PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 26 March 2015

PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In this part of the agenda are reports on planning applications for determination by the committee.

1.2 Although the reports are set out in a particular order on the agenda, the Chair may reorder the agenda on the night. Therefore, if you wish to be present for a particular application, you need to be at the meeting from the beginning.

1.3 Any item that is on the agenda because it has been referred by a Ward Member, GLA Member, MP, Resident Association or Conservation Area Advisory Panel and none of the person(s)/organisation(s) or their representative(s) have registered their attendance at the Town Hall in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (paragraph 3.8 of Part 4K – Planning and Planning Sub-Committee Procedure Rules) the item will be reverted to the Director of Planning to deal with under delegated powers and not be considered by the committee.

1.4 The following information and advice applies to all reports in this part of the agenda.

2 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The Committee is required to consider planning applications against the development plan and other material planning considerations.

2.2 The development plan is:

• the London Plan July 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) • the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies April 2013 • the Saved Policies of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan April 2013 • the South London Waste Plan March 2012

2.3 Decisions must be taken in accordance with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the Committee to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application; any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application; and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Committee to make its determination in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations support a different decision being taken.

2.4 Under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects listed buildings or their settings, the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses. 2.5 Under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a conservation area, the local planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

2.6 Under Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for any development, the local planning authority must ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees.

2.7 In accordance with Article 31 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010, Members are invited to agree the recommendations set out in the reports, which have been made on the basis of the analysis of the scheme set out in each report. This analysis has been undertaken on the balance of the policies and any other material considerations set out in the individual reports.

2.8 Members are reminded that other areas of legislation covers many aspects of the development process and therefore do not need to be considered as part of determining a planning application. The most common examples are:

• Building Regulations deal with structural integrity of buildings, the physical performance of buildings in terms of their consumption of energy, means of escape in case of fire, access to buildings by the Fire Brigade to fight fires etc. • Works within the highway are controlled by Highways Legislation. • Environmental Health covers a range of issues including public nuisance, food safety, licensing, pollution control etc. • Works on or close to the boundary are covered by the Party Wall Act. • Covenants and private rights over land are enforced separately from planning and should not be taken into account.

3 PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE

3.1 In accordance with Policy 8.3 of the London Plan (2011) the Mayor of London has introduced a London wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to fund Crossrail. Similarly, Croydon CIL is now payable. These would be paid on the commencement of the development. Croydon CIL provides an income stream to the Council to fund the provision of the following types of infrastructure:

• Education facilities • Health care facilities • Projects listed in the Connected Croydon Delivery Programme • Public open space • Public sports and leisure • Community facilities

3.2 Other forms of necessary infrastructure (as defined in the CIL Regulations) and any mitigation of the development that is necessary will be secured through A S106 agreement. Where these are necessary, it will be explained and specified in the agenda reports. 4 FURTHER INFORMATION

4.1 Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.

5 PUBLIC SPEAKING

5.1 The Council’s constitution allows for public speaking on these items in accordance with the rules set out in the constitution and the Chair’s discretion.

6 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

6.1 The background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 6 are generally the planning application file containing the application documents and correspondence associated with the application. Contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419) for further information. The submitted planning application documents (but not representations and consultation responses) can be viewed online from the Public Access Planning Register on the Council website at http://publicaccess.croydon.gov.uk/online- applications. Click on the link or copy it into an internet browser and go to the page, then enter the planning application number in the search box to access the application.

7 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 The Committee to take any decisions recommended in the attached reports.

PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 26th March 2015

PART 6: Planning Applications for Decision Item 7.1

1 APPLICATION DETAILS

Ref: 14/01255/P Location: Addington Palace, Gravel Hill, Croydon, CR0 5BB Ward: Heathfield Description: Retention of marquee structure Drawing Nos: AL (10) Rev. A Applicant: Mr John Power, Addington Palace Events Ltd Agent Dr Robert Wickham, Howard & Partnership LLP Case Officer: John Asiamah

1.1 This application is being reported to Committee because the Director of Planning and Building Control has requested Committee consideration.

2 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

• Addington Palace is a Grade II* Listed Building, a Grade II Registered Park and Garden, it is within the Green Belt, within a Local View, an Archaeology Priority Zone and close to Addington Village Conservation Area, a Local Area of Special Character and a Nature Conservation Area. Addington Palace is owned by the Council.

