planning report D&P/3003d/02 8 January 2018 Whitgift Centre and surrounding land, Croydon in the London Borough of Croydon planning application no. 16/05418/OUT
Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.
The proposal Outline application for retail-led, mixed use development of up to 507,571 sq.m. comprising retail and related uses; leisure; residential (626-967 Build-to-Rent units); student accommodation or hotel; community facilities; offices; residential amenity space and public realm; alteration of existing and creation of new basements, underground servicing and car parking; alteration to existing and creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access into the site; utility and energy generation facilities; infrastructure and associated facilities, temporary works and structures.
The applicant The applicant is Croydon Limited Partnership, and the architect is Leonard Design Architects
Key dates Pre application meeting: July 2016. Stage 1 report: 16 January 2017. Croydon Council Committee meeting: 14 November 2017.
Strategic issues Principle of development: The principle of the development, which will promote the regeneration of Croydon and will secure a wide range of infrastructure improvements, is strongly supported. Clarification has been provided on student and retail uses (paragraphs 9-11). Affordable housing: An increase in affordable housing from 17% DMR to 20% London Living Rent/DMR provision has been secured, which has been demonstrated as the maximum level. Early, mid stage and late stage review mechanisms have been secured in accordance with policies H6 and H13 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (paragraphs 12-19). Transport: Transport mitigation measures have been secured through public funding of infrastructure and developer contributions (paragraphs 32-38). Issues relating to urban design, heritage, inclusive access and climate change have also been addressed with amendments and suitably worded conditions (paragraphs 20-31).
The Council’s decision In this instance Croydon Council has resolved to grant permission.
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 or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.
page 1
Context
1 On 28 October 2016 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 Categories 1A, 1B, 1C and 3F 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: 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 - outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres. • 1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building in respect of which one or more of the following conditions is met: a) the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London. • 3F: Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the provision of more than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use.
2 On 16 January 2017 the Mayor considered planning report D&P/3003d/01, and subsequently advised Croydon Council that the application did not fully comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 105 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address those 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. On 14 November 2017 Croydon Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, and on 6 December 2017 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 the Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to the Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application. The Mayor has until 19 December 2017 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) Regulations 2011 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.
Consultation stage issues summary
6 At the initial consultation stage, Croydon Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out below. The Council was advised that the resolution of these issues could lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan.
Land-use: Further details and discussion is required with regard to affordable retail and student residential accommodation. The applicant should provide an assessment of demand for student accommodation that includes analysis of the supply and demand for purpose built student accommodation in the South London sub-region. Affordable student accommodation should be secured.
page 2
Transport: The development will generate approximately 30 million visitors a year requiring significant upgrades to transport services and public realm. Tram and bus capacity mitigation measures along with highway access and walking and cycling improvements on the surrounding network are required. Other issues relate to rail stations, car parking, cycle parking and blue badge parking. Housing: Delivery of homes in the build to rent sector with on-site delivery of discount market rent units is supported. The applicant’s approach to viability information is unacceptable. The proportion of affordable housing should be clarified along with the level of discount and the viability information should be rigorously interrogated in an open and transparent manner. Urban design: Various refinements to the design guidelines required to secure matters related public routes and realm, wind mitigation and massing. Strategic views and heritage assets: The illustrative scheme should be rendered in views 11 and 25 to fully assess the impact on the Grade I Whitgift Almshouses.
Inclusive design: The Galleria route should be clutter-free and further information is required in relation to accessible lift access. Shop mobility should be provided for people arriving from public transport and pedestrian routes. The illustrative design of the tapering ramp at the Poplar Walk entrance is not acceptable and should be revised.
