representation hearing report GLA/3757a/03 31 October 2019 Kidbrooke Station Square in the Royal Borough of Greenwich planning application no. 18/4187/F

Planning application Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (“the Order”) and Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

The proposal A full application for a residential-led mixed use development, comprising 619 residential units, 1,073 sq.m. of office space, 366 sq.m. of retail space, 216 sq.m. of flexible retail/business space, and a 365 sq.m. nursery, within buildings of 9 to 20 storeys; a replacement bus interchange; and new public spaces.

The applicant The applicant is Kidbrooke Partnership LLP (a joint venture between Notting Hill Genesis and Transport for London), and the architect is Glenn Howells. Recommendation summary The Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills (acting under delegated powers), acting as Local Planning Authority for the purpose of determining this application: i. grants conditional planning permission in respect of application 18/4187/F for the reasons set out in the reasons for approval section below, and subject to the prior completion of a section 106 legal agreement; ii. delegates authority to the Chief Planner and the Executive Director of Development, Enterprise and Environment to: a. agree the final wording of the conditions and informatives as approved by the Deputy Mayor; with any material changes being referred back to the Deputy Mayor; b. negotiate and complete the section 106 legal agreement; and c. issue the planning permission. iii. delegates authority to the Chief Planner and the Executive Director of Development, Enterprise and Environment to agree any variations to the proposed section 106 legal agreement; iv. delegates authority to the Chief Planner and Executive Director of Development, Enterprise and Environment to refer it back to the Deputy Mayor in order to refuse planning permission, if by 30 November 2019, the section 106 legal agreement has not been completed; v. notes that approval of details pursuant to conditions imposed on the planning permission will be submitted to, and determined by Greenwich Council; vi. notes that Greenwich Council will be responsible for the enforcement of the conditions attached to the planning permission.

page 1 Drawing numbers and documents

Table 1 - drawings and associated documentation submitted by the applicant in support of the application Proposed drawings

2099-A-A/H-P-001B, 2099-A-A/H-P-002A, 2099-A-A-L-100B, 2099-A-A-L-101B, 2099-A-A-L-102B, 2099-A-A-L-103B, 2099-A-A-L-104B, 2099-A-A-L-105B, 2099-A-A-L-106B, 2099-A-A-L-107B, 2099-A-A-L-108B, 2099-A-A-L-109B, 2099-A-A-L-110B, 2099-A-A-L-111B, 2099-A-A-L-112B, 2099-A-A-L-113B, 2099-A-A-L-114B, 2099-A-A-L-115B, 2099-A-A-L-116B, 2099-A-A-L-117B, 2099-A-A-L-118B, 2099-A-A-L-119B, 2099-A-A-L-120B, 2099-A-A-L-121B, 2099-A-A-L-122B, 2099-A-A-L-123B, 2099-A-A-L-124B, 2099-A-A-L-125B, 2099-A-A-L-126B, 2099-A-A-L-127B, 2099-A-A-L-128B, 2099-A-A-L-129B, 2099-A-A-L-130B, 2099-A-A-L-131B, 2099-A-A-L-132B, 2099-A-A-L-133B, 2099-A-A-L-134B, 2099-A-A-L-135B, 2099-A-A/H-200B, 2099-A-A/H-201B, 2099-A-A/H-202B, 2099-A-A/H-203B, 2099-A-A/H-204B, 2099-A-A/H-205B, 2099-A-A/H-206B, 2099-A-A/H-207B, 2099-A-A/H-208A, 2099-A-A/H-L-300B, 2099-A-A/H-L-301B, 2099-A-A/H-L-302B, 2099-A-A/H-L-303B, 2099-A-A/H-L-304B, 2099-A-A/H-L-305B, 2099-A-A/H-L-306B, 2099-A-A/H-L-350A, 2099-A-A/H-L-351A, 2099-A-A/H-L-352A, 2099-A-A/H-A-400A, 2099-A-A/H-A-401A, 2099-A-A/H-A-402A, 2099-A-A/H-A-403A, 2099-A-A-500B, 2099-A-A-501B, 2099-A-A-502B, 2099-A-A-503B, 2099-A-A-504B, 2099-A-A-505B, 2099-A-A-506B, 2099-A-A-507B, 2099-A-A-508B, 2099-A-A-509B, 2099-A-A/H-L-600B, 2099-A-A/H-L-601B, 2099-A-A/H-L-602B, 2099-A-A/H-L-603B, 2099-A-A/H-L-604B, 2099-A-A/H-L-605B, 2099-A-A/H-L-606B, 2099-A-A/H-L-607B, 2099-A-A/H-L-608B, 2099-A-A/H-L-609B, 2099-A-A/H-L-610B, SLD-UD99-LF1-L04C, SLD-UD99-LM1C, SLD-UD99-LM2A, SLD-UD99-LP1-L09B, SLD-UD99-AS1, SLD-UD99-AS2, SLD-UD99-AS3, SLD-UD99-AS4, SLD-UD99-AS5.

Supporting documents

3 Bed and Family Housing Market Report, September 2018 (Knight Frank); Arboricultural Report, November 2018 (CBA Trees); Affordable Housing Statement, November 2018 (Quod); Commercial Strategy, November 2018 (CF Commercial); Construction Logistics and Management Plan, October 2019 - Enabling Works (RPM). Design and Access Statement, November 2018 (Glenn Howells Architects); Energy Statement, October 2019 (Calford Seaden); Environmental Statement, November 2018 (SLR Consulting); Environmental Statement Addendum, April 2019 (SLR Consulting);

page 2 Environment Statement Non-Technical Summary, April 2019 (SLR Consulting); Estate Management Strategy, November 2018 (NHG); Health Impact Assessment, November 2018 (SLR Consulting); Internal Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, April 2019 (gia); Landscape Design Statement, November 2018 (Standerwick Land Design); Lighting LUX Strategy, April 2019; Overheating Assessment, November 2018 (Calford Seaden); Planning Statement, November 2018 (Lichfields); Planning Summary, November 2018 (Lichfields); Revised Apartment Schedule, April 2019 (Glenn Howells Architects); Revised Non-residential Uses Schedule, April 2019 (Glenn Howells Architects); Statement of Community Consultation, 2018 (Curtin & Co); Summary of Scheme Amendments and Clarifications, April 2019 (Glenn Howells Architects); Sustainable Design Construction Statement, November 2018 (Calford Seaden); Utilities Statement, November 2018 (Calford Seaden); Commercial Strategy Supplement - Commercial Cycle Parking and Showers/Storage Facilities Strategy, June 2019 (GHA).

Introduction

1 Having assumed authority to determine this planning application, this report sets out the matters that the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills (acting under delegated authority) must consider in determining whether to grant or refuse planning permission and to guide his decision making at the upcoming representation hearing. This report includes a recommendation from GLA officers, as set out below. Officer recommendation - reasons for approval

2 The Deputy Mayor, acting under delegated powers and acting as the local planning authority, has considered the particular circumstances of this application against national, strategic and local planning policy, relevant supplementary planning guidance and all material planning considerations. He has also had regard to Greenwich Council’s Planning Board Report dated 16 July 2019 (as updated by Greenwich Council’s Addendum Report), the draft decision notice setting out four reasons for refusal and all consultation responses and representations made on the case both to Greenwich Council and the GLA. The below reasons set out why this application is acceptable in planning policy terms: i. The development of this accessible, brownfield, surplus public sector site; within an Intensification Area, a Regeneration Area/Strategic Area for Regeneration, Strategic Development Location, and adjacent to a transport interchange; would provide a high density residential-led mixed-use scheme, including appropriate levels of commercial and community use, and improved transport infrastructure in the form of an enhanced bus interchange. The scheme would make a significant contribution towards housing and affordable housing delivery targets, assisting in meeting local and strategic housing need, both for market and affordable housing. On this basis, the application strongly accords with London Plan Policies 1.1, 2,13, 2.14, 2.15, 3.3, 3.16, 3.18, 4.2, 4.7 and 6.2; draft London Plan Policies GG1, GG2, GG3, GG4,

page 3 GG5, GG6, SD7, SD8, E1, E2, E3, S1, S3 and T3; Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policies H1, EA1, TC1, TC7, CH1 and IM1; and the Kidbrooke SPD.

ii. The scheme would provide 619 residential units, of which 309 would be affordable (51% by habitable room). This would include a policy compliant tenure mix, made up of London Affordable Rent and London Shared Ownership units. The proposed affordable housing offer meets the requirements of the Mayor’s Affordable Housing & Viability SPG and draft London Plan and is therefore eligible for the ‘Fast Track Route’. An early implementation viability review mechanism will be triggered, should substantial implementation not be achieved within 2 year of planning permission being granted, which would allow any surplus to be used to convert London Shared Ownership units to London Affordable Rent units, or used for an off-site affordable housing contribution if exceptional circumstances are justified. The affordability levels comply with the London Plan and would be secured by legal agreement. The housing proposed is of a good quality, and an appropriate density and mix for the location, taking into account the characteristics of the site. On this basis, the application accords with the NPPF; London Plan Policies 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, and 3.12; draft London Plan Policies H5, H6, H7 and H9(e); Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policies H2 and H3; the Mayor’s Affordable Housing & Viability SPG (2017); the Mayor’s Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG (2012) and the Kidbrooke SPD. iii. The design and layout of the proposals is of a high quality, would optimise the development capacity of the site, and responds appropriately to environmental and site access constraints. The new access routes, landscape and open spaces would be of a high quality, providing a welcoming and attractive environment, which would be well-overlooked and benefit from an appropriate level of activity and ownership. Public and communal amenity spaces would receive good levels of sunlight, with no unacceptable noise or air quality impacts. The density of the proposals is appropriate considering the nature of the site, its context, and the quality of the design. The proposals have been subject to extensive design scrutiny. The scheme provides a good standard of residential quality, including space standards; aspect, outlook and privacy; play space; daylight, sunlight and overshadowing; air quality; and noise. Its scale and massing is in keeping with the character of the Phase 3 Kidbrooke Village scheme, while remaining subservient to that scheme, and together forming a new local centre, marking the location of the Station. It is in an area identified as appropriate for tall buildings. Any harm to the significance of designated heritage assets is considered to be ‘less than substantial’. Notwithstanding the great weight to be given to such harm, it is considered to be outweighed by the considerable public benefits of the scheme. No harm would be caused to strategic views. The area has a good level of transport infrastructure provision and would provide a bus interchange of improved quality and capacity. Bus services in the area have been improved as the result of a new bus route that has been agreed during the course of the application. The scheme will allow improved access to the adjacent train station, which is currently being upgraded with a larger building, providing improved access and greater capacity. The architectural approach and use of a consistent and varied palate of different tones of brick would ensure the provision of a high quality, distinctive and cohesive scheme, which responds appropriately to the surrounding urban and landscape context, topography, views and historic environment. On this basis, the application accords with London Plan Policies 3.5, 3.6, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8; Policies D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D10, and D11 of the draft London Plan; Greenwich Core Strategy Policies H5, CH1, DH1, DH2, DH3, DH(b), DH(g), DH(h), DH(i), DH(j), and E(c); the Housing SPG (2016); the London View Management Framework SPG (2012); and the overall urban design objectives of the Kidbrooke SPD. iv. Residents and users of the scheme would be sufficiently protected from air quality impacts arising from the surrounding roads. The proposals have been subject to extensive design scrutiny, which resulted in improvements to the scheme, including the positioning of buildings, residential units, and play spaces in order to minimise the exposure of future residents to poor

page 4 air quality (and noise); moving buildings away from the surrounding roads; extending the landscape buffering; amending internal layouts; and developing ventilation strategies. Although not required as a result of air quality (or noise) impacts, amendments introduced winter gardens to lower level units near to the A2. The applicant’s Air Quality Assessment has been reviewed by Council officers, GLA officers, and independent experts, and is supported, including the use of existing ‘worst-case’ air quality monitoring locations. No exceedances of NO2 or PM10 annual mean Air Quality Objectives were identified and no embedded mitigation is required, for example mechanical ventilation; and there is no constraint to the inclusion of balconies to any block. All windows in all blocks would be openable. The Assessment findings are supported by more recent monitoring at locations within the site. Further work has also been undertaken to examine the impact of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme, finding no predicted exceedances of the annual mean NO2 Air Quality Objective. On this basis, the application accords with the NPPF, London Plan Policies 3.5 and 7.14, Policies D4 and SI1 of the draft London Plan, Greenwich Core Strategy Policies H5 and E(e), and the Housing SPG.

v. The level of harm that would be caused to the significance of designated heritage assets, comprising the Blackheath Conservation Area and the listed buildings along Montpellier Row, is considered to be less than substantial. The proposed buildings would comprise a further intrusion above the built form on the southern side of the Heath (in particular Montpelier Row), and further erode the roofscape and distant views to the south; elements that contribute to the significance of these heritage assets. However, the proposals would comprise an incremental change within an evolving context, adding to the emerging tall buildings of Kidbrooke Village. As such, they would not form an overly dominant feature in the view, either in their own right, or as part of the emerging cluster of tall buildings together with Kidbrooke Village. The Church of All Saints would remain by far the most dominant vertical element in the view, with the view of the spire of St. Michael’s (Blackheath Park) remaining clearly visible on the skyline. The public benefits of the scheme include the regeneration of a vacant site; a significant amount of good quality housing, including 51% affordable housing; a nursery; new public spaces; new business units; part of a new local centre; improved access across the railway line in the form of a new public lift at the northern end of the existing pedestrian bridge; as well as economic and regenerative benefits to the wider area. These public benefits are considerable and clearly outweigh the less than substantial harm that would be caused, notwithstanding that such harm is to be given great weight. Further benefits may arise from the £400,000 contribution towards potential lifts for the Station pedestrian bridge; however, as this is dependent on other funding, little weight has been given to this. On this basis, the application accords with the NPPF; Policies 7.4, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan; draft London Plan Policies HC1 and HC2; Policies DH1, DH2 DH3, DH(h) and DH(i) of the Greenwich Core Strategy; and Lewisham Council’s Blackheath Conservation Area Character Appraisal SPD. vi. The application would achieve a high level of accessible and inclusive design, including the provision of a new publicly accessible lift to the existing public footbridge over the railway line, which would be managed and maintained by the applicant. Further benefits may arise from the £400,000 contribution towards potential lifts for the Station pedestrian bridge; however, as this is dependent on other funding, little weight has been given to this. Notwithstanding this, the application accords with London Plan Policies 3.8, 7.2 and 7.6; draft London Plan Policies D3 and D5; Greenwich Council Core Strategy Policy H5; and the Accessible London SPG. vii. The proposed development has demonstrated that a high standard of sustainable design and construction would be achieved, minimising carbon dioxide emissions, using energy efficiently and including renewable energy, in accordance with the London Plan energy hierarchy. A small part of a Borough level Site of Importance for Nature Conservation would be lost, and a small number of ‘category B’ trees would be removed; however, this is unavoidable in order to bring the site forward, and the proposals include mitigation in the form of semi-mature tree planting and landscaped public and amenity spaces. The development would also deliver sustainable

page 5 urban drainage, ecology and urban greening benefits. As such the scheme complies with Policies within Chapter 5 of the London Plan, and Policies 7.19 and 7.21; Policies within Chapter 9 of the draft London Plan, and Policies G5, G6 and G7; the Sustainable Design and Construction SPG, and Greenwich Council Core Strategy Policies H5, E(e), E1, E2, OS4 and OS(f). viii. The area has a good level of transport infrastructure provision and the proposal would provide a bus interchange of improved quality and capacity. Bus services in the area have been improved as the result of a new bus route that has been agreed during the course of the application. The scheme will allow improved access to the adjacent train station, which is currently being upgraded with a larger building providing improved access and greater capacity. Station platforms have also recently been lengthened to improve accessibility to trains. An appropriate package of transport mitigation measures is proposed in terms of walking, cycling, bus infrastructure, and travel plan incentives. Car and cycle parking provision complies with the standards in the London Plan and draft London Plan. The highways and public transport impacts of the proposals are acceptable. Subject to the transport mitigation measures being secured, the application supports the transport policies in the London Plan, the draft London Plan, Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy, and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

ix. The Environmental Statement (ES) and Addendum provide an assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposal on the environment during the construction and operational phases. The ES, Addendum and supporting documents comply with the relevant regulations in terms of their scope and methodology for assessment and reporting and have been independently assessed and agreed. The supporting documents also appropriately respond to and address Development Plan policy, supplementary planning guidance and the representations made. As is usual for a major development of this nature, there are potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, mitigation has been identified to address adverse impacts. Given the context of the site, the environmental impact of the development is acceptable in view of the general compliance with relevant London Plan, draft London Plan, and local policy standards; and where applicable, the relevant British Standards.

x. Appropriate, relevant, reasonable and necessary planning conditions and planning obligations are proposed to ensure that the development is acceptable in planning terms and the environmental, and socio-economic impacts are mitigated, in line with London Plan Policy 8.2, draft London Plan Policy DF1, and Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy IMI.

xi. Accordingly, the proposals are considered to accord with the development plan.

Recommendation

3 That the Deputy Mayor (acting under delegated powers), acting as Local Planning Authority, grants planning permission in respect of application 18/4187/F, subject to the prior completion of a section 106 legal agreement, and the inclusion of planning conditions and informatives, as summarised below. The detailed wording of conditions and informatives will be published in the draft decision notice on the day of the hearing.

4 That the Deputy Mayor delegates authority to the Chief Planner and the Executive Director of Development, Enterprise and Environment to issue the planning permission and attach, add, delete or vary the final wording of the conditions and informatives as required.

5 That the Deputy Mayor agrees that the Chief Planner and the Executive Director of Development, Enterprise and Environment, be given delegated authority to negotiate and complete the section 106 legal agreement, the principles of which have been agreed with the applicant as set out below.

page 6 6 That the Deputy Mayor delegates authority to the Chief Planner and the Executive Director of Development, Enterprise and Environment to refuse planning permission if, by 30 November 2019, the section 106 legal agreement has not been completed.

7 That the Deputy Mayor notes the approval of details pursuant to conditions imposed on the planning permission will be submitted to, and determined by, Greenwich Council (the “Council”).

8 That the Deputy Mayor notes that the Council will be responsible for the enforcement of the conditions attached to the permission.

Section 106 legal agreement

9 The following planning obligations are proposed within the section 106 legal agreement.

Affordable housing

10 As discussed in the housing section of this report, the Section 106 agreement would secure the applicant’s offer of 51% affordable housing by habitable room, in accordance with the proposed policy compliant tenure mix, with appropriate obligations in relation to the definition, eligibility, affordability and perpetuity of affordable housing units across the various tenures. An early stage review mechanism is set out in the section 106 agreement to incentivise the delivery of the site and ensure the appropriately timed delivery of affordable housing. In addition, arrangements for the management of London Affordable Rent (LAR) units by the Registered Provider, a nominations agreement and obligations in relation to service charges for London Affordable Rent (LAR) and London Shared Ownership (LSO) units would be secured. GLA officers consider that these obligations are necessary to ensure compliance with the London Plan, the draft London Plan, the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and Greenwich Council’s Local Plan.

Transport

11 The following transport obligations would be secured by legal agreement: • A commitment to provide at least six car club spaces, with the first 5 years of membership paid by the applicant, to promote low levels of car ownership; • A Travel Plan and monitoring, to encourage modal shift and the use of sustainable modes of transport; • A contribution of £12,400 towards adult cycle training for residents, to encourage use of sustainable modes of transport; • A financial contribution (sum to be confirmed) towards local improvements to enhance the pedestrian and cycling environment to and from the site, including works to existing or proposed ‘Cycleways’ routes, and junction improvement works to enable cyclists to cross safely; • Prohibit future occupants from applying for a resident's parking permit in a Controlled Parking Zone, so as to discourage car ownership and use by new residents, and promote sustainable modes of transport; • Secure the stopping up of the existing highway pursuant to section 247 Town and Country Planning Act 1990; • Contribution of £400,000 towards the potential provision of two accessible lifts at the existing Network Rail footbridge at Kidbrooke Station, in order to facilitate step-free access across the railway line (to be repaid after 10 years should the lifts not be delivered);

page 7 • Provision of a publicly accessible lift to the existing footbridge over the site and the railway lines, maintenance and 24 hour access, to improve accessibility through the site; • Public 24 hour access to all public realm areas; • Replacement of existing bus infrastructure with improved facilities, and temporary arrangements for access to buses during construction; • A section 278 agreement with Transport for London in respect of the appropriate traffic management and arrangements for access to and from the site by all modes; • Implementation of measures during each phase of development to ensure pedestrian and cyclist safety, personal security and efficient movement via a step free route(s) for those living, working or visiting the local area including the connection between bus stops in the vicinity of the site and Kidbrooke railway station. Other obligations: • Provision of workspace targeted at small enterprises in the independent and creative industries, including a suitable workspace strategy covering marketing and specification; • Provision of the proposed nursery; • Carbon off-set payment of £592,167 to ensure compliance with the zero carbon standard set out in the London Plan, draft London Plan and GLA energy assessment guidance; • Provisions to future proof the site to enable connection to a district heat network; • Contribution of £639,203 to local employment and training, and recruit employees, contractors and sub-contractors from the Royal Borough of Greenwich, in line with the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD; • Section 106 monitoring fee, dispute resolution provisions and provisions for repayment of unspent financial contributions; and • Reasonable legal costs.

Conditions and informatives1

12 The following list provides summary of the subject matter of the conditions and informatives to be attached to any planning permission that is to be granted: 1. Expiration of planning permission 2. Approved drawings and documents 3. Phasing of development 4. Environmental Statement mitigation measures 5. Quantum of non-residential development 6. Maximum floorspace restrictions 7. Land contamination – remediation strategy 8. Land contamination - verification report 9. Contamination not previously identified 10. Construction plant and machinery 11. Construction Logistics and Management Plan – Enabling works 12. Construction Logistics and Management Plan – Phases 1, 2 and 3 13. Surface water drainage 14. Bird/bat boxes

1 The detailed wording of conditions and informatives will be published in the draft decision notice on the day of the hearing.

page 8 15. Bat survey 16. Explosive ordnance 17. Noise – external facade levels, glazing and ventilation 18. Noise – bus interchange 19. Noise – commercial/residential sound insulation 20. Car park design and management plan 21. Electrical vehicle charging points 22. Highways – signs, road markings and traffic calming 23. Cycle parking 24. Accessibility arrangements 25. Green roofs 26. BREEAM (non-residential uses) 27. Carbon emissions reduction (residential) 28. Energy centre 29. On-site renewable energy technologies – evidence of installation 30. On-site renewable energy technologies – monitoring 31. Water efficiency 32. Site waste management plan 33. Piling 34. Secured by Design 35. Bus stands, stops and signage 36. Water network upgrades 37. Material details 38. Landscape strategy 39. Hard landscaping details 40. Soft landscaping details 41. Noise – embedded mitigation 42. Shop front details 43. Odour – fixed plant and equipment 44. Noise – fixed plant and equipment 45. Children’s play areas 46. Car parking 47. Site-wide wayfinding strategy 48. Speed restrictions 49. Wheelchair adaptable dwellings 50. Wheelchair accessible user dwellings 51. Implementation of agreed biodiversity mitigation/enhancement 52. Protected species mitigation strategy and monitoring 53. Landscape management plan 54. Estate management strategy 55. Water efficiency 56. Air quality and air quality neutral assessment 57. Air quality assessment – boilers 58. Tree Protection Plan 59. Timing of vegetation clearance (breeding birds) 60. Delivery and servicing plan 61. Ancillary gym 62. Non-residential uses – restrictions 63. D1 uses – restrictions 64. Satellite dishes 65. Flood risk 66. Fire safety

page 9

Informatives

1. Phasing 2. Water resources 3. Water mains Publication protocol

13 This report has been published seven clear days prior to the Representation Hearing, in accordance with the GLA procedure for Representation Hearings. Where necessary, an addendum to this report will be published on the day of the Representation Hearing. This report, any addendum, and the Deputy Mayor’s decision on this case will be made available on the GLA website: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/planning-applications-and-decisions/public- hearings/kidbrooke-station-square-public-hearing

Site description

14 The 1.7 hectares site is located immediately north of Kidbrooke Station, bounded by the railway line to the south, the A2213 (Kidbrooke Park Road) to the north and west, and the A2 (Rochester Way Relief Road) to the east (see Figure 1 below). The brownfield site mainly comprises scattered scrub and woodland, but also includes the locally adopted Henley Cross highway, which provides pedestrian and vehicular access from Kidbrooke Park Road to the operational Henley Cross bus interchange within the site, and access to the northern entrance of Kidbrooke Station, at the central point of the site’s southern boundary. Additional pedestrian and cycle access is via a ramp and steps along the railway line (outside the site boundary) from Kidbrooke Park Road; a ramp and steps to a subway under the A2213 to the north; and a subway under the A2 to the east, which connects to a raised footbridge passing over the site and across the railway line.

Figure 1 – application site and boundary

page 10 15 The site was developed from arable land to an RAF base (1917-1965). After the base’s closure, the facility was demolished, with the Ferrier Estate (1968–2012) being constructed to the south of the railway lines. In the 1980s, the A2 Rochester Way Relief Road was built across the northern part of the area, with the site used for materials storage during construction.