• A marquee has been in place for around 18 years, previously permitted on a temporary basis but now unauthorised since the last temporary permission expired in 2011. The intention behind the marquee was to allow for a more permanent long-term development project to come forward for the site. An acceptable permanent long-term project has not come forward and no meaningful discussions are taking place with the applicant. The temporary period applied for is 20 years which is considered excessive.

• The retention of the marquee would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which there are no very special circumstances.

• The marquee is large and has a negative impact on the setting of Addington Palace, positioned close to the main building and both its size and materials detract from the appearance of the Listed Building. English Heritage do not consider the enlargement and retention of the existing marquee represent ‘regularisation’ in this instant, and regard the time span applied for as excessive and perhaps unprecedented.

• The site of Addington Palace is within a Grade II Registered Park and Garden. One of only two in the Borough. The marquee has a harmful impact on this important heritage asset and on the wider character and appearance of the area.

• The long-term future and condition of the listed building will need to be weighed against the harm that would be caused to the open character of the Green Belt, the Listed Building, the registered Park and Garden and other material planning considerations.

• The proposal would have no undue impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers, parking, pedestrian, highway safety, the existing mature trees and nature conservation interests.

3 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The marquee is inappropriate development, for which there are no very special circumstances sufficient to justify its harm to the Metropolitan Green Belt. The marquee is harmful by reason of its form, size, siting and appearance, together with its wider impact on the character of the area, and its harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It is contrary to Policy SP7.2 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013), Policy RO1 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013, Policy 7.16 of the London Plan and Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The form, size, siting and appearance of the marquee harms the appearance and setting of a Grade II* Listed Building and a building on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest and would thereby be contrary to the NPPF, Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan, Policies UD2, UD3, UD11 and UC10 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 and Policies SP1.1, SP4.1 and SP4.2 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative

1. Removal of site notices 2. CIL liable if allowed on appeal 3. Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning.

3.1 That the Director of Planning also consider the expediency of taking enforcement action.

4 PROPOSALS AND LOCATION DETAILS

Proposal

4.1 Temporary planning permission is sought for the retention of the marquee for a further period of 20 years.

4.2 The marquee measures approximately 28m-50m in width, 10m-35m in depth and 3.5m-6.5m in height. A marquee has been in place to the rear of It has been in place to the south-east of Addington Palace since 1997. It comprises glazing, aluminium cladding and fabric covering.

4.3 The marquee is used in connection with the main building for functions including wedding receptions, corporate launches, gala dinners and award ceremonies.

4.4 It was erected without planning permission and although temporary planning permission was granted in 1998 for 2 years when the structure was replaced by a larger structure, and again in 2007 for a further 4.5 years, for the remainder of the time the structure has been unlawful. The latter period for which there was a temporary permission was linked to a legal agreement, put in place to bring about a long term solution for the future of Addington Palace. The proposal at that time included extensions to the main building. The legal agreement comprised a timetable for the delivery of the additional permanent development, in turn leading to the removal of the temporary marquee. The terms of the legal agreement were not met by the applicant.

Site and Surroundings

4.5 The site and/or adjoining land have the following designations:

• Grade II* Listed Building • Metropolitan Green Belt • Grade II Registered Park and Garden • Within a Local View • Archaeology Priority Zone • Adjacent to a Site of Nature Conservation Importance • Bishops Walk is a Local Area of Special Character • Addington Village Conservation Area lies nearby

4.6 Addington Palace is an 18th Century, Grade II* Listed Building set within vast landscaped grounds, accessed via a long driveway off Gravel Hill (A212). Addington Palace is owned by the Council. The site was previously leased to the Royal School of Church Music by the Council between 1953 and 1995. A separate lease was granted to Addington Palace Golf Club for much of the remaining grounds comprising of an 18-hole golf course and clubhouse near the entrance off Gravel Hill. The marquee is located to the south-eastern corner of the main Addington Palace building.

4.7 In recent years the main building has been partly restored and the ground floor has been used as a conference and entertainment venue and the basement as a spa and leisure club. The building is within a parkland setting, originally designed by Capability Brown, although much of the grounds now form part of the golf course.

4.8 Addington Palace is predominantly a three storey building with basement. It has a gravel surfaced area used as a car park at the front of the building and lawns to the rear. A large Cedar of Lebanon tree dominates the rear garden and is protected by Tree Preservation Order 2, 2004, which also protects some other trees on the site.

