planning report D&P/3966/02 2 May 2017 former GlaxsoSmithKline site & Sunblest Bakery site, Green in the London Borough of planning application no. 164694FUL

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 Phased redevelopment comprising a residential-led mixed use masterplan for 1,965 homes; 21,443 sq.m. of commercial and community floorspace; two-form primary school and nursery; new pedestrian/cycle canal bridge; car and cycle parking; and, site-wide landscaping. The proposed buildings range in height from 2 to 19-storeys. The applicant The applicant is Greystar Europe Holdings Ltd., and the architects are HTA, SLCE, MAE, Flanagan Lawrence and Hawkins Brown.

Key dates GLA pre-application meeting: 3 May 2016 GLA stage 1: 24 October 2016 Ealing Council committee meeting: 15 March 2017 Strategic issues summary Principle of development: There are significant regenerative benefits that outweigh the loss of Strategic Industrial Land, and the residential-led redevelopment of this outer London brownfield site is strongly supported in strategic planning terms (paragraph 6). Employment: The proposal would provide 1,200 new jobs supported by affordable workspace and various employment and training contributions (paragraphs 10 to 11). Housing: The high density build to rent-led housing provision is strongly supported and the proposed 29% affordable housing provision has been independently verified as the maximum reasonable amount, subject to an upward review mechanism (paragraphs 12 to 15).

The Council’s decision In this instance Ealing Council has resolved to grant permission subject to planning conditions and conclusion of a Section 106 legal agreement. Recommendation That Ealing 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 14 September 2016 the Mayor of London received documents from Ealing 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 the following categories of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

 1A 1. “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”;  1B 1.(c) “Development… 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 1.(c) “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building… more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”; and  3E 1.(a)(b)(i)(iii) “Development which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and comprises or includes the provision of more than 2,500 square metres of floorspace for a use falling within – class A1 (retail); class B1 (business)”.

2 On 24 October 2016 the Mayor considered planning report D&P/3966/01, and subsequently advised Ealing Council that whilst the scheme is strongly supported in strategic planning terms the application did not fully comply with the London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 76 of the above-mentioned report. 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.

3 Since consultation stage the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns, and various planning conditions and obligations have been agreed. On 15 March 2017 Ealing Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission subject to planning conditions and conclusion of a Section 106 legal agreement, and on 19 April 2017 the Council 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 Ealing Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 2 May 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 (as amended) has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

Update

6 At consultation stage Ealing Council was advised that whilst the scheme is strongly supported in strategic planning terms the application did not fully comply with the London Plan as set out below:

page 2  Principle of development: There are significant regenerative benefits that outweigh the loss of Strategic Industrial Land proposed in this case, and the residential-led mixed use redevelopment of this outer London brownfield site is strongly supported in line with London Plan polices 2.6 and 2.7.  Employment: The proposed redevelopment of this vacant employment land would provide approximately 1,200 new jobs on-site. This is strongly supported. Nevertheless, in response to London Plan policies 2.7 and 2.17, an affordable SME workspace offer is sought.  Housing: The proposed high density build to rent-led housing offer is strongly supported in line with London Plan Policy 3.3. Nevertheless, the proposed 29% affordable housing provision requires rigorous independent review and an increased provision of affordable family housing is sought in line with London Plan policies 3.11 and 3.12. Furthermore, standard obligations are sought with respect to the PRS products in line with London Plan Policy 3.8 and the Housing SPG.  Urban design: The proposed masterplan would optimise the potential of this land, integrate the site into the surrounding neighbourhood, and enhance connections to the Grand Union Canal and neighbouring countryside park. This is supported in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.1. Nevertheless, in line with London Plan Policy 3.5 and the Housing SPG, a number of refinements are required for the PRS ‘E’ block typology. Further discussion is also south on the proposed lower level treatment of the Oldfield Lane and Berkley Avenue frontages.  Sustainable development: Following clarifications on the energy strategy the Council will secure the associated energy and climate change adaptation measures by way of planning condition in accordance with London Plan polices 5.2, 5.10, 5.11 and 5.13.  Transport: Whilst the scheme is generally acceptable in strategic transport terms, there are concerns over the operability of the bus proposals and assessment of highway impact. The applicant needs to address issues raised with respect to: site access; impacts on the highway/public transport network; car parking; servicing; public transport; walking and cycle; and phasing, construction and travel planning should be addressed in line with London Plan policies 6.3, 6.9, 6.10, 6.13 and 6.14.