16 The wider area is characterised by a mix of residential, commercial, educational and community uses. Kidbrooke Village lies to the south beyond the railway line, a phased development of the former Ferrier Estate covering approximately 14 hectares, with planning permission for 4,966 dwellings, commercial and community spaces and public realm. Beyond the A2213 to the north is a large retail shed formerly occupied by a Homebase DIY store, with part now being converted to an Aldi food store; with low-rise residential beyond. Beyond the A2213 to the west are warehouse buildings, allotments, and a secondary school (Thomas Tallis School). Beyond the A2 to the east is a new National Maritime Museum storage facility, with low-rise residential use beyond.

17 The highest level within the site is approximately 37 metres AOD along the north-east boundary, dropping by up to approximately 9 metres towards the railway line to the south. The level change at the north-west end of the site is much less, of below 3 metres. More widely, the land rises to the north, with Blackheath and Woolwich Common rising to 45 metres AOD and 65 metres AOD respectively, and Shooters Hill and Eltham Common to approximately 120 metres AOD.

18 The site is located within Flood Zone 1, which means it is at low risk of tidal and fluvial flooding, and is predominantly at very low risk of flooding from surface water, with some small areas within the site at ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ risk of flooding, associated with low points in the natural topography of the site. The site does not overlay a designated aquifer nor is it in a Groundwater Source Protection Zone.

19 The site lies within the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Impact Zone for Oxleas Wood SSSI, which is located more than 2 kilometres east. Kidbrooke Green and Birdbrook Road Nature Reserves, which are Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) of Metropolitan importance, are 50 metres and 90 metres north of the site, and the Blackheath to Falconwood Railsides SINC of Grade II Borough importance, runs along the railway line, extending into the site as a strip along the central part of the site.

20 The site falls within the outline Kidbrooke masterplan, approved in June 2009 for renewal of the Ferrier Estate (GLA Ref: PDU/2245/02), which includes Kidbrooke Village to the south (4,966 homes consented). In October 2018, planning permission (LPA Ref: 18/2904/F) was granted for the new 256 sq.m. Kidbrooke Station building (ticket hall, retail space, cycle storage, staff and toilet facilities) on the south side of the Station, which is currently under construction and expected to open in early 2020.

21 The site is designated by Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Addendum – UDP Site Proposal Schedules as ‘mu39’, which comprises Kidbrooke Station transport interchange and local centre, with further housing. Kidbrooke is designated as a Strategic Development Location in the Core Strategy. The new Kidbrooke Station and Phase 3 of the Kidbrooke Village development (both under construction) form the remainder of the local centre, located on the opposite side of the railway line. The site comprises draft allocation K3 in the Councils’ Site Allocations Preferred Approach (August 2019), which identifies the site for residential-led mixed use development, including 50% affordable housing, retail/cafe use, flexible B1 workspace, nursery, and an improved station access/transport interchange. The site is within an Intensification Area and Regeneration Area as designated in the London Plan.

22 The site does not lie within a conservation area and there are no listed buildings within the site. The closest conservation area (CA) is Greenwich Council’s Blackheath Park CA, approximately 500 metres to the west/north-west of the site. Greenwich Council’s Blackheath CA is approximately 900

page 11 metres to the north-west and Lewisham Council’s Blackheath CA is approximately 1.2 kilometres to the north-west, both of which partially incorporate the buffer zone (approximately 1.2 kilometres away) to the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. Well Hall Pleasaunce and Eltham Palace CAs are approximately 1.4 kilometres and 1.8 kilometres south-east of the site, respectively. The conservation areas contain numerous listed buildings.

23 The A2 Rochester Way Relief Road and the A2213 Kidbrooke Park Road form part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). The nearest part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) is the A206, Woolwich Road, situated approximately 2.7 kilometres to the north. Kidbrooke Station is operated by Southeastern Railway, serving Dartford, Slade Green, London Cannon Street, London Bridge, and London Victoria and with a typical off-peak service of 6 trains per hour, and 10 trains per hour towards central London during the 8:00-9:00 AM peak. North Greenwich Underground Station is located 4.5 kilometres to the north. There are 3 bus stops within 150 metres of the site (including one in the bus interchange within the site, providing access to route 178, and route 335 between Kidbrooke Village and North Greenwich, operating from 26 October 2019. Additional bus routes can be accessed within a short walk from the site. The site records a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 3/4 (moderate), on a scale of 0-6b, where 6b is the highest, accounting for the recent introduction of bus route 335.

Details of the proposal

24 The application seeks full planning permission for a residential-led mixed use development comprising 619 residential units, 1,073 sq.m. of office space (Use Class B1(a)), 366 sq.m. of retail space (Use Class A1), 216 sq.m. of flexible retail/business space (Use Class A1/A3/B1), and a 365 sq.m. nursery (Use Class D1), within buildings of 9 to 20 storeys. Of the residential units, 310 would be for market sale and 309 would be affordable (51% by habitable room). The affordable units would comprise 152 London Affordable Rent units (55% by habitable room) and 157 London Shared Ownership units (45% by habitable room).

25 Eight buildings are proposed (Block A in the west, to H in the east) set around two public spaces; a ‘public square’ (Station Square) to the west and a ‘residential square’ to the east. Additional public realm areas are made up of the ‘station link’, an amenity space/service route that connects the two squares along the southern boundary adjoining the railway line; and the ‘green spine’, which is a landscaped, terraced area that connects the public square to a pedestrian walkway through the green buffer along the northern boundary of the site. Vehicular access to the site would be from Kidbrooke Park Road to the north-west.

26 The massing of the scheme ranges from 9 to 20 storeys, plus a single storey cafe. The two tallest 20 storey buildings (Block A and H) are located at the east and west ends of the site, with buildings of between 9 and 16 storeys in the central part of the site.

27 The commercial floorspace is concentrated in and around the public square as part of the new local centre, including a centrally located single storey cafe building within the square. The nursery is located in Block H, fronting onto the residential square over two storeys, with an estimated capacity of 70 children.

28 Five bus stops/stands are proposed as a replacement bus interchange around the perimeter of the public square. The square fronts onto the entrance to the Station, which has an existing footbridge over the railway line to the southern platform, accessed by stairs. An existing public footbridge passing over the south-east of the site links the A2 underpass to the north, over the railway line, to a ramp on the southern side connecting to Kidbrooke Village. This would be retained, and connected to the residential square by a new publicly accessible lift within Block H.

page 12 29 A total of 82 car parking spaces are proposed for residential use only, with 76 at ground/first floor level within the podium beneath Blocks D and F, including 19 for disabled residents and 16 for electrical vehicles; with 6 on-street car club spaces to the south of the residential square; and no parking spaces for the non-residential uses. The proposal also includes 1,104 cycle parking spaces spread across the site for residents, including 15 short-stay for visitors; and a further 34 cycle parking spaces for the non-residential elements, including 15 short-stay.

30 The agreed phasing plan identifies that Blocks B-G (including all affordable housing) will be delivered as phase 1, together with the energy centre attached to Block H; Block H (market housing) as phase 2; and Block A (market housing) as phase 3.

Figure 2 – Proposed layout

Figure 3 – Proposed massing (with Kidbrooke Village Phase 3 to the south)

page 13 Relevant planning history

EIA screening

31 In August 2018, an EIA Scoping Opinion approved the proposed scope of assessment in respect of a mixed-use development to provide approximately 650 homes, 1,215 sq.m. of Use Class A1-A3 retail floorspace, 360 sq.m. of Use Class B1 business floorspace, new public realm, transport interchange, associated parking and servicing arrangements.

GLA pre-application discussions

32 On 2 May 2018, a pre-planning application meeting was held at City Hall for a “residential- led mixed use development of circa 600 new homes, commercial ground floor uses (Use Classes A1- A4 and D1-D2), a hotel (Use Class C1), public realm, bus stops and facilities and station access in an improved transport interchange; and improved pedestrian and cycle access”. On 25 June 2018, a pre-application advice note was issued, which concluded that the principle of the proposed scheme was supported; however, more family sized London Affordable Rent units were requested, some design and historic environment impact concerns were raised, and further work was required in relation to climate change and transport issues.

33 On 12 September 2018, a further pre-application meeting was held for a “residential led mixed-use development within 8 buildings of up to 24 storeys, comprising 651 residential units (50% affordable housing, 49% affordable rent, 51% shared ownership); 564 sq.m. of retail/commercial space and 874 sq.m. of workspace; public realm, including Station Square and a smaller residential square to the east; and an improved transport interchange, incorporating new station access, two bus stops and three bus stands”. On 1 October 2018, a pre-application advice note was issued, which concluded that the principle of development of the site, including 50% affordable housing, was strongly supported; however, there were concerns about the impact of the surrounding roads on residential quality, including air quality; and the impact on the historic environment due to the height of the two tallest buildings.

Current application

34 The current application was submitted to Greenwich Council on 29 November 2018 (Ref: GLA/3757a/01; LPA ref: 18/4187/F). This proposed 619 residential units, 1,174 sq.m. of office space, 580 sq.m. of retail space, and a 309 sq.m. nursery, within eight buildings of 9 to 20 storeys; a new bus station interchange; and two new public spaces. The application was later amended, as detailed below.

35 On 6 December 2018, the Mayor of London received documents from Greenwich Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. The application was referred under Category 1A, 1B(c) and 1C(c) of the Schedule to the Order 2008: • Category 1A “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats or houses and flats; • Category 1B(c) “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres; • Category 1C(c) “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building that is 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.

page 14 36 On 21 January 2019, the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills (acting under delegated authority) considered planning report GLA/3757a/01 (the ‘Stage I Report’). This report advised Greenwich Council that while the high-density, residential-led, mixed-use redevelopment of the site was supported in principle, the application did not yet fully comply with the London Plan and the draft London Plan, with issues raised relating to affordable housing, urban and inclusive design, transport, and climate change to be addressed.

37 Amendments to the application were submitted in April 2019, comprising an Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum, and amended drawings and documents, which were subject to public consultation. These can be summarised as follows: • Relocation of the nursery from ground floor of Block B/C to ground/first floor of Block H (swapping with a workspace unit) and increase in floorspace from 274 to 365 sq.m.; • Estate Management Office relocated from the ground floor of Block C to the ground floor of Block E (swapping with a commercial unit); • Amendments to the layouts of one-bed residential units in Blocks A, D, G, H & F to improve daylight/sunlight levels. • Increased floorspace of 14 one-bed residential units within Blocks C and E. • Increase in storage space in residential units. • Amendments to the ground level external amenity space for duplex units in Blocks E/G to improve privacy. • Oversized cycle provision increased to 46 (4% of the residential cycle spaces proposed). • Balconies at levels 2-8 on the north-east elevation of Block F replaced with winter gardens to improve residential amenity, in addition to levels 2-6 of the south-east elevation of Block H. • Amendments to wheelchair user dwellings to ensure full compliance with Building Regulations. • Layout of the roof-top photovoltaics amended for greater efficiency. • Revised and additional landscape plans and details to provide greater detail. • Clarifications on layout; bulk, scale and massing; elevational design; private amenity space; communal amenity space; and residential unit floor areas.

38 On 16 July 2019, the Council resolved to refuse planning permission, against the recommendation of officers that planning permission should be granted. The Council’s draft decision notice cited the following reasons for refusal: 1. “The proposed development, by reason of its excessively high density, represents an overdevelopment of the application site, which fails to positively respond to the local context, transport capacity, and would result in a sub-standard overall quality of residential environment. The height and scale of the proposed tall buildings are also excessive and dominate the townscape of the Hub location in the Kidbrooke Development Area. The proposed development fails to remain sufficiently subservient to and would visually compete with Kidbrooke Village, which is envisaged to be the focal point of the Hub. The proposal is therefore contrary with the NPPF (2019), policies 3.4, 3.5, 3.8, 3.16, 6.3, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.7 of the London Plan (2016), and policies H5, DH1 and DH2 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the guidance contained within the Kidbrooke Development Area SPD (2008). 2. The proposed development, by reason of its excessive height, scale and bulk, would form a visually dominant element that would be visible over the largely intact skyline of the Blackheath Conservation Area and the listed buildings along Montpellier Row when viewed from parts of The Blackheath. It would therefore be unsympathetic to the special historic character of the Blackheath Conservation Area and listed buildings; thereby resulting in a harmful impact to their setting. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets; however, the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh this harm. The application is therefore contrary to the NPPF (2019), policies 7.4, 7.6, 7.7 and

page 15 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), policies DH1, DH2 DH3, DH(h) and DH(i) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the guidance within the London Borough of Lewisham’s Blackheath Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Supplementary Planning Document (2007). 3. The information provided fails to adequately demonstrate that the proposed development will have an acceptable impact on the public transport network. The application is therefore contrary to policies 3.4 and 6.3 of the London Plan (2016) and policy IM4 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014). 4. The information provided fails to adequately demonstrate that the future occupants of the proposed development would be sufficiently protected from poor air quality impacts resulting from its location and the siting of residential buildings adjoining busy main roads. The application is therefore contrary with policy 7.14 of the London Plan (2016) and policy E(c) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014).”

39 On 5 August 2019, the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills (acting under delegated authority) considered a planning report reference GLA/3756a/02 (the ‘Stage 2 Report’). The report concluded that having regard to the details of the application, the development is of such a nature and scale that it would have a significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan, in particular with respect to the delivery of housing and affordable housing, and consequently there are sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this case and issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he would act as the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of determining the application. The Deputy Mayor agreed with this recommendation.

40 The Stage 2 report identified that there were matters requiring further consideration and resolution in light of the Council’s resolution, including low cost/affordable workspace; affordable housing provisions; density, residential quality, air quality, and response to local context; historic environment impacts; transport; and climate change. Since the Deputy Mayor issued this direction, GLA officers have worked with the applicant to resolve these issues through clarifications, the submission of further information, draft planning conditions and the draft section 106 agreement provisions, as discussed in this report. The limited additional information provided did not require further public consultation.

41 Public consultation has been undertaken on the proposals by Greenwich Council in accordance with statutory requirements, as outlined above and explained further below.

42 The Deputy Mayor has undertaken an accompanied site visit with GLA and TfL officers, representatives from Greenwich Council, and the applicant team.

43 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case. The Deputy Mayor’s decision on this case, and the reasons for it, will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Relevant legislation, policies and guidance

44 This application for planning permission must be determined by the Deputy Mayor (acting under delegated authority) in accordance with the requirement of Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In particular, the Deputy Mayor is required to determine the application in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area consists of the Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (July 2014), and the 2016 London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011).

page 16 45 On 1 December 2017, the Mayor published his draft London Plan for public consultation. Consultation on the Plan closed on 2 March 2018. On 13 August 2018, the Mayor published a version of the draft Plan that includes his minor suggested changes. The draft London Plan was subject to an Examination in Public (EiP), which was undertaken between 15 January and 22 May 2019. On 16 July 2019, the Mayor published the Draft London Plan – Consolidated Suggested Changes Version (July 2019), which incorporates the suggested changes put forward by the Mayor before, during, and after the EiP sessions. The Panel of Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State issued their report and recommendations to the Mayor and this was published on the GLA website on 21 October 2019. In line with paragraph 48 of the NPPF, the weight attached to the draft London Plan should reflect the stage of its preparation; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging Plan to the NPPF.

46 The Deputy Mayor is also required to have regard to national planning policy and guidance, as well as supplementary planning documents and, depending on their state of advancement, emerging elements of the development plan and other planning policies.

47 The relevant planning policies and guidance at the national, regional and local levels are noted in the following paragraphs.

48 Paragraph 213 of the NPPF states that existing policies should not be considered out-of- date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of the NPPF, and that due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. All relevant policies in the adopted development plan and the emerging policies of the draft London Plan are considered to be consistent with the NPPF. Thus, the adopted development plan policies can be given full weight, whilst those in the draft London Plan can be given significant weight as explained below.

National planning policy and guidance

49 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the Government’s overarching planning policy framework. First published in 2012, the Government published a revised NPPF in July 2018 and a further revised NPPF in February 2019. The NPPF defines three dimensions to sustainable development: an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy; a social role - supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities; and, an environmental role - contributing to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment. The sections of the NPPF which are relevant to this application are: 2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 6. Building a strong, competitive economy 7. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 9. Promoting sustainable transport 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

page 17 50 A key component of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In terms of decision making, this means approving applications that accord with the development plan without delay; or, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or where such policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless either: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole; or where NPPF policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing a proposed development.

51 The National Planning Practice Guidance is also a material consideration.

Spatial Development Strategy for London and supplementary guidance

52 The London Plan 2016 is the Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. The relevant policies within the London Plan are: • Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London; • Policy 2.9 Inner London; • Policy 2.13 Opportunity Areas and intensification areas; • Policy 2.14 Areas for regeneration; • Policy 2.15 Town centres; • Policy 2.18 Green infrastructure; • Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all; • Policy 3.2 Improving health and addressing health inequalities; • Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply; • Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential; • Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments; • Policy 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities; • Policy 3.7 Large residential developments • Policy 3.8 Housing choice; • Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities; • Policy 3.10 Definition of affordable housing; • Policy 3.11 Affordable housing targets; • Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing; • Policy 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds; • Policy 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure; • Policy 3.18 Education facilities; • Policy 4.1 Developing London’s economy; • Policy 4.2 Offices; • Policy 4.7 Retail and town centre development; • Policy 4.8 Supporting a successful and diverse retail sector; • Policy 4.12 Improving opportunities for all; • Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation; • Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions; • Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction; • Policy 5.4A Electricity and gas supply; • Policy 5.5 Decentralised energy networks; • Policy 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals; • Policy 5.7 Renewable energy; • Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling; • Policy 5.10 Urban greening; • Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs;

page 18 • Policy 5.12 Flood risk management; • Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage; • Policy 5.14 Water quality and wastewater infrastructure; • Policy 5.15 Water use and supplies; • Policy 5.17 Waste capacity; • Policy 5.18 Construction, excavation and demolition waste; • Policy 5.21 Contaminated land; • Policy 6.1 Strategic approach to transport; • Policy 6.2 Providing public transport capacity and safeguarding land for transport; • Policy 6.3 Assessing the effects of development on transport capacity; • Policy 6.5 Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure; • Policy 6.7 Better streets and surface transport; • Policy 6.9 Cycling; • Policy 6.10 Walking; • Policy 6.12 Road network capacity; • Policy 6.13 Parking; • Policy 6.14 Freight; • Policy 7.1 Lifetime neighbourhoods; • Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment; • Policy 7.3 Designing out crime; • Policy 7.4 Local character; • Policy 7.5 Public realm; • Policy 7.6 Architecture; • Policy 7.7 Location and design of tall and large buildings; • Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology; • Policy 7.10 World heritage sites; • Policy 7.11 London view management framework; • Policy 7.12 Implementing the London view management framework; • Policy 7.13 Safety, security and resilience to emergency; • Policy 7.14 Improving air quality; • Policy 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes; • Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature; • Policy 7.21 Trees and woodlands; • Policy 8.2 Planning obligations; and • Policy 8.3 Community Infrastructure Levy.

53 As set out above, policies in the draft London Plan - Consolidated Suggested Changes Version (July 2019) must be taken into account in the determination of the application, but the weight attached to these should be reflective of the criteria set out in paragraph 48 of the NPPF. These are the stage of its preparation; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging Plan to the NPPF.

54 The Examination in Public on the London Plan was held between 15 January and 22 May 2019. The Panel of Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State issued their report and recommendations to the Mayor and this was published on the GLA website on 21 October 2019. The Mayor is currently considering the Panel report and recommendations and is preparing an ‘Intend to Publish’ version of the London Plan, which will be sent to the Secretary of State alongside a schedule of the Panel’s recommendation and the Mayor’s response to them, and published on line by the end of the year.

page 19 55 The Examination in Public Panel Report recommends some changes to the text of draft London Plan policies, which are reflected in the relevant sections below; however, in terms of the policies relevant to matters considered in this case, these are not significant and are addressed throughout this report. Since the emerging plan is well advanced towards adoption and consistent with the NPPF, significant weight can now be attached to the policies of the draft London Plan relevant to this case. The following policies in the draft London Plan are considered to be relevant: • Policy GG1 Building strong and inclusive communities; • Policy GG2 Making best use of land; • Policy GG3 Creating a healthy city; • Policy GG4 Delivering the homes Londoners need; • Policy GG5 Growing a good economy; • Policy GG6 Increasing efficiency and resilience; • Policy SD6 Town centres and high streets; • Policy SD7 Town centres: development principles and DPDs; • Policy SD8 Town centre network; • Policy SD10 Strategic and local regeneration; • Policy D1 London’s form, characteristic and capacity for growth; • Policy D1A Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities; • Policy D1B Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach; • Policy D2 Delivering good design; • Policy D3 Inclusive design; • Policy D4 Housing quality and standards; • Policy D5 Accessible housing; • Policy D7 Public realm; • Policy D8 Tall Buildings; • Policy D10 Safety, security and resilience to emergency; • Policy D11 Fire Safety; • Policy D13 Noise; • Policy H1 Increasing housing supply; • Policy H5 Delivering affordable housing; • Policy H6 Threshold approach to applications; • Policy H7 Affordable housing tenure; • Policy H12 Housing size mix; • Policy S1 Developing London’s social infrastructure; • Policy S3 Education and childcare facilities; • Policy S4 Play and informal recreation; • Policy E1 Offices; • Policy E2 Providing suitable business space; • Policy E3 Affordable workspace; • Policy E11 Skills and opportunities for all; • Policy HC1 Heritage conservation and growth; • Policy HC2 World Heritage Sites; • Policy HC3 Strategic and local views; • Policy HC4 London View Management Framework; • Policy G1 Green infrastructure; • Policy G4 Open space; • Policy G5 Urban greening; • Policy G6 Biodiversity and access to nature; • Policy G7 Trees and woodlands;

page 20 • Policy SI1 Improving air quality; • Policy SI2 Minimising greenhouse gas emissions; • Policy SI3 Energy infrastructure; • Policy SI4 Managing heat risk; • Policy SI5 Water infrastructure; • Policy SI7 Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy; • Policy SI12 Flood Risk Management; • Policy SI13 Sustainable drainage; • Policy T1 Strategic approach to transport; • Policy T2 Healthy streets; • Policy T3 Transport capacity, connectivity and safeguarding; • Policy T4 Assessing and mitigating transport impacts; • Policy T5 Cycling; • Policy T6 Car parking; • Policy T6.1 Residential parking; • Policy T6.2 Office parking; • Policy T6.3 Retail parking; • Policy T6.5 Non-residential disabled persons parking; • Policy T7 Deliveries, servicing and construction; • Policy T9 Funding transport infrastructure through planning; and • Policy DF1 Delivery of the plan and planning obligations.

56 The following published supplementary planning guidance (SPG), strategies and other documents are also relevant: • Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (August 2017); • Housing SPG (March 2016); • Social Infrastructure SPG (May 2015); • Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG (October 2014); • The control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition SPG (July 2014); • Character and context SPG (June 2014); • London View Management Framework SPG (March 2012); • London World Heritage Sites (March 2012); • Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (April 2014); • Shaping Neighbourhoods: play and informal recreation SPG (September 2012); • All London Green Grid SPG (March 2012); • Planning for Equality and Diversity in London (October 2007); • Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (April 2013); • Crossrail Funding (March 2016); • Town Centres SPG (July 2014); • Character and Context SPG (July 2014); • Mayor’s Environment Strategy (May 2018); • Mayor’s Housing Strategy (May 2018); and • Mayor’s Transport Strategy (March 2018).

Local planning policy and guidance

57 The Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (July 2014) provide local development plan planning policies for the area. The relevant policies are:

page 21 • Policy H1 New Housing; • Policy H2 Housing Mix; • Policy H3 Affordable Housing; • Policy H5 Housing Design; • Policy H(e) Children’s play areas; • Policy EA1 Economic Development; • Policy EA(c) Skills and Training; • Policy TC1 Town Centres; • Policy DH1 Design; • Policy DH2 Tall Buildings; • Policy DH3 Heritage Assets; • Policy DH4 Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site; • Policy DH(b) Protection of Amenity for Adjacent Occupiers; • Policy DH(g) Local Views; • Policy DH(h) Conservation Areas; • Policy DH(i) Statutorily Listed Buildings; • Policy DH(m) Archaeology; • Policy OS4 Biodiversity; • Policy OS(c) Public Open Space Deficiency Areas; • Policy OS(f) Ecological Factors; • Policy E1 Carbon Emissions; • Policy E2 Flood Risk; • Policy E(a) Pollution; • Policy E(c) Air Pollution; • Policy E(e) Contaminated Land; • Policy E(f) Living Roofs and Walls; • Policy CH1 Cohesive Communities; • Policy CH2 Healthy Communities; • Policy IM1 Infrastructure; • Policy IM4 Sustainable Travel; • Policy IM(a) Impact on the Road Network; • Policy IM(b) Walking and Cycling; and • Policy IM(c) Parking Standards.

58 The following adopted Greenwich Council Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents are also relevant to the proposal: • Planning Obligations SPD (July 2015); and • Kidbrooke Development Area SPD (June 2008).

55 Greenwich Council has published its Site Allocations Preferred Approach Regulation 18 Consultation (August 2019). This should be taken into account in the determination of the application, but the weight attached should be reflective of the criteria set out in paragraph 48 of the NPPF. Given the very early stage of the preparation of this document, it can only be given very limited weight.

