3 Pioneer Place, New Addington

planning report PDU/2569/02 7 July 2010 3 Pioneer Place, New Addington

in the London Borough of Croydon planning application no. 09/03401/P

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 Outline application for partial demolition of existing buildings; erection of replacement buildings for religious purposes with ancillary facilities. The applicant The applicant is London New Addington Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the architect is John Silver.

Strategic issues The outstanding issues relating to design, inclusive access, energy and transport have been satisfactorily resolved and the application now complies with the London Plan.

Recommendation That Croydon 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 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Croydon 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 – (a) 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 (b) which would involve the construction of a building with a floor space of more than 1000 square metres or a material change in the use of such building.”

2 On 2 February 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2569/01, and subsequently advised Croydon Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 39 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 41 of that report could address these deficiencies.

page 1 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 22 June 2010, Croydon Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 28 June 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 or direct Croydon Council under Article 6 to refuse the application. The Mayor has until 11 July 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

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

Update

5 At the consultation stage Croydon Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 39 the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 41 of that report could address these deficiencies.

6 The following changes were recommended to remedy the deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Urban design: Submit details of the elevations of the proposed building and adequate drawings of the floor plans  Inclusive design: Revise the design and access statement.  Climate change mitigation & adaptation: Submit further information.  Transport & parking: Submit a travel plan.

Urban & inclusive design

7 The applicant has submitted additional elevations and revised the floor plans of the proposed building to address the outstanding issues raised in the Stage 1 report relating to the proposed building’s visual impact on the townscape. The applicant has also amended the landscape plan to demonstrate commitment to inclusive design.

8 The GLA recommends that, at reserved matters stage, all utility rooms located on the south side of the building and the ancillary rooms on the north side of the building should incorporate openings to facilitate natural ventilation and daylight penetration. In addition, the applicant should ensure that the ramps comply with the standards of the BS8300:2009 and the Building Regulation.

Climate change mitigation & adaptation

9 An energy strategy has now been submitted and the applicant has laid out the principles for how the development would be designed and benchmarks have now been used to initially estimate the baseline carbon dioxide emissions as 30-40 tonnes per annum. The proposal sets out a higher than required energy performance of the building envelope. The proposed design achieves a 30% (regulated energy) improvement from the minimum energy requirements of the Building Regulations Part L. 115 sq.m. of photovoltaic cells are proposed and represent a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

10 The Council have agreed to condition the provision of a detailed energy strategy prior to commencement of development which would identify a minimum 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through the use of renewable energy. The application now complies with the London Plan in this regard.

page 2 Transport for London’s comments

11 At Stage 1, TfL raised no significant transport issues in relation to this proposed development, and as such, were satisfied that it generally complied with the transport policies of the London Plan. However, given the high number of car trips expected to be generated, TfL did recommend the submission of a full travel plan for the site.

12 The Council have agreed to secure the provision of a travel plan, prior to occupation of the building, through condition, and as a result, TfL is satisfied that the issues it previously raised have been adequately addressed. Response to consultation

13 Although, a total of six neighbouring properties were notified about the proposed scheme and a notice was placed in the local paper, no responses were received by the Council. Legal considerations

14 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 Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. 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

15 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.

16 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

17 The outstanding issues relating to design, inclusive access, energy and transport have been satisfactorily resolved and the application now complies with the London Plan.

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] Tefera Tibebe, Case Officer 020 7983 4312 email [email protected]

page 3

planning report PDU/2569/01 2 February 2010 3 Pioneer Place, New Addington

in the London Borough of Croydon planning application no.09/03401/P

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

Strategic issues The very special circumstances provided justify the inappropriate development on Green Belt. Concerns remain in regard to urban design, inclusive design, climate change mitigation and adaptation, transport and parking that should be addressed.

Recommendation

That Croydon Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms [delete if not appropriate] the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 39 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 41 of this report could address these deficiencies. The application does not need to be referred back to the Mayor if Croydon Council resolve to refuse permission, but it must be referred back if Croydon Council resolve to grant permission.

Context

28 On 30 December 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Croydon 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 2010 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, 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.

page 4 29 The application is referable under Category 3D of the Schedule to the Order 2008: ”Development – (a) 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 (b) which would involve the construction of a building with a floor space of more than 1000 square metres or a material change in the use of such building.”

30 Once Croydon 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 Croydon Council resolves to refuse permission it need not refer the application back to the Mayor.