7 Since the Mayor’s representations were issued the viability review process has been concluded, and the applicant team has engaged in joint discussions with GLA officers, Ealing Council and TfL with a view to addressing the matters above. In addition, various planning conditions and obligations are proposed to be secured as part of Ealing Council’s draft decision.

8 It should be noted that, since consultation stage, the Mayor published his draft Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance for public consultation between 29 November 2016 and 28 February 2017.

9 Having regard to the above, an assessment against the strategic issues raised at consultation stage is set out under the associated sections below. Employment

10 The proposal to provide approximately 1,200 new jobs on site (supported by a range of office, retail and other commercial uses) was strongly supported by the Mayor. Nevertheless, noting the emphasis that London Plan policies 2.7 and 2.17 place on sustaining small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in support of the outer London economy, the applicant was strongly encouraged to incorporate an affordable SME workspace offer as part of the proposed development.

page 3 11 In response the applicant has agreed to enable office space proposed within in block 8 to act as SME workspace (up to 1,900 sq.m.). To ensure its suitability and affordability the Council will secure a planning condition requiring detailed approval of this space and the terms for its occupation. In particular, this provision is to include flexible co-working space with the option to pay only for the level of service required, with no rental deposits. More generally an employment and training contribution of £566,000 will be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement, along with a local apprenticeship and placement scheme for both the construction and operational phases of the development. This is strongly supported in line with London Plan policies 2.7 and 2.17.

Housing

12 At consultation stage the proposed build to rent-led housing provision within this scheme (equivalent to 15% of the ’s housing target up to 2025) was strongly supported in terms of housing supply. Since then the proposed affordable housing offer (29% by habitable room, at a split of 71% discount market rent / 29% shared ownership) has been independently verified as the maximum reasonable amount (having regard to the distinct economics of the build to rent housing model). Notwithstanding this, the Section 106 agreement has been designed to include an upwards review mechanism to enable the overall on-site affordable housing provision to be increased in future - where scheme viability improves during the delivery process. This is strongly supported in line with London Plan Policy 3.12 and the draft Affordable Housing and Viability SPG.

13 In terms of affordability, the Section 106 agreement will secure a rents at 80% and 73.5% of the open market rent for the discount market rent (DMR) units (223 DMR units would be at 80% rent, and 198 DMR units would be at 73.5%) with shared ownership dwellings provided in line with the London Plan definition of intermediate affordable housing (i.e. restricted to those with a household income of less than £90,000).

14 In line with the Mayor’s representations, and the emerging Affordable Housing and Viability SPG, the Section 106 agreement has also been designed to include various obligations to ensure that the proposed build to rent units are maintained as such for a reasonable period of time. This includes a covenant securing each of the build to rent apartment blocks in single-ownership for 15 years, as well as a clawback arrangement where a payment in lieu of affordable housing must be made to the Council if a build to rent unit is sold out of the rental sector within 15 years. Furthermore and for the avoidance of doubt, the Section 106 agreement will ensure that, notwithstanding the covenant period in relation to the build to rent units, the DMR and shared ownership units will be secured as affordable housing in perpetuity.

15 In terms of family sized housing, it is noted that the scheme would provide 8% family housing across the scheme as a whole, and 6% within the affordable housing component. Having regard to: the strategic priority afforded to the provision of affordable family housing; the findings of the independent viability review; the nature of the ‘build to rent’ housing product; and, the general prevalence of interwar suburban family housing in this area, GLA officers are satisfied that this provision is acceptable, and that the application accords with London Plan policies 3.8 and 3.11. Urban design

16 The proposed design of the scheme was broadly supported at consultation stage. In particular, the masterplan was commended for optimising land potential, integrating the site into the surrounding neighbourhood, and enhancing connections to the Grand Union Canal and Horsenden Hill Country Park.

page 4 17 Since consultation stage the applicant has submitted revised plans which refine the layout of the build to rent ‘E’ blocks in order to provide more generous communal circulation around lift cores. This, in conjunction with maximised opportunities for natural daylighting, ensures that whilst the Housing SPG unit to core ratio would be exceeded, the design quality of corridors and communal circulation areas would acceptably mitigate this. Moreover, it is welcomed that the applicant has introduced projections and recesses along the northern elevation of block 7 in response to GLA advice. This increases the provision of dual aspect units; allows for more generously sized units in certain cases; and, introduces additional architectural interest to the longest elevation of the block. Moreover, (and noting the alterations to block 7) visualisations provided for the Oldfield Lane and Berkley Avenue frontages demonstrate that the scheme would provide a high quality response. Accordingly, the application accords with London Plan policies 3.5 and 7.1. Historic environment

18 As part of its consultation response on the scheme, Historic England raised a number of concerns with respect to the extent of proposed works to Glaxo House (Grade II); and, the impact of the wider masterplan on the character of the Canalside Conservation Area.