Climate change mitigation: The comments in the energy strategy section should be addressed in accordance with the London Plan. Strategic planning policy and guidance update
7 On 1 December 2017, the Mayor published his draft London Plan for public consultation.
Update
8 Since Stage 1, GLA officers have reviewed further information, including revised plans and detailed viability information, and engaged in joint discussions with the applicant, the Council, and TfL officers with a view to addressing the above matters. Furthermore, as part of Croydon Council’s draft decision on the case, various planning conditions and obligations have been proposed to ensure that the development is acceptable in planning terms. Land use principles
9 As set out in the GLA’s Stage 1 report, the current application represents an evolution of an earlier retail-led redevelopment scheme granted outline permission in 2014. The extant permission established the principles of redevelopment for town centre uses and residential accommodation. The proposed development will facilitate the regeneration of Croydon Town Centre and is strongly supported in this respect. The principle of the development is therefore supported in accordance with the London Plan and the draft London Plan.
10 At the initial consultation stage, the applicant was requested to provide further details on the potential student accommodation, and details on affordable retail units. In response, the applicant has confirmed that the student accommodation element is only a potential option at this stage, as is the potential inclusion of a hotel; a maximum of 20,684 sq.m. of hotel or student accommodation (but not both) could be delivered within one of the towers, in lieu of residential floorspace. Should the student accommodation option be pursued, the draft s106 includes a clause which secures the submission of a viability assessment prior to any reserved matters applications for student accommodation; this would secure the provision of the maximum viable amount of affordable student accommodation, noting the
page 3 requirements of draft London Plan Policy H17 that at least 35% of all purpose-built student accommodation is affordable.
11 Having regard to affordable retail provision, it is proposed that 750 sq.m. of the shopping centre floorspace would be used for smaller kiosks for independent retailers. This is supported in accordance with Policy E9 of the draft London Plan, which states that large scale commercial development proposals should support the provision of small shops and other commercial units. Affordable housing
12 At Stage 1, the applicant’s financial viability information had not been made available to the GLA. The applicant had at that stage made an affordable housing offer of 17% of all residential units to be discount market rent (DMR) at 80% of market rent; however, in the absence of detailed viability information it was not possible for officers to determine whether this offer represented the maximum reasonable amount, and this was unacceptable. The applicant was required to provide the GLA with viability information in order for officers to fully assess the proposals, and in order to conform to the principles of openness and transparency as promoted within Policy H6 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing & Viability SPG.
13 Following extensive negotiations since Stage 1, the applicant has provided the GLA and the Council with full viability information for both the residential and commercial elements of the proposals. The Council has had this information independently reviewed, and this independent report has also been provided to GLA officers. Additionally, public versions of all reports (redacting commercially sensitive information) have been provided; this satisfies the requirement for transparency in the assessment of viability information.
14 The 2014 consented scheme secured 15% affordable housing (10% on site and 5% off site) as part of a traditional “for sale” scheme with the affordable element split 60/40 between affordable rent and intermediate. The current proposals are for a wholly Build-to-Rent scheme (PRS).
15 As noted above, the applicant has prepared two viability assessments relating to the residential and commercial elements of the scheme. The applicant’s residential FVA for the current scheme concluded that the development was technically unviable with 17% affordable housing. Having reviewed both appraisals, GLA officers identified key areas of disagreement with the inputs assumed by the applicant, particularly surrounding the size of the residential area which has been used to determine the benchmark land value, the build costs/fit out costs, profit levels and market rent levels; these matters led to an understated GDV and overstated development costs. On this basis, GLA officers concluded that the scheme was viable at 17% and could deliver 20% affordable housing with improved affordability. Following further discussion and negotiation with the applicant and the Council, an increased affordable housing contribution of 20% has accordingly been secured, split 40% at London Living Rent levels, and 60% Discount Market Rent. This has been confirmed by the Council’s independent assessor, and by GLA officers, as the maximum level of affordable housing within this development on a current day basis in accordance with Policy 3.12 of the London Plan and is in line with Policies H6 and H13 of the draft London Plan.
