Planning Committee Agenda
To: Councillor Paul Scott (Chairman); Councillor Humayun Kabir (Vice-Chairman); Councillors Jamie Audsley, Luke Clancy, Bernadette Khan, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Wayne Trakas-Lawlor, Susan Winborn and Chris Wright
Reserve Members: Jeet Bains, Kathy Bee, Simon Brew, Richard Chatterjee, Sherwan Chowdhury, Pat Clouder, Steve Hollands, Shafi Khan, Maggie Mansell and Manju Shahul-Hameed
A meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE which you are hereby summoned to attend, will be held on Thursday 20th July 2017 at 6:30pm in The Council Chamber, The Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX
JACQUELINE HARRIS-BAKER MARGOT ROHAN Director of Law and Monitoring Officer Senior Members Services Manager London Borough of Croydon (020) 8726 6000 extn.62564 Bernard Weatherill House [email protected] 8 Mint Walk, Croydon CR0 1EA www.croydon.gov.uk/agenda 11 July 2017
THIS MEETING WILL BE WEBCAST LIVE - Click on link to view: https://croydon.public-i.tv/core/portal/home Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting. If you require any assistance, please contact the person detailed above, on the righthand side. To register a request to speak, please either e-mail [email protected] or call MARGOT ROHAN by 4pm on the Tuesday before the meeting. N.B: This meeting will be paperless. The agenda can be accessed online via the mobile app: http://secure.croydon.gov.uk/akscroydon/mobile AGENDA - PART A
1. Apologies for absence
2. Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 6th July 2017 (Page 1)
To approve the minutes as a true and correct record.
3. Disclosure of Interest
Members will be asked to confirm that their Disclosure of Interest Forms are accurate and up-to-date. Any other disclosures that Members may wish to make during the meeting should be made orally. Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose relevant disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting.
4. Urgent Business (if any)
To receive notice from the Chair of any business not on the Agenda which should, in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.
5. Exempt Items
To confirm the allocation of business between Part A and Part B of the Agenda.
6. Development presentations (Page 7)
To receive the following presentations on a proposed development:
6.1 16/03919/PRE 330 Purley Way, Croydon, CR0 4XJ A two phased redevelopment of the existing building and surface parking to provide 35,000 Sq ft (phase 1) and 85,000sq ft (phase2) of Retail Space Ward: Broad Green
7. Planning applications for decision (Page 17)
To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:
7.1 17/00650/FUL Rear of 1-9 Birchanger Road, South Norwood, London SE25 5BA Erection of 3 two storey three bedroom and 1 two storey 4 bedroom houses with accomodation in roofspace and provision of associated parking Ward: Woodside Recommendation: Grant permission 8. Items referred by Planning Sub-Committee
To consider any item(s) referred by a previous meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee to this Committee for consideration and determination:
There are none.
9. Other planning matters
To consider the accompanying report by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:
There are none.
10. [The following motion is to be moved and seconded as the “camera resolution” where it is proposed to move into part B of a meeting]
That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.
AGENDA - PART B
None This page is intentionally blank Planning Committee
Meeting held on Thursday 6th July 2017 at 5:30pm in The Council Chamber, The Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX
MINUTES - PART A
Present: Councillor Paul Scott (Chairman); Councillor Humayun Kabir (Vice-Chairman); Councillors Jamie Audsley, Luke Clancy, Bernadette Khan, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Wayne Trakas-Lawlor, Susan Winborn and Chris Wright
Also present: Councillors Sean Fitzsimons and Steve O'Connell
Apologies: For lateness - Councillors Luke Clancy, Bernadette Khan and Councillor Wright
A115/17 Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 22nd June 2017
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 22 June 2017 be signed as a correct record.
A116/17 Disclosure of Interest
There were no disclosures of a pecuniary interest not already registered.
A117/17 Urgent Business (if any)
There was none.
A118/17 Exempt Items
RESOLVED that the allocation of business between Part A and Part B of the Agenda be confirmed.
A119/17 Development presentations
N.B. The following item was WITHDRAWN FROM THIS AGENDA: 6.2 - 16/03919/PRE 330 Purley Way, Croydon, CR0 4XJ To provide in phase 1 single storey buildings (with mezzanine) accommodating additional convenience goods store of Gross Internal Area (GIA) 1831m2, and 2322m2 of bulky goods sales space alongside retention of existing 'John Lewis' shop; In phase 2 to demolish the existing Page 1 of 36 John Lewis building and re-provide its area alongside an additional 6513m2 (GIA) of bulky good sales space within a single storey building (with mezzanine). Provision of A3 unit (restaurants and cafes) and associated parking, landscaping and service areas; Provision of new signal controlled junction onto the Purley Way Ward: Waddon
6.1 16/05511/PRE Land Adjacent To East Croydon Station and Land At Cherry Orchard Road, Cherry Orchard Gardens, Billington Hill, Croydon Erection of two 25 storey towers providing 170 and 152 residential units in the North and South towers respectively, each building on the Morello 2 site, and a residential building (5-9 storeys) to provide 98 residential units on the Cherry Orchard Gardens site. Public realm area works Ward: Addiscombe
Cara Bamford (Make Architects) and James Cook (GL Hearn) attended to give a presentation and to respond to Members' questions and issues raised for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application.