19 GLA officers considered the heritage impact of the proposed office-led refurbishment of Glaxo House in detail at consultation stage (refer to GLA consultation stage report D&P/3966/01). In summary, whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed works would result in some harm to the Listed Building (principally due to the removal of the rear facade in order to facilitate an office extension), officers were satisfied that this harm would be outweighed by the benefits of returning the building to a sustainable commercial use, and the benefits of the wider scheme more generally. GLA officers were also satisfied at consultation stage that the proposed redevelopment of the wider site would not harm the setting of Glaxo House (Grade II).

20 With respect to the impact of the scheme on the character of the Canalside Conservation Area, GLA officers note that Historic England’s concerns centre on the loss of a number of industrial buildings at the site. These buildings are not heritage assets, and fall outside the Conservation Area. However, whilst Historic England acknowledges that these “sturdy and simple” buildings are “not of special interest”, it considers that they do, nevertheless, collectively contribute to the wider industrial setting of the Canalside Conservation Area. Historic England does not seek the retention of these buildings per se, but encourages a design response from the development that is more sympathetic to the industrial history of the canal. In particular, Historic England recommends that the proposed canal bridge takes greater inspiration from traditional canal crossings, and that bollards and mooring hoops along the canal towpath are retained and/or reinstated.

21 In response to this advice it is noted that Ealing Council will secure detailed approval of the canal bridge design, and retention/reinstatement of bollards and mooring hoops, by way of planning condition. The Council also acknowledges that the proposed development (which includes significantly improved public access to the canal, as well as naturalised landscaping and high quality public space adjacent to the towpath) would significantly enhance the quality, enjoyment and use of this part of the Grand Union Canal. GLA officers concur with this view, and are of the opinion that the proposed development would not harm the industrial character of the Canalside Conservation Area.

22 In conclusion on matters of historic environment, and for the avoidance of doubt, pursuant to Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 GLA officers are satisfied that: harm to Glaxo House (Grade II) occurring due to the proposed office extension would be outweighed; the proposed redevelopment of the wider site would not cause harm to the setting of Glaxo House (Grade II); and, the proposed development would not cause harm to the character of the Canalside Conservation Area. Moreover, GLA officers concur with

page 5 Historic England’s view that the proposed development would not impact on the Iron Age settlement on Horsenden Hill or the Manor Moated Medieval site (Scheduled Monuments). Sustainable development

23 The proposed climate change mitigation and adaptation measures were broadly supported at consultation stage, and since then a number of clarifications have been provided with respect to district networking potential. Accordingly whilst it is noted that Ealing Council is not currently pursuing plans for the development of a district heating network in this area, the energy centre and on-site energy network for the scheme has been designed with sufficient flexibility to allow for such a connection to be made easily in future. This is welcomed, and it is noted that development in accordance with the proposed energy strategy and climate change adaptation measures will be secured by way of planning condition. The application complies with London Plan polices 5.2, 5.10, 5.11 and 5.13.

24 It is also noted that the Council proposes to secure various planning conditions in order to control noise, and secure the status of the development as air quality neutral, in line with London Plan policies 7.14 and 7.15. Moreover, having regard to the submitted environmental statement, and the advice of Ealing’s Pollution Technical Control Officer, GLA officers are satisfied that measures are in place to acceptably mitigate noise and air quality impacts (associated with the proposed development, and other off-site sources) on the internal environment of the proposed primary school. Transport

25 At consultation stage various improvements to the transport assessment were sought by TfL (including further detail on trip generation and highway modelling). Following the provision of further detail by the applicant, TfL’s associated concerns have been addressed by the following mitigation measures to be secured via the Section 106 agreement:

 £1,400,000 bus contribution for TfL to maintain and/or provide additional bus provision (in the event that the Council’s Neighbourhood 27 corridor improvement scheme is not implemented);  two pairs of new bus stops for route 92 (which will be re-routed two-way through the site);  £128,000 for installation of a traffic management system at 4 junctions (to improve the progression of vehicles through the local road network);  capping of vehicular parking provision to a lower level for initial phases;  £800,000 towards travel plan measures;  a charging structure for commercial parking; and,  an independent survey of the development’s travel patterns.