4.9 Gravel Hill and Kent Gate Way are Borough Distributor Roads, comprising a dual 2-lane carriageway. There is a Tramlink crossing and stop near the Gravel Hill site entrance. Stable Lodge and the golf club also share the access onto Gravel Hill together with residential properties to the south-west of the site.

4.10 Beyond the golf course to the north-west, west and south-west are residential houses and gardens of varying sizes in Bishops Walk, Abbots Green and Gravel Hill. To the east lies Addington Park, and to the south side of the tennis courts either side of the access drive is the golf clubhouse and Stable Lodge.

4.11 Land levels fall gradually from west to east and continue to fall down through Addington Park towards Kent Gate Way.

Brief History of Addington Palace

4.12 In 1768 the Manor of Addington was purchased by Barlow Trecothick who decided to replace the old medieval house with a more imposing mansion in the centre of what was to become Addington Park. His architect, Robert Mylne, designed a Palladian style house in Portland stone, with a central square, pedimented, with low single storey wings that terminated in identical pavilions. The garden setting was designed by Capability Brown who confined his landscaping to the planting of trees.

4.13 In 1808 the house and manor were purchased by the See of Canterbury as a country residence for the Archbishops until the end of the century. During this time a variety of alterations were carried out. More substantial reconstruction took place at the end of the 19th Century when the premises were purchased from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. During the 20th Century Addington Palace was sold again and part of the land converted to Addington Park Golf Course, with the club house in the main building and the remainder converted to a country club.

Planning History 4.14 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:

• 96/00231/P: Use of ground floor as conference/entertainment venue; internal and external alterations to include disabled access ramp; provision of 93 parking spaces, 3 cycle stands and upgrading of car park lighting Approved (Implemented - temporary permission for 2 years).

• 98/01321/P: Alterations to lower ground floor to form health club Approved (Implemented - temporary permission for 2 years).

• 98/01475/P: Continued use of ground floor as conference and entertainment venue with provision of 93 parking spaces, 3 cycle stands and upgraded car park lighting Approved and implemented

• 99/01699/P: Internal alterations to first and second floors to provide bedroom accommodation for a country club (Class C1 - Hotel) and ground floor alterations to provide a restaurant (Class A3 - Food and Drink); retention of a canopy and access ramp. Approved (Implemented and includes Listed Building Consent 99/01566/LB)

• 98/01435/P: Removal of existing entrance ramp; provision of disabled platform lift. Approved and implemented

• 98/01442/P: Siting of temporary marquee at rear for use in connection with the main building as a conference and entertainment venue Approved (Implemented temporary permission for 2 years).

On expiry of the temporary permission the marquee was removed, but a larger replacement marquee was then erected without planning permission

• 01/00392/P: Continued use of ground floor as conference/entertainment venue with provision of 93 parking spaces, 3 cycle stands and upgraded car park lighting; retention of alterations to lower ground floor to form health club; retention of temporary marquee Not determined

• 01/00497/P: Demolition of former music practice rooms, rear staircase and tennis courts; use as a hotel/country club containing 19 bedrooms; alterations; erection of 2 four storey extensions to east elevation (rear) to provide fire escape staircases, re-erection of rear staircases, erection of extension to roof to include construction of hipped roofs and their conversion to three bedrooms; erection of gates, formation of access road from Kent Gate Way, alterations to existing access road, provision of additional parking areas and alterations to landscaping.

Approved in March 2002 subject to Section 106 Agreement which was never completed and so the planning permission was not issued (also included Listed Building Consent 01/00496/LB)

• 03/00620/P: Retention of marquee Refused on grounds of harm to the Green Belt, the setting of the Listed Building and amenities of adjoining occupiers.

As the S106 for application 01/00497/P had not been completed, there seemed little prospect of the development project for the main palace going ahead, and restoration works to the main building had ceased. An Enforcement Notice was issued to secure the removal of the marquee, which was appealed. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn.

• 07/00692/P: Retention of temporary marquee Approved (Granted temporary permission for 4.5 years subject to S106 agreement)

Permission was granted as enabling development in order to create an income stream to fund continued repair, maintenance and development of the main Palace building including:

1. Phase 1: Construction of spa, changing rooms and swimming pool (south wing)

2. Phase 2: Extensions to provide hotel bedrooms (north wing), construction of historic drive (from Kent Gate Way) and associated landscape works in accordance with the 01/00497/P application

3. Phase 3: Refurbishment and internal works within the main building as detailed in application 01/00497/P

4. The S106 included trigger dates by which various stages of the above phased development project should be reached. On defaulting the clauses, the agreement required the removal of the marquee in its entirety no later than 6 weeks from the date of default, or if not already removed, by the expiry of the permission on 31 Dec 2011.

