planning report PDU/1537a/02 6 February 2013 Road,

in the Borough of Barking & planning application no. 11/01015/FUL

Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning () Order 2008

The proposal Erection of 88 five-bed detached houses, one four-bed farm manager’s house and enlargement and enhancement of the community farm, including erection of new farm buildings. The applicant The applicant is Eco Grove Homes Ltd, and the architect is the Zed Factory Ltd.

Strategic issues The scheme rationalises the existing form of development, and provides an enabling residential development for a community farm, restoring the open character and appearance of the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ in line with the NPFF has been satisfactorily demonstrated to outweigh the harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt.

Further justification for the lack of any affordable housing has been provided, and clarification has been provided in relation to design, density, mix, play space; transport/parking, and climate change such that the scheme is now in accordance with the .

The Council’s decision

In this instance Barking & Dagenham Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Barking & Dagenham Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal.

Context

1 On 30 December 2011 the Mayor of London received documents from Barking & Dagenham Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 3D of the Schedule to the Order 2008: ”Development on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan

page 1 Open Land in the development plan, in proposals for such a plan, or in proposals for the alteration or replacement of such a plan; and which would involve the construction of a building with a floorspace of more than 1,000 sq.m. or a material change in the use of such a building.”

2 On 7 February 2012 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1537a/01, and subsequently advised Barking & Dagenham Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 85 of the above-mentioned report.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 30 April 2012, the Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 28 January 2013, following the receipt of further information, it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct Barking & Dagenham Council under Article 6 to refuse the application. The Mayor has until 10 February 2013 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

5 At the consultation stage, Barking & Dagenham Council was advised that whilst the application complied with some London Plan policies, there were areas which were deficient and where further information and justification was required. This was in relation to the impact upon the Green Belt, housing and affordable housing, design, climate change and transport. Addressing each point in turn:

Green Belt

6 At the initial consultation stage, whilst the merits of the scheme, in terms of providing residential development and the re-provided community farm (as well as the rationalisation of existing uses), was welcomed, the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated very special circumstances to justify the impact upon the Green Belt.

7 Since the Stage 1 decision, the NPPF has been published. This reconfirms that the construction of new buildings are deemed to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In paragraph 89, it includes a further exception over and above PPG2, stating that limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development are not inappropriate development.

8 The applicant has provided further justification for the development, clarifying that the quantum of development proposed would generate a payment of £1.2 million towards improvement works to Wellgate Community Farm and other improvements to the land generally. Further views analysis has been submitted, to show that the visual impact of the buildings would be relatively limited. As noted by the Council in its committee report, whilst the scheme would result in an overall reduction in openness, the amount of publicly accessible open space would be increased, given that the farm is open to the public and would increase its landholding by 85%. On balance, it is concluded that the various benefits of the scheme, including the improvements to

page 2 the community farm, clearing the site of existing unsightly development, and providing a Zero Carbon development are such that the harm to the openness of the Green Belt is outweighed and ‘very special circumstances’ have been demonstrated.

9 The draft s106 agreement includes a requirement to provide the land and financial contribution for the Wellgate Community Farm, and that the contribution is made either on development of 30 units, or within 3 ½ years of development commencing. The requirement to complete the development to Code Level 6 has also been secured.

Housing and affordable housing

10 At the initial consultation stage, it was noted that in the absence of any independent appraisal of the applicant’s affordable housing toolkit, the lack of any affordable housing had not been satisfactorily justified. Confirmation that the housing mix would meet local housing needs was also sought.

11 The applicant’s development appraisal has been independently assessed on behalf of the Council. The costs and revenue have been analysed and the consultant confirms that it would be possible to provide a small proportion of affordable housing (15%) if the design of the scheme was decreased from Code for Sustainable Homes level 6 to 4. Given that the carbon neutral nature of the scheme, and that it is intended to provide an exemplary, ‘first of its kind’ development, and that the affordable housing offer would otherwise be low, the scheme as proposed is acceptable in this instance. The Council also note that the Gate area of the borough, which the site is located within, has a high concentration of social rented housing, and is within the 20% most deprived areas in London. The Council concludes that the provision of private housing would assist in creating a better mix of tenure in this part of the borough.

12 In relation to housing mix, the scheme proposes solely five-bed houses. Whilst a wider range of unit sizes would be preferable to accord with policy, the applicant notes that this unit size is necessary to make the scheme viable and that this size of home is lacking in the area. The applicant has confirmed a reluctance to provide a greater range of unit sizes, and whilst of concern to the Council when making its recommendation, it has accepted that this alone would not be sufficient to justify a refusal, when balancing it against the other benefits of the scheme. This rational is accepted, and therefore the scheme is acceptable.

Urban design

13 Whilst the proposal was considered acceptable in terms of layout, scale, height, massing and appearance, initial concerns were raised about some detailed elements of the scheme. This related specifically to the inclusion of blank elevations to the gable ends of some of the buildings. The applicant has subsequently amended the scheme, altering the locations of the entrances, thereby providing more overlooking of the street and communal spaces. This is welcomed.