16 Review mechanisms are key to potentially increasing the affordable housing offer in this case and on this basis the draft s106 agreement has secured an early viability review, a mid-term review (prior to commencement of the fourth residential tower), and a late stage review (at 75% occupation of the residential units). The draft section 106 review mechanisms have been closely scrutinised by GLA officers, and these are in line with draft London Plan Policy H6 and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG.
17 In summary, through a rigorous assessment of viability it has been demonstrated that the scheme is currently delivering the maximum amount of affordable housing. Given the increased minimum quantum of affordable housing, the improved affordability of the affordable element, and
page 4 review mechanisms that have been secured in the S106 agreement, GLA officers are satisfied that the scheme complies with draft London Plan Policies H5, H6 and H13, the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG, and London Plan Policy 3.12.
18 Additionally, following further negotiation between GLA officers and the applicant, the s106 agreement reflects affordability requirements for the DMR and LLR units, ensuring that affordable units are available to households with a maximum income of £60,000.
19 In accordance with Policy H13 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG, the draft s106 ensures that the PRS units are subject to a minimum 15- year covenant; should any units be sold out of PRS tenure within the covenant period, a clawback mechanism is secured, calculated in accordance with the Mayor’s SPG. Design
20 At the initial consultation stage, the approach to the design, height and massing of the scheme was generally supported. Refinements were required to the design guidelines which will determine the detailed design of the proposals at the reserved matters stage, to ensure the highest quality design. Additionally, further rendered views were requested to fully assess the proposals’ impact on the Grade I listed Hospital of the Holy Trinity/Almshouses.
21 Matters relating to the permeability and clutter-free nature of the Galleria, the individual character of the threshold spaces and wind mitigation within these spaces, and the slenderness and vertical emphasis in the design of the residential towers, have been addressed in revised design guidelines submitted by the applicant in March 2017. The Design Guidelines, which have been secured by condition, now provide sufficient detail and clarity to ensure high design quality within the detailed proposals. The proposals comply with the design policies in chapter 7 of the London Plan and Policies D1-D8 of the draft London Plan. Heritage
22 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a statutory duty on planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings. Section 72 requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF advises that where a proposed development will result in less than substantial harm, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF advises that where there is substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.
23 As requested at Stage 1, additional information was submitted by the applicant in March 2017 (within the Built Heritage Addendum of the Supplementary Environmental Information Report) which provided additional context to the views and the relationship of the scheme to the Grade I Listed Almshouses. GLA officers have reviewed this information and are satisfied that the scheme would enhance the setting of this heritage asset at the minimum development parameters proposed. At the maximum parameters, the scheme would introduce significant additional massing viewed from within the courtyard of this development, causing some further disruption to the roofline silhouette which contributes to the significance of these buildings. Although this causes some harm, this is less than substantial and is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal as outlined in paragraph 25 below.
24 The development to the south side of Poplar Walk will also impact on the setting of the Grade I listed St Michael and All Angels Church, particularly at its maximum parameters. However, the setting of the church is currently compromised by the poor urban design and poor quality public
page 5 realm on Poplar Walk, and the proposed development will bring about significant and transformative improvements to this environment which will enhance the setting of the listed building. Overall, the harm caused by the additional scale of built form in proximity to the church is considered less than substantial, and is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
25 The proposals will involve the demolition of two buildings at 96-98 and 114-118/120-126 North End which are recognised as positive contributors to the Central Croydon Conservation Area, and as such their loss is considered to result in “substantial harm” to heritage assets. The demolition of these buildings is necessary to achieve the proposed development on this site, which will deliver significant and wide ranging public benefits by acting as a catalyst for the regeneration of Croydon town centre, with the provision of a large number of jobs, homes (including affordable housing) and the provision of infrastructure. The scheme also has significant benefits in terms of urban design, transforming and improving legibility and public spaces in the town centre. In this context, the public benefits are considered to decisively outweigh the harm caused by the loss of these heritage assets and the proposals meet the tests within paragraph 133 of the NPPF, and comply with Policy 7.8 of the London Plan and Policy HC1 of the draft London Plan.