Through the S106, the Council was obligated to withdraw the Enforcement Notice, because the applicant was unable to gain funding from lenders with an Enforcement Notice recorded on the public register.

The local planning authority and English Heritage have sought to work with applicant in a positive and pro-active way, through the pre-application process, however, agreement has not been reached on a mutually acceptable way forward.

5 CONSULTATION RESPONSE

5.1 The views of the Planning Directorate are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.

5.2 The following were consulted regarding the application:

English Heritage

5.3 Given the complex relationship between the Council and the leaseholder, they have suggested regularisation of the temporary marquee situation, involving perhaps a new and more aesthetically appropriate facility approved by the Council. However, they do not consider the retention of the existing enlarged marquee to represent ‘regularisation’ in this instant, and regard the time span applied for as excessive and perhaps unprecedented. Furthermore, there has not been agreement on a long term permanent solution involving extensions to the main Addington Palace building.

6 LOCAL REPRESENTATION

6.1 The application has been publicised by way of site notices displayed on the application site. The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to publicity of the application were as follows:

No of individual responses: 0 Objecting: 0 Supporting: 0

No of petitions received: 0 objecting containing 0 signatories 0 supporting containing 0 signatories

7 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the Committee must consider are:

1. The principle of use 2. Whether the proposal can be regarded as enabling development 3. The impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt 4. The impact on the Grade II* Listed Building 5. The impact on the Grade II Registered Park and Garden and the wider character and appearance of the area 6. The impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers 7. The impact on parking and highway safety 8. The existing mature trees, nature conservation and archaeology

The Principle of Use

7.2 The original marquee was erected in 1997 and unauthorised. It has had the benefit of two temporary permissions since then. The current proposal is to retain the marquee for a 20 year temporary period. The use of the marquee is linked to the main use of Addington Palace as a conference/entertainment venue with spa and leisure facilities. Whilst local and national policy (Croydon Plan policy LR2 and NPPF) direct such uses to central locations well served by public transport, the use of Addington Palace for these purposes has existed for nearly 20 years. The permissions for entertainment and leisure use of the main Palace have been considered to be acceptable in the past. It follows that a temporary marquee to help support these uses and a more permanent use of the site would be acceptable in principle, and in accordance with Policy LR2 which concerns the provision of leisure facilities. However, it is necessary to balance this benefit with the impact of the marquee on other material planning consideration and as part of this consideration, it is necessary to review whether or not the proposal can reasonably be considered ‘enabling development’.

Enabling Development

7.3 Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states that planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disadvantages of departing from those policies. ‘Enabling development’ is development that would be unacceptable in planning terms but for the fact that it would bring public benefits sufficient to justify it being carried out, and which could not otherwise be achieved. The key public benefit to places/assets of significance is usually securing their long-term future. The problem which enabling development typically seeks to address occurs when the cost of maintenance, major repair or conversion to the optimum viable use of a building is greater than its resulting value to its owner or in the property market. This means that a subsidy to cover the difference – the ‘conservation deficit’ – is necessary to secure its future (English Heritage (2008) ‘The Concept of Enabling Development’).

7.4 Policy UC14 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 defines enabling development as: “development that is contrary to established planning policy – national or local – but which may be exceptionally justified in order to secure the future of a heritage asset, such as listed buildings. Its defining characteristic is that the gain from contravening planning policy subsidises a public benefit that could not otherwise be achieved. Thus, unlike most planning applications, financial issues will be central to determining the type of proposal”. The policy goes on to state that English Heritage advise that there should be a clear presumption against enabling development and that permission should only be granted in exceptional circumstances where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the public benefits clearly outweigh the harm that would be caused. Policy UC14 further indicates that enabling development that would secure the future of a significant place, but contravene other planning policy objectives, would be unacceptable unless:

• it will not materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting • it avoids detrimental fragmentation of management of the place • it will secure the long-term future of the place and, where applicable, its continued use for a sympathetic purpose • it is necessary to resolve problems arising from the inherent needs of the place, rather than the circumstances of the present owner, or the purchase price paid • sufficient subsidy is not available from any other source • it is demonstrated that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the place, and that its form minimises harm to other public interests • the public benefit of securing the future of the significant place through such enabling development decisively outweighs the disbenefits of breaching other public policies.