26 Other key matters to be secured via the Section 106 agreement include a residential travel plan; construction logistics plan; delivery and servicing plan; and; pedestrian/cycle bridge over the Grand Union Canal (to be delivered towards the end of phase 1).

27 All other strategic transport issues raised at consultation stage have been addressed via planning condition or obligation, including: London Plan compliant quantities of cycle storage; blue badge parking; and, Electric Vehicle Charging Points. Furthermore, new residents will not be eligible for local parking permits, and two on-site car club spaces (with the option for more) will be secured and provided via the Section 106 agreement. Accordingly the application complies with London Plan policies 6.3, 6.9, 6.10, 6.13 and 6.14.

page 6 Response to consultation

28 Ealing Council publicised the application by sending notifications to addresses within the vicinity of the site, and issuing site and press notices. The relevant statutory bodies were also consulted. Copies of all responses to public consultation, and any other representations made on the case, have been made available to the Mayor. Responses to neighbourhood consultation

29 Following the consultation process Ealing Council received a total of 89 representations on the case along with a standard letter signed by 8 people. In addition, the Council has received a further 17 representations since it’s resolution to approve the application. In total, of these 114 representations, 104 were objections and 10 expressed support.

30 In summary, the reasons for objection comprised: inadequate pre-application consultation by the applicant; departure from Local Plan (including site allocation); absence of a wider area masterplan; loss of industrial use; potential conflicts of use between the residential proposal and existing occupiers of the wider Strategic Industrial Location (arising due to specific issues of noise, air quality and visual amenity); insufficient affordable housing; insufficient retail/leisure uses; excessive height, scale and density of development (particularly when considered cumulatively with other neighbouring schemes); inappropriate response to context; impact on local views; impact on setting of Glaxo House (Grade II); insufficient playground and pick up/drop off space for the proposed primary school; impact on local infrastructure (including social, transport and utilities); risk of antisocial behaviour; neighbourhood amenity impacts (including overlooking/loss of privacy and loss of daylight/sunlight); environmental impacts (including air quality impacts on the proposed school and harm to the Grand Union Canal Site of Importance for Nature Conservation); flawed transport assessment; increased traffic congestion (and associated impacts on local residents and businesses); insufficient car parking; over-provision of cycle parking; impacts on public transport; and, construction impacts (including risks to pedestrian safety).

31 The responses of support generally welcomed: redevelopment of a vacant site; improved connections through the area and integration with the community; new attractive public space; new housing; new community facilities; and, new job opportunities.

32 The local issues raised as part of the neighbourhood consultation process are considered in detail within Ealing Council’s committee report of 15 March 2016. Representations to the Mayor of London

33 At the time of writing this report, 8 representations have been submitted directly to the Mayor. These include 7 objections from local residents (raising issues already summarised in paragraph 30 above), and comments from Ferrero UK Ltd. (summarised below).

Ferrero UK Ltd.

34 Ferrero UK Ltd. did not object to the proposed development, but raised a number of general concerns related to transport matters, as well as a specific concern associated with access to its UK head office. The Ferrero UK office is located just to the north of the application red line boundary (within the wider former GSK site) and is currently accessed via a private part of Berkeley Avenue. The application proposes to make this section of Berkeley Avenue publically accessible, albeit, on a one-way basis for general traffic exiting the site. Ferrero UK Ltd. is concerned that the proposed one way arrangement would mean that its employees and visitors would need to take a more congested vehicular route to get to the office. More generally, Ferrero UK Ltd. also expressed concern that the proposed density of the development was based on a flawed assessment of public

page 7 transport accessibility level (PTAL), and that this level of development would require a greater level of bus service provision.

35 Ealing Council has considered the local planning issues associated with Berkeley Avenue access and adoption within its committee report of 15 March 2017. Having regard to this, and the advice of TfL, GLA officers are satisfied that the proposed arrangements for Berkeley Avenue do not raise any strategic planning issues which have not already been considered above, and/or within GLA consultation stage report D&P/3966/01. Similarly, GLA officers concur with TfL advice that the proposed provisions of the Section 106 agreement are sufficient to mitigate the impact of the development on bus services. More generally, the proposed density of the development was considered in detail at consultation stage. In line with London Plan Policy 3.4, a wide range of factors (including the site’s varying PTAL, suburban setting, existing built character and the design and residential quality of the proposal) were taken into account when coming to the view that the proposed residential density (whilst above that suggested by London Plan Table 3.2), is acceptable in strategic planning terms (refer to GLA consultation stage report D&P/3966/01). Responses from statutory bodies and other organisations

Historic England

36 Historic England did not object to the proposal, but raised concerns with respect to the extent of proposed works to Glaxo House (Grade II); and, the impact of the wider masterplan on the character of the Canalside Conservation Area. Historic England also queried the effect of the proposed development on the Iron Age settlement on Horsenden Hill and the Northolt Manor Moated Medieval site, but was ultimately satisfied that the proposed development would not impact on these Scheduled Monuments.