Other relevant documents

59 The following Conservation Area Appraisals are also relevant: • Greenwich Council’s Blackheath Park Conservation Area Appraisal (2013);

page 22 • Greenwich Council’s Blackheath Conservation Area Appraisal (2013); • Lewisham Council’s Blackheath Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Supplementary Planning Document (2007).

Community Infrastructure Levy

60 Local planning authorities in London are able to introduce Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges, which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Greenwich Council’s CIL came into effect on 25 March 2015 and in this location is charged at a rate of £70 per sq.m. to residential, £100 for supermarkets of 280 sq.m. and over, £65 per sq.m. to student housing, and £100 per sq.m. to hotels, with a nil charge on other land uses. Following the adoption of a new charging schedule, MCIL2 rates now apply to planning permissions granted from 1 April 2019. Accordingly, a rate of £25 per sq.m. would apply to the residential and commercial floorspace proposed. CIL liability would be subject to relief for affordable housing.

Response to consultation

Initial consultation (December 2018)

61 Greenwich Council undertook consultation on the initial application during December 2018 by sending 509 letters of notification to neighbouring properties, relevant statutory bodies, neighbouring boroughs, and amenity groups, as well as issuing site and press notices. The following consultation responses were submitted to Greenwich Council.

Statutory consultee responses

62 Greater London Authority (including Transport for London): The Mayor’s initial Stage 1 consultation response is summarised above (GLA report ref: GLA/3757a/01).

63 Transport for London: Commented as part of the Mayor’s Stage 1 response, and also provided a separate direct response to Greenwich Council, setting out comments in relation to site access, layout, and Healthy Streets; walking and cycling; trip generation; public transport impact; highway impact; car parking; cycle parking; deliveries and servicing; on-site transport infrastructure; the travel plan; the construction logistics plan; and Mayoral CIL.

64 Historic England: Commented that “the proposed tall buildings would cause harm to the Blackheath Conservation Area by visually competing with its modest village character and the setting of listed buildings situated in this view”, and that the application should be considered in line with national and local policy guidance.

65 Historic England (archaeology): No objection. The proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest and therefore no further assessment, mitigation or conditions are considered necessary.

66 Lewisham Council: Objection. Identified “strong concerns regarding the harmful impact on the setting of designated heritage assets in Blackheath Conservation Area and the listed buildings on Montpelier Row”.

67 Metropolitan Police: No objection, subject to a ‘secured by design’ condition.

68 Natural England: No objection. Standard advice provided.

page 23 69 Environment Agency: No objection, subject to standard conditions relating to contaminated land, should contaminated land be identified on site.

70 Scotia Gas Networks: No objection. Standard advice provided.

71 Thames Water: No objection, subject to a condition to restrict occupation until confirmation that all water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed; or a housing and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with Thames Water to allow additional properties to be occupied. An informative was also requested relating to the proximity of underground water assets.

72 UK Power Networks: No objection. Standard advice provided.

Individual neighbour responses

73 A total of 32 objections were received in response to the public consultation undertaken on the original application. The grounds for objection are summarised below and grouped by topic headings used in this report:

Principle of development • Insufficient social infrastructure, particularly local schools, primary health care, and amenity space. • Lack of places or potential for social cohesion and risk of increasing levels of crime.

Housing • Insufficient levels of affordability for residential units.

Urban design and historic environment • Overdevelopment/excessive density. • Excessive building heights. • Buildings too close together. • Visual impact on the skyline/townscape. • Restriction of visual amenity to neighbouring residents. • Poor design quality. • Impact on local character. • Impact on nearby heritage assets. • Overshadowing/reducing natural light to surrounding properties. • Sense of enclosure. • Poor air quality due to surrounding roads. • Increased noise pollution. • Noise and air quality impacts from surrounding roads on health and wellbeing of residents.

Transport • Increase in traffic congestion. • Insufficient car parking spaces. • Insufficient wheelchair car parking spaces. • Insufficient transport infrastructure, particularly the rail network. • Inadequate pedestrian and cycle links, including lack of disabled access across the railway line and road safety.

page 24 Biodiversity and green space • Loss of wildlife habitats, trees and green area. • Lack of green space within development.

Other responses to the Council, including residents’ groups

74 Blackheath Park Conservation Group: Objected to the application on the following grounds: • Excessive heights of blocks A and H compared to Birch House; • Buildings too close together; • Excessive density; • Intrusion to the natural, built and historic environments of Blackheath; • High rise blocks are socially unsuccessful; and • Lower storeys will be overshadowed and devoid of direct sunlight.

75 Old Page Estate Residents Association: Objected to the application on the following grounds: • Excessive density and over-development; • Insufficient open spaces; • Limited access; • Unavailability of lifts at both footbridges crossing over the railway; • Detrimental effect on local views and heritage due to excessive heights; • Out of character with the scale of the surrounding buildings; • Insufficient health and education infrastructure; • Insufficient public transport infrastructure; • Insufficient transport/travel assessment; • Insufficient proportion of London Affordable Rent units; • Insufficient affordability of shared ownership units; • Segregated tenures; and • Depressing brick colours should be reviewed by the Design Review Panel.

76 Blackheath Society: Objected to the proposals on the following grounds: • Inadequate access and links to the surrounding area; • Lack of disabled access on both pedestrian bridges over the railway line; • Increased congestion and reduced safety at the Henley Cross/Kidbrooke Park Road; • Potential for the public square to be noisy, visually cluttered and dangerous for pedestrians; • Overdevelopment with excessive density, beyond guidance in the Kidbrooke SPD; • Excessive building heights unjustified, beyond guidance in the SPD; • Building heights not keeping with the surrounding suburban character; • Inadequate social and transport infrastructure in the area considering the level of population growth in Kidbrooke; • Inaccurate transport assessment; • Environmental impacts concerning traffic movement, air and noise pollution, over- shadowing, wind and light impacts largely ignored; and • Nuisance to road and rail users during construction.

77 Eltham Society: Supported the principle of residential development, but raised the following concerns:

page 25 • Excessive density, height, and over-development, considering the size of the site and limited access. • Poor access to services, considering the isolated nature of the site. • Inadequate provision of social infrastructure • Inadequate public transport provision, including disabled access to the Station. • Impact on local views of a wall across the skyline.

Greenwich Council Internal Consultees

78 Greenwich Council’s Education team confirmed that there is availability in the area to accommodate demand for school entry arising from the proposals.

79 The Council’s Children’s Services Team confirmed engagement with the applicant on the provision of a nursery, but raised concerns about the proposed location and facilities of the nursery. Conditions were requested to consult with Children’s Services on the proposed provider.

80 The Council’s Waste team confirmed that the applicant’s waste strategy is comprehensive.

81 The Council’s Highways Team recommended ongoing consultation with TfL and a number of conditions. Some concerns were raised about potential congestion on Kidbrooke Park Road.

82 The Council’s Public Health team advised on aspects of social cohesion, healthy and active lifestyle, and job creation and training; and enquired about the provision of public toilets.

83 The Council’s Housing team requested that the tenure split of affordable housing be amended to 70% London Affordable Rent and 30% shared ownership and the number of family- sized units increased; or a financial viability assessment should be submitted. The proposed rent levels were agreed.

84 The Council’s Environmental Health team requested conditions to be imposed relating to construction impacts; machinery; fixed plant and equipment; air quality neutral assessment; air quality assessment; glazing details; commercial/residential sound insulation; and the Council’s standard land contamination conditions.

85 The Council’s Occupational Therapist commented on the accessible units, and requested further information, conditions and informatives.

86 The Council’s Flood Risk Manager confirmed that the flood risk response was acceptable, and requested a condition.

87 The Council’s Sustainability and Renewal team requested further information on the energy strategy and BREEAM requirements, although confirmed that the approach was acceptable, subject to conditions. Water efficiency, sustainable design and construction, biodiversity, and overheating was confirmed as acceptable, subject to conditions.

88 The Council’s Conservation Officer advised that the proposals would cause harm to the settings of the Blackheath and Blackheath Park Conservation Areas.

89 The Council’s Tree Officer confirmed that none of the trees on the site are of any significant merit, and removal of a large part of the copse would be acceptable. Conditions were requested for a full investigation of all trees, a bat survey, and landscaping detailing.

90 The Council’s Building Control team confirmed the fire strategy was satisfactory.

page 26 Amended scheme re-consultation (April 2019)

91 On 17 April 2019, the applicant submitted amendments as summarised above, and a full re- consultation was carried out by Greenwich Council. Additional responses were received from the following statutory consultees as a result of the re-consultation.

92 London City Airport: No objection. Requested a condition relating to birds.

93 London Fire Brigade: No objection.

94 A total of 13 further objections were received from neighbouring properties; however, there were no substantially new issues raised within the additional objections that were not raised in the initial consultation exercise. Seven letters in support were received, on grounds of the provision of housing, affordable housing, and a nursery.

95 The Right Honourable Clive Efford, Member of Parliament for Eltham, objected on grounds as follows: • The need for improvement to local public transport in the context of local population growth, particularly the capacity of peak-hour trains; • The need for a DLR station at Kidbrooke, connecting Eltham with Silvertown; • Air pollution arising from neighbouring roads, which will worsen due to the Silvertown Tunnel; • Insufficient car parking; • Overdevelopment, excessive height, and visibility in long views, including Blackheath; and • Lack of social infrastructure.

96 Blackheath Park Conservation Group: Despite minor changes and some improvements, concerns remain as follows: • Social impact arising from over-development, unnecessarily tall buildings that are too close together and too close to the railway line and the A2. • Heritage impact on South Row/Montpelier Row in Blackheath Village and Greenwich Park. • Not in keeping with Kidbrooke Village. • Inadequate air quality report. • Estimates of increased pressure on trains optimistically low.

97 Blackheath Society: Original concerns remain. Requested that the application be deferred until questions around the impact of the new population on existing transport services and infrastructure and air quality doubts are better understood.

98 Old Page Estate Residents Association: Nothing in the amendments to remove the objection.

99 The Council’s Business Engagement Manager provided advice on the proposed workspace.

100 The Council’s Children’s Services Team supported the relocation of the proposed nursery towards the quieter and more residential end of the site.

101 The Council’s Environmental Health Team reviewed the amended Environmental Statement and recommended the Council’s standard land contamination conditions.

102 The Council’s Flood Risk Manager provided further comments on flood risk and drainage.

page 27 103 The Council’s Highways Team provided further comments on the Kidbrooke Park Road junction, car clubs, bus stands, cycle parking, and vehicle turning.

104 The Council’s Public Health Team provided further comments on community food growing, affordable housing management, cycling, healthcare provision, healthy workplaces, and other public health initiatives.

105 The Council’s Waste Team confirmed that the amendments do not affect the waste management arrangements.

Representations to the Mayor of London

106 No representations to the Mayor were received prior to the Deputy Mayor’s decision to take over determination of the application from Greenwich Council by issuing a direction under Article 7 of the 2008 Order on 5 August 2019. Subsequently, one additional objection has been received, which reflects the issues set out to Greenwich Council, as summarised above, with no new grounds for objection raised.

107 Councillor Sarah Merrill, Chair of Greenwich Council’s Planning Board provided a representation dated 16 October 2019 expanding on the Planning Board’s reasons for refusal: • Reason for refusal 1. The proposals would have a density of more than twice that indicated in Table 3.2 of the London Plan on the basis of an ‘urban’ setting and a PTAL of 3, and higher than the densities permitted for Phase 3 of Kidbrooke Village. The scheme exhibits symptoms of over-development in terms of impact on the local context, transport capacity, and sub-standard overall quality of residential environment. • Reason for refusal 2. The proposals would cause less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets; however, the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh this harm. The Planning Board considered that by reason of its excessive height, scale and bulk, the proposals would form a visually dominant element that would be visible along the largely intact skyline of the Blackheath Conservation Area and the listed buildings along Montpellier Road. The submitted views are not considered to accurately reflect the views on-site, and a site visit had revealed how Kidbrooke Village Phase 3 had already caused damage, which would be exacerbated by the development. • Reason for refusal 3. The accuracy of the calculation that the development would result in only 192 additional people travelling to London by train on weekdays 7-9AM is not accepted. The level of development, together with the already developed Kidbrooke Village to the south, and consented development to come, with no guarantee of any improvement to public transport (including capacity of trains) is unacceptable. The proposal would place an unacceptable burden on the currently overstretched public transport network. • Reason for refusal 4: The development would be surrounded by sources of poor air quality, in the form of the A2, A2213 and the railway line. The information provided fails to adequately demonstrate that future occupants would be sufficiently protected from poor air quality. The air quality monitoring locations used for the modelling were not located within the site, but more than one kilometre away. The accuracy of the modelling is questionable. • Conclusion: The development is contrary to the development plan. The need for new homes is acknowledged; however, this is not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the community.

108 The applicant commissioned a door-knock survey of approximately 30 local residents to the south-east of the site (outside Kidbrooke Village). Six generally positive comments have been provided, focusing on affordable homes, jobs and lifts. Negative comments (not provided) focused on parking, over-development, and lack of social infrastructure.

page 28 Representations summary

109 All representations received in respect of this application have been made available to the Deputy Mayor; however, in the interests of conciseness and for ease of reference, the issues raised have been summarised as detailed above. The key issues raised by the consultation responses, and the various other representations received, are addressed under the relevant topic headings within this report, and, where appropriate, through the proposed planning conditions, planning obligations and/or informatives outlined in the recommendation section of this report.

Environmental Impact Assessment

110 Planning applications for development that are covered by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 are termed “EIA applications”. The requirement for an EIA is based on the likelihood of environmental effects arising from the development. The proposed development is considered to comprise Schedule 2 development likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as nature, size or location. Consequently, the application is considered to form an application for EIA and it has been necessary that an Environmental Statement (ES) be prepared in accordance with EIA Regulations.

111 The applicant submitted an EIA Scoping Report to Greenwich Council in July 2018, outlining the proposed scope of the Environmental Statement (ES). In August 2018, an EIA Scoping Opinion approved the proposed scope of assessment in respect of a mixed-use development to provide approximately 650 homes, 1,215 sq.m. of Use Class A1-A3 retail floorspace, 360 sq.m. of Use Class B1 business floorspace, new public realm, transport interchange, associated parking and servicing arrangements. This confirmed that the scheme constituted EIA development and set out advice and instructions in relation to the methodology and scope of the assessment, including the topics that should be assessed during the EIA process, as well as those topics that could be ‘scoped out’ of the EIA, because the development was considered to either have no influence on these environmental aspects, or be unlikely to give rise to significant effects. The scope of the ES supporting the application is summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – EIA Scope, August 2018 Matters scoped in Matters scoped out • EIA Methodology, Consideration of • Archaeology; Alternatives and Cumulative Effects; • Energy; • Air Quality; • Transport; • Designated Heritage Assets; • Health Impact Assessment; and • Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing; • Transboundary Effects. • Ecology; • Flooding and Water Environment; • Ground Conditions and Contamination; • Noise and Vibration; • Socio-Economics; • Townscape and Visual Impact; • Transport; • Wind; and • ‘Other Environmental Issues’.

112 With regard to infrastructure, the Scoping Opinion identified that infrastructure should be scoped in until it was confirmed with utilities providers that the development will not produce a

page 29 significant impact on the existing infrastructure (including cumulative impact). It was subsequently agreed that sufficient information regarding utilities and any potential cumulative effects were accommodated within the submitted Foul Sewage and Utilities Assessment, and the Energy Statement, while any impacts on existing or proposed Infrastructure were considered within the ‘Other Environmental Issues’ within each ES Chapter. As such, no standalone ES Chapter for Infrastructure was required.

113 The submitted ES (November 2018), and the ES Addendum (revised Technical Chapters and Technical Appendices, April 2019) identify the likely significant effects that the development may have on the environment both during construction and once complete, and outlines how these effects can be avoided or reduced. The impacts of the planning application are assessed individually and cumulatively with other consented applications in the vicinity of the application site. Under the various subject headings, this report refers to the content and analysis contained within the ES/ES Addendum and comments upon its findings and conclusions. GLA officers consider the scope and content of the applicant’s ES/ES Addendum to be acceptable.

114 The Council commissioned an independent review of the ES and an initial review report was issued on 31 January 2019, with a further review report issued on 19 March 2019 following a response from the applicant. An initial review of the ES Addendum was issued on 31 May 2019, with a further review report issued on 26 June 2019 following a response from the applicant. The Report concluded that all issues raised were now acceptable. GLA officers consider the scope and content of the review to be acceptable.

Principal Planning Issues

115 Having regard to the site and the details of the proposed development, relevant planning policy at the local, regional and national levels; and, the consultation responses and representations received, the principal planning issues raised by the application that the Deputy Mayor must consider are: • Principle of development, including housing; employment; town centre uses; social infrastructure uses; and transport infrastructure; • Housing, including affordable housing; housing affordability; housing mix and tenure; and play space; • Urban design, including site layout, landscape, and open space; density; residential quality, including impacts on neighbouring properties (internal space standards; aspect; privacy and overlooking; daylight, sunlight, and overshadowing; noise and vibration; and air quality); height, massing, townscape, and local views; historic environment; strategic views; architecture and materials; fire safety; and designing out crime; • Inclusive design; • Transport, including trip generation and mode split; impact on public transport; site access, layout and Healthy Streets; on-site transport infrastructure; Kidbrooke Station; walking and cycling; cycle parking; car parking; deliveries and servicing; construction; and Travel Plan; • Climate change, including energy; flood risk and sustainable urban drainage; and urban greening, trees and biodiversity; • Other environmental issues - including waste and contaminated land; • Mitigating the impact of development through necessary planning obligations; and • Legal considerations.

page 30 116 These issues are considered within the following sections of the report.

Principle of development

117 The Mayor’s overarching objective is to meet London’s housing and development need by making the best use of land, whilst safeguarding the Green Belt and designated open spaces. This is reflected in London Plan Policy 1.1 and draft London Plan Policies on ‘Good Growth’ GG1, GG2, GG3, GG4, GG5, and GG6, which support high-density, mixed-use places, including brownfield and surplus public sector land, and including sites well-connected by rail stations and within town centres. It is noted that the Examination in Public Panel Report recommended that Policies GG1 to GG6 should be objectives rather than policies, although this does not affect the assessment of the application. London Plan Policy 2.13 states that development proposals within Intensification Areas should seek to optimise residential and non-residential densities. Map 2.4 of the London Plan identifies Kidbrooke as an Intensification Area and Annex 1 of the Plan sets out how development should be integrated with Kidbrooke Station and provide improved bus links to the surrounding area. London Plan Policy 2.14 and Map 2.5 identify the site as within a Regeneration Area, which promotes integrated policies that bring together regeneration, development and transport proposals, which is reflected in draft London Plan Policy SD10 and Map 2.19.

118 Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy identifies the site as within the Kidbrooke Strategic Development Location, aiming to form a neighbourhood with 4,800 dwellings. The Kidbrooke SPD identifies the site as part of ‘The Hub’, providing a mix of uses as part of a new local centre, with an indicative 555 residential units and 14,000 sq.m. of non-residential uses. The site is part of designation mu39 in the Core Strategy Addendum, for Kidbrooke Station transport interchange and a local centre with housing. Kidbrooke Station and Phase 3 of the Kidbrooke Village development, located immediately south of the railway, forms the remainder of the designation. The site forms draft allocation K3 in the Councils’ Site Allocations Preferred Approach (August 2019), which identifies the site for residential-led mixed use development, including 50% affordable housing, retail/cafe use, flexible B1 workspace, nursery and an improved station access/transport interchange.

Residential use

119 The NPPF sets out the priority to deliver a sufficient supply of new homes and states that planning policies and decisions should seek to make effective use of land and support the redevelopment of under-utilised land and buildings. In line with paragraph 118 of the NPPF, substantial weight should be given to the value of developing brownfield land in meeting housing need.

120 London Plan Policy 3.3 recognises the pressing need for new homes and Table 3.1 gives a 10 year housing target of 26,850 in Greenwich between 2015 and 2025, equating to an annual target of 2,685. Policy H1 and Table 4.1 of the draft London Plan sets Greenwich an increased housing target of 32,040 units between 2019/20 and 2028/29. The Examination in Public Panel Report recommends that this figure is revised to 28,240.

121 To meet housing targets, London Plan Policy 3.3 emphasises the importance of brownfield land, Intensification Areas, and surplus public land, particularly with good transport accessibility. Similarly, Policy H1 of the draft London Plan requires optimised housing delivery on brownfield sites, particularly with existing or planned public transport access levels (PTALs) of 3-6, or which are located within 800 metres of a station; and surplus public sector sites.

122 Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy H1 identifies that new housing is expected to be located in Strategic Development Locations, including Kidbrooke.

page 31 123 As set out in the GLA Stage 2 report, the following table sets out the number of homes and affordable homes granted planning permission between 2015 and 2018 by Greenwich Council, relative to London Plan targets:

Table 3: total housing approvals for RB Greenwich including conventional and non-self-contained supply (source: London Development Database) planning permissions 2015- 2016- 2017- total net delivery 2016 2017 2018 % homes target 2,685 2,685 2,685 8,055 235% of homes approved 15,340 2,191 1,403 18,934 target affordable homes target 940 940 940 2,820 127% of affordable homes 2,818 418 359 3,595 target approved

124 Also as set out in the GLA Stage 2 report, the following table sets out the number of homes and affordable homes delivered in Greenwich in the same years:

Table 4: total housing delivery for RB Greenwich, including conventional and non-self-contained supply (source: London Development Database) and long term vacants returning to use (source: MHCLG housing live table 615) net delivery 2015- 2016- 2017- total net delivery 2016 2017 2018 % homes target 2,685 2,685 2,685 8,055 77% of target homes delivered 2,528 1,979 1,670 6,177 affordable homes target 940 940 940 2,820 affordable homes 827 -29 523 1,321 47% of target delivered

125 The above tables demonstrate that while Greenwich Council is performing well against the London Plan targets for approval of housing and affordable housing, it is currently under- performing in terms of the delivery of housing and in particular affordable housing.

126 The proposed scheme would provide 619 homes (of which 51% would be affordable), which would equate to 23% of the Council’s London Plan annual housing target; 19% of the draft London Plan target (if expressed on an annualised basis); and 22% of the reduced target (if expressed on an annualised basis) recommended in the Examination in Public Panel Report. The site comprises brownfield surplus public sector land located within a London Plan Intensification Area, and a draft London Plan Strategic Area for Regeneration. It has a PTAL of 3/4 and is adjacent to a rail station. Should permission be granted, the site is expected to be brought forward at an early stage, which would respond to the under-delivery of housing in Greenwich in recent years, and in particular affordable housing. The site would make a significant contribution towards the achievement of the Council’s housing targets, responding to local and strategic pan-London need for overall and affordable housing, and is in accordance with the policies set out above.

Non-residential uses

127 The NPPF states that planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. In line with paragraph 80, significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local

page 32 business needs and wider opportunities for development. Paragraph 86 identifies that main town centre uses should be located in town centres. Chapter 8 supports healthy, inclusive and safe places, including social infrastructure provision.

128 London Plan Policies 2.15 and 4.7, and draft London Plan Policies SD7 and SD8 take a town centre first approach for town centre uses, including workspace, retail, leisure, arts and cultural uses. This is reflected in Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policies EA1, TC1, and TC7, which also identify that a new local centre will be created at Kidbrooke to provide for the day to day needs of local residents, including a supermarket and additional small scale retail, leisure and service uses.

129 London Plan Policy 4.2 and draft London Plan Policy E1 support new office space of different sizes. Policy E2 of the draft London Plan supports the provision of a range of Use Class B business space, in terms of type, use and size, at an appropriate range of rents, to meet the needs of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (particularly where more than 2,500 sq.m. of Use Class B floorspace is proposed). It is noted that the Examination in Public Panel Report recommends that “at an appropriate range of rents” be deleted from Policy E2, although this does not affect the assessment of the application. Policy E3 of the draft London Plan supports planning obligations to secure affordable workspace in Use Class B at rents maintained below the market rate for a specific social, cultural or economic development purpose, to be defined in the development plan. It is noted that the Examination in Public Panel Report recommends that Part F of Policy E3 “the affordable workspace elements of a mixed-use scheme should be operational, or have agreed finalised terms, prior to residential elements being occupied” should be deleted, although this does not affect the assessment of the application. Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy EA1 supports new office development and small and medium business space.

130 London Plan Policy 3.16 and draft London Plan Policy S1 support the provision of adequate social infrastructure as part of new developments and states that facilities should be accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. London Plan Policy 3.18 and Policy S3 of the draft London Plan support the provision of childcare facilities to meet growing demand. Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policies CH1 and IM1 support new social infrastructure and community facilities where there is identified local need.

131 The Kidbrooke SPD identifies the site as part of ‘The Hub’ providing a mix of uses as part of a new local centre, with an indicative floorspace of approximately 14,000 sq.m. of non-residential uses, as set out in Table 5.1 of the SPD. This is shown in Table 5 below, together with the non- residential space provided by Phase 3 of Kidbrooke Village, and that proposed as part of this application. It should be noted that the SPD was published some time ago in 2008; however, it provides a useful indication of the expected non-residential uses, which the applicant has supplemented with more up-to-date information as part of its Environmental Statement.