(N.B. Councillor Bernadette Khan entered the Chamber at 6:03pm)
The main issues raised at this meeting were as follows:
● Echoed serious concern raised by GLA in their response that the current affordable housing element was unacceptable. Review mechanisms would be required. ● Affordable housing to come forward with rest of development and not to be left to the end. Could it be part of the towers pepperpotted? ● The provision and delivery of the bridge link was an absolute requirement and needed to be linked to occupancy of development. Concern raised that applicant proposed to treat as a separate application, if two applications were to come forward they needed to come hand in hand and be determined at the same time. The bridge link was an integral part of the public realm and needed to be a robust design, despite its possible temporary state before station upgrade works. ● Single core arrangement questioned and whether this would allow for different tenures. ● Provision of social rented accommodation should be investigated. ● Appearance of the development was generally accepted favourably, although concern about canyon effect with Cherry Orchard Gardens. ● Mix of units - concern about low level of family units - clarity about which units were 2-bed 4 person units ● Parking critical - do not want over provision - 2 car club spaces would be welcomed Page 2 of 36 ● Active and positive frontages required at ground level and towers side ● Pocket park around tree rather than private fenced off space ● Concern over single aspect units - particularly Cherry Orchards part of site ● Support for retention of most of trees
Cllr Sean Fitzsimons, ward Member for Addiscombe, made the following comments:
● Lot of effort to make scheme worse. ● Welcome retention of trees. ● Public open land for over 100 years and residents want to protect it. ● History of applicant not wanting affordable housing on their site. ● Do not need separate cores in developments any more. Every landing can have firewalls. ● Architecturally very nice but no active frontage - needs more life. ● There were 40 flats there. 100 flats in development. ● Do not need car parking spaces - could be used for community amenity space. ● Do not need a fancy staircase.
(N.B. Councillors Luke Clancy and Chris Wright entered the Chamber at 6:40pm and 7.1 was considered after this first presentation)
6.3 17/00535/PRE Rees House, 2 Morland Lodge and 6 Morland Road, Croydon CR0 6NA Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a part four/part five storey building for use as a 1200 place secondary school (with Sixth Form) with associated rooftop MUGA and provision of car/cycle parking areas and landscaping Ward: Addiscombe
Alan Gunne Jones (Planning Consultant), James Tatham (Architect), Charlie Fagan (ARK School) and Paul Freeman (applicant) attended to give a presentation and to respond to Members' questions and issues raised for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application. The main issues raised at this meeting were as follows:
● Supportive of approach ● Some concerns regarding design, particularly front elevation, rather dull and uninspiring – it should not be too flashy but to be a bit more considered, bringing positive parts of the architecture to the front. Double height entrance works well, could the broken corner be continued? , Page 3 of 36 ● Consideration of public art ● Sports facilities - how will they work? ● Building relationships with local environment ● Effective travel plan - low level of parking provided ● Road safety - pavement widths, can they be widened? Road is very fast and busy ● Consideration for cyclists - promoting in this area would be very positive with parking ● Good travel plan summary to be submitted with application ● Good travel plan summary to be submitted with application ● Bus capacity to be considered. 197 is already too overcrowded
Cllr Fitzsimons, ward Member for Addiscombe, made the following comments:
● It is a difficult site for a school but recognise difficulties in finding good sites now. ● The purpose is to educate children. The look is only a secondary issue. ● We don't want a flashy building - one in keeping with the area. Victorian terraced properties on the other side of the street. ● I do not think it overbearing and am supportive of the scheme. ● Local residents are concerned about parking issues. ● We need to get road safety issues covered. ● There is an issue about play space - South Norwood Recreation Ground is the closest open space, which could work well. ● Morland Road - could the pavements be widened? ● There is concern about the speed of traffic on the road. ● We need a secondary school in this area.
(There was a break at 8:10pm. The meeting recommenced at 8:20pm)
6.4 17/00470/PRE Essex House, 101 George Street Croydon CR0 1PJ Erection of two interlinked buildings of 30 and 40 storeys in height providing 490 residential unit, ground floor commercial accommodation and improved/expanded public realm; provision of access off College Road and basement car parking Ward: Fairfield
Simon Toplis, Simon Bailiss and Simon Owen (HTA Design) attended to give a presentation and to respond to Members' questions and issues raised for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application. Page 4 of 36 Following the presentation, the Committee viewed a model of the development.