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

32 The application site Pinoeer Place, Featherbed Lane, New Addington, (formally known as Greenfields School) has an area of 0.4ha. It is located within Metropolitan Green Belt. The site comprises of five Kingdom Hall meeting room buildings, five bungalows and two flats, together with various ancillary storage and derelict buildings. The application site also includes large car parking areas, landscaped gardens and a playing field as an amenity space. (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Pioneer Place, view to north – with mature landscape setting (source: applicant’s doc)

33 The site is set within a mature landscape setting of hedges and trees, which screen publicly accessible views to and from the adjacent sites, including the listed Addington Pumping Station (north) and New Addington Golf Course (east/south). Part of the New Addington Golf Course is located to the east of the site, which is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

34 The nearest residential properties are located on the opposite side of Featherbed Lane in Silverwood Close at a distance of over 100m. The site is 0.75 miles from Gravel Hill, which provides public transport access via the Croydon Tramlink to Central Croydon.

35 The closest section of Transport for London Road Network is the A22 located over 1km away. The A212, Gravel Hill forms part of the Strategic Road Network and is located 780m north east of the development site. London Buses route T33 provides links to the site and feeds into the Croydon Tramlink network at New Addington in two minutes, the nearest bus stop is located 200m east of the site. The public transport accessibility level of the site is 1, on a scale of 1-6, where 1 represents the lowest level of accessibility.

page 5 Details of the proposal

36 This application seeks an outline planning permission for the demolition of three of the Kingdom Hall meeting room buildings together with most of the other ancillary, storage and derelict buildings and for the construction of two new buildings. All planning matters are reserved except access and layout issues.

37 The primary new building proposed will accommodate three replacement meeting rooms for religious purposes and their necessary ancillary facilities within a single storey envelope. A separate small ancillary building will also provide cycle storage, refuse storage and sound attenuated and screened plant equipment. Should the current proposal be approved, then the applicant has stated that it is willing to revoke the existing planning consent for the Care Home and Courtyard Infill Schemes, thereby maintaining the entire site exclusively with a D1 Use Classification (for religious use with ancillary facilities). Case history

38 The site, formally Greenfields School, was acquired for religious purposes in 1987. In 1989, planning permission was granted for alterations and extensions and in 1995 planning permission was obtained to use part of the site as a residential care home in connection with religious purposes. This permission, which related to the easternmost buildings on the site, lapsed without being implemented.

39 On 10 December 2004 a new planning permission was granted for the demolition of some of these buildings and the erection of a two storey building for use as a residential care home in connection with the primary use of the site for religious purposes. This application was referred to the Mayor in 2000 (PDU/0565). In December 2004, the former Mayor concluded that he was content for Croydon Council to determine the scheme. An application to renew this permission was referred to the Mayor in December 2009 (PDU/0565A). The Assistant Director Planning, acting under Delegated Authority, concluded that the application did not raise any new strategic issues. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

40 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Green Belt London Plan; PPG2  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Inclusive design London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Climate change mitigation London plan; PPS; PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

41 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 2006 Croydon Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

42 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation.  Croydon Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Pre-Submission Stage)

page 6 Green Belt

43 The application site is designated as Green Belt. Policy 3D.9 of the London Plan clearly indicates that Green Belt is to be protected from inappropriate development, and such inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The London Plan also makes clear that London’s growth should be sustainable and not encroach on London’s own precious green spaces (paragraph xi). The reference to “inappropriate development” flows directly from PPG2, which sets out the Government’s policy towards Green Belt.

44 PPG2 identifies the purposes of Green Belt, which are: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict 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.

45 The proposed development is inappropriate as defined by PPG2, the London Plan and Croydon’s UDP policies. The only possible justification to allow this proposal would be if very special circumstances could be demonstrated. There is no definition of ‘very special circumstances’ and each planning application has to be judged on its own merits.

46 The applicant has provided very special circumstances. These include the following:

 Reduction in footprint: The footprint of the existing Kingdom Hall complex development and its ancillary buildings which are to be demolished, together with the footprint area of secured by virtue of the care home consent and the area related to the courtyard infill consent is 2109sq.m. The footprint of the proposed buildings is 1177sq.m. leaving a net overall reduction in built area of 932sq.m. Therefore, the reduction in footprint is acceptable as very special circumstance.

 Established and protected religious use of the site, landscape restoration, protection and enhancement of the derelict land and provision of emergency services area cannot be accepted as very special circumstances as they do not justify the inappropriate development on Green Belt as stated in PPG2 and policy 39.D of the London Plan

47 On balance, the reduction in footprint, which is accepted as a very special circumstance justify the inappropriate development on Green Belt. Urban design

48 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London, and policy 4B.2 seeks to promote world-class, high quality design and

page 7 design-led change in key locations. In addition to Chapter 4B, London Plan policies relating to sustainable design and construction (4A.3) are also relevant.