132 It should be noted that the Hub will serve the whole of the Kidbrooke Development Area, the majority of which lies to the south, which suggest lesser provision of non-residential uses on the application site, which is also somewhat segregated by the railway line. Taking retail and supermarket space together, Table 5 shows that there would be a small under-provision of space; however, that proposed on the Kidbrooke Station Square site is considered to be a reasonable and convenient provision for future residents. Furthermore, it is noted that part of the former Homebase site to the immediate north of the site is currently being converted to an Aldi food store.

page 33 Table 5 – Non-residential approximate gross floorspace (sq.m.) in ‘The Hub’ Kidbrooke SPD Kidbrooke Kidbrooke Net Facility (indicative) Village Phase 3 Station Square Retail (shops, cafe, pub, 3,100 3,709 216* +825 and professional services) Supermarket 2,787 (max) 949 366 -1,472 Community meeting -1,706 4,700 2,629 365 (nursery) space and healthcare Small business space 2,295 0 1,073 -1,222 Indoor sport 1,500 772 0** -728 Total 14,382 8,059 2,020 -4,303 * flexible retail/business space (Use Class A1/A3/B1) **not including ancillary 101 sq.m. residents’ gym

133 There would be an under-provision of community space compared to the SPD target, and a number of objections were made in response to the public consultation on the impact of the proposals on local social infrastructure (particularly school and health facilities). It should be noted that the SPD identifies that the required floorspace can be provided in other neighbourhood areas and not just within the Hub. Furthermore, the applicant’s ES/ES Addendum include a Socio- economics Assessment, which models the impact of the development on social infrastructure in the area, including primary and secondary schools and healthcare facilities, taking into account the existing and future levels of demand and capacity, and cumulative effects associated with other developments in the area. The Assessment was also independently reviewed by technical specialists commissioned by the Council, and the methodology and findings are considered to be robust.

134 The Assessment found that the area generally has a good level of social infrastructure provision, with only nursery places limited. In response to this, the proposals include a 365 sq.m. nursery with an estimated capacity of approximately 70 children. This would accommodate slightly more than that required to meet the Council’s informal standard of 70% of the under-fives estimated child yield from the development (92 children). The applicant engaged with the Council’s Early Years team during development of the scheme, and the Early Years team reviewed the application at consultation stage and welcomed the amendments to relocate the nursery to the quieter residential square, less impacted by noise and air quality, its increased size, and the provision of dedicated open space. Any remaining concerns can be addressed through conditions securing further details, including the glazing specification to ensure that the internal environment is sufficiently mitigated from any impacts. The nursery would be secured as such by section 106 agreement, together with the submission of a management plan prior to occupation.

135 The Assessment identified three primary schools within a kilometre of the site and two secondary schools within two kilometres. The Council’s Education officers confirmed that there are sufficient school places in the area and raised no objections to the proposal. The Assessment also found that there are sufficient GPs, hospitals and dentists in the area, including GP and dental clinic facilities within the Kidbrooke Village development.

136 Concerning the proposed workspace units, the Council’s Business Engagement Manager initially raised concerns that spreading the units around the development would create difficulties for the management of the workspace, which would be managed by the applicant. The revised layout therefore consolidates the workspace around the public square, which also focuses these uses in the main commercial area, and increases public exposure of the units.

page 34 137 The proposals will make a valuable contribution to small business space, providing almost half of the SPD requirement (1,073 sq.m.), and potentially an additional 216 sq.m. due to the proposed flexible use unit, compared to none in Kidbrooke Village Phase 3. Notwithstanding the indicative figure of 2,295 sq.m. stated in Table 5 above, the SPD also states an aim for a minimum of 1,200 sq.m. of small business space. Given the relative size and location of the site in relation to Kidbrooke Village, the proposed business space is considered an appropriate contribution. The applicant’s Commercial Strategy identifies three/four small business units at ground floor level and three medium-sized units at first floor level, all in and around the public square. These will be targeted at small independent and creative industries, to be secured by section 106 agreement, together with a detailed workplace strategy setting out the required specification, marketing and management of the space. Considering the type of space proposed; its scale and location; and the lack of any local or strategic policy requirement for affordable workspace, the proposed business space as controlled by section 106 agreement is supported.

138 The provision of 1,073 sq.m. of office space (Use Class B1(a), 366 sq.m. of retail space (Use Class A1), 216 sq.m. of flexible retail/business space (Use Class A1/A3/B1), and a 365 sq.m. nursery (Use Class D1) is appropriate considering the existing and proposed commercial and social infrastructure floorspace in the area; the density of the scheme; the needs of future residents; and the site’s location. The floorspace is supported in line with the policies set out above.

Transport infrastructure

139 London Plan Policy 6.2 and draft London Plan Policy T3 seek to safeguard existing transport functions and improve bus infrastructure.

140 The existing Henley Cross bus interchange, will be re-provided with an improved quality, and an increased capacity of three bus stops and two bus stands, allowing future expansion from the present single decker, single route service; and to complement provision at stops on Kidbrooke Park Road adjacent to the site, to connect the site with a range of destinations. The proposals would also improve pedestrian and cycle links within the area, including the delivery (and management/maintenance) of a lift providing step-free access to the public footbridge over the railway line, and a £400,000 contribution towards potential lifts for the Station footbridge. This is supported in accordance with the above policies.

Principle of development conclusion

141 The residential-led mixed use development of this brownfield, surplus public sector site, within an Intensification Area, a Strategic Regeneration Area, and a Strategic Development Location, with a PTAL of 3/4, adjacent to a rail station; would make a significant contribution towards housing and affordable housing targets, with an appropriate level of non-residential uses, and improved transport infrastructure. It is in accordance with London Plan Policies 1.1, 2,13, 2.14, 2.15, 3.3, 3.16, 3.18, 4.2, 4.7 and 6.2; draft London Plan Policies GG1, GG2, GG3, GG4, GG5, GG6, SD7, SD8, E1, E2, E3, S1, S3 and T3; Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policies H1, EA1, TC1, TC7, CH1 and IM1; and the Kidbrooke SPD. As such, the principle of the development proposed strongly accords with the Development Plan. It is also noted that the Council did not raise any concerns in respect of land use principles.

page 35 Housing

Affordable housing and financial viability

142 London Plan Policy 3.11 states that the Mayor will, and boroughs should, seek to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 17,000 more affordable homes per year in London up to 2031, of which 60% should be social/affordable rent and 40% intermediate.

143 London Plan Policy 3.12 requires that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought when negotiating on individual schemes, taking into account a range of factors, including the requirement for affordable housing; affordable housing targets; the need to promote mixed and balanced communities; specific site circumstances; development viability; public subsidy and the resources available to fund affordable housing; and the implications of phased development, including provisions for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation.

144 In August 2017, the Mayor published his Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), which sets out his preferred approach to maximising the delivery of affordable housing, and introduced the ‘fast track route’ for applications that meet or exceed the Mayor’s threshold for affordable housing. The SPG confirms that a scheme’s eligibility for the fast track route is subject to the affordable housing being provided on site, without public subsidy, and with an appropriate tenure mix provided. In addition, to qualify for the fast track route, an applicant must have explored the potential to increase the level of affordable housing using grant funding and an ‘early stage review mechanism’ must be secured, which seeks to incentivise early implementation. Applications that are considered eligible for the fast track route are not required to submit a financial viability assessment or be subject to a late stage viability review mechanism (as is required for applications following the ‘viability tested route’).

145 The threshold approach to affordable housing is also set out in Policies H5, H6 and H7 of the draft London Plan. Policy H5 of the draft London Plan sets a strategic target for 50% of all new homes to be affordable. Policy H6 identifies a minimum threshold of 35% affordable housing (by habitable room); with a threshold of 50% applied to public sector owned sites.

146 To support his ambition, the Mayor is prioritising affordable homes delivery on surplus or under-utilised land owned by the GLA Group, including Transport for London (TfL), and has set a target for the GLA Group to achieve an average of 50% affordable homes by habitable room on its land. TfL has targeted 50% affordable housing in both its business plan and within the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. As TfL is the landowner of this site, the 50% threshold applies to this site.

147 Policy H7 of the draft London Plan confirms the Mayor’s priority to deliver genuinely affordable housing and sets out minimum expectations in relation to tenure split. This requires at least 30% of affordable housing to comprise low cost rent units (either social rent or London Affordable Rent); 30% intermediate housing; with the remaining 40% determined by the borough. Paragraph 2.35 of the Affordable Housing and Viability SPG sets out that where 50% affordable housing is delivered on public land, the tenure of additional affordable homes above the 35% is flexible and should take into account the need to maximise affordable housing provision.

148 The Kidbrooke SPD (2008) identifies that 43% affordable housing should be provided across the area, and a minimum of 50% on greenfield sites, and aims for approximately 70% of the affordable housing to be social rented and 30% to be intermediate housing. Greenwich Council’s more recent Core Strategy Policy H3 (2014) sets a Borough-wide affordable housing target of at least 35%, of which 70% should be social/affordable rent and 30% intermediate.

page 36 Table 6 – Proposed residential mix and tenure Market Sale London Shared London Affordable Total Ownership Rent Studio 28 (9%) 0 0 28 (5%) 1 bed 107 (34%) 81 (51%) 56 (37%) 244 (39%) 2 bed 157 (51%) 75 (48%) 54 (35%) 286 (46%) 3 bed 18 (6%) 1 (1%) 42 (28%) 61 (10%) Total 310 157 152 619 51% (hab rm)

149 Table 6 above shows the proposed residential mix and tenures. The application proposes 51% affordable housing (by habitable room), made up of 55% London Affordable Rent, and 45% London Shared Ownership (by habitable room), which meets the requirements for the fast-track route. The proposal also meets Greenwich’s Core Strategy affordable homes policy requirements on the basis of 35% affordable housing with a split of 70% London Affordable Rent and 30% London Shared Ownership; with the remaining 16% affordable housing (to make 51% overall), provided as London Shared Ownership. Consequently, no viability assessment is required, and no late stage viability review. The proposed ‘baseline’ level of 51% affordable housing with the agreed tenure split will be secured unconditionally in the Section 106 agreement, without reference to grant funding.

150 An early stage review will be secured in the section 106 agreement, which would be triggered if substantial implementation has not been made within two years of the permission being granted, in accordance with Policy H6 of the draft London Plan and the SPG. Substantial implementation is defined as the completion of all site-wide enabling works, ground preparation works, piling, and ground floor slab, which meets the requirements for substantial implementation. The affordable housing offer fully meets policy requirements; however, should the early review mechanism be triggered, and a surplus identified, the section 106 agreement secures that shared ownership units would be switched to London Affordable Rent. Should this raise management and service charge difficulties due to different tenures in individual blocks, and recognising that the affordable housing provision is fully policy compliant and 51%, the section 106 agreement allows an off-site affordable housing contribution under exceptional circumstances, if justified and agreed by detailed evidence demonstrating that an amended on-site mix is not appropriate. Officers are satisfied that the review mechanism will incentivise delivery and secure an improved affordable housing offer should it be implemented, in accordance with the Mayor’s Affordable Housing & Viability SPG and draft London Plan Policy H6.

151 All of the affordable housing is contained within Phase 1, which includes only one market block. This ensures that the affordable housing will come forward at an early stage, and this is secured through an occupation restriction clause on market units in the section 106 agreement. As such no further viability reviews are therefore necessary.

152 Policy H7 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG set out the Mayor’s priority to deliver genuinely affordable housing. Paragraph 4.7.4 confirms that London Affordable Rent constitutes a low cost rent product for households on low income, with rent levels based on social rent and set in relation to the GLA’s published benchmarks set out in the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme 2016-21 Funding Guidance. The proposed London Affordable Rent units will have rent levels as set annually by the GLA, which would be secured in the section 106 agreement. This equates to between 49% and 60% of market rent in the area. Eligibility for London Affordable Rent units would be restricted, based on local need and subject to a nominations agreement with the Council. These are shown in Table 7 below.

page 37 Table 7 - London Affordable Rent benchmarks London Affordable Rent per % of market Unit size week (2019-20 benchmarks)* rent** 1 bedroom £155 55% 2 bedroom £164 49% 3 bedroom £173 45% *London Affordable Rents are exclusive of service charges **Market rents based on GLA London Rents Map, which is based on 2018/19 Valuation Office Agency data. To enable comparison, monthly market rents shown in the GLA Rents Map have been multiplied by 12 and divided by 52 to provide estimated weekly rents.

153 London Shared Ownership units would be subject to the eligibility and household income requirements as set out in the draft London Plan, to ensure that annual housing costs (including mortgage payments, rent and service charge) do not exceed 40% of net household income, assuming a maximum household income of £90,000 (as updated in London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports). The applicant has stated that these units would be affordable to households on a range of incomes between £55,000 and £85,000, depending on the unit size, as set out below. This assumes a minimum 25% equity share and rent of up to 2.75% on unsold equity. The section 106 agreement would secure first marketing of the units at these affordability levels, with a cascade mechanism thereafter.

Table 8 – Affordability of proposed Shared Ownership units 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom Estimated household £55,000 £71,000 £85,000 income required

154 The affordability levels proposed for London Affordable Rent and London Shared Ownership units are acceptable and comply with income and eligibility requirements. This would be secured within the section 106 agreement, should permission be granted, together with an early implementation viability review mechanism as described above.

155 The affordable housing offer of 51%, (split 55% London Affordable Rent and 45% London Shared Ownership, with the affordability levels set out above), fully accords with the NPPF; London Plan Policies 3.11 and 3.12; draft London Plan Policies H5, H6 and H7; the Mayor’s Affordable Housing & Viability SPG; Greenwich Council Core Strategy Policy H3; and the Kidbrooke SPG. The affordable housing offer is therefore supported, and no concerns were raised by the Council in respect of this aspect of the scheme.

Housing mix and tenure

156 London Plan Policies 3.8 and 3.9 state that new development should provide a mix of housing sizes and types, taking into account local and strategic housing requirements, the needs of different groups, and the strategic priority for affordable family housing provision. Policy H12 of the draft London Plan states that schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes and sets out a number of factors which should be considered when determining the appropriate housing mix on a particular scheme. It also states that boroughs should not set prescriptive dwelling size mix requirements for market and intermediate homes; and for low cost rent, boroughs should provide guidance on the size of units required to ensure needs are met. It is noted that the Examination in Public Panel Report recommends that Part C of Policy H12 “Boroughs should not set prescriptive area-wide dwelling size mix requirements (in terms of number of bedrooms) for market and intermediate homes” should be deleted, although this does not affect the assessment of the application.

page 38 157 Policy H2 of Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy sets out that all development should contain a proportion of family (3+ bedroom) units, with the exact mix to be defined according to the location of the development, the character of the surrounding area, and factors such as the level of access to public transport. The Kidbrooke SPD states that at least 35% of the floorspace in the area should be family-sized, and sets out the indicative unit mix for market and affordable housing, as set out in Tables 7 and 8 below. However, the SPD also states that predominantly non-family dwellings should be provided at the Hub.

Table 9 – Kidbrooke SPD indicative mix – market housing 1 bed flats 15% 2 bed flats 65% 3/4 bed family houses/flats At least 20%

Table 10 – Kidbrooke SPD indicative Mix – affordable housing 1 bed flats 10% 2 bed flats 50% 3 bed houses/maisonettes 30% 4 bed houses 10%

158 As shown in Table 6 above, the proposal does not include 3-bed ‘houses’ or 4-bed units. A block of townhouses was proposed at pre-application stage; however, in discussion with Council and GLA officers these were removed in order to provide more landscaping and communal amenity space, increased separation distances between buildings, and move buildings away from surrounding roads, all of which improved the residential and design quality of the scheme. The high-density nature of the scheme and the constrained site limits the potential for houses to be included (as reflected in the SPD guidance for the Hub), and a significant number of family houses have been provided within the Kidbrooke Village development. The applicant also commissioned research into the market for three-bed family housing within the Borough, which concluded that a high percentage of three-bed flats would be unlikely to be well received in the local market, which may undermine the viability and deliverability of the scheme. The market and shared ownership units provide mainly one and two bed units, which is supported in this location in close proximity to the Station, and allows the shared ownership units to offer better affordability. The 2017 London Strategic Housing Assessment (SHMA), which covers the period 2016 to 2041, also identifies a significant need for 1 and 2 bedroom units, across all tenures. Provision of 28% of the London Affordable Rent units (or 43% by habitable room) as three-beds broadly aligns with the SPD, and meets the requirements of the more recent Core Strategy, London Plan, and draft London Plan.

159 Overall, the scheme provides an appropriate mix of housing tenures, types and unit sizes considering the location and characteristics of the site; and the density and form of development. The Council has not raised housing mix as a reason for refusal. The proposals are therefore in accordance with London Plan Policies 3.8 and 3.9, draft London Plan Policy H12, Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy H2, and the Kidbrooke SPD.

Play space

160 Policy 3.6 of the London Plan states that development proposals that include housing should make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs. Further guidance is provided in the Shaping Neighbourhoods: Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG (2012), which sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child play space to be provided per child. Policy S4 of the draft London Plan states that residential developments should incorporate good quality,

page 39 accessible play provision for all ages, of at least 10 sq.m per child. Play space provision should normally be provided on-site; however, off-site provision may be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that this addresses the needs of the development and can be provided within an accessible and safe walking distance, and in these circumstances contributions to off-site provision may be secured by section 106 agreement. Policy H9(e) of Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy identifies that in residential developments with over 50 units of family housing, suitably equipped and well-designed children’s play areas are required for different age groups.

161 As set out in the Mayor’s Stage I Report, the GLA child yield calculator in use at that time provided an estimated child yield of 182 children, requiring 1,816 sq.m, of play space, all of which was proposed to be provided on-site, as set out in Table 11 below:

Table 11 – play space requirements and on-site provision Age Expected Play space Proposed play group child yield required sq.m. space sq.m. Under 5 92 926 926 5 to 11 55 545 545 12+ 35 345 345 Total 182 1,816 1,816

162 The proposal includes play space for all age ranges spread across the site, within the podium level residents’ spaces and the public realm, all of which would be well-overlooked from adjacent buildings. Access to play space for children of all ages with no tenure segregation (and publicly accessible) is provided at ground level within the residential square adjacent to blocks G, F, and H for all ages; and for children under-twelve with no tenure segregation at podium level (for residential access) between blocks C and D. The location of play space was moved away from surrounding roads as a result of pre-application discussions, and shelter from noise and air quality impacts is provided by the site levels; the wooded northern periphery; and acoustic barriers to the northern boundary, podia spaces, and along the railway line. The application documents provide indicative designs and facilities, the detailed design of which will be secured by condition. As discussed under ‘daylight, sunlight, and overshadowing’ below, public and communal amenity spaces, including play space, would receive good levels of sunlight.

163 The GLA published an updated population yield calculator in June 2019, which if applied to the scheme would generate a slightly increased requirement of 1,980 sq.m. of play space (+164 sq.m.); however, the publication of the new calculator followed the submission of the application. Notwithstanding this, the application documents identify an extensive and wide range of publicly accessible open space and play facilities within a safe 10-12 minute walk of the site, including Cator Park and Sutcliffe Park, which have been delivered/upgraded in recent years as part of Kidbrooke Village; and Kidbrooke Green Park. Consequently, the small under-provision of play space compared to the new calculator requirement does not raise concerns, and GLA officers consider the overall quantity and quality of play space provision to be of a good standard. As such, the application accords with London Plan Policy 3.6, Policy S4 of the draft London Plan, and Policy H9(e) of Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy; as well as the qualitative design principles set out in the Kidbrooke SPD and the Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG.

Urban design

164 The NPPF (at paragraph 124) states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 127 of the NPPF sets out a number of high level design objectives for new development, including the need to optimise the potential of a site; provide appropriate and

page 40 welcoming layouts and landscaping; good architecture; establish a strong sense of place; and be sympathetic to local character, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate change.

165 Chapter 7 of the London Plan and Chapter 3 of the draft London Plan include a range of design principles and requirements for new development and are set out within specific policies on designing out crime (London Plan Policy 7.3 and draft London Plan Policy D10); local character (London Plan Policy 7.4 and draft London Plan Policy D1); public realm (London Plan Policy 7.5 and draft London Plan Policy D7); architecture (London Plan Policy 7.6 and draft London Plan Policy D2); tall and large scale buildings (London Plan Policy 7.7 and draft London Plan Policy D8); and heritage assets (London Plan Policies 7.8 and 7.9 and draft London Policies HC1 and HC3).

166 Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy DH1 sets out the general principles of high quality design. The Kidbrooke SPD contains a series of design principles both generally and specifically for The Hub, including building heights and public spaces.

167 The proposals have been subject to extensive design scrutiny over ten months at pre- application stage. This included two presentations to the Greenwich Design Review Panel and two presentations to GLA design officers, at both scheme concept and advanced design stage; and more meetings with Council officers. Discussions continued after submission of the application, taking account of consultation responses, and led to the submission of amendments. The current scheme has evolved in response to comments made through this iterative process of design scrutiny, pre- application advice and public consultation.

Layout, landscape and open space

168 The site is bounded by the A2, the A2213 Kidbrooke Park Road, and the railway line. It also contains a bus interchange, and pedestrian/cycle links that pass underneath the A2 and the A2213, and over the railway line. There is also a substantial drop in ground level from the north-east boundary with the A2 to the railway line, of up to approximately 9 metres, with a lesser drop towards the west end of the site.

169 The applicant’s Design and Access Statement demonstrates earlier layouts that were considered, including alignment with the Kidbrooke Village buildings. The chosen layout creates a distinct hierarchy of routes and squares, with a clear definition of public and private space; a significant landscaped buffer to the roads to the north; marker buildings at each end of site, which remain subordinate to the taller Birch House within Kidbrooke Village; a public square for the bus interchange, which also addresses the Station; a quieter residential square to the east; and an urban grain similar to that of Kidbrooke Village.

170 The non-residential floorspace is focussed around the public square, which provides activation to frontages and the public realm. Residential entrances, including street access to maisonettes, are well spread across the site. The public square is well-connected to existing pedestrian and cycle routes, including the route along the railway line to Kidbrooke Park Road to the west, which would remain unchanged from the existing situation as it falls outside of the site boundary. The route from the underpass to the north would allow pedestrians either to take a direct route to the square around Block B; or via a woodland walk through the green buffer along the north side of the site and the publicly accessible green-link between Blocks C and D. The route from the A2 underpass to the north-east would connect to the residential square via a new publicly accessible lift incorporated into Block H, with long term maintenance arrangements secured through the section106 agreement. The residential square links to the public square via a shared surface route running parallel to the railway line, with vehicle access limited to refuse and servicing, also providing separation between the residential blocks and the Station (approximately 12 metres to the railway line). The route is lined by maisonettes with street access. A planted green screen, trees, and a landscape buffer provide additional protection from the impacts of the Station and rail

page 41 line. This area also provides play space in the form of outdoor gym equipment, table tennis, benches and a shelter with seating. The underpass connects to the existing public footbridge via a new lift adjacent to Block H, providing a connection over the rail line to Kidbrooke Village.

171 The proposals include a good level of publicly accessible and landscaped space, which was increased during pre-application development by the removal of one building. The larger public square (approximately 60x35 metres) includes more hard landscaping as a civic space within the local centre, and contains the bus interchange, comprising three bus stops and two bus stands, access to the entrance to Kidbrooke Station, and a central single-storey cafe. The square would be surrounded be tree planting with strips of soft landscaping to create a soft edge to the bus interchange, helping to improve the amenity of the square. Subject to securing its detailed design by condition, the square is appropriately scaled and designed, and creates a welcoming focal point in the proposed development.

172 The smaller residential square to the east includes softer landscaping treatments, with a public garden and children’s playspace, and links to the area to the north via the new lift to the existing pedestrian bridge and subway, and to the south via the existing pedestrian footbridge over the railway line. The square is appropriately scaled and designed, and supports the residential uses in the proposed development, with details to be secured by condition.

173 A publicly accessible route, in the form of landscaped terraces flanked by steps, links the public square and the woodland walk through the northern green buffer. The buffer slopes up to the adjacent roadway, providing shelter from road traffic impacts, with retained trees, new trees and planting, and an acoustic barrier. The distance between the roadway and proposed buildings was widened during pre-application development to a minimum of 7 metres (the eastern corners of Blocks F and H), further reducing noise impacts of adjacent roads; however, the separation distance is in most cases significantly greater (up to 20 metres). The slope is utilised by locating inactive ground floor frontage for the northern blocks within the slope, allowing for high levels of active use fronting onto the public realm.

174 Residents communal open space is located on the podium levels and accessible to the blocks that connect to each space. Blocks A and H each have a modest podium level communal open space area as these are detached blocks. Blocks B and C share a communal podium-level open space between the two blocks; and Blocks D/E and F/G share the largest of the communal podium- level open spaces between them. Each space contains generous amounts of soft landscaping, including shrubs and trees, and areas of play space. Subject to detailed design being secured by condition, these areas are appropriate to meet the needs of residents, and provide an attractive outlook from residential units.