Climate change

14 At the initial consultation stage, it was noted that the applicant had satisfactorily demonstrated its commitment towards climate change mitigation. Further information was required however, in relation to carbon dioxide emissions and air quality implications of using individual biomass boilers. The applicant has provided further carbon reduction information and quantified the savings against a baseline, and it is accepted that there is unlikely to be opportunities for distributed energy in such a low density development. Savings from measures in the Be Lean and Be Green tiers of the energy hierarchy will achieve the targets. The Clean Air Act will ensure that there are no air quality implications from the biomass boilers, and an informative is proposed to address this.

page 3

Transport

15 At Stage 1, it was advised that the proposed development was unlikely to have a negative impact on the operation of the strategic highway, or public transport network. It was however, recommended that a more restrained approach to car parking should be considered, and that a review of walking routes to local public transport facilities should be undertaken.

16 Additional information has since been received, which confirms that the local pedestrian environment is of an acceptable quality, and that adequate pedestrian crossing facilities are in place to access local bus stops. Conditions have also been secured, requiring details of i) the new vehicular access from Collier Row Road, ii) car parking, iii) cycle parking, iv) electric vehicle charging points (EVCP), v) a construction method statement and vi) a construction logistics plan (CLP), all to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement/ first occupation on site. A travel plan has been secured through the section 106 agreement which is also supported. In summary, the proposed development is in general accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan. Response to consultation

17 The application was advertised by site and press notices and consultation letters, which were sent to 76 neighbouring properties.

18 A total of four responses were received, comprising two objections, one in support, and one seeking further information. The objections are from residents of an adjoining house, with concerns raised regarding the development on Green Belt land, traffic congestion, noise pollution and that the existing sewerage infrastructure is inadequate.

19 Matters relating to impact upon local amenities and residential amenity of surrounding residents are not in this instance strategic planning matters and have been assessed by the Council in the committee report. In relation to the objections raised by local residents in relation to the principle of the use and transport issues, these matters have been dealt with in this and the previous report.

20 Other statutory consultees responded as follows:

 Environment Agency: Raises objections on the grounds that the flood risk assessment fails to demonstrate how sustainable drainage systems would be utilised to minimise surface water run off, and demonstrate that ‘green field’ run off rates would be achieved. The Council has imposed a condition requiring the submission of an amended drainage strategy to address this point.

 Thames Water: Requests conditions regarding submission of a drainage strategy for the site and preventing piling, except in accordance with an approved method statement. Appropriately worded conditions have been secured.

 Natural : Requests further survey works in relation to bats and reptiles. An appropriately worded condition has been secured.

 LFEPA: No response received.

page 4  and Suffolk Water: Notes that a water main crosses the sites and requests a connection to the company network.

 Adjoining boroughs: Redbridge and Havering: no comments received. Legal considerations

21 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the , the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the . The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice.. Financial considerations

22 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

23 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy. Conclusion

24 Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in Barking & Dagenham Council’s committee report, draft section 106 agreement, and its draft decision notice, this scheme is acceptable in strategic planning terms. Further information has been provided, which together with suggested amendments to conditions (and planning obligations), address the outstanding issues that were raised at Stage 1 and the ‘very special circumstances’ for development on the Green Belt. On this basis, and on balance, there are no sound reasons for the Mayor to direct refusal in this particular case.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Samantha Wells, Case Officer 020 7983 4266 email [email protected]

page 5

planning report PDU/1537a/01 7 February 2012 Collier Row Road, Romford

in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham planning application no.11/01015/FUL

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Erection of 88 5-bed detached houses, one 4-bed farm manager’s house and enlargement and enhancement of the community farm including erection of new farm buildings. The applicant The applicant is Eco Grove Homes Ltd, and the architect is the Zed Factory Ltd.

Strategic issues The site is located entirely within the Green Belt and is largely occupied by longstanding but non-conforming developments. Whilst the application seeks to rationalise the existing form of development, and provide an enabling residential development for a community farm and restore the open character and appearance, it is still the case that ‘very special circumstances’ in line with PPG2 needs to be demonstrated to outweigh the harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt

Further justification for the lack of any affordable housing on the site is required, as well as in relation to the density of development and mix of the homes. Clarification is required in relation children’s play space; urban design; transport/parking, and climate change issues.

Recommendation

That Barking and Dagenham Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 85 of this report. The application does not need to be referred back to the Mayor if the Council resolves to refuse permission, but it must be referred back if the Council resolve to grant permission.

Context

25 On 30 December 2011 the Mayor of London received documents from Barking and Dagenham Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 9 February 2012 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan,

page 6 and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

26 The application is referable under Category 3D of the Schedule to the Order 2008: ”Development on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land in the development plan, in proposals for such a plan, or in proposals for the alteration or replacement of such a plan; and which would involve the construction of a building with a floorspace of more than 1,000 sq.m. or a material change in the use of such a building.”

27 Once Barking and Dagenham Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision, as to whether to direct refusal or allow the Council to determine it itself, unless otherwise advised. In this instance if the Council resolves to refuse permission it need not refer the application back to the Mayor.

28 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

29 The 3.97 hectare site is located in Romford to the west of Collier Row along Collier Row Road. The site is located within the Green Belt and is almost entirely surrounded by open fields, except for a small amount of development which has built up along Collier Row Road. This includes industrial units to the north and south of the site and a children’s nursery to the west.

