respect of all categories of PSI application, the Mayor is required to take account of whether the Council has achieved any other relevant development plan targets.
11 This report considers the extent to which the statutory tests under Article 7(1) are met and whether, having regard to the matters to which the Mayor is required to take account pursuant to article 7(3), the Mayor should direct that he is to be the local planning authority. This report does not consider the merits of the application, although consideration has been given to the key planning issues in so far as is necessary in applying the statutory tests in Article 7(1) as set out below.
12 With regards to test (a), the site has the potential to contribute towards London’s housing supply, with the proposed 151 units representing 24% of Bromley’s annual housing target of 641 under the current London Plan or 11% 1,424 under the draft London Plan.
13 Regarding housing need and sypply in Bromley, the inspector’s report following the Examination of the Bromley Local Plan was published on 11th December 2018. This report approved the Council’s policies on housing and affordable housing, with the modifications considered to be sound. The Bromley Local Plan was adopted on the 16th January 2019 and the 2017 5 Year Housing Land Supply document formed part of the Local Plan. In line with the NPPF, an updated 5 Year Housing Land Supply document was published on 4th April 2019. The Council does have an up-to-date Local Plan and
Page 3 a 5-year housing land supply and these documents were subject to robust examination by the Planning Inspectorate for the Secretary of State.
14 Turning to test (c). It is acknowledged that the proposals potentially offer strategic planning benefits, would make a significant contribution to housing delivery and affordable housing in Bromley. Notwithstanding this, having regard to the details of the proposal and the draft reasons for refusal, and the fact that Bromley can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, it is considered that in this instance there are no sound planning reasons to intervene in this case. As a result there is no basis to issue a direction under Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Issues raised at consultation stage
15 Notwithstanding the above, when considering whether to take over the application it is also relevant for the Mayor to have regard to the following planning issues which were raised at consultation stage. In this context, it should be noted that at this stage the Mayor is only considering whether to intervene by becoming the local planning authority. The Mayor is not at this stage required or being invited to reach any decision on the overall merits of the proposal and whether or not to grant planning permission. The planning issues identified at consultation stage (set out at paragraph 76 of the Stage I report) were identified as follows: • Metropolitan Open land: The proposal constitutes inappropriate development within Metropolitan Open Land and ‘very special circumstances’ had not been demonstrated to outweigh the harm by virtue of inappropriate development or any other harm. • Affordable housing: An affordable housing offer of 36.2% by habitable rooms, with a tenure split of 58% social rent and 42% intermediate was supported in principle subject to the applicant exploring grant and the provision of genuinely affordable homes in accordance with the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG. An early viability review mechanism would also need to be secured in the Section 106 agreement. • Urban design: While the scale of development had been reduced and the layout amended, the height, mass, and density would harm the openness and quality of the MOL. • Energy: Further revisions and information including investigating alternatives to CHP, overheating and cooling demand, heat demand and photovoltaic installation were required before the carbon dioxide savings can be verified. Any remaining regulated CO2 emissions must be met through a contribution to the borough’s offset fund. • Drainage: Further details on the proposed SUDs system would need to be submitted and water consumption managed in accordance with London Plan policies. • Transport: The proposal is broadly acceptable from a strategic transport perspective; however, changes are required in respect of cycle access and parking, and detailed conditions / obligations required in relation to bus stop improvements, travel planning, car club, delivery and servicing and construction logistics, EVCPs and residents’ on-street parking permits restrictions. Update
16 Since consultation stage, no further information or amendments have been made by the applicant to the scheme pursuant to the issues raised at Stage 1.