175 The proposed design and layout would optimise the development capacity of the site, and improve accessibility and connectivity through it, responding appropriately to the environmental, access, and level constraints. The indicative designs indicate that the new access routes, landscape and open spaces would be of a high quality, providing a welcoming and attractive environment, which would be well-overlooked and would benefit from an appropriate level of activity and ownership. As discussed below, public and communal amenity spaces would receive good levels of sunlight, with acceptable noise and air quality. Further details of planting, hard surface treatments and greening, as well as their on-going management and maintenance would be secured by condition.

Density

176 London Plan Policy 3.4 requires new development to optimise housing output having regard to site context and character, urban design principles and public transport capacity. Table 3.2 of the

page 42 London Plan includes a sustainable residential quality (SRQ) density matrix, which sets out broad density ranges by public transport accessibility level (PTAL) and setting. These are advisory and paragraph 3.28 of the London Plan clarifies that the density matrix should not be applied mechanistically to individual applications. Paragraph 1.3.51 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG states that it may be acceptable for schemes to exceed the ranges in the density matrix in appropriate circumstances, providing qualitative design and management concerns are addressed, including the requirement to achieve high quality design in terms of liveability, public realm, residential and environmental quality and having regard to other factors such as the proposed housing mix and planned infrastructure provision.

177 Draft London Plan Policy D1B also seeks to optimise the potential of sites, having regard to local context, design principles, public transport accessibility, and capacity of existing and future transport services. The Examination in Public Panel Report recommends that Part D of Policy D1B “proposed development that unjustifiably fails to optimise the capacity of the site in accordance with this policy should be refused” should be deleted, although this does not affect the assessment of the application. The higher the density of a development, the greater the level of design scrutiny that is required, particularly qualitative aspects of the design, as described in draft London Plan Policies D4 and D2. Policy D2 identifies that proposals with a density of over 350 units per hectare (defined as ‘higher density’) or that include a tall building (as defined by the Borough, or above 30 metres), should be subject to a greater level of design scrutiny, as is the case here. Draft London Plan Policy D1A states that the density of development proposals should consider, and be linked to, the provision of future planned levels of infrastructure rather than existing levels; and be proportionate to the site’s connectivity and accessibility by walking, cycling, and public transport to jobs and services (including both PTAL and access to local services).

178 Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy gives priority to securing a high quality environment for residents and making the best sustainable use of land, having regard to the location of the site, its individual characteristics, and the character of the surrounding area; and states that it will utilise London Plan Policy 3.4 to guide rates for housing density. The Kidbrooke SPD aims for this central area to Kidbrooke to accommodate the highest densities, estimated to be approximately 210 units and 600 habitable rooms per hectare.

179 Council officers considered the site to be located in an ‘urban’ setting, which the notes to Table 3.2 of the London Plan define as areas with predominantly dense development, such as terraced houses, mansion blocks, a mix of different uses, medium building footprints and typically buildings of two to four storeys, located within 800 metres walking distance of a District centre or, along main arterial routes. However, GLA officers consider that the site is within a ‘central’ location, in line with the notes set out within Table 3.2, which define such areas as having very dense development, a mix of different uses, large building footprints, and typically of four to six storeys. The definition also suggests sites within 800 metres walking distance of an International, Metropolitan or Major town centre, which is not the case here, although the categorisation does not require all characteristics to be met. A PTAL of 4 or more in a central setting indicates densities of up to 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare, or 405 units per hectare.

180 The proposal would have a net density of 1,058 habitable rooms, or 377 units, per hectare, accounting for the mixed use nature of the proposals, which would be within the density matrix guideline range for a ‘central’ setting. Based on their assessment of the site as within an ‘urban’ setting, Greenwich Council officers considered the proposals to exceed the density matrix guidelines; however, the Council’s Planning Board Report concluded that on balance the density was acceptable based on the provision of much needed housing and affordable housing; policies supporting tall buildings and high density in this location; neighbouring and on-site transport infrastructure; social infrastructure; and other public benefits.

page 43 181 Greenwich Council’s first reason for refusal was stated as excessive high density representing over-development; the failure of the scheme to positively respond to the local context and transport capacity; sub-standard residential environment; and excessive height and scale, which dominate the townscape, and fail to be sufficiently subservient to Kidbrooke Village. Consequently, the Council concluded that the proposal would be contrary to the NPPF; Policies 3.4, 3.5, 3.8, 3.16, 6.3, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.7 of the London Plan; Policies H5, DH1 and DH2 of the Greenwich Core Strategy; and the Kidbrooke SPD. A number of objections received in response to the public consultation also identified excessive density.

182 The proposals are clearly of a high density, being above 350 units per hectare and include tall buildings of above 30 metres, and although within the London Plan density matrix guideline range for a ‘central’ setting, the proposals require a greater level of design scrutiny. The proposals were subject to extensive design scrutiny over ten months at pre-application stage. This included two presentations to the Greenwich Design Review Panel and two presentations to GLA design officers, at both scheme concept and advanced design stage; and a greater number of meetings with Council officers. As a result of comments received, recognizing the high density of the proposals, amendments were made to improve the design and residential quality of the scheme, including a reduction in unit numbers, density and building heights (from 24 storeys); the removal of one building; an increase in open space, play space, and landscaped areas; increased separation distance between buildings; the omission of north-east facing single aspect units; an increase in dual aspect units to 56%; and an increase in non-residential floorspace, including a dedicated nursery space. The current scheme has evolved in response to comments made through this iterative process of design scrutiny, pre-application advice and public consultation. Furthermore, amendments to the application were submitted after the submission of the scheme to further improve design and residential quality in the context of the proposed density, including an increase in the size of the nursery; amendments to the layouts of one-bed residential units to improve daylight/sunlight levels; and increased floorspace of one-bed residential units.

183 As discussed under ‘residential quality’ below, the scheme provides a good standard of residential accommodation, including compliance with space standards; aspect; privacy and overlooking; daylight, sunlight and overshadowing; noise and vibration; and air quality. As discussed under ‘height, massing, townscape, and local views’ its scale and massing is in keeping with the character of the Phase 3 Kidbrooke Village scheme, while remaining subservient, together forming a new local centre, marking the location of the Station, and is in an area identified as appropriate for tall buildings. As discussed under ‘historic environment’, the harm to the significance of heritage assets is considered to be ‘less than substantial’ and outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.

184 As discussed under ‘principle of development’ above, the provision of social infrastructure is considered to be appropriate; as is children’s play space, as discussed under ‘housing’ above. The site is not located within a public open space/park deficiency area and the provision of open space is appropriate.

185 The area has a good level of transport infrastructure provision and would provide a bus interchange of improved quality and capacity. Bus services in the area have also been improved as a result of a new bus route agreed during the course of the application. The site is directly adjacent to a train station, and will allow improved access. Furthermore, the existing station building is currently being replaced with a larger facility positioned more centrally to the recently lengthened southern platform, allowing improved access and greater capacity. Further discussion under ‘transport’ below confirms that the scheme would have an acceptable impact on public transport. The development will also improve the quality and extent of routes through the site for pedestrians and cyclists, and deliver step-free access via a lift to the public footbridge over the railway line.

page 44 186 The proposed high density mixed-use redevelopment of the site has been subject to a significant level of design scrutiny, and subject to the conditions and obligations set out in this report being secured, the density is supported in line with London Plan Policy 3.4, draft London Plan Policies D1B, D2 and D4, as well as the Mayor’s Housing SPG, and the Council’s Core Strategy.

Residential quality, including impacts on neighbouring residential properties

187 London Plan Policy 3.5 seeks to ensure the highest residential design quality, both internally and externally, and sets out minimum space standards, which are based on the nationally described space standards. The Mayor’s Housing SPG provides further detailed guidance on residential design quality and sets baseline standards, including units per floor per core, private external space, dual aspect and single aspect dwellings, and floor to ceiling heights. Policy D4 of the draft London Plan carries forward the adopted minimum space standards, and sets out minimum requirements for private external space, ceiling heights, and requires the maximum provision of dual aspect dwellings. Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy H5 sets out requirements for high quality housing, with reference to the Housing SPG.

Internal space standards

188 Table 3.3 of the London Plan and Table 3.1 of the draft London Plan set out minimum internal space standards for new homes, as set out in Table 12 below. This shows that all of the proposed units would either meet or exceed this minimum standard, with the majority of units being generously sized. In terms of ceiling height, all of the units would comply with the 2.5 metre standard set out in the draft London Plan and strongly encouraged in the London Plan and Housing SPG. Having assessed the room layouts, GLA officers consider these would provide a good quality of accommodation. The floorspace proposed is supported in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.5, draft London Plan Policy D4, Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy H5, and the Housing SPG. Compliance with the approved floorplans would be secured by planning condition.

Table 12 – London Plan minimum space standards, and that proposed in the application Minimum London Plan Unit size Proposed (sq.m.) standard (sq.m.) Studio 37 37.8-39.9 1 bedroom 2 person 50 50-55.9 1 bedroom 2 person (wheelchair) 50 54.4-58.9 2 bedroom 3 person 61 62-70.2 2 bedroom 3 person (wheelchair) 61 72.7-82 2 bedroom 4 person 70 71-81.3 2 bedroom 4 person (maisonette) 79 89.2-93 3 bedroom 4 person (wheelchair) 74 102.3 3 bedroom 5 person 86 86.1-90.5 3 bedroom 5 person (wheelchair) 86 97.4 3 bedroom 6 person 95 97.4

Dual aspect

189 The Housing SPG states that development should minimise the number of single aspect units and avoid the provision of single aspect units that are north facing; contain three or more bedrooms; or are exposed to noise levels above which significant adverse effects on health and

page 45 quality of life occur. Policy D4 of the draft London Plan states that development should maximise the provision of dual aspect units; and normally avoid the provision of single aspect units, which should only be provided where they provide an acceptable quality of accommodation in terms of passive ventilation, daylight, privacy, and avoiding overheating.

190 In total, 56% of the units would be dual aspect (346 units) and 44% of would be single aspect (273 units). The single aspect units consist of studios, 1-bed, and 2-bed/3person units, none of which are north facing; and all are located away from the ends of the buildings, where there is more exposure to noise from surrounding roads and the railway line. Whereas the majority of single aspect units face onto an internal landscaped amenity area, the west-facing single aspect units (37 studio and one-bed units) within Block E would front onto the proposed public square and could be subject to greater levels of noise, although considering the character and proposed use of the square, this is not expected to be significant and would dissipate at upper levels. The first floor units have inset balconies to mitigate this impact, and although not required as a result of the Noise and Vibration Assessment (see ‘noise and vibration’ below), winter gardens are proposed for the units closest to the A2. Higher specification glazing to mitigate noise is proposed where recommended by the Assessment, which would be secured by condition. Units facing towards surrounding roads and the railway benefit from the acoustic barriers proposed along the northern boundary.

191 Single aspect units are more difficult to ventilate naturally and more likely to overheat; however, none of the single aspect units are south facing, and the applicant’s Overheating Assessment identifies mitigation in response to potential overheating. As discussed further under ‘energy strategy’ below, these measures have been agreed by GLA energy officers, and subject to being secured by condition, the units will be sufficiently protected from overheating. As discussed elsewhere in this report, all units would also receive acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight; have appropriate private external amenity space; achieve acceptable levels of privacy; and achieve minimum space standards. Overall, the single aspect units achieve a good standard of residential accommodation in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.5, draft London Plan Policy D4, Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy H5, and the Housing SPG.

Private external amenity space

192 The Housing SPG and Policy D4 of the draft London Plan state that a minimum of 5 sq.m. of private outdoor space should be provided for 1-2 person dwellings, with an extra 1 sq.m. for each additional occupant; and the depth and width should be at least 1.5 metres. Paragraph 2.3.32 of the Housing SPG recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances where site constraints mean that it is impossible for private external amenity open space to be provided, in which case dwellings may be provided with additional equivalent living space. Enclosing balconies as glazed, ventilated winter gardens can also be considered an acceptable alternative to open balconies due to noise impacts.

193 All homes have private amenity space in the form of a garden, terrace, balcony, or winter garden. Most of this meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the Housing SPG and the draft London Plan; however, where there is a slight under-provision, the application demonstrates that additional internal space is provided. As mentioned above, the lower levels of Blocks F and H are more exposed to the A2, and although not necessary to achieve acceptable noise and air quality, winter gardens are proposed for 14 units at levels 2-8 in Block F and 15 units on levels 2-6 in Block H. The front courtyards of the six maisonettes fronting onto the route connecting the two public spaces were subject to amendment after submission to improve their privacy, while retaining a degree of surveillance and light penetration. Council officers considered that these courtyards do not provide sufficient privacy; however, they are 1.8 metres wide, with a 1.2 metre high perforated brick wall, and 300mm high metal railings above. GLA officers consider that these terraces provide sufficient privacy; however, notwithstanding this, the units also have additional floorspace beyond

page 46 the external space requirement, and the units are therefore considered to have an acceptable standard of amenity.

194 Overall, the private amenity space provision is acceptable in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.5, draft London Plan Policy D4, Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy H5, and the Housing SPG, and would be secured by condition.

Privacy and overlooking

195 London Policy 7.6 ‘Architecture’ states that buildings and structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, including privacy. Draft London Plan Policies D1B, D4, and D8 state that development proposals should achieve appropriate levels of privacy. The Housing SPG states that design proposals should demonstrate how habitable rooms are provided with an adequate level of privacy in relation to neighbouring properties, the street, and other public spaces. It identifies that a minimum distance of 18–21 metres between habitable rooms can be used as a benchmark. Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy DH(b) states that new development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal does not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers, including privacy.

196 The closest residential properties to the north, east and west are at least 110 metres away from the proposed blocks. The residential properties on Park Terrace, within Kidbrooke Village to the south, would be approximately 40 metres from Block H at the closest point. The blocks under construction at Phase 3 of Kidbrooke Village would be greater than 30 metres away at their closest point, and angled at 45 degrees to the blocks proposed, avoiding any direct views. Within the site, the buildings proposed achieve a separation distance of at least 21 metres. The layout of units adjacent to internal routes, public spaces, and residents’ amenity space achieves an appropriate level of privacy. Overall, GLA officers are satisfied that the application performs well in terms of privacy and overlooking, in accordance with London Plan Policies 3.5 and 7.6; draft London Plan Policies D1B, D4, and D8; Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policies H5 and DH(b), and the Housing SPG.

Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing

197 London Plan Policy 7.6 requires new development to avoid causing ‘unacceptable harm’ to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, including light and overshadowing. Draft London Plan Policy D4 states that the design of development should provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to new and surrounding housing that is appropriate for its context. The Housing SPG states that an appropriate degree of flexibility needs to be applied when using Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines2 to assess the daylight and sunlight impacts of new development on surrounding properties and within new developments, taking into account location, context, and broadly comparable housing typologies found in London. Similarly, recent amendments to the NPPF (2019) state that planning authorities should take a flexible approach when applying daylight and sunlight guidelines, where these would inhibit making efficient use of a site and where an acceptable living standard would be achieved. While BRE guidelines do not form part of the development plan, they provide an industry standard method of assessment for daylight, sunlight and overshadowing issues and are generally relied on by planning authorities as a comparative benchmark for assessment purposes.

198 For daylight, Average Daylight Factor (ADF) is a measure of the quality and distribution of light within rooms, taking into account the size and number of windows. BRE guidelines set out

2 British Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines – Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight. A Guide to Good Practice.

page 47 recommended minimum target values for ADF, which vary depending on the use of a room. Bedrooms are subject to a 1% target, and 1.5% and 2% are applied to living rooms and kitchens respectively.

199 The Vertical Sky Component (VSC) measures the quantum of sky visible taking into account all external obstructions, from a single point at the centre of the window. The VSC method is a useful ‘rule of thumb’ but has some significant limitations in determining the true quality of daylight within a proposed building, as it does not take into account the size of the window, any reflected light off external obstructions, any reflected light within the room, or the use to which that room is put.

200 The No Sky Line (NSL) test establishes where the sky will be visible through the windows within the proposed room, 850mm above floor level, taking into account external obstructions.

201 For sunlight, Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH), is the total number of hours in the year that the sun is expected to shine on unobstructed ground, allowing for average levels of cloudiness, and is measured from a point on the inside face of the window.

202 For overshadowing of gardens and amenity areas, the BRE test requires at least 50% of the garden/amenity area should receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21 March.

203 The application includes an Internal Daylight and Sunlight Assessment (updated as part of the April 2019 amendments). For daylight, this finds that 88% of the proposed habitable rooms would meet or exceed the ADF recommended level, and 77% achieve the recommended NSL, which is considered to be a very good level in a dense urban environment. Of the rooms that do not meet the recommended ADF level, 33 are living/kitchen/dining rooms that achieve the recommended level for living areas, and 81 rooms fall only marginally short of the respective living room and bedroom recommendations; which, if discounted would result in 94% of all habitable rooms achieving recommended daylight levels. Of the remaining rooms, 13 are open plan living/kitchen/dining areas, providing living space at the front of the room where light levels are the highest, with the kitchen located at the back; and 59 are bedrooms. There are 4 living rooms with low levels of light; however, these are on the lowest floors facing other blocks, layouts have been changed through the submitted amendments in order to optimise light levels, and they benefit from direct access to landscaped amenity space. Overall, the Assessment shows that the number of habitable rooms not meeting recommended daylight levels is very low considering the dense urban environment proposed, and the proposal will offer very good levels of daylight amenity.

204 It is noted that 12 unit layouts within the updated Assessment are inconsistent with the revised drawings. Consequently, a Statement of Conformity has been provided, confirming that an audit of the Assessment was carried out against the revised plans, finding that this would be unlikely to result in lower light levels than those indicated in the previous Assessment.

205 For sunlight, 78% of the tested living areas are well sunlit throughout the year, exceeding APSH recommendations. In addition, 88% exceed the recommended sunlight hours in the winter.

206 For overshadowing, all but one of the proposed communal open spaces within the site will exceed BRE’s recommendations. The only area with lower levels is the space in between Blocks D/E and F/G, for which 41% of the space receives at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March. Considering that the total open space proposed achieves 82%, this minor breach is considered to be acceptable. In summer, the levels of sunlight within all proposed open spaces is excellent.

207 The application also includes a Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing, and Solar Glare Assessment as part of the Environmental Assessment, which tests the impact of the proposals on

page 48 surrounding properties. EIA scoping determined that VSC and NSL tests for daylight were sufficient, and ADF was not required.

208 The applicant’s Assessment explores the impacts to the properties in Phase 3 of Kidbrooke Village (Blocks A1-4, AP and C); 1-5 Park Terrace in Kidbrooke Village; and Nelson Mandela Way Block C, to the north of the A2. If finds that Nelson Mandela Way would experience no impacts. Number 3 Park Terrace would experience minor VSC breaches to 4 of its 9 windows and no NSL breaches. Notwithstanding these breaches, overall it is considered that the proposal would not result in unacceptable loss of light. For Kidbrooke Village Phase 3, 387 of the 531 windows assessed would meet the VSC guidance. Of those that do not, 93 windows would experience a minor adverse effect, 39 would experience a moderate adverse effect, and 12 would experience a major adverse effect. For NSL, 345 of the 366 rooms assessed fully comply with BRE guidance. Of those that do not, 20 would experience a minor adverse effect and one would experience a moderate adverse effect. Only three properties in Kidbrooke Village would experience loss of daylight breaching BRE Guidance for both VSC and NSL and one property would experience loss of sunlight. Given the high density local centre location, these results are considered to be very good and would not constitute an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

209 Overall, given the context and highly accessible location; the low extent of non-compliance with BRE guidelines; the requirement for an appropriate balance to be struck with the benefits provided, as acknowledged in the Housing SPG and BRE guidance; the daylight, sunlight, and overshadowing impacts are considered to be in accordance with the NPPF, London Plan Policies 3.5 and 7.6, draft London Plan Policy D4, Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy H5, and the Housing SPG.

Noise and vibration

210 Paragraph 180 of the NPPF states that new development should ensure that potential adverse impacts resulting from noise are mitigated or reduced to a minimum; and noise levels which give rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life are avoided. Further guidance is provided in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) (2010).

211 While the PPG and NPSE do not provide decision makers with technical or numerical values for categorising and assessing noise levels in decibels (dBs), industry standard guidelines set out in British Standard BS8233:2014 ‘Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings’ recommends that daytime noise levels do not exceed 35dB and night-time values in bedrooms do not exceed 30dB. This is aligned with the World Health Organisation recommendations set out in Guidelines for Community Noise (1998). With regard to external private and communal amenity spaces, British Standard BS8233:2014 recommends that external noise levels do not exceed an upper guideline value of 55dB.

212 London Plan Policy 7.15 and Policy D13 of the draft London Plan state that development should manage noise to improve health and quality of life by avoiding significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life; mitigating and minimising existing and potential adverse noise impacts within the vicinity of new development; separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources through the use of screening, internal layout, set back distances; and where this is not possible, adverse effects should be controlled and mitigated by incorporating good acoustic design principles. The Mayor’s Environment Strategy aims to reduce the number of people adversely affected by noise and includes policies and proposals to support this aim.

213 Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy H5 states that residential development should provide an acceptable level of noise insulation by means of sensitive design and layout. The Kidbrooke SPD highlights potential issues of noise and disturbance relating to traffic on the A2,

page 49 which should be mitigated through the design process, and suggests a strip of landscape planting to buffer the effects of the road.

214 Given the site context adjacent to the A2, and to a lesser extent Kidbrooke Park Road and the railway line, the impact of noise on the proposed residential units was a key consideration at pre-application stage. As a result, buildings were moved away from the surrounding roads, a 2.5 metre acoustic barrier is proposed along the northern boundary, 1.1 metre acoustic balustrades to the northern ends of podia, and acoustic screening in between the play space for older children and the railway. Although not required as a result of noise impacts, amendments submitted in April 2019 introduced winter gardens to seven lower levels of Block F, in addition to five lower levels of Block H facing the A2, which further improves the noise performance of the scheme.

215 The applicant’s Environmental Statement contains a Noise and Vibration Assessment (updated April 2019), which finds that for the third floor with windows open, most units would experience a daytime internal noise level of 35-40dB, and a night-time internal noise level above 35dB for most units. However, this can be mitigated to meet the required internal noise limits by the glazing and ventilation specification, in accordance with recommended maximum guidelines set out in WHO/British Standards. The Noise and Vibration Assessment has been independently reviewed by technical specialists commissioned by the Council, and the methodology and findings are considered to be robust. The Council’s Environment Protection officers raised no objection to the proposal and conditions are proposed to secure glazing and ventilation specifications. Further conditions secure an acoustic report to assess any noise impacts arising from the bus interchange and potential mitigation; a noise impact assessment to consider operational impacts from non- residential uses; and a detailed scheme of noise insulation measures for all divisions (walls and/or floors).

216 Noise levels in external areas would be less than 55dB at ground level across the majority of the site, with greater levels limited to access roads or paths, which is considered acceptable.

217 The Noise and Vibration Assessment finds that during the daytime there would be a negligible impact and effect from vibration caused by the passage of trains; and at night the impact would be low. In accordance with BS6472:2008, there would be a low probability of adverse comment, and no mitigation is required. This assessment is acceptable and, subject to the buildings being constructed as proposed, GLA officers do not consider that the proposed residential units are likely to be exposed to adverse levels of vibration.

218 The Assessment also considers the noise and vibration impacts from the construction phase on nearby residential properties. Conditions require Construction Logistics and Management Plans, which secure management of noise and vibration during construction, which is acceptable. With the proposed mitigation in place, noise and vibration generated by construction operations are not expected to be significant and would be mitigated to acceptable levels.

219 Through good acoustic design, sound insulation and noise mitigation measures, the residual noise levels within internal residential units; and external private, communal and public amenity spaces; are expected to provide an acceptable noise environment. Subject to the above provisions being secured by condition, the application complies with the requirements of the NPPF, London Plan Policies 3.5 and 7.15, Policies D4 and D13 of the draft London Plan, Greenwich Core Strategy Policy H5, the Housing SPG, and the Kidbrooke SPD.

Air quality

220 Paragraph 181 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into

page 50 account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, with further guidance in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

221 A core priority of the Mayor’s Environment Strategy (2018) is to improve London’s air quality and protect public health by reducing exposure to poor air quality, particularly for the most disadvantaged and those in priority locations such as Air Quality Focus Areas, and outlines a range of initiatives that seek to improve the capital’s air quality over time, including the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). London Plan Policy 7.14 and Policy SI1 of the draft London Plan state that London’s air quality should be significantly improved and exposure to poor air quality reduced, especially for vulnerable people. Policy SI1 states that development proposals should not create unacceptable risk of high levels of exposure to poor air quality and should ensure design solutions are incorporated to prevent or minimise increased exposure to existing air pollution.

222 Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy E(c) states that development proposals with the potential to result in significant impacts on air quality will be resisted unless measures to minimise impacts are included; and identifies a hierarchy of design mitigation in response to poor air quality (separation by distance, then external layout, then internal layout, and finally suitable ventilation). The Council has conducted an ongoing exercise to review and assess air quality within its area of jurisdiction, which indicates that annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 24- hour mean concentrations of particulate matter (PM10) are above, and likely to remain above, the relevant Air Quality Objectives set by the Air Quality Standards Regulations (2010) and the associated EU Directive3, at locations of relevant public exposure within the Borough. These limits are set at 40μg/m3 for NO2 (on an annual average) and PM10 (as a 24 hour mean). The whole of the Borough is within an Air Quality Management Area.