49 The draft replacement London Plan reinforces these principles, with new development required to have regard to its context, and reinforce or enhance the character, legibility and permeability of the neighbourhood (Policy 7.1).

Context, layout, scale, form

50 The ridge height of the proposed scheme, being 6.37m at its highest point, is considered acceptable, given the proposed increased landscaped buffer and the site being heavily screened by existing trees. The proposed scheme is unlikely to cause any significant adverse visual impact to the existing landscape.

51 The proposed development would involve the demolition of existing buildings, allowing the creation of additional green buffers to facilitate preservation of visual amenity and the character of the site, which is supported.

52 The drawings are inadequate and not to a scale by which the design of the building can be adequately judged. However, the submitted design and access statement does state that total ground floor area of the proposed new hall and its ancillary building to be 1177 sq.m. It also states that the footprint of the existing buildings to be demolished, resulting in a net overall reduction in built area on the site of 932 sq.m.

53 The reduction in footprint is welcomed. However, the design details of the elevations of the proposed building and adequate drawings of the floor plans should be provided in order to assess whether the scheme complies with the design policies of the London Plan. Inclusive design

54 The aim of London Plan Policy 4B.5 is 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. Policies 7.2 and 3.8 of the draft replacement London Plan (2009) reinforce the principles of inclusive access.

55 The design and access statement does not explicitly demonstrate how the principles of inclusive design are incorporated into the scheme. In addition, there are no indicative floor plans to assess the scheme in this regard.

56 As a result the design and access statement should be revised in order that the scheme is compliant to policy 4B.5 of the London Plan and policies 7.2 and 3.8 of the draft replacement London Plan (2009). Climate change mitigation & adaptation

57 The London Plan climate change policies set out in Chapter 4A collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change, and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. London Plan Policy 4A.1 sets out an energy hierarchy for assessing applications, London Plan Policy 4A.3 requires future developments meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, and London Plan Policy 4A.9 promotes and supports the most effective adaptation to climate change. Further detailed policies on climate change mitigation and adaptation are found throughout Chapter 4A and supplementary guidance is also given in the London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG.

page 8 58 The applicant has submitted an Environmental Performance Statement in which some energy efficiency measures have been detailed, as such better than the requirement related to U- values and air tightness. This is welcomed. However, proposals and commitments for energy technologies and estimated carbon dioxide reductions in accordance to Building Regulations part L 2006 compliant development, following energy efficiency measures and using renewable technologies were not discussed.

59 Considering the size and footprint of the proposed development, there are unlikely to be any insurmountable strategic concerns. However, the applicant should submit an estimation of carbon dioxide baseline emissions and estimation of reductions due to the energy efficiency measures and renewable technologies. These requirements should be addressed and the proposed measurements must be conditioned.

Transport for London’s comments

60 TfL considers the overall trip rate methodology appropriate and accepts that due to the nature and location of the development, the impact on the capacity of both the highway and public transport network will be minimal.

61 Given the high car modal split assumed for the site and in line with London Plan policy 3C.3, ‘Matching development to capacity’, draft replacement London Plan policy 6.3, ‘Assessing Transport Capacity’, and TfL’s Guidance for Workplace Travel Planning, such a development requires the submission of a full travel plan. As such, TfL expects the travel plan to be submitted in accordance with TfL’s guidelines in order to promote travel by non-car modes and be secured by condition.

62 Subject to the submission of a full travel plan, TfL considers that this development will accord with the transport policies in the London Plan. Local planning authority’s position

63 Croydon Council officers have yet to confirm their position. Legal considerations

64 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

65 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

page 9 Conclusion

66 London Plan policies on green belt, urban design, inclusive design, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and transport & parking are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Green Belt: The proposal is an inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The very special circumstance provided justifies the proposed development. The scheme complies with PPG2 and London Plan Policy 3D.9 (‘Green Belt’).  Urban design: Design details of the elevations of the proposed building and adequate drawings of the floor plans should be provided in order that the scheme complies with the design policies of the London Plan.

 Inclusive design: The design and access statement should be revised in order that the scheme fully incorporates inclusiveness and be compliant to the London Plan.

 Climate change mitigation & adaptation: The applicant should submit an estimation of carbon dioxide baseline emissions and estimation of reductions due to the energy efficiency measures and renewable technologies. These requirements should be addressed and the measurements must be conditioned.

 Transport & parking: A travel plan should be submitted.

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

41 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:  Urban design: Submit details of the elevations of the proposed building and adequate drawings of the floor plans  Inclusive design: Revise the design and access statement.  Climate change mitigation & adaptation: Submit further information.

 Transport & parking: Submit a travel plan.

page 10