Inclusive design
26 At Stage 1 the applicant was requested to address the design of the tapering ramp at the Poplar Walk entrance and provide further information regarding lift access throughout the shopping centre. Provision for shop mobility services at public transport hubs was also requested.
27 The applicant has confirmed that in line with the access strategy submitted with the application, lifts will be distributed throughout the centre to provide convenient alternatives to escalators. A final access strategy, fully addressing inclusive access principles, will be submitted at the detailed design stage. The access ramp from street level to the entrance pedestal level is part of the illustrative proposals and the detailed design to demonstrate how the proposals can appropriately address the level change will be submitted with the reserved matters applications. The Design Guidelines, which are secured by condition, include a commitment to ensure that all pedestrian routes have a maximum gradient of 1:20 and a minimum clear width of 1.5 metres. The provision of a shop mobility scheme is welcomed, and is secured by planning condition. The location of the shop mobility services will be finalised as part of the reserved matters applications and a planning condition on the draft consent requires the location to be proposed and assessed at this stage.
28 The residential units would provide 10% wheelchair accessible housing in accordance with the requirements of Part M4(3), which would be secured by condition. Subject to further detailed development in line with the proposed planning conditions, the proposals comply with London Plan Policy 7.2 and draft London Plan Policy D3 on inclusive design.
Climate change
29 The applicant has provided a response to the issues raised at Stage 1. Given the outline nature of the planning application it is proposed to address matters relating to the detailed design at the reserved matters stage. The requirement for further analysis on overheating will be addressed as part of a condition requiring the submission and approval of an overheating risk assessment, which has been secured by the Council.
30 The applicant has confirmed that connection to a district heating network is not feasible at this stage given that the network will not be delivered before the completion of the commercial areas, however the development has been designed to connect to a district network in the future, and this is secured as a planning obligation within the draft s106 agreement.
page 6
31 Whilst the further use of renewable energy has been investigated by the applicant, the use of PV panels would not result in significant carbon savings due to the area of roof which would be taken up by plant equipment. The proposals meet the London Plan’s 35% on-site regulated carbon reduction targets through energy efficiency measures. In order to meet the zero-carbon target, a carbon off-set payment has been secured within the draft s106 agreement. Based on current information, the payment would be £2,272,450, but this could be revised if the final submitted energy strategy includes additional carbon savings. The proposed development thus complies with the energy policies of the London Plan, and Policy SI2 of the draft London Plan.
Transport
32 The GLA’s Stage 1 report identified the need for significant further work in respect of transport mitigation, transport capacity and access. Following extensive discussion and submission of further information on capacity and transport impact modelling, Council and Transport for London officers are now satisfied that the transport impacts of the proposal can be mitigated, subject to appropriate s106 obligations and conditions which have been secured as part of the draft planning permission.
33 Since Stage 1, the applicant has been engaged in extensive work with TfL to update the VISSIM modelling, and it is now agreed that these models appropriately assess the impacts of the development and can be used to inform subsequent detailed design stages.
Public funding of infrastructure
34 Public funding sources, amounting to £56 million (£46 million from Growth Zone funding and £10 million from the GLA’s Housing Infrastructure Fund) would provide for the following infrastructure mitigation and improvements:
- improvements to tram services (in particular the Dingwall Loop scheme or suitable alternative tram improvements); - improvements to the bus network and bus stops/ stands; - improvements to accessibility at West Croydon station; - improvements to highways serving the Croydon Opportunity Area (including highway works (including pedestrian and bus priority at junctions), street furniture, hard and soft landscaping, signage and lighting etc.); - improvements to the wider highways network at junctions around the COA; - provision for coach parking; - improved provision for cyclists; - provision of variable messaging signage in the town centre; - improved provision of infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of carbon emissions
35 Additionally, the applicant is required to fund improvement works to Wellesley Road as part of a section 278 agreement with the Council, facilitating access to the development. This obligation and the above public infrastructure measures address the items identified for funding in the GLA’s Stage 1 report. The draft s106 agreement prohibits the commencement of the development until funding for the public infrastructure measures is secured, and also prevents the occupation of or trading from the development prior to the completion of the Wellesley Road, Park Lane, Poplar Walk, George Street and North Walk public infrastructure works. A Public Infrastructure Measures Agreement is currently being drafted to which TfL, the GLA and the Council will be signatory, and will secure allocation of public funding from the Growth Zone and Housing Infrastructure Fund to delivery of the public infrastructure measures. This will ensure that the development’s impacts on transport and highways are appropriately addressed as well as securing wider improvements to infrastructure that will benefit Croydon Opportunity Area.