223 Given the site context adjacent to the A2, and to a lesser extent Kidbrooke Park Road, the impact of air quality on the proposed residential units is an important consideration. Greenwich Council officers concluded that the residential units would not be exposed to unacceptable levels of air pollution, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure building specifications; however, the Council’s fourth reason for refusal states that the information provided fails to adequately demonstrate that the future occupants of the proposed development would be sufficiently protected from poor air quality impacts resulting from its location and the siting of residential buildings adjoining busy main roads. The Council therefore concluded that the application is contrary to Policy 7.14 of the London Plan and policy E(c) of the Greenwich Core Strategy.

224 During pre-application development, buildings, residential units, and play spaces were positioned in order to minimise poor air quality (and noise) exposure to residents. Buildings were moved away from the surrounding roads, landscape buffering extended, internal layouts amended, and ventilation strategies developed. Although not required as a result of air quality (or noise) impacts, amendments submitted in April 2019 introduced winter gardens to lower level units facing the A2. Winter gardens are now proposed on levels 2-8 on the north-eastern elevation of Block F and levels 2-6 of the south-east elevation of Block H.

225 The applicant’s Environmental Statement contains an Air Quality Assessment (updated April 2019). This assesses the potential air quality impacts from road traffic on the surrounding highway network, and specifically from the A2, including emission contributions and impacts from identified periods of queuing traffic and emission contributions from relevant committed developments, as well as from the railway. The detailed assessment methodology was agreed by the Council’s Environmental Health (Pollution and Residential) Department, and given the availability and suitability of existing air quality monitoring undertaken by the Council, no site-specific air quality monitoring was required to support the Air Quality Assessment. Five monitoring locations were

3 EU Directive (2008/50/EC, 2008)

page 51 agreed, including two adjacent to the A2 carriageway, to establish the baseline air quality of the site, which are in comparable locations to the proposal site.

226 The baseline assessment of the suitability of the site for the residential, nursery, and play- space use found no exceedances of the NO2 or PM10 annual mean Air Quality Objectives at locations of relevant exposure corresponding to the facades of each block of the proposals. On this basis, the results of the baseline site-suitability assessment concluded a ‘not significant’ effect on air quality. Consequently, no embedded mitigation is required, for example mechanical ventilation, and there is no constraint to the inclusion of balconies to any block. All windows in all blocks would be openable, including blocks F and H closest to the A2.

227 The Assessment has been reviewed by independent technical specialists commissioned by the Council and is considered to provide a robust assessment of the baseline and future air quality levels for the site and proposed development.

228 Some of the objections to the public consultation raised concerns that the assessment of air quality impacts from surrounding roads did not include measurements taken within the site. However, this is due to the availability and suitability of existing air quality monitoring undertaken by the Council, and these include ‘worst-case’ locations immediately adjacent to the A2, and therefore provide relevant and representative data. The use of existing air quality monitoring locations was also fully agreed with Greenwich Council’s Environmental Health Department.

229 Notwithstanding this, subsequent to the Deputy Mayor’s decision to take over determination of the application, the applicant commissioned a period of air quality monitoring at twelve locations within the application site over a three month period (August – October), to establish site-specific baseline annual mean NO2 concentrations. These locations are spread along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the A2 and A2213, plus two locations at the Henley Cross bus interchange towards the centre and south of the site. The monitoring and assessment of these results has been undertaken in line with current DEFRA and other guidance. Based on the data available at the time of writing (covering two months), this additional work finds no exceedances of the annual mean NO2 Air Quality Objectives at any location across the application site. Most monitoring locations are significantly below, with the maximum concentration representing 82.3% of the Air Quality Objective. These results corroborate the findings of the Air Quality Assessment within the ES, and baseline NO2 concentrations therefore illustrate there is no constraint to the proposed use and location of residential blocks across the application site. GLA officers support these findings.

230 As set out under ‘response to consultation’ above, the Right Honourable Clive Efford, Member of Parliament for Eltham, objected on grounds including air pollution from neighbouring roads, which he considered would worsen due to the consented Silvertown Tunnel. Subsequent to the Deputy Mayor’s decision to take over determination of the application, the applicant also commissioned a review of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme to determine potential cumulative impacts on air quality at the application site. The Silvertown Tunnel Environmental Statement identifies the affected road network as including the section of the A2 immediately to the north of the junction with the A2213 (and to the north of the application site). The Silvertown Tunnel Air Quality Impact Assessment did not predict any potential air quality impacts at receptor locations corresponding to the application site; however, the Assessment predated the application proposals. Notwithstanding this, potential impacts at a receptor adjacent to the A2 and existing residential dwellings off Kidbrooke Way (just to the north of the site) are located in a similar setting to the residential blocks proposed as part of this application. Therefore, a review of the predicted operational phase impacts on air quality at this receptor location has been undertaken in order to consider potential cumulative impacts at the application site arising from the operation of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme. This finds that there would remain no predicted exceedances of the annual mean NO2 Air

page 52 Quality Objective at any residential block on the application site. GLA officers support these findings.

231 During the construction phase, the Air Quality Assessment concludes that the potential impacts would be mitigated through good site practice and the implementation of suitable mitigation measures. The Assessment states that emissions from operational traffic associated with the proposed development are not expected to significantly affect local air quality. Conditions require Construction Logistics and Management Plans, which secure measures to control and minimise emissions of air pollutants and waste during construction. A condition is also proposed to secure the air quality impacts arising from the energy strategy.

232 The application complies with the requirements of the NPPF, London Plan Policies 3.5 and 7.14, Policies D4 and SI1 of the draft London Plan, Greenwich Core Strategy Policies H5 and E(e), and the Housing SPG.

Height, massing, townscape, and local views

233 London Plan Policy 7.7 states that tall buildings4 should: • be located in areas whose character would not adversely be affected; • relate well to the surrounding buildings, urban grain and public realm, particularly at street level; • improve the legibility of an area and enhance the skyline; • incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials; • provide active ground floor activities that provide a positive relationship to the surrounding streets; • contribute to improving the permeability of the site and wider area, where possible; • incorporate publicly accessible areas on the upper floors where appropriate; • make a significant contribution to local regeneration; • not adversely affect their surroundings in terms of microclimate, wind, overshadowing, noise, glare, or give rise to interference with aviation or telecommunication infrastructure; • not adversely impact local or strategic views.

234 This policy approach is broadly carried forward in Policy D8 of the draft London Plan, which states that applications for tall buildings referable to the Mayor should be subject to design review and encourages boroughs to proactively identify locations where tall buildings will be suitable.

235 A similar approach is set out in Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy DH1, and Policy DH2 identifies specific locations that may be appropriate for tall buildings, including ‘the Hub’ area surrounding Kidbrooke Station, which is reflected in the Kidbrooke SPD. Policy DH(g) sets out the Local Views that are important elements in the character of the Borough, and the site lies within View 5 Eltham Park (North) to central London, and just outside View 10 King John’s Walk to central London. The policy states that planning permission will only be given for development that would not have a materially adverse effect on the overall perspective and essential quality of Local Views.

236 The application proposes eight buildings (Blocks A – H) plus a single storey cafe in the public square. Blocks A and H at either end of the site are 20 storeys (with two-storey shoulder elements), with three 16 storey blocks and three 9 storey blocks in the central part of the site. The 20 storey blocks are stand-alone buildings, whereas the other blocks are joined by two storey podiums; with Blocks B and C joined by a podium, and Blocks D and E joined to Blocks F and G by a podium.

4 Tall buildings are defined in paragraph 7.25 of the London Plan as buildings that are substantially taller than their surroundings or cause significant change to the skyline.

page 53

237 Greenwich Council officers considered the height, massing, and townscape impacts of the proposals to be acceptable. However, the Council’s first reason for refusal referred to the height and scale of the proposed tall buildings as being excessive; dominating the townscape of the Hub location in the Kidbrooke Development Area; failing to remain sufficiently subservient and visually competing with Kidbrooke Village. Some objections received in response to the public consultation also referred to these matters.

238 The massing arrangement places the two tallest 20 storey buildings at either end of the site, closest to the boundary with Kidbrooke Village, forming a triangular relationship with the 21 storey Birch House (nearing completion) around the Station and the local centre. Phase 3 of Kidbrooke Village also includes 17, 15 and 10 storey buildings, to which the 16 and 9 storey buildings on the site relate well. The placement of building heights provides variety in height across the site and avoids a wall of development, particularly when viewed from lower rise residential areas to the north. The tallest buildings are of a slender form, with generous separation distances of at least 21 metres between all blocks allowing daylight/sunlight to reach open spaces and amenity spaces. The tallest blocks were lowered from 24 storeys during pre-application development in order to improve the visual impacts and better relate to the heights and massing of Kidbrooke Village. The linked Blocks D and E together form the longest block (65 metres); however, their massing is broken up by the contrast in heights, architectural design, and materials.

239 Considering the wider impacts of the proposals, the applicant’s Townscape and Visual Assessment (TVA) within the Environmental Statement provides an analysis of townscape character areas within 500 metres of the site, and 24 Accurate Visual Representations (AVR’s) of views up to 2 kilometres away. A detailed study of London View Management Framework (LVMF) View 4A.1 of St Paul’s Cathedral from Primrose Hill (View 25) is also included, which is discussed under ‘strategic views’ below. The TVA has been independently reviewed by technical specialists commissioned by the Council, and the methodology and findings are considered to be robust.

240 In closest proximity to the site, the AVR from Elford Close in Kidbrooke Village (View 2) shows that most of the proposed buildings would be screened by a ten storey block coming forward as part of Phase 3 of Kidbrooke Village. Block H would be a prominent element approximately 40 metres behind the Kidbrooke Village townhouses on Park Terrace, with contrasting scale, form, and colouring (although both brick-clad); however, it would enhance legibility by marking the location of the public footbridge across the railway. The architecture is of a high quality and its articulation would help to break down the scale. The rectilinear form and brick elevations are compatible with Kidbrooke Village, and the scale similar, while remaining subservient as of lesser height. In closest proximity from the north, the AVR from Nelson Mandela Road (View 6) demonstrates that the buildings would be screened to a large degree by trees lining the A2. Views in the middle-distance show the proposals relating well to the context of emerging tall buildings of Kidbrooke Village (View 3 Kidbrooke Park Road; View 5 Kidbrooke Green Park) and forming a well-composed local landmark. A similar relationship would be seen in views from a greater distance, where visible across open spaces or from high points (View 13 Kind John’s Walk; View 22 Blackheath).

241 In terms of protected Local Views, TVA View 12 indicates that the proposals would be slightly visible between the trees on the left side of Local View 5 Eltham Park (North); however, they would not block views to central London, which are to the right in this view. TVA View 13 indicates that the proposals would be visible from View 13 King John’s Walk within the context of emerging tall buildings at Kidbrooke; however, they would not block views to central London, which are to the left in this view. The proposals will cause no harm to townscape views or Local Views. Discussion of views affecting heritage assets and the LVMF is below.

242 Turning to the criteria set out in Policy 7.7 of the London Plan, as set out above, the scheme relates well to the Kidbrooke Village scheme to the south in terms of height, massing, urban

page 54 grain and public realm; and would not adversely affect local character. Although areas to the north, east and west comprise low-rise development, there is a distinct separation due to the surrounding roads and adjacent wooded areas, and the immediately adjacent uses are commercial (warehouses and retail sheds), with extensive areas of green landscaped space and trees. The closest residential uses in these areas are approximately 120 metres away. As explained above, the heights of the buildings have been carefully considered in relation to the heights of Kidbrooke Village Phase 3, and as explained below incorporate the highest standards of architecture. Ground floor uses provide extensive active frontages, with a good spread of residential entrances, including maisonettes with street entrances, which would provide good levels of overlooking and activity during the day and evening. Although the site is challenging in terms of its connections to the surrounding areas due to the surrounding transport infrastructure, the proposals maximise permeability through the site and connect well to surrounding routes, including enhanced disabled access through delivery of a new passenger lift. In developing a largely unused brownfield site, the proposals make a significant contribution to local regeneration.

243 A Wind Microclimate Assessment is included in the Environmental Statement and Addendum. This predicts that, with the already planned landscaping and other windbreak features, such as podium perimeter walls, along with the recommended mitigation treatments, the wind microclimate around the proposed development will be suitable for the intended uses. The overall effect of the proposed development on the wind microclimate is assessed as being ‘not significant’. The Assessment has been reviewed by technical specialists commissioned by the Council and is considered to provide a robust assessment of the baseline and future wind levels for the site and proposed development.

244 The proposals do not adversely affect their surroundings in terms of overshadowing, noise, glare, or give rise to aviation or telecommunication infrastructure. As explained below, the proposals have no adverse impacts on strategic views or protected local views, and although there would be some adverse impacts to views involving heritage assets, these are very limited and the less than substantial harm arising is considered to be outweighed by public benefits.

245 In line with Policy D8 of the draft London Plan, the proposals have been through a considerable level of design review and the Council has identified Kidbrooke as a location suitable for tall buildings, being within the new local centre and adjacent to a train station, in line with Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policies DH1 and Policy DH2.

246 Although not a justification for tall buildings, in this instance the scheme provides important planning benefits in terms of viability and affordable housing delivery, helping to fully optimise the potential housing capacity of the scheme.

247 In conclusion, the scheme is considered to be fully compliant with the requirements of the London Plan Policy 7.7, Policy D8 of the draft London Plan, and Greenwich Core Strategy Policies DH1, DH2, and DH(g).

Historic environment

248 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the statutory duties for dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions. Section 66 states that in relation to listed buildings, all planning decisions should “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”, and Section 72 states that in relation to conservation areas, special attention must be paid to “the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”.

249 The NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, and the more

page 55 important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance is the value of the heritage asset because of its heritage interest, which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic, and may derive from a heritage asset’s physical presence or its setting. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Where a proposed development will lead to ‘substantial harm’ or total loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Where a development will lead to ‘less than substantial harm’, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

250 London Plan Policy 7.8 and Policy HC1 of the draft London Plan state that development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. London Plan Policy 7.10 and draft London Plan Policy HC2 state that development should not cause adverse impact to World Heritage Sites or their setting, (including buffer zones), and should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance. Further guidance is provided in the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘London World Heritage Sites - Guidance on Settings’, and the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site (WHS) Management Plan (Third Review 2014).

251 Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy DH1 requires new development to be appropriately designed so as to promote a positive relationship with the historic environment; and Policy DH3 states that heritage assets and their settings should be protected and enhanced, including the Maritime Greenwich WHS, Conservation Areas, statutory listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, and archaeological remains. Policies DH(h), DH(i) and DH(j) provide more detailed statements on Conservation Areas, statutory listed buildings, and locally listed buildings. Policy DH(h) states that development on sites in the vicinity of a Conservation Area and which would have a visual effect on its character or appearance, should respect the setting of that area; and Policy DH(i) states that proposals that would detract from the setting and proportions of a listed building or group will be resisted.

252 The site does not lie within a conservation area and there are no listed buildings within the site. The closest conservation area (CA) is Greenwich Council’s Blackheath Park CA, approximately 500 metres to the west/north-west of the site, which partially incorporates the buffer zone (approximately 1.2 kilometres away) to the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site (approximately 2 kilometres away). Greenwich Council’s Blackheath CA is approximately 900 metres to the north- west and Lewisham Council’s Blackheath CA is approximately 1.2 kilometres to the north-west. Other conservation areas are further away, including the Well Hall Pleasaunce and Eltham Palace CAs approximately 1.4 kilometres and 1.8 kilometres south-east of the site, respectively. The conservation areas contain numerous listed buildings. As a place of Outstanding Universal Value, the Maritime Greenwich WHS is a designation of the highest order, and as such it is an important planning consideration. The WHS also contains a number of statutory designations, which afford protection individually and collectively, including the Grade I listed Old Royal Naval College, Queen’s House and Observatory buildings; the Greenwich Park Conservation Area; and a number of scheduled monuments in the Park, which is a Grade I registered park and garden.

253 Greenwich Council officers considered any harm to heritage assets to be ‘minor’, ‘less than substantial’, and outweighed by public benefits. However, the Council’s second reason for refusal identified that by reason of its excessive height, scale and bulk, the proposal would form a visually dominant element that would be visible over the largely intact skyline of the Blackheath Conservation Area and the listed buildings along Montpellier Row; would be unsympathetic to the special historic character of the Blackheath Conservation Area and listed buildings, thereby resulting in a harmful impact to their setting; and would cause less than substantial harm to designated

page 56 heritage assets, not outweighed by public benefits. The application was therefore considered by Greenwich Council to be contrary to the NPPF; Policies 7.4, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan; Policies DH1, DH2 DH3, DH(h) and DH(i) of the Greenwich Core Strategy; and Lewisham Council’s Blackheath Conservation Area Character Appraisal SPD. Some objections received in response to the public consultation also referred to heritage impacts. Historic England’s consultation response identified that “the proposed tall buildings would cause harm to the Blackheath Conservation Area by visually competing with its modest village character and the setting of listed buildings situated in this view”, with reference to TVA View 19; however, it did not explicitly object to the application, and advised that the proposal should be considered against national and local policy guidance. The Council’s Conservation Officer concurred with Historic England advice; however, the level of harm was not identified. Lewisham Council objected to the proposals due to “strong concerns regarding the harmful impact on the setting of designated heritage assets on Blackheath Conservation Area and the listed buildings on Montpellier Row”. GLA officers infer that Historic England and Lewisham Council identified harm to the significance of the Conservation Area and listed buildings, since their setting is not protected by either statute or policy.

254 The applicant’s Designated Heritage Assets Assessment within the Environmental Statement and Addendum contains an analysis of the significance of both designated and non-designated heritage assets. The Assessment has been independently reviewed by technical specialists commissioned by the Council. The methodology and most of the findings are considered to be robust; however, GLA officers consider that the Assessment under-estimates the impact on the significance of the Blackheath Conservation Area and the listed buildings on Montpellier Row, although it is agreed that the level of harm that would be caused is less than substantial. This is discussed further below.

255 The proposal would be approximately two kilometres from the WHS, at a lower level from the crest of the hill towards the southern boundary of the WHS, which is formed by the wall along the southern boundary of Greenwich Park. The park wall and trees and planting within Greenwich mean that the proposals would have almost no visibility from within the WHS boundary, other than from the Park entrance gates. The focus for the key buildings and spaces of the WHS are further northwards, below the crest of the hill, from where the proposal would not be visible. TVA Views 18, 19, and 20 from Blackheath are within the buffer zone of the WHS, looking in the opposite direction to the focus of the WHS. The proposal would be hidden behind trees and not visible at all from TVA View 20, slightly visible above the tree line in TVA View 18, with greater visibility in TVA View 19, as discussed further below. However, this change to the buffer zone of the WHS is not considered significant from a heritage perspective as it would have no impact on the ability to understand and appreciate the heritage significance and Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS. It should also be noted that the setting of the key buildings and spaces of the WHS is significantly impacted by London’s largest cluster of tall buildings in the northern Isle of Dogs.

256 Blackheath Village and the Heath to the north, is included within Lewisham Council’s Blackheath CA. The CA includes a number of 18th and 19th century listed buildings lining the Heath along Montpellier Row, with the Grade II listed Church of All Saints in isolation on the Heath to the north. Lewisham Council’s Blackheath Conservation Area Character Appraisal SPD (CACA, March 2007) outlines the historic and architectural significance of the CA, highlighting the largely uninterrupted roofscape giving extended views, which it states is particularly sensitive to even modest changes, with chimneys, chimney pots, eaves lines, parapets, traditional materials, decorative finials, dormers and traditional mansard forms all contributing to the richness of the skyline and the quality of the roofscape. The CACA identifies the importance of the built form on the southern side of the Heath (including Montpelier Row) for providing a sense of enclosure to the Heath; and the far reaching views revealing the height of the Heath, including the wooded slopes of Shooters Hill, longer views to Kent, and a number of church spires, such as St. Michael’s (Blackheath Park). The Council’s Planning Board Report and the Council’s second reason for refusal

page 57 described the skyline of Blackheath CA as intact; however, the CACA was published well before the Kidbrooke Village proposals came forward, and the contribution to the significance of the CA and the listed buildings of these aspects has clearly been eroded by the breaking of the skyline by buildings within Kidbrooke Village. It is noted that the skyline has also been eroded towards the west by tall buildings within Lewisham town centre, and to the north by tall buildings on the Isle of Dogs. Notwithstanding this, GLA officers consider that the importance to the setting of the CA of the built form on the southern side of the Heath (including Montpelier Row), providing a sense of enclosure to the Heath; the remaining roofscape in these views to the south; and the far-reaching views, still contributes to the significance of these heritage assets.

257 The cumulative TVA View 19 shows a cluster of tall buildings rising to the rear of Montpellier Row (within Lewisham Council’s Blackheath CA), made up of the under-construction Phase 3 Kidbrooke Village, including the 21 storey Birch House as the tallest element, which would be added to, to a limited degree, by later Kidbrooke Village phases. The proposed Kidbrooke Station Square buildings would add to the left side of the cluster, with one of the 20 storey blocks closer to Birch House, stepping down to one of the 16 storey blocks to the left. The impact of the proposals on this view was a key consideration at pre-application stage, which resulted in a reduction in height of the tallest buildings from 24 storeys to 20 storeys as now proposed, in order to retain Birch House as the tallest element. The proposed buildings would comprise a further intrusion above the built form on the southern side of the Heath (in particular Montpelier Row), and further erode the roofscape and distant views to the south. As stated above, these elements are considered to contribute to the significance of these heritage assets. Consequently, GLA officers consider that there would be some harm to their significance. Notwithstanding this, the proposals would comprise an incremental change, adding to the emerging tall buildings of Kidbrooke Village, and would not form an overly dominant feature in the view, either in their own right, or as part of the cluster of tall buildings together with Kidbrooke Village. The tallest buildings are a lighter colour tone with inset balconies, so as to appear more recessive in longer views when seen both against clear sky and cloud. The Church of All Saints would remain by far the most dominant vertical element in the view, with the view of the spire of St. Michael’s (Blackheath Park) remaining clearly visible on the skyline. Consequently, GLA officers consider this harm to be 'less than substantial'. It is noted that Council officers concluded that any harm would be less than substantial, and the reason for refusal also states that harm would be less than substantial.

258 As described above, the proposals would be hidden behind trees and not visible at all from View 20 towards Montpellier Row. In TVA View 18, the proposals would be largely hidden by and extensive bank of trees at the intersection of St. German’s Place and The Paragon (within Greenwich Council’s Blackheath CA), with Birch House being much more prominent. GLA officers consider that no harm would be caused to heritage assets in these views.

259 In TVA Views 18, 19 and 20, it is also noted that as the viewer moved towards the buildings lining the edge of the Heath, the proposed buildings would disappear from view.

260 The photographs on which the AVRs are based were taken with a 24mm lens to give a sufficient horizontal field of view to enable the urban context of the views to be appreciated and provide consistency across the visual assessment. This is in accordance with guidance for the preparation of visualisations in an urban context in the Mayor’s London View Management Framework SPG (Appendix C) and Landscape Institute Advice Note (01/11) on Photography and Photomontage for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (and its replacement Technical Guidance Note 06/19, 17 September 2019). The approach was also supported by the Council’s independent review of the applicant’s ES. However, the Council’s Planning Board raised concerns that due to the wide angled nature of the 24mm lens, both the townscape within the photographs and the proposed development appear smaller than when viewed on site. This is correct, as AVRs are a tool used to help inform a judgement that should ideally be made on site; however, to address

page 58 this concern, additional AVRs have been prepared by the applicant of TVA Views 18, 19 and 20 with the same horizontal field of view as a 50mm lens. When printed at A3 and held at a distance of 55cms from the eye, the AVRs have approximately the same apparent scale as they would in situ. GLA officers consider that the original AVRs, as well as the additional AVRs, are appropriate tools to inform an assessment of the impact, along with a site visit.

261 The impacts on the significance of other heritage assets, including those around Eltham Palace, Well Hall Pleasaunce, Blackheath Park, and Blackheath Village, are considered to be very limited, with no harm to significance caused.

262 In summary, GLA officers consider that in some instances there would be no harm to the significance of heritage assets; and in instances where there would be harm, it would be less than substantial. Even though that harm is to be given great weight, GLA officers consider that when that harm is weighed against the public benefits of the scheme, it is clearly and convincingly outweighed by the public benefits the scheme would deliver. These include the regeneration of a vacant site; a significant amount of good quality housing, including 51% affordable housing; a nursery; new public spaces; new business units; part of a new local centre; improved access across the railway line in the form of a new public lift at the northern end of the existing pedestrian bridge; as well as economic and regenerative benefits to the wider area. Further benefits may arise from the £400,000 contribution towards potential lifts for the Station pedestrian bridge; however, as this is dependent on other funding, little weight has been given to this benefit. Greenwich Council officers also considered that the public benefits provided by the proposals outweighed the less than substantial harm caused to designated heritage assets; and although the reason for refusal states that public benefits do not outweigh the harm, the public benefits are not set out and no justification is provided for this conclusion. GLA officers are of the view that the public benefits provided are considerable and clearly outweigh the less than substantial harm caused, notwithstanding that such harm must be given great weight.

