Wornington Green Estate Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report PDU/1994/02 12 March 2010 Wornington Green Estate Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea planning application no. 09/02786 Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The proposal A hybrid application has been submitted for estate renewal of Wornington Green housing estate. The application seeks outline permission for up to 1,000 residential units, 3,104 sq.m. flexible uses (A1, A2, A3, A5 and B1), 1,883 sq.m. community use (D1 and D2) relocation and re- provision of Athlone Gardens (public open space), replacement of market lock ups, new internal roads and up to 733 parking spaces and 1,062 cycle parking spaces. Phase 1 is submitted as a full detailed application and comprises 324 residential units replacement market lock ups and associated parking and new road layouts. The applicant The applicant is Kensington Housing Trust, and the architect is PRP Architects. Strategic issues The principle of estate renewal is supported in strategic planning terms. Key strategic issues regarding affordable housing, affordable housing mix (loss of family housing), urban design, open space and play space, energy, climate change and transport have now been resolved. Recommendation That Kensington & Chelsea Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 4 January 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Kensington & Chelsea 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 1.A, 1B.1b, 1C.1c of the Schedule to the Order 2008: 1A “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats.” 1B 1b) “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings in Central London (other than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres.” 1C1c) “Development which - comprises or includes the erection of a building where…the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.” 2 On 10 February 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1994/01, and subsequently advised Kensington & Chelsea Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 101 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 103 of that report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 2 March 2010 Kensington & Chelsea Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 5 March 2010 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Kensington & Chelsea Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Kensington & Chelsea Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 18 March 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case. 5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 6 At the consultation stage Kensington & Chelsea Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 101 of the above mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 103 of that report could address these deficiencies. Since then the applicant has responded to the points set out in paragraph 101 and 103 and these matters are considered below along with the detail of the draft heads of terms to the section 106 agreement. Hazardous installation 7 The applicant has provided a map confirming the site falls outside the consultation zone of the Gas Holders and is located approximately 650 metres away. Affordable housing Affordable housing quantum 8 At the consultation stage the advice of the independent valuer had been discussed verbally with the GLA and the Council, however, no formal conclusions reached. This has now been agreed and the applicant’s approach in terms of viability is justified in this instance. The proposals, both phase 1 and the development to end state, shows a significant loss and the only circumstance that this regeneration can proceed is on the basis of support from an external funding source. The independent valuer, having tested the cost and revenue assumptions being put forward, upholds this position. 9 Since pre-application the applicant has been discussing the opportunity for grant funding from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). It is understood that the funding has been secured subject to planning permission being granted. 10 The recommendations from the independent valuer includes use of a review mechanism to test viability at a closer point to subsequent phases. This supports the approach adopted by the GLA on other phased development of similar scale and by the HCA, which seek that profits made from a phase of development will be reinvested into the subsequent phases. Any profits made in the last phase will be returned to the HCA. 11 Notwithstanding the above, the Mayor raised concern regarding the loss of habitable rooms at the consultation stage. Policy 3A.15 of the London Plan and policy 3.15 draft replacement London Plan seeks to protect housing and affordable housing. Affordable housing should be replaced at existing or higher densities with at least the equivalent floor space (Paragraph 3.75 of the London Plan and policy 3.15 of the emerging draft replacement London Plan). 12 The Council and the applicant have agreed to the inclusion of a section 106 clause that will protect against any loss of affordable housing floorspace based on a survey of the existing floorspace of the estate. This is consistent with the above policies objectives within the London Plan and emerging plan. 13 The affordable housing offer, in terms of quantum and floorspace has been tested by an independent valuer and will be further tested at each phase of development. Loss of affordable housing floorspace will be protected against within the section 106. GLA officers believe the approach to quantum represents the maximum reasonable amount as justified through the viability submission and secured through the use of a review mechanism within the section 106 agreement. Affordable housing mix 14 At the consultation stage the Mayor raised concern regarding the shift from family accommodation (3bed +) to smaller 1 and 2 bedroom accommodation. The theme within the London Plan, Housing SPG (2005) and the emerging draft replacement London Plan, in particular emerging policy 3.12 (A a) is that priority is given to the provision of affordable family housing. 15 The applicant presents the case that the housing needs of the existing residents dictate the delivery outcome in terms of housing mix. It is agreed that priority should be given to those existing residents on the estate and that they should be re-housed in appropriate accommodation, but not necessarily on the Wornington Estate, unless tenants make the decision they wish to stay. Some may wish to move away from the estate, which is not uncommon. 16 The Council’s policy position is set out in the report to Members. Here the report refers to a requirement a) seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing with a minimum of no net loss of affordable housing, b) guarantee existing tenants an opportunity of a home; and c) require that the mix of house sizes for the re-provided social rented housing will be determined by the needs of the existing tenants and by the housing needs of the borough at the time the application is submitted. 17 The needs of the estate are set out in the desired housing mix proposed. Borough needs identified in the 2009 Strategic Housing Market Assessment are set out below: - 1bed 0% - 2bed 21.4% - 3bed 42.8% - 4bed 35.8% 18 The need for family provision at a borough level clearly outweighs the needs for smaller 1 and 2 bedroom accommodation. Despite this need there is limited consideration given to the borough and regional needs in determining the mix outcome of the proposed development, at this stage. 19 The London Plan seeks to prioritise delivery of family housing and it is expected, on estate renewal proposals, that the Council and the applicant work very closely to identify suitable decant opportunities which would allow those residents in under occupied units to move or be re-housed in more appropriate accommodation elsewhere in the borough, subject to choice.