30 Although designated as Green Belt the site is a developed site, unlawfully used for several different uses since the Second World War following the erection of a munitions factory, it now contains detached residential dwellings fronting Collier Row Road, industrial units to the rear, a cattery, kennel, garaging, a car breaking and scrap yard, large areas of hard standing and a community farm.

Figure 1: site location (source: submitted Design and Access Statement)

page 7 Details of the proposal

31 The scheme proposes comprehensive redevelopment of the site, removing the existing buildings on the site and creating an eco-village, with zero carbon housing and a replacement facility for Wellgate Community Farm.

32 In terms of the residential element of the scheme, the application proposes the erection of 88 5-bed detached houses and 4-bed farm manager’s house. The residential footprint would be 6,315 sq.m., with each house being approximately 9.3 metres in height.

33 The community farm comprises replacement of the existing buildings, and provision of facilities including two grazing fields, allotments, a horticultural area, a new classroom, stables, orchard and nursery, pelletiser and a recycling centre. The area of the farm would measure 11,425 sq.m.

Figure 2: site layout plan (source: submitted Design and Access Statement) Case history

34 On 22 June 2010, a pre-application meeting was held with the applicant to discuss the redevelopment of the whole Collier Row Road area for 171 houses, recreation and leisure space, two orchards, a nursery and a relocated and enlarged community farm. At the meeting the applicant was advised that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and ‘very special circumstances’ would need to be demonstrated before any recommendation for approval could be made.

page 8 35 Since then the application site has been reduced to focus on the community farm, kennels, cattery, central industrial buildings and residential dwellings fronting Collier Row Road. The playing field and peripheral open spaces have been excluded from the site, as has some of the surrounding industrial buildings and dwelling houses. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

36 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Green Belt/MOL London Plan; PPG2  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft; Affordable Rent draft SPG; draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan  Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Child play space London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Biodiversity/Geodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; PPS9; draft PPS Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment; draft London’s Foundations (Geodiversity) SPG  Transport London Plan; Assembly draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

37 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the Barking and Dagenham Core Strategy 2010, Development Management Policies 2011 and the 2011 London Plan.

38 The Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan is also relevant material consideration. Green Belt

39 Barking and Dagenham Council’s Core Strategy designates the entire site as Green Belt. Policies 7.16 of the London Plan seek to protect London’s Green Belt. It states, “the strongest protection should be given to London’s Green Belt, in accordance with PPG2. Inappropriate development should be refused, except in very special circumstances. Forms of development that might be appropriate together with high quality management practices that improve access to and/or the environmental and landscape quality of London’s Green Belt, while ensuring it continues to meet its statutory purposes, will be supported”.

40 Planning Policy Guidance 2, ‘Green Belts’ (PPG2) states that the purpose of a Green Belt designation is to check unrestricted sprawl and towns merging into one another; safeguard the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

page 9 assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and urban land. Government guidance states that development is inappropriate unless it is for the following purposes:

 Agriculture and forestry  Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation; for cemeteries; and for other uses of land, which preserve the openness of the Green Belt  Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings  Limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted development plans, which meet the criteria in Annex C of PPG2.

41 PPG2 sets out that “Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” It also notes that “the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt when considering any planning application or appeal concerning such development.”

42 The proposed scheme does not fall under any of the acceptable Green Belt uses, as defined by PPG2, the London Plan and Core Strategy policies. Therefore, by definition the proposed development is inappropriate. PPG2 confirms that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development, except in very special circumstances (para.3.1). Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and it is therefore for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

43 In this case, harm would be evident from the number and density of homes being proposed, the area that they occupy on the site and their visual impact on the openness and landscape character of the Green Belt. The applicant has set out that the very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in this case are that the scheme would result in less harm than allowing the current situation to continue. The applicant concludes that the very special circumstances outweigh any harm for the following reasons:

 Provision of enhanced community farm facilities that no other nearby location can provide, with a long term future secured.  Addressing longstanding historical planning enforcement associated with site, which includes a range of uses and extensive areas of hardstanding.  Provision of high quality family housing, for which there is an identifiable need that cannot easily be met in other locations.  Provision of zero carbon Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 building design in a relatively sustainable location.  The use of renewable energy and water conservation technologies.  Significant improvements in the ecological value of the site.  Opportunity to reduce the level of harm on the Green Belt through a comprehensive redevelopment of the site for family housing, compared with the harm generated by the current uses and appearance of the site.

44 The context of this particular site is that since the 1940’s, it has been developed in an incoherent manner, with a range of uses and development being carried out, some of which has been without the benefit of planning permission. This includes residential buildings and extensions, and industrial, retail, storage and commercial uses, including car breaking and scrap yards, a cattery and kennel. Areas of hardstanding, garaging and overgrown wasteland also

page 10 prevail, and in total approximately 40% of the site is covered in hard standing and buildings. It is understood that the Council has taken enforcement action against some of the unauthorised uses and structures in the past, but this has not resulted in further action been taken to remove them.