37 With respect to Glaxo House, Historic England broadly welcomed the restoration of the Listed Building’s principal elevation, as well as the refurbishment of the building for employment use. However, Historic England expressed the view that the loss of fabric at the rear of Glaxo House (including a 1950s extension), in combination with the addition of a new build brick rear extension and glazed roof extension, would cause harm to the Listed Building.

38 In so far as the wider masterplan is concerned, Historic England acknowledged that the proposed development seeks to make the canal side a focus for the development, and would significantly enhance public access to this local resource. Nevertheless, Historic England expressed the view that the proposed loss of a collection of “study and simple” industrial buildings at the site (along the outside edge of the Canalside Conservation Area) would result in a loss of industrial character in the immediate setting of the Conservation Area. Accordingly, Historic England advised Ealing Council to explore ways to ensure that the scheme would celebrate the industrial heritage of the Grand Union Canal.

39 The strategic issues raised within Historic England’s consultation response are considered within the historic environment section above.

Canal and River Trust

40 Canal and River Trust noted that the scheme had significant potential to enhance this part of the Grand Union Canal environment. Planning conditions were sought with respect to: canal bridge design; mooring strategy; waterway wall survey; landscaping and ecology; drainage; towpath improvements; and, use of the canal for waterborne freight during construction. Ealing Council has included associated conditions within the draft decision notice accordingly.

page 8 Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society

41 The Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society raised no objection to the proposal, but sought a written scheme of archaeological investigation. The applicant has since undertaken this work to the satisfaction of the Society, and the Council has included the written scheme within the list of documents that the development must accord with.

Environment Agency

42 Environment Agency raised no objection to the application but recommended that the Council’s Pollution Technical Control Officer reviewed the submitted Land Contamination Assessment. GLA officers note that the Council has undertaken internal consultation accordingly, and that appropriate mitigation will be secured by way of planning condition.

Natural England

43 Natural England raised no objection.

Metropolitan Police

44 Metropolitan Police raised no objection and noted that the applicant seeks to achieve full Secured by Design certification.

Hillingdon and Ealing Clinical Commissioning Group (NHS)

45 Hillingdon and Ealing Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) advised that there would be insufficient capacity within the existing north Ealing health care estate to accommodate the additional demand created by the proposed development. Based on the Healthy Urban Development Unit model, a contribution of £2,358,422 would be required as mitigation. The CCG nevertheless confirmed that it has been in discussions with the applicant regarding the potential inclusion of a health facility within flexible floorspace proposed on-site (subject to acceptable commercial and financial terms being agreed). Accordingly, the Section 106 has been drafted to give the CCG first right of refusal of a suitable area within block 2, or, if terms cannot be agreed, the applicant must make a financial contribution of £2,358,422.

Thames Water

46 Thames Water raised no objection, but sought to ensure that planning conditions were used to secure details of surface water drainage and foul and surface water strategy. GLA officers note that corresponding conditions have been included on the draft decision notice accordingly.

Response to consultation – conclusion

47 Having considered the above responses to consultation Ealing Council has proposed various planning conditions and informatives in response to the issues raised. Having had regard to these GLA officers are satisfied that the statutory and non-statutory responses to Ealing Council’s consultation process, and those representations made directly to the Mayor, do not raise any material planning issues of strategic importance that have not already been considered in report D&P/3966/01, and/or in this report.

page 9 Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

48 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 Ealing Council has resolved to grant permission with planning conditions and obligations 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

49 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 and any connected 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 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

50 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.

51 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.

52 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

53 There are significant regenerative benefits that outweigh the loss of Strategic Industrial Land proposed in this case, and the residential-led redevelopment of this outer London brownfield site is strongly supported in strategic planning terms. Furthermore, the issues raised at consultation stage with respect to employment, housing, urban design, sustainable development and transport have been resolved, and the application complies with the London Plan.

page 10

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Juliemma McLoughlin, Assistant Director - Planning 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Sarah Considine, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 5751 email [email protected] Graham Clements, Senior Strategic Planner (case officer) 020 7983 4265 email [email protected]

page 11