263 To conclude, the application is therefore considered to be in accordance with the NPPF; Policies 7.4, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan; draft London Plan Policies HC1 and HC2; Policies DH1, DH2 DH3, DH(h) and DH(i) of the Greenwich Core Strategy; and Lewisham Council’s Blackheath Conservation Area Character Appraisal SPD. In coming to this conclusion, GLA officers have had special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings and have given great weight to the harm caused to heritage assets.

Strategic views

264 London Plan Policies 7.11 and 7.12, and Policy HC4 of the draft London Plan, state that development should not harm strategic views, with further detail provided in the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘London View Management Framework’ (LVMF SPG). The site is within the Protected Vistas Extension of ‘London Panorama: Primrose Hill’ (Assessment Point 4A.1 looking towards St. Paul’s Cathedral). The LVMF description of this view states that “the cluster of tall buildings in the City of London is partially obscured by towers at Euston” and “St. Paul’s Cathedral is framed by two of these towers but a third, lower tower, reduces the viewer’s appreciation of the dome and drum”. The lower tower referred to here is 1 Eversholt Street at Euston. In terms of management guidance of the view, the LVMF states that “St. Paul’s Cathedral and its Western Towers are recognisable in this view largely because it is seen clearly against the sky and it is not dominated by development in its backdrop” and “development proposals should not compromise this situation.”

265 The applicant’s Designated Heritage Assets Assessment and London View Management Framework Study within the Environmental Statement contain as assessment of the impact of the proposals on this view. The viewing point is 15.69 kilometres from the site. Accounting for the

page 59 considerable distance and the consequent curvature of the earth involved, Block A would be 570mm above the existing 1 Eversholt Street building at Euston, to the left of St. Paul’s dome and drum; however, it would not be visible by the naked eye or by telephoto lens. The majority of this sliver of building would also be hidden behind the considerably taller consented towers on the Convoys Wharf site. No harm would therefore be caused to this view as it currently exists, nor when taking account of permitted development. Should 1 Eversholt Street be demolished, and/or the Convoys Wharf scheme not come forward as permitted, the proposed buildings would appear as a recessive element in the background, below the treeline of distant hills, and below the level of the dome, the upper drum, and the upper balustrade; however, they would be unlikely to be visible by the naked eye. Consequently, there would be no negative impact to the appreciation of the dome and drum of St. Paul’s, which would remain clearly against the sky, and would not be dominated by the proposals, in line with LVMF management guidance.

266 The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with London Plan Policies 7.11 and 7.12; draft London Plan Policies Policy HC4; and the LVMF SPG.

Architecture and materials

267 London Plan Policies 7.6 and 7.7, and draft London Plan Policies D1, D2 and D8 require buildings to be of the highest architectural quality and comprise materials that complement rather than necessarily replicate local architectural character. Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy DH1 sets out the general principles of high quality design.

268 The applicant describes the proposals as being made up of three building typologies; two marker blocks, three mansion blocks, and three shoulder blocks. All buildings incorporate a simple repeating grid arrangement of window openings and balconies, with limited subtle texturing of brickwork and detailing to add visual interest. The two tallest marker buildings are a lighter colour tone, so as to appear more recessive in longer views when seen both against clear sky and cloud, with recessed balconies incorporating a darker tone of brick, providing the elevation with some depth. Subtle banding at the height of the balcony railings provides visual interest. The mid-rise mansion blocks are primarily of mid-grey brickwork, with darker brickwork to recessed piers between windows, and projecting balconies formed by aluminium railings. The lower shoulder blocks are clad with darker charcoal brickwork, contrasting with lighter coloured solid/rail balconies. The typologies combine to form a coherent grouping of buildings, with sufficient visual differentiation; also responding to the similar massing and brick cladding of the adjacent Kidbrooke Village. The proposal also includes a small single-storey pavilion within the public square, which would be clad in red brickwork, providing a welcome splash of colour and an appropriate contrast with the more neutral colours of the larger buildings.

269 The proposals have been subject to extensive design scrutiny at pre- and post-application stage, and the current scheme has evolved in response to comments made through this iterative process. The Council’s Design Review Panel welcomed the architecture and commented that the language of the buildings was well considered. The Council’s Planning Board Report describes the scheme as coherent and well-designed.

270 Conditions are recommended in relation to the detailed design of elevations, facing materials and balconies. Subject to these requirements being met, GLA officers consider that the scheme would provide high quality architecture, which would respond appropriately to the local context, in line with the NPPF; London Plan Policies 7.4 and 7.6; draft London Plan Policies D1, D2 and D8; and Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy DH1.

page 60 Fire safety

271 Policy D11 of the draft London Plan seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the highest standards of fire safety and to ensure the safety of all building users. The applicant has submitted a fire strategy, which details that all residential units will be fitted with sprinklers, means of warning and escape, construction and materials to limit fire spread, and access and facilities for fire-fighting. Should planning permission be granted, a condition would be included to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the agreed fire strategy.

Designing out crime

272 Policy 7.3 of the London Plan seeks to ensure that the principles of designing out crime are integrated in the design of new development to promote a sense of security without being overbearing or intimidating, which is reflected in draft London Plan Policy D10. The criteria in Policy 7.3 requires new development to provide legible, convenient and well-maintained movement routes and spaces which are well-overlooked and benefit from an appropriate level of activity, with private and communal spaces clearly defined to promote a sense of ownership. Similarly, Greenwich Council Core Strategy Policy CH1 requires development to consider community safety and aim to discourage crime.

273 As set out under ‘layout, landscape and open space’ above, the provision of active frontages has been maximised within the scheme, with ground floor uses providing extensive activity, with a good spread of residential entrances, including maisonettes with street entrances with ground floor units, which would provide appropriate levels of overlooking and activity during the day and evening. The Council’s Designing Out Crime Officer advised that the development is suitable to achieve Secured by Design accreditation and a condition is recommended on any permission ensuring that the development will follow the Secured by Design principles and physical security requirements. Subject to the inclusion of this condition, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.3, draft London Plan Policy D10, and Greenwich Council Core Strategy Policy CH1.

Conclusion on urban design

274 The Council resolved to refuse the application on the grounds of excessively high density, representing overdevelopment of the site, which fails to positively respond to the local context, transport capacity, and would result in a sub-standard overall quality of residential environment. Also due to excessive height and scale, which would dominate the townscape, and fail to remain sufficiently subservient to Kidbrooke Village. Also by reason of its excessive height, scale and bulk, it would form a visually dominant element that would be visible over the largely intact skyline of Blackheath Conservation Area and the listed buildings along Montpellier Row when viewed from parts of the Heath, which would be unsympathetic to the special historic character of Blackheath Conservation Area and listed buildings, resulting in less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets, not be outweighed by public benefits. Also, by reason of failure to adequately demonstrate that future occupants of the development would be sufficiently protected from poor air quality impacts resulting from its location and the siting of residential buildings adjoining busy main roads.

275 As set out above, GLA officers consider that the design and layout would optimise the development capacity of the site, responding appropriately to the environmental and site access constraints. The new access routes, landscape and open spaces would be of a high quality, providing a welcoming and attractive environment, which would be well-overlooked and benefit from an appropriate level of activity and ownership. Public and communal amenity spaces would receive good levels of sunlight, with acceptable noise and air quality impacts. The density of the

page 61 proposals is appropriate considering the nature of the site, its context, and the quality of the design. The proposals were subject to extensive design scrutiny over ten months at pre-and post- application stage, including the Greenwich Design Review Panel. The scheme has evolved in response to comments made through this iterative process of design scrutiny. The scheme provides a good standard of residential quality, including space standards; aspect, outlook and privacy; play space provision; daylight, sunlight and overshadowing; air quality; and noise. Its scale and massing is in keeping with the character of the Phase 3 Kidbrooke Village scheme, while remaining subservient, together forming a new local centre, marking the location of the Station, and is in an area identified as appropriate for tall buildings. The harm to the significance of heritage assets is considered to be ‘less than substantial’ and outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, notwithstanding that such harm must be given great weight. No harm would be caused to strategic views. The area has a good level of transport infrastructure provision and would provide a bus interchange of improved quality and capacity. Bus services in the area have also been improved as a result of a new bus route that has been agreed during the course of the application. The site is directly adjacent to a train station, and will allow improved access. Furthermore, the existing station is currently being replaced with a larger building positioned more centrally to the recently lengthened platform, allowing improved access and greater capacity. Further discussion under ‘transport’ below confirms that the scheme would have an acceptable impact on public transport. The development will also improve the quality and extent of routes through the site for pedestrians and cyclists. The architectural approach and use of a consistent and varied palate of different tones of brick would ensure the provision of a high quality, distinctive and cohesive scheme which responds appropriately to the surrounding urban and landscape context, topography, views and historic environment.

276 On this basis, the application accords with London Plan Policies 3.5, 3.6, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8; Policies D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D10, and D11 of the draft London Plan; Greenwich Core Strategy Policies H5, CH1, DH1, DH2, DH3, DH(b), DH(g), DH(h), DH(i), DH(j), and E(c); the Housing SPG (2016); and the overall urban design objectives of the Kidbrooke SPD.

Inclusive design

277 London Plan Policy 7.2 and draft London Plan Policy D3 require all future development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, and that the design process has considered how everyone, including those with disabilities, older people, children and young people, will be able to use the places and spaces that are proposed. London Plan Policy 7.6 expects that buildings and structures meet the principles of inclusive design; and London Plan Policy 3.8 and draft London Plan Policy D5 require that 90% of new housing meets Building Regulation requirement M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ and 10% of new housing meets Building Regulation requirement M4(3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’, that is, designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy H5 requires that in residential developments of 25 or more units, 10% of dwellings should be built to full wheelchair standard, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.

278 Details of accessible and inclusive design have been provided within the applicant’s Design & Access Statement and Landscape Design Statement. The application drawings and landscape drawings also show how inclusive design features would be incorporated.

279 A total of 61 wheelchair user dwellings would be provided which would meet Building Regulation M4(3), representing 10% of the units in the scheme. Plans are provided for a range of unit sizes, which are spread across buildings and tenures. All of the remaining units would meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2). A condition is recommended that would ensure that this

page 62 level of accessible housing is secured, in accordance with draft London Plan Policy D5. As requested by the Council’s Occupational Therapist, the condition also requires evidence that the units have been fitted out in accordance with these requirements to be submitted to the Council, prior to first occupation.

280 As set out under the site description, the site level drops by approximately 9 metres from the north-east of the site, towards the railway line to the south; however, the level change at the north-west end of the site is less than 3 metres. The main route through the site provides step-free access across the length of the site, with a sloped footway alongside the carriageway from Kidbrooke Park Road. An existing step-free route along the railway line to Kidbrooke Park Road is outside the application boundary and would be retained. Step-free access would be retained to both subways at the north and north-east of the site. A new publicly accessible lift as part of Block H would be provided, taking users up to the existing pedestrian bridge over the railway line, leading to existing ramped access on the southern side of the railway line. Further accessibility improvements may arise from the potential £400,000 contribution towards lifts for the Station pedestrian bridge; however, this is dependent on other funding. Overall, the submitted drawings and landscape drawings demonstrate that appropriate levels and gradients can be provided across the site to ensure an inclusive environment throughout the scheme.

281 The development proposes 19 disabled car parking spaces serving residential units, which would be available for Blue Badge holders. This represents more than 3% of the dwellings, with the capacity to increase to 10% if required. A condition is proposed to secure a car park design and management plan to be submitted, including demonstrating how increased demand for disabled parking could be met if required.

282 The application would achieve a high level of accessible and inclusive design and would comply with London Plan Policies 3.8, 7.2 and 7.6; draft London Plan Policies D3 and D5; Greenwich Council Core Strategy Policy H5; and the Accessible London SPG.

Transport

283 Chapter 9 of the NPPF sets out the Government’s aim to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport. When considering the transport implications of development proposals, the NPPF states that decision-makers should ensure that site specific opportunities available to promote sustainable transport modes have been taken up; safe and suitable access to site would be achieved for all users; and any significant impacts from development on transport network (in terms of capacity or congestion) or highways safety can be mitigated to an acceptable degree. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or where residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Paragraph 110 of the NPPF sets out additional criteria which should be addressed which includes pedestrian, cycle and inclusive access.

284 London Plan Policy 6.1 sets out a strategic approach for transport in London. This includes the aim to encourage patterns of development that reduce the need to travel, especially by car, through the use of maximum car parking standards; seeking to improve the capacity and accessibility of public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure; encouraging shifts to more sustainable modes of travel and promoting walking and safe and step-free access. Policy 6.3 states that the impact of development proposals on transport capacity and network should be fully assessed and not adversely affect safety, with schemes appropriately phased where transport capacity is insufficient to allow for the expected trip generation. Other relevant transport policies are Policies 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 and 6.13 which cover cycling, parking, road network capacity, and traffic congestion. Policy 8.2 of the London Plan sets out the Mayor’s priorities for planning obligations and states public transport improvements should be given the highest importance,

page 63 alongside affordable housing. Policies 6.5 and 8.3 set out the Mayor’s priorities for funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure, and Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy.

285 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018) (MTS) seeks to put people’s health and quality of life at the very heart of planning the city’s transport with an aim that by 2041, 80% of all Londoners’ trips will be made on foot, by cycle or by public transport. The MTS seeks to impose high expectations on developers to deliver transport solutions that will promote sustainable mode shift, reduce road congestion, improve air quality and assist in the development of attractive, healthy and active places. It will also seek to restrict car parking provision within new developments, with those locations more accessible to public transport expected to be car free or car-lite. Provision for car parking should be minimised and designed for alternative uses in the future as car dependency decreases.

286 The aspirations of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy are embedded in the policies of the draft London Plan, particularly in policy approaches such as ‘Healthy Streets’, ‘Good Growth’ and the Mayoral mode share targets. Draft London Plan Policy T1 sets a strategic target of 80% of all trips to be made by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041. Draft London Plan Policy T2 seeks to ensure that development proposals deliver patterns of land use that facilitate residents making shorter, regular trips by walking or cycling. Draft London Plan Policies T3-T6 and T6.1-T6.5 seek to enable the achievement of the Mayor’s strategic target.

287 Greenwich Core Strategy Policy CM4 states that all development should contribute to improved accessibility and safety and reduce the use of the private car and the need to travel. Development should be designed for the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users first and intense uses should be close to public transport, cycling and pedestrian nodes and interchanges to enhance connectivity. Policy IM4 supports the development of an integrated and sustainable transport system. Policy IM5 seeks to minimise the impact of the movement of goods and materials on the road network by encouraging sustainable freight practices. The Policy states that London Plan standards should be applied to new parking.

Trip generation and mode split

288 The applicant has provided a transport assessment (TA), including a trip generation assessment undertaken using the industry standard TRICS database. The trip generation assessment indicated that the predicted trip generation based on the Kidbrooke Village trip rates are significantly higher compared to the trip generation from the TRICS assessment in terms of person trips. Therefore, the impact assessment of the site has been based on the Kidbrooke Village trip rates. The assessment concludes that that the proposed development is likely to generate an additional 561 person movements during the AM peak (8:00-9:00), and around 466 person movements during the PM peak (17:00 -18:00). The Inner London mode share from the London Travel Demand Survey has been interrogated to identify the mode share that is to be used within the trip generation assessment. This data has been used in conjunction with person trip generation to calculate the multimodal trips for the proposed development.

289 The trip generation methodology used for assessing the site was discussed in detail at pre- application stage. The TA provides a comparative assessment between available TRICS surveys and consented developments in the local area. From a detailed review of this comparative assessment, the methodology proposed to assess the trip generation for the residential element of this site is appropriate and acceptable. The approach to the assessment of non-residential trip generation is also accepted. The selected sites have been based upon similar locations, parking ratios and public transport accessibility characteristics to the proposal.

page 64 Impact on public transport

290 Greenwich Council’s third reason for refusal identified that the application fails to adequately demonstrate that the proposals would have an acceptable impact on the public transport network. Consequently, the Council concluded that the proposal would be contrary to Policies 3.4 and 6.3 of the London Plan and Policy IM4 of Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy. A number of objections received in response to the public consultation identified insufficient transport capacity.

291 The approach to the assessment of public transport impact as set out in the applicant’s Transport Assessment is supported. Predicted trips during peak periods are not significant and therefore it is anticipated that there would be no adverse impact on public transport services or infrastructure. To address objections arising from the Council’s consultation that an unrealistically low proportion of trips are expected to be made by train, the applicant provided further justification to the Council, which was accepted in the Council’s Planning Board Report.

292 The applicant subsequently provided further information on the calculations, which have been reviewed by TfL and GLA officers. This estimates that the proposal will result in an additional 199 outbound rail trips towards central London during the 8:00-9:00 AM peak, which equates to an additional 20 passengers per train. This compares well to other methodologies used within the Transport Assessment, which found between 16 and 20 additional passengers per train. Regarding buses, it is estimated that the proposal will result in an additional 97 bus trips during the 8:00-9:00 AM peak. Therefore, predicted trips during peak periods are not significant and it is anticipated that there would be no adverse impact on public transport services or infrastructure.

293 A new bus route (335) between Kidbrooke Village and North Greenwich will be operational from 26 October 2019. Bus route 178 has also been upgraded to a double decker route, providing additional capacity. The platforms at Kidbrooke Station have recently been lengthened, and a new station building is currently under construction, expected to be complete in early 2020. The aforementioned improvements to public transport services/infrastructure will therefore benefit the proposal due to their close proximity.

294 The development includes a new Henley Cross bus interchange, with increased capacity of three bus stops and two bus stands for future expansion, also providing improved safety, comfort and accessibility for users. This is to be secured by section 106 agreement. The layout meets TfL’s operational requirements; however, a condition is recommended to secure the detailed design. The provision of the bus stands and stops will also be secured by section 106 agreement.

295 As such, the impact of the application on public transport infrastructure is considered to be acceptable and, as such, the application complies with London Plan Policies 3.4 and 6.3; draft London Plan Policies D1A, D1B, T3 and T4; and Policy IM4 of Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy.

Site access, layout and Healthy Streets

296 Vehicular access to the site is from Henley Cross via the A2213. The applicant’s modelling demonstrates that local junctions continue to operate within capacity, including cumulative traffic arising from other local developments. Although additional traffic will be generated by the development, no mitigation is necessary due to spare capacity at all junctions.

297 The on-site street network accessed from Kidbrooke Park Road has been designed for low vehicular speeds, with a turning head at the eastern end of the site, avoiding the need for service vehicles to reverse. The design of the streetscape reflects the importance of designing for Healthy Streets and encourages the use of sustainable modes, such as walking and cycling, in line with

page 65 Policy T2 of the draft London Plan. The road layout within the site is acceptable. A condition is recommended requiring full details to ensure the design is suitable and safe for all users. Not all of the proposed roads will be adopted, and therefore details of traffic calming, road markings, drainage and street lighting are recommended to be secured by condition.

298 The proposed development will improve the permeability of the site to pedestrians and cyclists, which is welcomed. Access will be from the north-west on Henley Cross, via Kidbrooke Park Road, with additional access via the existing ramp and steps along the railway line (outside the site boundary) from Kidbrooke Park Road; an existing ramp and steps to a subway under Kidbrooke Park Road to the north; and an existing subway under the A2 to the east, which connects to the existing raised footbridge passing over the site and across the railway line, to which a new publicly accessible lift would be added as part of the proposals. The provision and maintenance of this lift will be secured in the section 106 agreement. An Estate Management Plan is also recommended to be secured by condition, which would also detail how the lift would be maintained. Public access to pedestrian and cycle links within the site is proposed to be secured on a 24 hour basis by section 106 agreement.

Kidbrooke Station

299 The existing entrance to Kidbrooke Station is located on the southern boundary of the site. The proposed public realm enhancements and the public square, including new bus infrastructure, would connect to this entrance.

300 The Station does not currently benefit from step-free access between platforms, requiring users to pass over the A2213 road bridge and through Kidbrooke Village. Network Rail and Southeastern are seeking funding from the Department for Transport, and possibly Greenwich Council, for two new lifts to the pedestrian bridge within the Station (total cost estimated to be £1.7M), and the applicant will provide a contribution of £400,000, to be secured through the section 106 agreement.

Walking and cycling

301 The proposals are supported by a Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) audit of the existing public realm. A Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) assessment, using TfL’s toolkit, was also carried out. These assessments are considered to be satisfactory.

302 Currently, there are limited formal cycling facilities in the area; however, there are proposals for two TfL Quietways within close proximity of the site, running from Greenwich to Bexleyheath via Kidbrooke, and Lea Green to Woolwich. These routes are subject to further development; however, on completion they will improve connectivity and attractiveness for cycling within the area.

303 In order to encourage sustainable travel, the section 106 agreement secures a financial contribution (sum to be confirmed) towards local improvements to enhance the pedestrian and cycling environment to and from the site, including works to existing or proposed ‘Cycleways’ routes, and junction improvement works to enable cyclists to cross safely.

Cycle Parking

304 The proposal also includes 1,104 cycle parking spaces spread across the site for residents, including 15 short-stay for visitors; and a further 34 cycle parking spaces for the non-residential elements, including 15 short-stay. Residential spaces are provided within the undercroft and across the site at ground level. Short-stay spaces are focused near to Kidbrooke Station and in the residential square. This meets the minimum standards set by London Plan Policy 6.13 and draft

page 66 London Plan Policy T5. The details of the cycle parking provision are recommended to be secured by condition, which should be in line with London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS). The Travel Plan is to be secured through the section 106 agreement. In line with the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD, a contribution of £12,400 towards cycle training for future residents would be secured through the section 106 agreement.

Residential car parking

305 London Plan Policy 6.13 and Policy T6 of the draft London Plan set out the principle of restricting car parking provision, taking into account planned improvements, future connectivity, and PTAL levels of a site.

306 The proposal includes 82 car parking spaces for the residential element of the development only, which equates to a car parking ratio of 1 space per 0.13 units. Of these, 76 will be located at ground/first floor level within the podium beneath Blocks D and F, with a further six car club spaces provided on-street. The commercial element of the development is car free. Given the location and PTAL of the site, the level of parking proposed is in accordance with the London Plan and the draft London Plan.

307 The development proposes 19 disabled car parking spaces serving residential units, which would be available for Blue Badge holders. This represents more than 3% of the dwellings, with the capacity to increase to 10% if required. A condition is proposed to secure a car park design and management plan to be submitted, including demonstrating how increased demand for disabled parking could be met if required.

308 Not all of the site wide road network will be adopted by the Council, and management of the six on-street car club spaces will therefore be detailed within the Estate Management Plan, to be secured by condition. A commitment to car club provision with the first five years membership paid by the applicant would be secured by section 106 agreement.

309 It is proposed that 20% (16 spaces) of the spaces would be provided with electric vehicle charging points, with passive provision for the remainder, to be secured by condition, which complies with London Plan Policy 6.13 and draft London Plan Policy T6.1.

310 Due to the site’s proximity to the station and the low ratio of parking, it is likely that there will be demand for on-street parking within the area. No Controlled Parking Zone is proposed to be introduced at this time, and the Estate Management Plan will require details for on-street parking management within the development to prevent uncontrolled on street-parking.

311 Due to the site’s proximity to the Station and the low ratio of parking, it is likely that there will be demand for on-street parking within the area. As not all of the streets and other vehicle areas would be adopted by the Council, a formal Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) cannot be implemented; however, the Estate Management Plan, will require details for on-street parking management within the development to prevent uncontrolled on street-parking. Similar arrangements or a CPZ apply in adjacent areas. The section 106 agreement also prevents any future occupant of the development from obtaining a parking permit within the Borough.

Deliveries and servicing

312 Servicing bays/areas are proposed to be located close to the residential and commercial land uses. In addition to a turning area outside Block H, a kerbside loading bay is proposed outside Block B, and inset loading bay outside Block A, and an inset loading bay outside Block E. It is estimated

page 67 that the proposed development will result in 81 daily servicing trips, requiring three servicing bays during peak demand.

313 A framework Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) has been provided, which includes information on the delivery strategy for the site and proposes bespoke measures to help reduce the impact of delivery vehicles on the road network. The final DSP is recommended to be secured by condition.

Construction

314 A detailed Construction Logistics and Management Plan, which addresses the enabling works, has been provided and will be secured by condition. Submission of a further Construction Logistics and Management Plan for all other phases is secured by condition, including measures at each phase to ensure pedestrian and cyclist safety and efficient movement via step free routes. This includes measures to allow connection between bus stops and Kidbrooke Station while the on-site interchange is unavailable during construction.

Travel Plan

315 The application is supported by a Travel Plan, which aims to promote sustainable travel to and from the site. This will be secured, monitored, reviewed and enforced through the section 106 agreement.