45 It is acknowledged that the existing uses and structures harm visual amenity and for the most part, comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt in their own right. The applicant asserts that the proposed development would have a substantial beneficial effect, being less visually intrusive and less harmful on the landscape character of the Green Belt. There is no question that the visual appearance of the proposal would be an improvement over the existing condition and that the rationalisation of the site is beneficial. Furthermore, noting the ribbon-like linear development along Collier Row Road, there is already a continuous urban form in this area and the proposed development would have a neutral impact in this respect. It still remains however, for the applicant to demonstrate that this scheme is the minimum amount necessary to rectify the existing condition of the land.

46 There also remains the fact that the amount of development that would occupy the site overall is similar to existing, and that in fact there is very little difference between the existing and proposed built footprint. Furthermore, the development is spread further across the development site than existing, occupying more of the open space within the site than at present. Thus, although the footprint is similar, the impact on openness is potentially greater because of the increased spread of development. This is most noticeable in the south east part of the site, presently occupied by the cattery and kennel buildings. Such buildings can be typically found in the Green Belt, and the proposed development introduces a more dense residential development, including private curtilages to this corner of the site, which is largely open otherwise. There is also a question as to whether a consistent height and pattern of development across the site potentially has a greater impact than a range of building heights and scales, scattered more intermittently across a site.

47 Again it is noted that the unauthorised uses and industrial development on the site have been allowed to sprawl and are causing harm to the openness and landscape character of the Green Belt. The benefit from having an enhanced community farm being provided is also acknowledged. However, the other points raised about providing high quality and sustainable family housing with renewable energy are not accepted as very special circumstances to justify the departure from strategic policy to protect the Green Belt, as such a standard of development would be expected in any case. Furthermore, paragraph 1.7 of PPG2 emphasises that the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the continued protection of the Green Belt. A key reason for this is that if it were, it has the potential to encourage landowners to deliberately degrade their land in order to justify otherwise inappropriate development. There are many inappropriate uses within London’s Green Belt and to accept that housing in their place comprises very special circumstances could potentially set a precedent. The introduction of unauthorised uses on the site could also be interpreted as an attempt to justify such development.

48 At present, the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the extent of development on the site and its encroachment into Green Belt land. This is particularly the case for the south-east section of the site. Further rationale for the layout and extent of built development is required in order to demonstrate that the minimum amount of development necessary is being proposed and that it has less impact on openness than the existing development. If necessary amendments to the scheme may be required if this cannot be demonstrated. This information should be coupled with a more thorough views analysis, which shows the existing and proposed views from various viewpoints, at a better resolution to enable more thorough assessment in the first instance.

page 11 49 In summary, whilst it is acknowledged that the scheme would consolidate development on the site and regularise the status of the land, whilst also reproviding an enhanced community farm, it remains for the applicant to demonstrate that the scheme would have less impact on openness on existing development and represents the minimum amount necessary to enable the removal of the existing uses, in order to comply with policy 7.16 of the London Plan. Community Farm

50 The proposal includes the re-provision of the existing community farm on a larger site with new and improved facilities. This is strongly supported by London Plan policy 7.22 that states, “the Mayor will seek to encourage and support thriving farming and land-based sectors in London, particularly in the Green Belt”.

51 The community farm is a well used community facility, established in 1982 and run by volunteers on land donated by the Council. It is free to visit and has an estimated 10,950 visitors a year. In addition it is involved in several community initiatives such as:

 Support for 203 adult and 161 junior registered volunteers  A weekly young farmers club for 42 young people  Hands on programmes providing accredited training opportunities for 30 socially excluded or low achieving young people per year  Supported volunteering, work based therapy and accredited training to those recovering from metal illness, drugs/alcohol dependency, long term unemployment or adults with special educational needs  A site for the collection of local recycling, with the farm itself recycling an estimated 52 tonnes per year for uses including animal bedding  Summer holiday discovery for 90 children  School visits  Work experience and placement opportunities for young people from surrounding schools

52 The proposed residential development facilitates the demolition, with the re-provision of the farm being proposed in the first phase of construction. The overall footprint of the principal farm buildings would increase by approximately 50 sq.m. and additional facilities would be provided to enhance the facility, which is acceptable.

53 It will be important that any section 106 agreement secures the implementation of the farm in the initial phase of development and that it be ready for use prior to full occupation of the residential element. Further discussion on this element would be expected before the application is reported back to the Mayor at Stage 2. Housing and affordable housing

54 The scheme proposes 88 family sized detached and semi-detached houses. London Plan policy 3.3 seeks provision of at least an annual average of 33,400 additional homes across London up to 2015/16. Table 3.1 sets annual average housing provision monitoring targets for London boroughs, of which Barking and Dagenham’s is 1,065 units additional homes per year between 2011 and 2021. The proposed development represents 8% of Barking and Dagenham’s annual housing target, and is welcomed in principle, subject to satisfying the Green Belt policies detailed above.

page 12 Affordable housing

55 London Plan Policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes. In doing so each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. This target should take account of the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.11, which include the strategic target that 60% of new affordable housing should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. The Mayor has published an early minor alteration to the London Plan to address the introduction of affordable rent, with further guidance set out in a draft Affordable Rent SPG. With regard to tenure split the Mayor’s position is that both social rent and affordable rent should be included within the 60%.

56 While the Mayor has set a strategic investment benchmark that across the affordable rent programme as a whole rents should average 65% of market rents, this is an average investment output benchmark for this spending round and not a planning policy target to be applied to negotiations on individual schemes.