7.5 Statutory guidance is provided in English Heritage’s ‘Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places’ which explains how developers should approach enabling development, including what information is necessary to justify such proposals, and provides guidance to planning authorities in how to assess such applications. It makes it clear that it is not only necessary to demonstrate and assess physical impact, but also to establish and quantify need, since the financial considerations involved are fundamental to the decision.

7.6 The existing marquee on the site is a form of enabling development, as it generates an income stream to ensure the business can continue to operate to fund ongoing repair and renovation to the building. However, it is an unacceptable form of development in such a setting, and has been previously permitted on a temporary basis to allow for a more permanent long-term development project to come forward for the site. Previous proposals have been unsuccessful and although one proposal was agreed subject to a legal agreement requiring actions on the part of the applicant, the applicant did not comply with the clauses of the legal agreement and no further progress has been made on an alternative. Nonetheless, it remains the case that the impact of the marquee is harmful and ought not to be retained. The applicant advises that if the marquee were removed without an alternative development, Addington Palace Events Ltd would lose a significant income stream from weddings/events, and would be unlikely to be able to continue functioning as a viable business. This could see the palace becoming vacant for an unknown period of time, which could put it at risk of falling into disrepair.

The impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt

7.7 In respect of the location of the site within the Metropolitan Green Belt, paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that: “As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”. Para 88 states that: “When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”. Para 89 also states that: “A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: (a) buildings for agriculture and forestry; (b) provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; (c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; (d) the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; (e) limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or (f) 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.”

7.8 Policy 7.16 of the London Plan 2011(with 2013 Alterations) states that: “The Mayor strongly supports the current extent of London’s Green Belt, its extension in appropriate circumstances and its protection from inappropriate development”. It further states that: “The strongest protection should be given to London’s Green Belt, in accordance with national guidance. Inappropriate development should be refused, except in very special circumstances. Development will be supported if it is appropriate and helps secure the objectives of improving the Green Belt as set out in national guidance”.

7.9 Policy SP7.2 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) indicates that the Council will protect and safeguard the extent of the borough’s Metropolitan Green Belt. Policy RO1 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 also indicates that within Metropolitan Green Belt, except in very special circumstances, the construction of new buildings will not be permitted unless it is for a limited number of purposes such as agriculture and forestry purposes, limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings, essential facilities for outdoor sports and recreation, limited infilling in existing villages, or limited infilling or redevelopment of Major Existing Developed Sites identified in adopted local plans”.

7.10 The marquee is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It is for the applicant to demonstrate why very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm. The case has not been made sufficient to overcome the overwhelming importance of fundamental Green Belt policy objections.

The impact on the Grade II* Listed Building and Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden

7.11 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a Listed Building, the Local Planning Authority should have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

7.12 Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) concerns the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. It puts great emphases on identifying and assessing the significance of heritage assets, where the onus is on the developer to analyse such significance including any contribution by their setting. At paragraph 131, it states that matters of viable uses and the economic vitality of heritage assets are matters to be taken into account. Above all however, it indicates that great weight should be given to asset conservation, and in particular, any substantial harm to a heritage asset of the highest significance, including grade II* listed buildings such as Addington Palace, should be wholly exceptional (paragraph 132). At paragraph 134 it indicates that where an element of harm would be caused, this harm should be weighted against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

7.13 Polices 7.8 and 7.9 of the London Plan require development proposals affecting heritage assets to conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. Policy UC10 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 indicates that development proposals affecting Registered Parks and Gardens will be resisted where they would adversely affect the character or appearance which led to their inclusion on the registered list.

7.14 No works are proposed directly to Addington Palace. Nonetheless, the setting of the Listed Building and Registered Historic Park and Garden are similarly important. The marquee is large and does have a negative impact on the setting of the Addington Palace as it is conspicuous in its size and material and detracts from the appearance of this heritage building. English Heritage have been pro-active in attempts to find solutions, and have indicated that they do not consider the retention of the existing marquee to represent ‘regularisation’ in this instant, and regard the time span applied for as excessive and perhaps even unprecedented.