Page 4
Principle of development – Metropolitan Open Land
17 The proposals constitute inappropriate development in the MOL as it does not fall within any of the categories deemed appropriate development in the MOL as defined by paragraphs 145-146 of the NPPF. Therefore the development would by definition cause harm to the MOL. As set out in paragraph 143 of the NPPF, inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances (VSC). Furthermore, in accordance with paragraph 144 of the NPPF, substantial weight must be given to any harm to the MOL. VSC would not exist unless potential harm to the MOL by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
18 At Stage 1 the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that there are VSC, individually and collectively, to justify the inappropriate development on MOL or any other harm arising from the development. Since Stage 1 the applicant’s VSC has not changed and the harm to the openness of the MOL as identified in the urban design section of the report has not been addressed. As such, the proposals do not comply with the NPPF, London Plan Policy 7.16 and draft London Plan G3 and therefore the scheme remains unacceptable in principle. Playing fields
19 Further up-to-date evidence to demonstrate that there is no current or future demand for sports pitches in the area in order to justify the loss of sports playing pitches was requested at Stage 1. In the absence of such evidence, the loss of these playing fields has not been adequately justified and therefore the proposals would still not comply with the provisions of London Plan Policy 3.19 and draft London Plan Policy S5. Affordable housing
20 The affordable housing offer of 36.2% by habitable room with a 58:42 split in favour of social rent was considered acceptable in principle at Stage I. However, in order to confirm full Fast Track Route compliance further information was requested including: the affordable housing products proposed to ensure that the affordable housing offer comprises genuinely affordable homes; evidence that the applicant had sought grant funding to increase the affordable housing offer beyond 35%; and securing an early implementation stage review within the s106 in accordance with the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG, draft London Plan Policies H6 and H7 and the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 14. This information remains outstanding. Urban design
21 The urban design issue raised at Stage 1 related to the visual prominence of the massing when viewed from the main expanse of MOL to the south-east of the site. As a consequence, the scale of development would alter the quality of its openness of this part of the MOL. Openness is an essential characteristic of MOL, as defined within paragraph 133 of the NPPF. Therefore this change in quality would in itself constitute ‘other types of harm’ (paragraph 144) to the MOL which would need to be weighed against VSC. No changes have been made to the scheme in order to address this issue, therefore as stated above the proposals do not comply with the NPPF, London Plan Policy 7.16 and draft London Plan G3.
Page 5
Environment
Energy
22 The applicant has submitted an energy strategy in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and draft London Plan Policy SI2. An on-site reduction of 189 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development is expected, equivalent to an overall saving of 71%, which does not meet the required zero carbon target. Further revisions and information were requested at Stage 1 including investigating alternatives to CHP, overheating and cooling demand, heat demand and photo voltaic installation are also required before the carbon dioxide savings can be verified. Any remaining regulated CO2 emissions must be met through a contribution to the borough’s offset fund. However, this information has not been provided therefore the scheme does not comply with relevant London Plan Policies, draft London Plan Policies or the Mayor’s Environment Strategy.
Drainage
23 Further information and amendments were requested at Stage 1 including evidence of greenfield rate calculations methods; green roofs shown on drainage plan; and the inclusion of SuDS in the development and how it would be maintained before compliance with London Plan Policy 5.13 and draft London Plan Policy SI.13 could be confirmed. This information remains outstanding. Furthemore, the proposed development does not comply with London Plan Policy 5.15 and draft London Plan Policy SI.5 as the applicant has yet to commit to meeting the water consumption targets as set out in these policies. Transport
Cycling
24 The applicant was requested to submit a cycling environmental review system (CERS) audit or similar to identify any required improvements to the cycle links in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.3 and draft London Plan Policy T4. To improve safety and convenience for cyclists in line with London Plan Policy 6.9, the applicant was also asked to investigate a contraflow cycle lane on the access road (south westbound) for those accessing the site from Worsley Bridge Road. Further detail was also requested in relation to access to the cycle stores to ensure compliance with London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS). This information is still outstanding and therefore the scheme does not comply with these respective policies.
Parking
25 The development proposes 260 ‘long stay’ cycle parking spaces, with 50 spaces for visitors. This level is compliant with London Plan policy 6.9, but requires an additional 10 spaces to accord with draft London Plan Policy T5. The applicant was required to revise the layout of the cycle parking so that it accords with London Cycle Design Standards.
Bus stop enhancements
26 The following conditions and Section 106 obligations would need to be secured as part of any planning permission:
• The 20% active and passive Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) to be secured by condition;
Page 6
• Residential permit restrictions should be enforced in the event a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) is put in place;
• Car club spaces and memberships was also required to be secured through the s106 agreement;
• A financial contribution of £30,000 was required to improve pedestrian accessibility to the nearest bus stops on Worsley Bridge Road;
• The Travel Plan must secured through the s106 agreement; and
• A construction logistics plan and a delivery and servicing plan would need to be secured by condition in line with London Plan Policies 6.3 and 6.14.
Response to consultation
27 As part of Bromley Council’s consultation exercise the neighbouring properties were notified, site notices were posted and the application was advertised in local press.