57 Policy 3.12 is supported by paragraph 3.71, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit or other recognised appraisal methodology is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified. Paragraph 3.75 highlights the potential need for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation.

58 Where borough councils have not yet set overall targets as required by Policy 3.11, they should have regard to the overall London Plan targets. It may be appropriate to consider emerging policies, but the weight that can be attached to these will depend on the extent to which they have been consulted on or tested by public examination. In this instance, following the EiP into Barking and Dagenham’s Core Strategy, the emerging affordable housing policy (CC1) was deleted from the plan. As such, the London Plan provides the policy context in this case.

59 In this instance, the applicant advises that it has completed a toolkit appraisal, which demonstrates that the scheme as it stands is only marginally viable and that on the basis of the cost of re-providing an enhanced community farm and the costs associated with delivering Code 6 development, it is not possible to provide any affordable housing. It also notes that the cost of providing the enhanced community farm means that no further section 106 planning obligations are viable.

60 With no affordable housing being proposed and in the absence of the toolkit appraisal having been provided to GLA officers or any scrutiny of the viability information carried out, at this stage it is not possible to confirm that the scheme is in accordance with London Plan policy 3.12. As acknowledged at pre-application stage, the positive aspects of the scheme, including re- provision of the existing community farm, the retention and enhancement of the existing open space and the openness of the Green Belt are acknowledged and that these are a priority for this particular site. These must however, be balanced against the need to provide mixed and balanced communities and as such further discussion is therefore required in order to understand the repercussions of not providing any affordable housing on site. It would be expected that the Council undertake an independent assessment of the applicant’s toolkit appraisal, in order to verify its findings. Various scenarios should be tested, including the hypothetical repercussions of providing the housing at a lower Code for Sustainable Homes level, or providing a different scale of development for the community farm, for instance. Confirmation of how the applicant has arrived at the costs and revenues for the development need to be fully understood in order to inform discussions regarding the proposal. This information should be shared with GLA officers before

page 13 the application is reported back at Stage 2, to enable further discussion and negotiation to take place, if necessary.

61 Furthermore, given that the applicant intends to carry out the scheme in two phases, it may be that the housing market has improved and the market values of the properties increase to a point where some affordable housing may be viable. As such, it would be appropriate to secure a review mechanism as part of any section 106 agreement, which assesses the viability of providing affordable housing on commencement of the latter phase. Given the land assembly that is required for this development and the applicant’s assertions that the delivery of the community farm also impacts on the provision of any section 106 obligations, it would be expected that the delivery of the farm is secured in the earlier phase of the scheme.

Housing choice

62 London Plan Policy 3.8 and the associated supplementary planning guidance promote housing choice and seek a balanced mix of unit sizes in new developments. The London Housing Strategy sets out strategic housing requirements and Policy 1.1C of the Strategy includes a target for 42% of social rented homes to have three or more bedrooms.

63 This proposal is for 88 five bedroom family homes. Whilst the scheme does not provide a mix of unit sizes as sought by the London Plan, the applicant notes that much of the Council’s housing delivery takes place in town centres where units are generally smaller. Before agreeing that the provision of only large family homes is appropriate in this instance, further discussion with the Council and the applicant would be welcomed, in order to understand whether this could result in affordability issues (by virtue of there only being large family homes) and the impact on providing mixed and balanced communities.

Density

64 London Plan policy 3.4 requires development to optimise housing output for different locations taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity. Table 3.2 provides density guidelines in support of this. The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 2, on a scale of 1-6, where 6 is most accessible. The site is in a somewhat rural suburban setting, and as such, a lower density of housing that reflects the surrounding context would be expected.

65 In this instance, the applicant suggests that the development “mostly accords with the residential density as set out in the London Plan of 15-200 hr/ha, although no details of how this has been calculated has been provided. It would be expected that a calculation would discount the community farm and allotment gardens from the overall site area and as such, the applicant is requested to provide details of the site area for the residential element and confirm the number of habitable rooms. From initial analysis, it appears that the density does exceed the suggested residential density range for such a location, and as such further justification for this would be expected to be submitted, keeping in mind its Green Belt setting and in relation to the surrounding context and scale. Urban design

66 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan, in particular the objective to create a city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods to which Londoners feel attached whatever their origin, background, age or status. Policies contained within chapter seven specifically look to promote development that reinforces or enhances the character, legibility, permeability and accessibility of neighbourhoods by setting out a series of overarching principles

page 14 and specific design policies related to site layout, scale, height and massing, internal layout and visual impact.

67 The proposed development is well designed, creating a permeable environment, providing good quality housing within a zero carbon development. However there are a number of aspects that require further consideration. The following comments and observations refer to these specific aspects and where appropriate suggest how improvements can be made.

Layout

68 Of particular relevance to this proposal is London Plan Policy 7.1, that sets out the requirement for developments to reinforce or enhance the permeability and legibility of neighbourhoods, so that communities can easily access community infrastructure, commercial services and public transport; and London Plan Policy 7.3 that sets out a series of overarching principles to ensure that the design of a development should look to reduce the opportunities for criminal behaviour by maximising activity throughout the day and night, clearly articulating public and private spaces, enabling passive surveillance over public spaces and promoting a sense of ownership and respect.

69 The proposed development is laid out along pedestrian priority streets with detached houses fronting on to them. This traditional approach is welcomed as the buildings provide activity and overlooking on to the public spaces and create a clear threshold between the public and private realm.

70 However, there is concern at locations where the street is primarily flanked by the gable ends of houses and walls to private gardens. Where this is the case consideration needs to be given to ensuring entrances are located from the space with the least overlooking and activity, and that windows are located to provide overlooking on to both public facing sides of the building. This is particularly a concern along the stretches of street between the communal spaces.

71 The proposed communal courtyards are welcomed. They are well flanked by buildings fronting on to them on all sides ensuring they are active and safe making them attractive and usable and likely to be a success. The use of pedestrian priority on all the streets of the proposal is also welcomed. This will ensure that these spaces will act as much as social spaces as spaces for movement.

72 The simple and well connected network of streets with no cul-de-sacs is strongly supported, as this provides a permeable environment.

Scale, height and massing

73 London Plan Policy 7.4B sets out the requirement for buildings to provide a contemporary architectural response to a site whilst having regard to the pattern and grain of development in the wider area. London Plan Policy 7.6B sets out the requirement for development to be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances, activates and appropriately encloses the public realm. The three storey height of the proposed typologies is welcomed, as it is in keeping with the rural character of the area whilst providing good enclosure over the surrounding streets and spaces.

Residential layout

74 The London Housing Design Guide (LHDG) sets out a number of aspirations that will ensure the design and layout of residential developments will be of the highest quality both in their internal design and the impact they will have on the surrounding area. London Plan policy 3.5 sets

page 15 out requirements for the quality and design of housing developments including minimum space standards for new development. In addition, the Mayor has produced a draft Housing SPG (December 2011), which sets out guidance and indicators of quality to supplement the housing policies in the London Plan, drawing on his London Housing Design Guide.

75 The scheme proposes a consistent house type across the development, with a floor area that far exceeds the minimum space standards within the London Plan, which is welcomed. All dwellings would be provided with a private garden and the majority of the Mayor’s guidelines are incorporated, including dual aspect units, storage space, and no solely north facing units. These commitments are welcomed.

Appearance

76 The appearance of the development is characterised by the design of the individual units. They are designed as two storey houses with an inhabited mansard roof. The lower two storeys are clad in wood and the upper storey is painted masonry. Their elevation is a reflection of their energy efficiency measures with a simple, yet playful approach to the detailing, which is welcomed. The Council would be expected to secure the detailed design of the development through conditions. Children’s play space

77 London Plan policy 3.6 requires developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs. Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 120 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for approximately 42 children and provide at least 420 sq.m. of playspace on-site to cater for them.

78 The applicant has submitted a landscape strategy that sets out the public realm, play and recreation provision for the site. A total of 1,750 sq.m. is dedicated to play space and communal food production, and the roads would be treated as a homezone. Generous communal, semi-private and private gardens are proposed and particular attention is paid to ensuring the biodiversity and landscape qualities of the existing site are retained.

79 The applicant’s commitments to providing a high quality residential environment is welcomed, subject to the detailed design and management regime for the public realm being secured by the Council by way of condition. It would also be appropriate to secure details of the play area by way of condition, to ensure that meaningful play space for younger children is provided. Given the remoteness of the site, it is expected that the scheme cater for children across the range of ages, and not just children under-5. The Council would also need to consider the appropriateness of requiring any section 106 obligations in this respect. Access and inclusive design

80 London Plan policy 7.2 seeks to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum), and this and all developments should seek to better minimum access requirements. Policy 3.8 requires that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes standards and that 10% of new housing is designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. Design and access statements should explain the design thinking behind the application and demonstrate how the principles of inclusive

page 16 design, including the specific access needs of people with disabilities, have been integrated into the proposed development and how inclusion will be maintained and managed.

81 The applicant has committed to ensuring that all of the housing is designed to exceed Lifetime Homes standards and detailed plans have been provided, showing turning circles and suitable corridor widths. Rooms are positioned to enable alignment between bathroom and bedroom and there is flexibility for future installation of a platform lift. The applicant is proposing that nine units are allocated as wheelchair accessible, which is acceptable, and these are indicated on the plans, and are suitably located nearest to the road and bus stop. The applicant has demonstrated how the scheme would meet the Mayor’s Best Practice Guidance, which is welcomed. The applicant’s commitments should be secured by way of condition. Biodiversity

82 Part of the site is designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. Policy 7.19 of the London Plan seeks new development to have regard to nature conservation and biodiversity. Opportunities should be taken to achieve positive gains for conservation through the form and design of development. Where appropriate measures may include, creating, enhancing and managing wildlife habitat and natural landscape and improving access to nature. Where development is proposed which would affect a site of importance for nature conservation, the approach should be to seek to avoid adverse impact on the species or nature conservation value of the site, and if that is not possible, to minimise such impact and seek mitigation of any residual impacts.

83 The part of the site that is designated is within the community farm, comprising scattered trees, planted shrubbery, native hedge, grasslands, standing water and horticultural areas. Due to the extensive areas of hardstanding, much of the site has little ecological value.

84 The proposal involves the creation of new ponds, grazing field, orchard and allotments, and the farm area would be retained and extended, thereby helping to secure and enhance the conservation values of the site. There would be remediation of the area for housing, with the introduction of bird and bat boxes, additional planting and improved public access. Subject to suitably worded conditions to secure the applicant’s commitments, the scheme is in accordance with London Plan policy 7.19. Sustainable development

85 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 5 collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures, prioritising decentralised energy supply, and incorporating renewable energy. The policies set out ways in which developers must address mitigation of, and adaptation to, the effects of climate change.

Energy – climate change mitigation

86 Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the London Plan seek to achieve an overall reduction in London’s carbon dioxide emissions through a range of measures including using less energy, supplying energy efficiently and using renewable energy, improving on Building Regulations targets by 25% in the period 2010-2013.

Energy efficiency standards

page 17 87 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include maximising the use of natural daylight and heat recovery. The demand for cooling will be avoided through the effective use of thermal mass and shading features.

88 It is clear that the development will exceed the requirements of the 2010 Building Regulations through energy efficiency alone.

District heating

89 The applicant has not identified any district heating networks within the vicinity of the development. Given the low density nature of the surrounding area and the development itself, it is accepted that connection to a district heating network or establishment of a site heat network is not applicable in this case.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

90 As a site heat network is not proposed or requested for this development, it is accepted that CHP is not applicable.

Renewable energy technologies

91 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install photovoltaic panels, solar thermal panels and individual biomass boilers in each detached house. In order to be satisfied with the details of the biomass element of the scheme, further information on the supply, delivery and storage arrangements for the individual biomass boilers is required. In accordance with the requirements set down in the GLA guidance on planning energy assessments, information on the air quality implications of adopting biomass boilers in this location should also be provided for assessment.

92 The overall reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions, expressed in tonnes per annum and percentage terms, should also be provided.

Climate change adaptation

93 Policies 5.10 to 5.15 of the London Plan set out policies that seek to minimise overheating and contribute to heat island effects; minimise solar gain in summer; contribute to flood risk reduction, including applying sustainable drainage; minimising water use; and protect and enhance green infrastructure. Specific policies cover overheating, living roofs and walls and water and require the inclusion of sustainability measures within developments. Further guidance on this policy is given in the London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG.

94 The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement as part of the environmental statement, which includes relevant BRE and Code for Sustainable Homes and pre-assessments. The applicant states that it is intended that all homes be designed to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6, which is welcomed. This would be ensured through insulation measures, airtightness, passive heat exchange ventilation, water efficient appliances, and an energy roof system.

95 The applicant’s statement sets out a number of techniques proposed to reduce energy consumption and cut carbon emission, using low energy lighting, energy efficient appliances, high levels of insulation, and through passive solar design. Rainwater harvesting butts, together with

page 18 low water use sanitary-ware and fittings will be specified in order to meet target water consumption levels. These commitments are welcomed, and should be secured by the Council as part of any planning permission that is granted. Transport

96 The site is located on Collier Row Road which is a borough road. The nearest sections of both the Road Network (TLRN) - the A12 Eastern Avenue, and the Strategic Road Network (SRN) - the A1112 Whalebone Lane North (southern section), are approximately 1.5 km away to the south of the site. The site is served by two bus routes (Route 362 and 62), with the nearest stops located on the northern section of Whalebone Lane North. The nearest train station is , located almost 4 km from the site. As such, it has been demonstrated that the site records a poor public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 2, on a scale of 1-6, where 6 is classed as excellent.

97 Given the scale and nature of the proposals, it is broadly accepted that the proposed development is unlikely to have a negative impact on the operation of the strategic highway or public transport network.

98 A total of 141 car parking spaces are being proposed for the residential aspect of the development, which equates to 1.6 spaces per unit. Although it is acknowledged that this provision is within the maximum London Plan standards (given that 5 bedroom units are being proposed), it is questioned as to how such a level of parking fits with the ‘eco’ credentials of the site. It is recommended that a restrained approach to parking should be considered in this regard, with sustainable modes of travel to be promoted as an alternative. It is also unclear how many blue badge parking spaces are being proposed for the residential units and this should therefore be clarified.

99 An additional 16 parking spaces are being proposed to serve the community farm, and this level is acceptable. The provision of electric vehicle charging points (EVCP) is being proposed in accordance with London Plan standards and is therefore supported.

100 Two cycle parking spaces per unit are being proposed for the residential aspect of the development, with a further six spaces for the community farm. This is in line with the London Plan standards and is therefore supported. It will be necessary to ensure that these spaces are located in a secure and sheltered location, and that safe and convenient cycle links through the site and with neighbouring existing facilities are in place. Furthermore, information on local cycle routes in the area should be provided to residents of the proposed development through the travel plan, in order to encourage the uptake of cycling as a mode of transport. It is noted that the applicant is offering E bikes to each house, a welcome commitment that should be secured in the section 106 agreement.

101 Walking routes to key facilities such as local bus stops should be reviewed to ensure they are of a sufficient quality. Any improvements identified as being necessary should be secured through any section 106 agreement. In particular, it should be ensured that there is a safe means of access to the local bus stops located on either side of Whalebone Lane North.