Conclusion on transport matters

316 The area has a good level of transport infrastructure provision and would provide a bus interchange of improved quality and capacity. Bus services in the area have been improved as the result of a new bus route that has been agreed during the course of the application. The scheme will allow improved access to the adjacent train station, which is currently being replaced with a larger building providing improved access and greater capacity. Station platforms have also been recently lengthened to improve accessibility. An appropriate package of transport mitigation measures is proposed in terms of walking, cycling, bus infrastructure, and travel plan incentives. Car and cycle parking provision complies with the standards in the London Plan and draft London Plan. The highways and public transport impacts of the proposals are acceptable. Subject to the transport mitigation measures being secured, the application supports the transport policies in the London Plan, the draft London Plan and Greenwich Core Strategy. The impact of the application on public transport infrastructure is considered to be acceptable and, as such, the application complies with London Plan Policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 8.2, and 8.3; draft London Plan Policies D1A, D1B, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T6.2, T6.3, T6.4, and T6.5; Policy IM4 of Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy; and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

Climate change

Energy strategy

317 London Plan Policies 5.1 and 5.2, and Policy SI2 of the draft London Plan, require development proposals to minimise carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to meet the Mayor’s targets, in accordance with the following energy hierarchy, which is reflected in Greenwich Council Core Strategy Policy E1: • Be lean: use less energy: • Be clean: supply energy efficiently; and • Be green: use renewable energy.

page 68 318 Applications proposing residential buildings are required to meet the zero carbon target, with residential uses expected to achieve a minimum on-site reduction of at least 35% improvement beyond Part L 2013 Building Regulations, with any shortfall required to achieve the zero carbon target secured via a carbon off-set payment. Non-residential uses are not at present subject to the zero carbon target and should demonstrate at least a 35% on-site reduction beyond Part L 2013. Policy SI2 of the draft London Plan includes the expectation that energy efficiency measures alone should account for a minimum of 10% of the reductions carbon dioxide emissions for residential development and 15% for non-residential development.

319 The applicant’s energy strategy follows the energy hierarchy and reduction targets are proposed for non-domestic and residential parts of the development separately as per GLA guidance. Following an initial review of the strategy, the applicant was advised that, whilst GLA officers considered that the applicant had broadly followed the energy hierarchy, further information, discussion and additional measures were required in relation to modelling outputs, gas boiler efficiency, overheating, the district energy network, the site heat network, combined heat and power, and photovoltaics. These matters have been subject to further discussion between the applicant and GLA officers, with a revised energy strategy and updated overheating assessment submitted and agreed in October 2019. All carbon related calculations have been carried out using SAP10 carbon emission factors, as encouraged by the GLA. An assessment of these revisions is set out below.

Be Lean

320 A range of passive design and demand measures are proposed to reduce energy demand, including high levels of insulation, double glazed windows, with the potential for passive ventilation maximised, taking into account air quality and noise constraints. The demand for cooling and the overheating risk will be minimised through a number of methods including balconies, solar glazing, solar shading, integrated blinds, and energy efficient appliances. In addition to this, mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) will provide background and extract ventilation to kitchens/bathrooms and habitable rooms. The applicant has provided drawings demonstrating the operation of blinds, which will not interfere with openable windows. Additionally, a dwelling operation manual including the overheating mitigation strategy will be provided to all occupants. The potential for passive/natural ventilation potential has been maximised, taking into account noise and air pollution issues.

321 In terms of performance, the applicant’s updated Energy Strategy demonstrates that energy efficiency measures would achieve a reduction of 11.6% (domestic) and 14% (non-domestic) in regulated CO2 emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development, which are broadly in line with the targets set out above.

Be Clean

322 The applicant’s original Energy Strategy included the proposal for a site wide communal heat network, via a gas fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant, achieving a 28% reduction in CO2 emissions through this second part of the energy hierarchy. However, in light of air quality concerns, particularly within an Air Quality Management Area, and grid decarbonisation, the applicant was required to reconsider this approach, taking into account Policy SI3 of the draft London Plan and updated GLA guidance (October 2018)5.

323 Consequently, the applicant’s updated energy strategy replaces CHP with centralised heat pumps. The system proposed is a hybrid system supplying 60% of the annual heat load via Air

5 GLA Energy Assessment Guidance (October 2018), Appendix 3

page 69 Source Heat Pumps (ASHP), and the remainder utilising gas-fired boilers. Details of the energy centre are proposed to be secured in the section 106 agreement.

324 In terms of connection to wider district heating networks, opportunities are constrained by the railway line and major roads. The applicant has discussed potentially connecting to the Kidbrooke Village network with Berkeley Homes; however, the Berkeley Homes Energy Centre has not been designed to accommodate demand from adjacent sites. The applicant has also discussed options with Network Rail; however, no conclusions have been reached. They have previously confirmed they are future-proofing for connection to district heating. Notwithstanding this, the proposal includes the infrastructure to connect to a district heat network should connection become possible.

Be Green

325 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install photovoltaic (PV) panels on five roofspaces, with an output of 74.5 kWp, to all available roof areas, with remaining areas taken by amenity spaces, plant, and man-safe equipment, or are lower overshadowed roofspaces not appropriate for PV. It is agreed that the applicant has maximised the on-site savings from renewable energy technologies and the provision of the PVs is to be secured within the section 106 agreement.

326 The applicant’s updated Energy Strategy demonstrates that energy efficiency measures would achieve a reduction of 28% (domestic) and 22% (non-domestic) in regulated CO2 emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development.

Carbon savings and off-set payment

327 An on-site reduction of 227 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development, using SAP10 emission factors, is expected for the domestic buildings proposed, equivalent to an overall saving of 39.6%.

328 The carbon dioxide savings exceed the on-site target set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan; however, the domestic buildings are required to meet the zero carbon target, and £592,167 will therefore be paid into the Borough’s offset fund, as secured by section 106 agreement.

329 An on-site reduction of 20 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development, using SAP10 emission factors, is expected for the non-domestic elements of the proposal, equivalent to an overall saving of 36%, which meets the requirements set out above.

330 Overall carbon reductions amount to 39.2%, using SAP10 emission factors, with a carbon offset contribution of £592,167 to be secured in the section 106 agreement.

Conclusion – energy strategy

331 Overall, the range of CO2 reductions accord with the requirements of Policy 5.2 of the London Plan; 2018 GLA Energy Guidance; Policies SI2 and SI3 of the draft London Plan; and Greenwich Council Core Strategy Policy E1.

Flood risk and sustainable drainage

332 Paragraph 163 of the NPPF states that where appropriate, planning applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment, which is reflected in London Plan Policy 5.12 and draft London Plan Policy SI.12. Policy E2 of Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy states that the

page 70 Borough's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment must be used to inform development and reduce flood risk. The NPPF also states that major development should incorporate sustainable drainage systems which is reflected in London Plan Policy 5.13 and draft London Plan Policy SI.13.

333 The site is located in flood risk Zone 1 with a low level of flood risk; however, it has significant level differences of up to approximately 9 metres, which raises challenges to ensure that surface water is effectively drained to avoid surface water flooding impacts. The applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) considers the risk of flooding from a range of sources and with the proposed mitigation measures, the residual flood risk to the site is low.

334 The surface water drainage strategy within the FRA provides an assessment of existing runoff rates, greenfield runoff rates, and required attenuation storage for a range of post- development discharge rates. It also addresses the London Plan drainage hierarchy, and notes that permeable paving and blue/green roofs are possible, and that infiltration is not feasible due to the building footprint/site geology. Large areas of the proposals are covered with a perma-void at podium level, which sits under areas of soft landscaping/tree pits, forming blue/green roofs, which can work as a type of rainwater harvesting. Further exploration of rainwater harvesting and tree pits is to be reviewed at the next design stage. Attenuation tanks are proposed as the main sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) measure. The attenuation storage volume has been estimated at 950 cubic metres, which is sufficient. The strategy meets the 1 in 100 year plus 40% of climate change factor event and allows greenfield run-off rates to be achieved.

335 The GLA Environment Team has agreed the FRA, including the surface water drainage strategy. The Council’s Flood Risk Officer raised incidents of railway line flooding near the site; however, it is considered that the FRA demonstrates that the site would mitigate impacts from surface water drainage to an acceptable level. A surface water drainage strategy has been provided, and a condition is proposed to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with this.

336 Subject to conditions to secure these matters, the proposal accords with the NPPF, London Plan Policies 5.12 and 5.13; draft London Plan Policies SI.12 and SI.13; and Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy E2.

Water efficiency

337 London Plan Policy 5.15 and draft London Plan Policy SI.5 require that development should minimize the use of mains water.

338 The applicant’s sustainability statement identifies that the proposed dwellings will have a maximum indoor water consumption of 105 litres/person/day, and the non-residential components of the development will target a minimum BREEAM rating of ‘excellent’. Subject to conditions to secure these features, the proposal accords with Policy 5.15 of the London Plan and Policy SI5 of the draft London Plan.

Urban greening, trees and biodiversity

339 Paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF state that planning decisions should contribute to enhancing the natural environment by minimising biodiversity impacts and avoiding or mitigating harm and providing net gains. Paragraph 177 states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other proposals), unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site.

page 71 340 London Plan Policy 7.19 promotes the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, and states that Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) of borough importance should be given the level of protection commensurate with their importance. Draft London Plan Policy G6 states that SINCs should be protected; however, where harm is unavoidable, the benefits of the development should clearly outweigh the impacts, with suitable mitigation applied. London Plan Policy 5.10 and Policy G5 of the draft London Plan require new development to provide urban greening in order to contribute to the adaptation and reduction of the effects of climate change. Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policies OS4 and OS(f) states that biodiversity and geodiversity will be protected, restored and enhanced.

341 London Plan Policy 7.21 and draft London Plan Policy G7 states that existing trees of value/quality should be retained and any loss as the result of development should be replaced. Greenwich Core Strategy Policy OS(f) also seeks to retain trees.

342 The brownfield site mainly comprises scattered scrub and woodland. The Ecology chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) Addendum identifies that the Blackheath to Falconwood Railsides SINC (of Grade II Borough importance) runs along the railway line, and although the boundary of the SINC is approximate and varies between sources, the greatest possible extent of the SINC has been used, which shows it extending into the site as a 15 metre wide strip along approximately half of the southern boundary beside the rail line. Habitats within the SINC include scrub, secondary woodland and semi-improved grassland, which provide habitat for common birds and other animals. Based on the greatest possible extent of the SINC, approximately 225 sq.m. of broadleaved woodland, 520 sq.m. of ruderal species, and 1055 sq.m. of scrub within the SINC would be lost (totalling approximately 0.19 ha.), accounting for 0.03% of the 16.31ha SINC.

343 The ES/ES Addendum finds no evidence of protected, rare and/or notable species on the site; very low levels of activity of common bat species passing over the site; and no habitats of high intrinsic importance or importance in supporting key species. A full bat survey was subsequently conducted, which confirms these findings, and has been reviewed and agreed by GLA officers. The ES/ES Addendum finds that although the loss of woodland, shrub and scrub on the site would impact the available habitat for birds; the limited size and quality of habitat and its isolated location means that the overall impact from its loss would be of relatively low significance.

344 The application materials also include an arboricultural development statement, which identifies no ‘category A’ trees on the site and one group and five individual ‘category B’ trees. The group of category B trees would require partial removal to facilitate the development, and the five individual category B trees would also require removal. This would be mitigated by planting 99 semi-mature trees in the public realm and shared amenity areas, as detailed in the submitted Landscape Design Statement. The woodland edges of the site, totalling approximately 3,500 sq.m., would be retained and enhanced with further planting. The proposals also include green roofs on all buildings, landscaped residents’ amenity areas, and landscaped public spaces, and the site exceeds the draft London Plan recommended urban greening factor of 0.4 for a predominantly residential development. A condition is recommended to secure a detailed landscaping strategy in line with the submitted Landscape Design Statement.

345 Mitigation measures are recommended, including clearing the site outside the bird nesting season, or if this is not possible then the site should be surveyed by an ecologist immediately prior to clearance and appropriate mitigation implemented; protective fences around the boundary of the development footprint to avoid damaging surrounding areas, such as the adjacent SINC, and to maintain the integrity of retained habitats; a tree protection plan for retained trees; tree planting and woodland enhancement; green and brown roofs; log piles, an invertebrate wall and hibernation boxes; bird, bat and hedgehog boxes; and a water feature for birds, bats and invertebrates.

page 72 346 The ES/ES Addendum have been reviewed and agreed by independent experts commissioned by the Council, and GLA officers agree with the findings. The Council’s Tree Officer confirmed that none of the trees on the site are of any significant merit, and removal of a large part of the copse would be acceptable. The harm to biodiversity would be limited, and the benefits of the proposals, including mitigation measures, are considerable and outweigh this harm. Subject to the recommended conditions to secure these mitigation measures, the proposal accords with the NPPF, Policies 5.1, 7.19 and 7.21 of the London Plan; Policies G5, G6 and G7 of the draft London Plan; and Policies OS4 and OS(f) of Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy.

Other environmental considerations

Waste

347 London Plan Policy 5.17 requires adequate provision for waste and recycling storage and collection facilities as part of new developments. In relation to waste generated through demolition, groundworks and construction, Policy 5.18 requires applicants to produce site waste management plans to arrange for the efficient handling of construction, excavation and demolition waste and materials. Draft London Plan Policy SI7 seeks to reduce waste and increase material reuse and recycling and promotes a circular economy. The policy also sets several waste targets including a strategic target of zero biodegradable waste or recyclable waste to landfill by 2026. Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy H5 requires adequate provision for waste and recycling.

348 The Waste Strategy submitted with the application provides a comprehensive plan of the refuse storage areas, which are generally well located and make use of locations that are easily accessible for collection or maintenance. The Council’s Street Services’ officers have reviewed and support the Strategy, as have GLA officers. The Strategy is proposed to be secured by condition. Demolition and construction waste arrangements are detailed in the Construction Logistics and Management Plan, which is proposed to be secured by condition. As such, it is considered that the development is acceptable in this regard and accords with London Plan Policy 5.17, draft London Plan Policy SI7, and Policy H5 of the Council’s Core Strategy.

Contaminated land

349 London Plan Policy 5.21 requires the investigation and, where appropriate, remediation of contaminated sites, with appropriate mitigation to ensure contaminated land is brought back into beneficial use and to avoid harm to the environment or human health. This is reflected in Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy Policy E(e).

350 The Ground Condition and Contamination Report within the Environmental Statement Addendum identifies activities that may have introduced contamination to the site, including the railway, construction of the A2, an RAF Depot and Ordnance Depot, above ground storage tanks, and electricity sub-stations. Due to its previous use as an RAF Depot and Ordinance Depot there is a medium risk for unexploded ordinance. A condition therefore secures that construction of the development will comply with the Preliminary Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment and the Explosive Ordnance Risk Assessment within the Environmental Statement Addendum.

351 The Environment Agency recommended standard conditions concerning contaminated land. A Geotechnical Design Report, Remediation Strategy, and Piling Risk Assessment have been submitted, and subject to recommended conditions securing the findings of these documents, it is considered that the development is acceptable in this regard and accords with London Plan Policy 5.2, and Policy E(e) of the Council’s Core Strategy.

page 73 Mitigating the impact of the development through planning obligations

352 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 states that a section 106 planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. These are statutory tests.

353 The NPPF states that “local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.”

354 At the regional level, London Plan Policy 8.2 sets out the Mayor’s priorities for planning obligations, and states that affordable housing; supporting the funding of Crossrail where this is appropriate; and other public transport improvements should be given the highest importance. Draft London Plan Policy DF1 identifies that priority should firstly be given to affordable housing and necessary public transport improvements; and following this recognise the role large sites can play in delivering necessary health and education infrastructure; and the importance of affordable workspace, and culture and leisure facilities in delivering good growth.

355 Greenwich Council Core Strategy Policy IMI seeks the use of planning obligations and other funding mechanisms to support the delivery of infrastructure facilities and services to meet needs generated by new development and mitigate the impacts. Greenwich’s Planning Obligations SPD provides further guidance on how the Council will secure planning obligations, where these are necessary to mitigate the impacts of development.

356 Pursuant to the consideration within the previous sections of this report, and in line with the policy context set out above, GLA officers propose to secure planning obligations to appropriately mitigate the impact of this development, which are set out below.

Affordable housing

357 As discussed in the housing section of this report, the Section 106 agreement would secure the applicant’s ‘baseline’ offer of 51% affordable housing by habitable room, in accordance with the proposed policy compliant tenure mix, with appropriate obligations in relation to the definition, eligibility, affordability and perpetuity of affordable housing units across the various tenures. An early stage review mechanism is set out in the section 106 agreement to incentivise the delivery of the site and ensure the appropriately timed delivery of affordable housing. In addition, arrangements for the management of London Affordable Rent (LAR) units by the Registered Provider, a nominations agreement and obligations in relation to service charges for LAR and London Shared Ownership (LSO) units would be secured. GLA officers consider that these obligations are necessary to ensure compliance with the London Plan, the draft London Plan, the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and Greenwich Council’s Local Plan.

Transport

358 The following transport obligations would be secured by legal agreement: • A commitment to provide at least six car club spaces, with the first 5 years of membership paid by the applicant, to promote low levels of car ownership; • A Travel Plan and monitoring, to encourage modal shift and the use of sustainable modes of transport;

page 74 • A contribution of £12,400 towards adult cycle training for residents, to encourage use of sustainable modes of transport; • A financial contribution (sum to be confirmed) towards local improvements to enhance the pedestrian and cycling environment to and from the site, including works to existing or proposed ‘Cycleways’ routes, and junction improvement works to enable cyclists to cross safely; • Prohibit future occupants from applying for a resident's parking permit in a Controlled Parking Zone, so as to discourage car ownership and use by new residents, and promote sustainable modes of transport; • Secure the stopping up of the existing highway pursuant to section 247 Town and Country Planning Act 1990; • Contribution of £400,000 towards the potential provision of two accessible lifts at the existing Network Rail footbridge at Kidbrooke Station, in order to facilitate step-free access across the railway line (to be repaid after 10 years should the lifts not be delivered); • Provision of a publicly accessible lift to the existing footbridge over the site and the railway lines, maintenance and 24 hour access, to improve accessibility through the site; • Public 24 hour access to all public realm areas; • Replacement of existing bus infrastructure with improved facilities, and temporary arrangements for access to buses during construction; • A section 278 agreement with Transport for London in respect of the appropriate traffic management and arrangements for access to and from the site by all modes; • Implementation of measures during each phase of development to ensure pedestrian and cyclist safety, personal security and efficient movement via a step free route(s) for those living, working or visiting the local area including the connection between bus stops in the vicinity of the site and Kidbrooke railway station. Other obligations: • Provision of workspace targeted at small enterprises in the independent and creative industries, including a suitable workspace strategy covering marketing and specification; • Provision of the proposed nursery; • Carbon off-set payment of £592,167 to ensure compliance with the zero carbon standard set out in the London Plan, draft London Plan and GLA energy assessment guidance; • Provisions to future proof the site to enable connection to a district heat network; • Contribution of £639,203 to local employment and training, and recruit employees, contractors and sub-contractors from the Royal Borough of Greenwich, in line with the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD; • Section 106 monitoring fee, dispute resolution provisions and provisions for repayment of unspent financial contributions; and • Reasonable legal costs.

Legal considerations

359 Under the arrangements set out in Article 7 of the 2008 Order and the powers conferred by Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Mayor is the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the purposes of determining this planning application ref: 18/4187/F.

page 75 360 Section 35 of the Greater London Authority Act 2007 inserts section 2F into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a requirement that for applications the Mayor takes over, the Mayor must give the applicants and the LPA the opportunity to make oral representations at a hearing. He is also required to publish a document setting out: • who else may make oral representations; • the procedures to be followed at the hearing; and, • arrangements for identifying information, which must be agreed by persons making representations.

361 The details of the above are set out in the Mayor’s Procedure for Representation Hearings which reflects, as far as is practicable, current best practice for speaking at planning committee amongst borough councils.

362 In carrying out his duties in relation to the determination of this application, the Deputy Mayor (acting under delegated authority) must have regard to a number of statutory provisions. Listed below are some of the most important provisions for this application.

363 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that in dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; b) Any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application; and c) Any other material consideration.

364 Section 70(4) defines “local finance consideration” as: a) A grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown; or b) Sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy.

365 In this context “grants” might include the Government’s “New Homes Bonus” - a grant paid by Central Government to local councils for increasing the number of homes and their use.

366 These issues are material planning considerations when determining planning applications or planning appeals.

367 Furthermore, in determining any planning application and connected application, the Deputy Mayor is required by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine the application in accordance with the Development Plan (i.e. the London Plan and the adopted Local Plan) unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

368 Other guidance, which has been formally adopted by Greenwich Council and the GLA (e.g. Supplementary Planning Documents and Supplementary Planning Guidance), will also be material considerations of some weight (where relevant). Those that are relevant to this application are detailed in this Representation Hearing report.

369 Officers are satisfied that the current report to the Deputy Mayor has had regard to the relevant provision of the Development Plan. The proposed section 106 package has been set out and complies with the relevant statutory tests, adequately mitigates the impact of the development and provides necessary infrastructure improvements.

370 As regards Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) considerations, the Mayoral CIL payment associated with this development is estimated to be £0.73M, whilst the Greenwich CIL payment is

page 76 estimated to be £1.93M. Both figures take into account the expected relief from the affordable housing floorspace.

371 In accordance with his statutory duty in section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Deputy Mayor shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings, their settings and any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. The Deputy Mayor is also required to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation areas which may be affected by the proposed development (section 72 of the of the Planning [Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas] Act 1990). These matters have been addressed within earlier sections of the report.

372 Where the Mayor takes over an application, he becomes responsible for the section 106 legal agreement, although he is required to consult the relevant borough(s). In this instance, there have been a series of lawyer led meetings to discuss the section 106 content, and it has progressed on the key issues.

373 When determining these planning applications, the Deputy Mayor is under a duty to take account of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 as they relate to the development proposal and the conflicting interests of the applicants and any third party affected by, or opposing, the application, in reaching his decision. Planning decisions on the use of land can only be taken in line with the Town and Country Planning Acts and decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

374 The key Articles to be aware of include the following: (a) Article 6 - Right to a fair trial: In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (b) Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (c) Article 1 of the First Protocol - Protection of property: Every person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

375 It should be noted, however, that most Convention rights are not absolute and set out circumstances when an interference with a person's rights is permitted i.e. necessary to do so to give effect to the Town and Country Planning Acts and in the interests of such matters as public safety, national economic well-being and protection of health, amenity of the community etc. In this case this Representation Hearing report sets out how this application accords with the Development Plan.

376 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 states that a section 106 planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. These are now statutory tests.

377 The Equality Act 2010 provides that in exercising its functions (which includes the functions exercised by the Mayor as Local Planning Authority), that the Mayor as a public authority shall amongst other duties have due regard to the need to a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited under the Act; b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

page 77 378 The protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The Equality Act acknowledges that compliance with the duties set out may involve treating some persons more favourably than others, but that this does not permit conduct that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act.

379 Officers are satisfied that the application material and officers’ assessment has taken into account the equality and human rights issues referred to above. Particular matters of consideration have included provision of accessible housing and parking bays, the provision of affordable and family housing and the protection of neighbouring residential amenity.

Conclusion and planning balance

380 As detailed above Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 requires matters to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

381 When assessing the planning application, the Deputy Mayor is required to give full consideration to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations. He is also required to consider the likely significant environmental effects of the development and be satisfied that the importance of the predicted effects and the scope for reducing them, are perfectly understood.

382 When considering the proposals, GLA officers have applied the approach required in paragraph 16 of the NPPF and had regard to the statutory duties relevant to the protection of heritage assets.

383 GLA officers have also applied the approach required in paragraph 11c of the NPPF, and have applied a presumption in favour of sustainable development as the development proposals accord with an up-to-date development plan. Having reviewed Greenwich Council’s five year housing land supply assessment, as set out in the Council’s most recently published Authority Monitoring Report & Five Year Housing Supply Statement (2017/18), GLA officers note that Greenwich passed the housing delivery test in 2018 with a 108% result. Based on this information, it would appear that Greenwich do have a demonstrable five year land supply.

384 In preparing this report, officers have taken into account the likely environmental impacts and effects of the development and identified appropriate mitigation actions to be taken to reduce any adverse effects. In particular, careful consideration has been given to the proposed conditions and planning obligations which would have the effect of mitigating the impact of the development.

385 This report has considered the material planning issues associated with the proposed development in conjunction with all relevant national, regional and local planning policy, and has found that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of land use principles (including residential and non-residential uses; transport infrastructure); housing (including affordable housing; mix and tenure; play space); urban design (including layout, landscape and open space; density; residential quality; height, massing, townscape and local views; historic environment; strategic views; architecture and materials; designing out crime); inclusive design; transport; climate change mitigation (including energy; flood risk and sustainable drainage; urban greening , trees and biodiversity); other environmental issues (including waste; construction waste; contaminated land); and mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations and conditions.

386 The contribution of £400,000 towards two new lifts at Kidbrooke Station is subject to Network Rail and Southeastern securing the balance of funding from the Department for Transport,

page 78 and possibly Greenwich Council. As the lifts are dependent on other funding and not guaranteed to come forward, this contribution has been given the appropriate weight in the planning balance.

387 When considered overall, the development complies with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate that planning permission should not therefore be granted. Accordingly, the recommendations set out at the beginning of this report are proposed.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit: Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 020 7983 4271 email: [email protected] John Finlayson, Head of Development Management 020 7084 2632 email: [email protected] Allison Flight, Deputy Head of Development Management 020 7084 2820 email [email protected] Nick Ray, Team Leader 020 7983 4178 email: [email protected] Martin Jones, Principal Strategic Planner (case officer) 020 7983 6567 email: [email protected]

page 79