The impact on the character and appearance

7.15 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF indicates that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Paragraph 64 states that: “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”. Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) state that development should make a positive contribution to the local character, public realm and streetscape. It should incorporate the highest quality materials and design appropriate to its context. Policies UD2 and UD3 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 require the siting, layout and form of new development to respect the character and appearance of existing areas. Policy UC10 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies states that: “The Council will protect and enhance parks and gardens that are part of the Boroughs historical heritage by inclusion either in English Heritage’s Register of Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest, or in the schedule of parks of local interest and will resist development proposals which would adversely affect the character or appearance which led to their inclusion in either category”. Policy SP1.1 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) indicates that the Council will require all new development to contribute to enhancing a sense of place and improving the character of the area. Policies SP4.1 and SP4.2 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) also require development to be of a high quality which respects and enhances local character.

7.16 Whilst views of the marquee from Gravel Hill or Kent Gate Way are limited, it has an overall negative impact on the character of the site and appearance of the wider area from the golf course, surrounding open space and from more far ranging views from Bishops Walk and New Addington, due to its conspicuous siting, form and finish. The marquee competes with views of Addington Palace to the detriment of the Local View from New Addington.

7.17 Consequently, it is concluded that the development has harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. It thereby conflict with the intentions of the NPPF, Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011(with 2013 Alterations), Policies UD2, UD3, UD11 and UC10 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 and Policies SP1.1, SP4.1 and SP4.2 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013).

The impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers

7.18 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF indicates that decisions should “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. Policy 7.1 of the London Plan 2011(with 2013 Alterations) indicates that in their neighbourhoods, people should have a good quality environment. Policy UD8 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 requires the Council to have regard to the privacy and amenity of adjoining occupiers. Policies SP4.1 and SP4.2 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) seek to respect and enhance character, to create sustainable communities and enhance social cohesion and well-being.

7.19 The marquee is sited a good distance away from the nearest residential adjoining properties. The separation distance between the adjoining properties and the marquee should be sufficient to ensure no undue impact on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers. Whilst there were complaints about noise generated by the use of the marquee and nuisance from associated fireworks early on in the lifetime of the structure, there is no record of objections in more recent times and no representations have been received in respect of this current proposal.

The impact on parking and highway safety

7.20 Chapter 4 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable transport. Policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2011(with 2013 Alterations) indicates that a balance should be struck between promoting development and preventing an excessive parking provision. Policies T8 and T2 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 respectively require development to make appropriate provision for car parking on site and to ensure that traffic generated does not adversely affect the efficiency of nearby roads. Policies SP8.1, SP8.3, SP8.4, SP8.6, SP8.12, SP8.13 and SP8.15 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) seek to ensure that sustainable transport will be promoted, that traffic generated by new development can be safely accommodated on the road network and that there is an appropriate level of car parking.

7.21 The use of the marquee results in large numbers of people visiting the site. However, it is difficult to distinguish between those that attend just the marquee, those that attend Addington Palace in connection with the entertainment venue and leisure facility and others associated with golf visiting the grounds generally. Previous use of the marquee has not generated a traffic or parking problem and over the years the Addington Palace Golf Club and Addington Palace function facility have successfully worked together to ensure parking facilities are shared and that they do not both have major functions on the same day. The proposal is considered acceptable in regard to Policy UD13 which requires car parking and accesses to be safe, efficient, well designed and appropriate to the development.

The impact on existing mature trees, nature conservation and archaeology

7.22 Chapter 11 of the NPPF seeks to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Policy 7.21 of the London Plan 2011(with 2013 Alterations) requires trees and woodlands to be protected, maintained and enhanced. Policy SP7.4 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) seeks to enhance biodiversity across the borough. Policy NC4 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 requires that valued trees especially those protected by Tree Preservation orders are protected.

7.23 Parts of the grounds are within a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and an Archaeology Priority Zone, and there are protected trees on the site. Bearing in mind that a marquee has been in existence since 1998, it is not considered likely that the continued use would give rise to any additional harm to the existing mature trees, nature conservation or archaeology interests. The protected Cedar of Lebanon tree close to the marquee would not be harmed by the continued retention of the marquee.

Conclusions

7.24 The marquee is inappropriate development in the green belt, harmful to its open character, the wider character of the area, and is detrimental to the historic and architectural setting of the Grade II* Listed Building and that of the Registered Historic Park and Gardens. Inadequate justification has been provided to demonstrate that (a) very special circumstances exist, and (b) the marquee is enabling development necessary to secure the future of the heritage asset. As such, the application is recommended for refusal.

6 OTHER MATTERS

6.1 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been taken into account. The details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION.