Planning Committee Report Title: Development Management
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Item No. Classification: Date: Meeting Name: 6.1 Open 06 February 2019 Planning Committee Report title: Development Management planning application: Application 17/AP/4088 for: Part Full Planning Permission/Part Outline Planning Permission Address: TOWER BRIDGE BUSINESS COMPLEX, 100 CLEMENTS ROAD AKA THE BISCUIT FACTORY & BERMONDSEY CAMPUS SITE, KEETONS ROAD LONDON, SE16 4DG Proposal: Full planning permission for demolition, alterations and extension of existing buildings and erection of new buildings comprising a mixed use scheme providing up to 1,217 residential units, up to 3,795 sqm GEA of flexible Class A1/A3/A4 floorspace, up to 12,023 sqm GEA of flexible Class B1/B2, up to 922 sqm GEA of flexible Class D1.D2 and up to 3,882 sqm GEA of multi-use floorspace (A1/A3/A4/D1) within building BF-F and a new secondary school, in buildings ranging from 4 to 28 storeys in height as well as the creation of a single storey basement. The development also includes communal amenity space, landscaping, children's playspace, car and cycle parking, installation of plant, new pedestrian, vehicular and servicing routes, the creation of two new pedestrian routes through the Railway Arches and associated works and Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for the part demolition and part retention of existing buildings and erection of two new buildings comprising a mixed use scheme providing up to 125 residential units and up to 781 sqm GEA of flexible Class A1/A3/A4/D1/Sui Generis Uses and other associated works. Ward(s) or North Bermondsey groups affected: From: Director of Planning Application Start Date 24.10.2017 Application Expiry Date 13.12.2018 Earliest Decision Date 13.12.2017 RECOMMENDATION 1. That planning permission is REFUSED for the following reasons. Reason 1 2. The development fails to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, and the affordable housing offered would be at a cost which would not be affordable to those in greatest housing need. As such, the development does not maximise the delivery of affordable housing as required by saved Southwark Plan policy 4.4 ‘Affordable housing’, Core Strategy policy SP6 ‘Housing for people on different incomes’ and London Plan policy 3.12 ‘Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential developments’, or the Mayors Affordable Housing and Viability SPD 2017. In addition, the development does not comply with the specific requirements for Private Rented Housing set out in the submission version (2018) of the New Southwark Plan policy P4 ‘Private rented homes’ in terms of the tenure split or the period for which the PRS housing is secured, or with the draft new London Plan 2017 policy H13 ‘Build to Rent’ in terms of the type of DMR homes being offered. As such, the development would fail to offer genuinely affordable housing to meet a recognised and acute housing need. Reason 2 3. The development is above the density range for an urban area set out in Saved Southwark Plan policy 4.1 ‘Density of residential development’ and London Plan policy 3.4 ‘Optimising housing potential’, but does not provide an exemplary quality of accommodation for its future residents to combat the potential negative impacts of high density living. Specifically, the development provides a high proportion of single aspect dwellings, including dwellings which have a northerly aspect, or a constrained outlook, and dwellings with the sole aspect towards a large railway viaduct so subject to noise and overheating. A significant proportion of flats also do not have access to private amenity space. The qualitative aspects of the housing design would not meet the expectations of the draft London Plan 2017 policies D4 ‘Housing Quality and Standards’ and D6 ‘Optimising housing density’ as well as the standards for amenity space and aspect contained in Saved Southwark Plan (2007) policy 4.2 'Residential Quality' and the Southwark Residential Design Standards SPD 2015. As such, the development would not provide a suitably high quality of residential amenity for future occupiers, and increase the likelihood of use of mechanical heating, cooling and ventilation due to the aspect and need to mitigate noise and overheating. Reason 3 4. The ‘blind spots’, convoluted and illogical internal routes proposed for pedestrians/cyclists and motorised vehicles would exacerbate pedestrian-vehicle and vehicular conflict and subsequently create adverse impact on highway safety, contrary to the Saved Southwark Plan 2007 Policies 5.2 ‘Transport impacts’ part ii and 5.3 ‘Walking and cycling’ parts i and ii, Strategic Policy 2 ‘Sustainable transport’ of the Core Strategy 2011 plus New Southwark Plan 2018 Policies P11 ‘Design of places’ parts 1.5 and 1.7, P47 ‘Highways impacts’ part 4 and P48 ‘Walking’ part 3. Reason 4 5. In the absence of a clear agreement with the owners of the arch spaces, the proposed development would not secure the delivery of the two pedestrian routes through the viaduct which are a requirement of site designation NSP10 of the Submission Version of the New Southwark Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background 6. This hybrid application (part fully detailed, part in outline) has been submitted by Grosvenor to develop a 6.2ha site comprising the former Peek Frean biscuit factory and adjoining former Lewisham and Southwark College campus site close to Bermondsey underground station. The development would provide up to 1,342 private rented sector (PRS) flats, plus employment, retail and leisure space and a replacement secondary school, all in buildings up to 28 storeys high. The site, in conjunction with the adjacent railway arches, is designated in the submission version of the New Southwark Plan as NSP10 for business, housing, town centre uses, open space and a secondary school, and the proposed land uses conform with this designation. There are clear benefits arising from the development including more efficient use of a redundant industrial site, a significant number of new homes, improved school facilities, new open spaces, and potential new routes through the railway viaduct to link to The Blue. However, these benefits are not outweighed by the failure to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, the quality of some aspects of the residential accommodation, and the risk of conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians which arise from the service routes within the site. Despite very lengthy negotiations, it has not been possible to reach agreement on these critical issues, and therefore this report recommends that planning permission be refused. Design 7. The site is not within a conservation area and there are no Listed buildings on or close to the site. The surrounding area is mainly low or medium rise housing, with some isolated examples of residential towers visible in the surrounding townscape. The Biscuit factory and Campus sites together are the largest redevelopment opportunity in this area, and have the potential to significantly influence the emerging character of the area. 8. The height and design of the proposed buildings has been the subject of many of the objections to the application. The scheme includes a number of buildings which would be defined as ‘tall buildings’ under saved Southwark Plan policy 3.20, including two significantly tall buildings, at 19 and 28 storeys, which sit at the centre of the site adjacent to the railway viaduct. The principle of including tall buildings at the centre of the site, at the point that new routes would converge, is supported, would provide a focus in wider views, and would have limited amenity impacts on existing occupiers. The buildings at the periphery of the site, for instance along Drummond Road, are of a lower order, but still noticeably taller than the existing buildings such as the Four Squares blocks. There are some daylight and sunlight impacts resulting from these buildings, beyond the levels recommended by the BRE. These issues have been carefully considered, and expert reports commissioned, and on balance it is concluded that in townscape terms the buildings could make a suitable contribution to the character of the area, their design is of a high quality, and the impacts on neighbours’ amenity is not so harmful as to warrant refusal of permission on these grounds. It is noted that the GLA supported the scale and massing, considering that it provided an appropriate response to contextual sensitivities, and that the design review panel (DRP) in their series of reviews of the emerging design also gave positive comments. 9. The issues relating to height and design are covered in paragraphs 279 to 357 in the report. Affordable Housing 10. Private rental sector (PRS) housing (referred to in the London Plan and in Grosvenor’s documents as Build to Rent) is a relatively new form of housing tenure which is supported in the NPPF and the London Plan, and the emerging policies of the NSP and draft London Plan. In this case, the estate would be held and managed by Grosvenor for the long term, including the proposed Discount Market Rent units, which would be ‘pepper-potted’ through the estate in a tenure blind design. However, despite Grosvenor’s assertion that this is a long term investment for their company, they have only been willing to offer a 15 year covenant on the PRS, rather than the minimum 30 years required by the NSP. Additionally, and of very significant weight, is the failure to provide what the Council’s expert advisors consider to be the maximum amount of affordable housing. Grosvenor’s affordable housing offer equates to 27.5% (more accurately 27.37%) of the habitable rooms, let at an average discount of 25% below market rents. This does not provide the 35% affordable housing to comply with Southwark Plan or NSP. Grosvenor have not made a specific proposal for the mix of affordable unit tenures, but have said that different options could be agreed so long as the total subsidy did not exceed the value of an average 25% reduction.