102 A framework travel plan for the site has been submitted. It is recommended that this be secured, managed, monitored and enforced by way of section 106 agreement. It should include information on how deliveries to the site will be managed to limit the impact on the local highway network. A construction logistics plan should also be secured for the site by condition.

page 19 Community Infrastructure Levy

103 In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3, the Mayor of London proposes to introduce a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that will be paid by most new development in Greater London. Following consultation on both a Preliminary Draft, and then a Draft Charging Schedule, the Mayor has formally submitted the charging schedule and supporting evidence to the examiner in advance of an examination in public. Subject to the legal process, the Mayor intends to start charging on 1 April 2012. Any development that receives planning permission after that date will have to pay, including:

 Cases where a planning application was submitted before 1 April 2012, but not approved by then.  Cases where a borough makes a resolution to grant planning permission before 1 April 2012 but does not formally issue the decision notice until after that date (to allow a section 106 agreement to be signed or referral to the Secretary of State or the Mayor, for example),.

104 The Mayor is proposing to arrange boroughs into three charging bands with rates of £50 / £35 / £20 per square metre of net increase in floor space respectively (see table, below). The proposed development is within the London Borough of Havering where the proposed Mayoral charge is £20 per square metre. More details are available via the GLA website http://london.gov.uk/.

105 Within London both the Mayor and boroughs are able to introduce CIL charges and therefore two distinct CIL charges may be applied to development in future. At the present time, borough CIL charges for Redbridge and are the most advanced. The Mayor’s CIL will contribute towards the funding of .

Mayoral CIL charging London boroughs Rates zones Zone (£/sq. m.) 1 Camden, City of London, City of , £50 and , , Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond- upon-Thames, Wandsworth

2 Barnet, Brent, , , , Hackney, Haringey, £35 Harrow, , , , , , , Redbridge, , Tower Hamlets

3 Barking and Dagenham, , , Enfield, Havering, £20 Newham, Sutton, Waltham Forest

Local planning authority’s position

106 The Council is presently considering the application and has yet to establish a reporting timeframe or what the officer’s recommendation will be.

page 20 Legal considerations

107 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

108 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

109 London Plan policies on Green Belt, community uses, housing, affordable housing, density, urban design, access, child play space, climate change, biodiversity and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Green Belt: Whilst the re-provided community farm is welcomed, and residential development may be accepted in principle, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that very special circumstances apply in this case; in particular that the replacement development would have the same or less impact on openness of the Green Belt or that it is the minimum amount of development necessary.  Housing: In the absence of an appraisal of the applicant’s financial viability report, it is not possible to establish if the absence of affordable housing is justified, in accordance with policy 3.12 of the London Plan. The residential density of the scheme also needs to be further quantified and qualified in order to be satisfied that the housing output is appropriate to its context, in accordance with policy 3.4 of the London Plan. The residential quality is generally high, in accordance with London Plan policy 3.5.  Urban design: The proposal is welcomed for layout, scale, height, massing and appearance, but design changes are required to address issues in relation to overlooking in particular, in order to comply with London Plan design policies.

 Children’s play space: The proposal provides on-site child play space as part of the comprehensive landscaping and public realm proposals and these commitments would need to be clarified and secured in order to comply with London Plan policy 3.6.  Inclusive design and access: The applicant’s commitment to creating an inclusive environment is welcomed in principle, with commitments to meeting Lifetime Homes standards, together with the provision of 10% wheelchair accessible units in accordance with London Plan policies 3.8 and 7.2.  Biodiversity: the scheme would retain and enhance the conservation values of the site, in accordance with policy 7.19 of the London Plan, subject to suitably worded conditions being imposed on any planning permission.  Energy – climate change mitigation: The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a

page 21 whole. The proposals are broadly acceptable; however, further information is required before the carbon savings can be verified.  Sustainability - climate change adaptation: The applicant’s commitments to climate change adaptation are welcomed, and ensure that the proposal complies with the Mayor’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG and London Plan climate change policies.

 Transport: Whilst the scheme is unlikely to have unacceptable impact on the local highway network, further information and commitments are required from the applicant in order for the scheme to be in accordance with London Plan transport policies.

110 Whilst the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms, on balance, the application does not fully comply with the London Plan.

111 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Green Belt: Further information and if required, amendments are needed to address the impact of the scheme on the openness of the Green Belt.  Housing and affordable housing: Verification of the applicant’s financial appraisal is required to demonstrate that no affordable housing is viable, and confirmation is needed that the housing mix meets the Council’s housing needs.  Urban design: Further consideration needs to be given to the blank elevations that feature along the boundary walls and gable ends.  Climate change mitigation: The estimated regulated carbon dioxide emissions of the development, expressed in tonnes per annum, should be provided at each stage of the energy hierarchy. Additionally, the savings in regulated carbon dioxide emissions at each stage of the energy hierarchy should be stated and further assessment of the air quality implications of using biomass boilers is needed.

 Transport: Further justification for the parking levels is required, together with further information on walking and cycling routes. The applicant’s commitments should be secured through a section 106 agreement and conditions of planning permission.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Samantha Wells, Case Officer 020 7983 4266 email [email protected]

page 22