page 7
36 Having regard to car parking, although the level of parking exceeds London Plan and draft London Plan maximum standards, the proposed level is in conformity with the recommendation in the Croydon Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) for the retail core and as such is accepted in this instance.
37 Conditions have been secured in the draft planning permission, including travel plans, London Plan compliant cycle provision, restrictions on car park spaces and a car park management plan, construction logistics plan, disabled parking and monitoring, access arrangements, car club spaces, electric charging points and delivery and servicing plans
38 In summary, the s106 obligations, public infrastructure measures and the conditions included on the draft planning permission ensure that the transport impacts of the development can be acceptably mitigated. The proposed development is therefore in general accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan and the draft London Plan.
Response to consultation
39 Croydon Council publicised the application through 22 site notices displayed in the vicinity of the site and press notices in the local press. Notification was carried out when the application was originally submitted on 27 October 2016 and again after the receipt of additional information (on 2 March 2017). A total of 18 responses have been received as a result of public notification, comprising 16 responses in objection and two in support. The responses in objection raised the following issues:
- Overdevelopment, inappropriate scale and massing. - The detailed design needs to consider the design of advertising and security grilles in order to prevent loss of visual amenity. - Negative impact on heritage assets and archaeology. - Lack of public green space within scheme. - Further assessment of affordable housing levels is required. - Traffic and highways impacts, including potential for congestion on Wellesley Road and impact of servicing. - Proposals should maintain an active street frontage to the town centre. - Potential adverse wind impacts - Adverse impact on air pollution from additional traffic. - Loss of light. - Existing shopping centre should be maintained.
40 Responses in support highlighted the regeneration benefits of the proposal and the boost to Croydon town centre. 41 The following statutory bodies commented on the proposals: • Health and Safety Executive: no comments to make. • Historic England: The demolition of two buildings which are positive contributors to a conservation area causes some harm which must be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal. Careful consideration must be given to the impact of the taller and bulkier elements in relation to the setting of the Grade I listed Almshouses which could cause harm to the setting of these buildings. HE question whether the proposed massing at the north edge of the site to Poplar Walk enhances the setting of the Grade I listed church. • Historic England (Archaeology): request condition to require an investigation to be undertaken to ensure no harm to archaeological interest (condition included in draft decision notice). • Natural England: no comments to make
page 8
• London Borough of Lambeth: no objection • London Borough of Bromley: no objection • Reigate and Banstead Borough Council: no objection • Environment Agency: no objection subject to conditions (requested conditions are included in the draft decision notice) • Lead Local Flooding Authority: no objection, subject to conditions (requested conditions are included in the draft decision notice, and/or will be addressed at reserved matters stage as appropriate) • Thames Water: no objections, subject to conditions and informatives in relation to surface water drainage, water and waste (conditions have been included in the draft decision notice)
• National Air Traffic Services: Development could interfere with radar signals and must be mitigated (a condition requiring a radar mitigation scheme has been included in the draft decision notice)
• Network Rail: no objections to the application
• Metropolitan Police: Conditions suggested on secure by design measures and management of the centre, and informatives on counter-terrorism matters (conditions and informatives have been included in the draft decision notice)
• Gatwick and Heathrow Airport Safeguarding: No objection.