Neighbourhood response
28 The Council received 14 letters of objection which are summarised as follows: • The scheme does not provide adequate affordable housing for local people; • Insufficient family sized units/ affordable units. • Would provide a high concentration of single aspect units; • The scheme is excessively dense; • The applicant has not demonstrated VSC as Dylon phase 1 is not fully occupied; • The submission does not seek to address the strain placed on already struggling local infrastructure; • The application site makes an important contribution to the MOL and the appreciation of it from within the surrounding area; • The development would have an adverse impact on the surrounding MOL; • The benefits of the scheme would not outweigh harm to the MOL; • The existing activities on site are dangerous and the Council need to enforce against them; • There would be a reduction in wildlife and plant habitat as a result of the development; • Concerns regarding surface water flooding on site and in the wider area; • The development would increase flood risk in the area; • The flood risk mitigation measures proposed are inadequate; • The development does not respect the scale and character of the surrounding area; • The proposal would be more suited to a densely populated area; • The proposal would result in an uneven skyline and be visible from its surroundings; • The scheme would result in a loss of openness; • The public open space would not be used by people other than residents of the development; Page 7
• The amended scheme does not justify inappropriate development in the MOL; • The noise from nearby industrial uses has not been addressed within the scheme; • There is inadequate infrastructure in terms of public transport and doctors; • The café/ gym approved within Dylon Phase 1 have not been delivered; • No night buses and inadequate train capacity to cope with the development; • Access to the site is poor; and • Poor security at Dylon 1.
Responses from statutory bodies and other organisations
Sport England
29 Objects to the development as the proposals would result in the loss of playing fields on this site. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate lack of local need. The management of the proposed outdoor gym should be given further consideration.
Network Rail
30 No objection raised subject to the works not encroaching on Network Rail land or adversely affecting the company’s railway or infrastructure. No building should be within 2 metres from Network Rail’s boundary. Details of piling works should be submitted to Network Rail for their approval. A fence and curb should be installed to prevent vehicles from driving onto the railway. No surface water should be discharged or run-off onto the Network Rail’s property. The surface water drainage including maintenance and external lighting details should be submitted and Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineer’s shall be consulted. The developer should contact Network Rail prior to any works commencing on site, and also to agree an Asset Protection Agreement with them to enable approval of detailed works.
Historic England – archaeology
31 The proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest.
London Borough of Lewisham
32 No comment.
Secure by Design
33 To ensure the full benefit of secured by design principles, a secured by design condition should be attached to this application. The proposal could achieve secured by design accreditation. A number of security concerns and areas would need to be addressed and it would be beneficial to liaise with a design out crime officer to ensure a safe and secured environment can be provided.
Thames Water
34 Waste comment: A positive pumped device (or equivalence reflecting technological advances) should be installed. Should there be discharge of ground water to the public network a Groundwater Risk Management Permit would be required from Thames Water. A petrol / oil interceptors should be fitted in all car parks. No objection would be raised if sequential approach is
Page 8 followed for the discharge of surface water drawing. No objection to the waste water network and waste water process infrastructure capacity.
35 Water Comment: No properties shall be occupied until confirmation has been provided that all water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed; or a housing and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with Thames Water to allow additional properties to be occupied. Where a housing and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed housing and infrastructure phasing plan.
Environment Agency
36 A scheme of compensatory floodplain storage works is required to be submitted and approved. The applicant should identify flood protection measures required to prevent flooding during construction. A contamination remediation strategy should be submitted should contamination be found that has not previously been identified. Written consent is required from the Council for surface water infiltration. Piling works shall be agreed in writing with the Council. Additional enhancements to the river, riparian zone and public open space may be possible.
Response to the consultation - conclusion
37 Should the Mayor take over the application for his own determination, the consultation responses, and the issues raised within them, will be fully considered as part of GLA officer’s assessment of the application. Legal considerations
38 The Mayor has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In order to issue a Direction and to act as the local planning authority the Mayor must be satisfied that the criteria set out in Article 7(1) of the 2008 Order are all fulfilled. In determining whether these criteria are fulfilled the Mayor is required to have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3). He is also required to provide reasons for his decision. Those reasons must specify how the matters set out in Article 7(3) have affected his decision. Financial considerations
39 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any approval of details applications (unless the Council agrees to do so).
Conclusion
40 Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the committee report and the Council’s draft decision notice it is concluded that there are no sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case and therefore no basis to issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order 2008.
41 Should a scheme be considered at appeal or a revised application submitted; the applicant should have regard to all outstanding issues identified in this report and the GLA Stage 1 report (GLA/3633d/01) and the conditions and section 106 heads of terms should be secured for any future planning permission as appropriate.
Page 9
For further information contact GLA Planning Team: Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 020 7983 4271 email: [email protected] John Finlayson, Head of Development Management 020 7084 2632 email: [email protected] Matt Christie, Team Leader – Development Management 020 7983 4409 email: [email protected] Hannah Thomas, Strategic Planner, Case Officer 020 7983 4281 email: [email protected]
Page 10