• Mid-Croydon Conservation Area Advisory Panel: Question the outline nature of the proposals. There should be no demolition of buildings in the conservation area prior to full details of the replacement buildings being known. Concerns raised regarding the increased height, bulk and massing of the proposed buildings. Proposals will exacerbate wind effects. Concern regarding congestion on Wellesley Road
• Victorian Society: Object on the basis of harm to Grade I listed church of St Michael and All Angels.
• The Whitgift Foundation: Support the application.
Consultation conclusion
42 Having considered the above consultation responses, Croydon Council has provided specific responses within its committee report and proposed various planning conditions and section 106 obligations in response to the issues raised, where applicable. Having had regard to this, GLA officers are satisfied that the statutory and non-statutory responses to the Council’s consultation process do not raise any material planning issues of strategic importance that have not already been considered at Stage 1, and/or in this report.
43 In relation to the statutory tests regarding harm to heritage assets, as noted in the initial consultation report, and as outlined in paragraphs 21-25 of this report and discussed in detail in the Council’s committee report, it is concluded that the harm to heritage assets is outweighed by public benefits detailed above, including the substantial regeneration benefits for the town centre.
Direct representations to the Mayor of London
page 9
44 The Mayor has received direct representations from one member of the public, and from Greg Hands MP, which raise concerns with the delay to the determination of the application and requesting that the project is allowed to commence as soon as possible to enable the regeneration of Croydon.
Draft Section 106 agreement
45 The draft section 106 agreement includes the following provisions: • Affordable housing as set out above, comprising a minimum of 20% of all residential units delivered as affordable units (split 60:40 DMR/London Living Rent levels); • Early, mid point and late stage review mechanisms in line with the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG; • Obligation to enter into Highways Agreements to undertake highways and public realm works (or £4 million payment should development not be completed); • Use of architects from an agreed list; • Entering into s278 agreement for highways works (including junction improvements, pedestrian crossings, tram priority, bus lanes, bus stops and shelters, new accesses, cycle parking, reprofiling of underpass, new pedestrian and vehicle layouts, provision for taxis, new street furniture and hard and soft landscaping) to Wellesley Road and Dingwall Road; • Provision of 15 car club spaces and 3 years’ membership for residents in the development; • Local employment and training strategy (£2.5 million contribution); • Funding of air quality mitigation measures identified in the Air Quality Action Plan (£100 contribution per residential dwelling); • Financial contribution towards carbon off-setting to achieve zero-carbon development (£2,272,450 contribution based on current information, figure could be revised following submission of further carbon off-setting measures at Reserved Matters stage); • Public art strategy (non-financial obligation); • Future proofing development for connection to district heating network; • Deferred contribution (ensuring a minimum CIL contribution of £30,117,268); • S106 monitoring fee (£1,500 per S106 Head of Term).
46 Additionally, the s106 agreement includes provisions prohibiting commencement of the development until funding for the public infrastructure measures is secured, and also prevents the occupation of or trading from the development prior to the completion of the Wellesley Road, Park Lane, Poplar Walk, George Street and North Walk works.
Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority
47 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at consultation stage, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations
48 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. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application. 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
page 10 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. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations
49 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government Planning Practice Guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.
50 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.
51 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion
52 The strategic issues raised at consultation stage regarding land use principles, affordable housing, inclusive design, transport, air quality and climate change, have been appropriately addressed, and conditions and section 106 obligations secured. As such, the application complies with the London Plan and the draft London Plan and there are no sound reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this case.
for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Juliemma McLoughlin, Assistant Director - Planning 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Sarah Considine, Senior Manager - Development & Projects 020 7983 5751 email [email protected] Shelley Gould, Strategic Planning Manager 020 7983 4803 email [email protected] Katherine Wood, Principal Strategic Planner, Case Officer 020 7983 5743 email [email protected]
page 11