The main issues raised at this meeting were as follows:
● Comfortable with approach proposed ● Like overall approach and supportive of exploring proposals around delivering a greater mix of more affordable units - mix of London living rents and 80% rents ● Nomination rights important issue - affordable housing for local people who need it ● Like approach of winter garden, although needed some detailed resolution ● Interesting materials to be used ● Ideally would have liked to see non-residential building on this site but taking approach of having active frontages ● Liked the mix of ground floor uses ● Need to make sure there is proper provision for children
A120/17 Planning applications for decision
(N.B. This item was considered immediately after item 6.1)
7.1 17/01641/FUL 76 Higher Drive, Purley CR8 2HG Demolition of existing house: erection of two/three storey building with accommodation in roofspsace comprising 6 two bedroom , 2 three bedroom and 1 one bedroom flats: formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking Ward: Kenley
Mr Colin Etheridge (Hartley & District Residents' Association – Committee member) spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents Mr Jay Patel spoke as the agent, on behalf of the applicant Councillor Steve O'Connell, ward Member for Kenley, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents
After consideration of the officer's report and addendum, Councillor Chris Wright proposed and Councillor Luke Clancy seconded REFUSAL, on the grounds of massing, being too dominant, detrimental to amenity of local residents and out of keeping, and the Committee voted 4 in favour, 6 against, so this motion fell.
The Committee then voted on a second motion in favour of the officer's recommendation, proposed by Councillor Paul Scott and seconded by Councillor Wayne Trakas-Lawlor, 6 in favour and 4 against, so planning permission was GRANTED for development at 76 Higher Drive, Purley CR8 2HG.
Page 5 of 36 A121/17 Items referred by Planning Sub-Committee
There were none.
A122/17 Other planning matters
There were none.
MINUTES - PART B
None
The meeting ended a 9:12pm
Page 6 of 36 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 20 July 2017
PART 6: Development Presentations
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This part of the agenda is for the committee to receive presentations on proposed developments, including when they are at the pre-application stage.
1.2 Although the reports are set out in a particular order on the agenda, the Chair may reorder the agenda on the night. Therefore, if you wish to be present for a particular application, you need to be at the meeting from the beginning.
1.3 The following information and advice applies to all those reports.
2 ADVICE TO MEMBERS
2.1 These proposed developments are being reported to committee to enable members of the committee to view them at an early stage and to comment upon them. They do not constitute applications for planning permission at this stage and any comments made are provisional and subject to full consideration of any subsequent application and the comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification.
2.2 Members will need to pay careful attention to the probity rules around predisposition, predetermination and bias (set out in the Planning Code of Good Practice Part 5.G of the Council’s Constitution). Failure to do so may mean that the Councillor will need to withdraw from the meeting for any subsequent application when it is considered.
3 FURTHER INFORMATION
3.1 Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.
4 PUBLIC SPEAKING
4.1 The Council’s constitution only provides for public speaking rights for those applications being reported to Committee in the “Planning Applications for Decision” part of the agenda. Therefore reports on this part of the agenda do not attract public speaking rights.
5 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
5.1 For further information about the background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 8 contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419).
6 RECOMMENDATION
6.1 The Committee is not required to make any decisions with respect to the reports on this part of the agenda. The attached reports are presented as background information.
Page 7 of 36 Page 8 of 36 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 20 July 2017
PART 6: Development Presentations Item 6.1
1 DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Ref: 16/03919/PRE Location: 330 Purley Way Croydon Ward: Broad Green Description: To provide in phase 1 single storey buildings (with mezzanine) accommodating additional convenience goods store of Gross Internal Area (GIA) 1831m2, and 2322m2 of bulky goods sales space alongside retention of existing ‘John Lewis’ shop; In phase 2 to demolish the existing John Lewis building and re-provide its area alongside an additional 6513m2 (GIA) of bulky good sales space within a single storey building (with mezzanine). Provision of A3 unit (restaurants and cafes) and associated parking, landscaping and service areas; Provision of new signal controlled junction onto the Purley Way. Drawing Nos: Presentation to Committee (July 2017) Applicant: Reef Estates Agent: Savills Case Officer: Kate Edwards/Michael Cassidy
Number of car parking spaces Number of cycle parking spaces 378 in phase 1 (70 additional spaces TBC beyond existing John Lewis provision)’ 289 in phase 2.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 This proposed development is being reported to Planning Committee to enable members of the committee to view it at an early stage and to comment upon it. The development does not constitute an application for planning permission and any comments made upon it are provisional and subject to full consideration of any subsequent application and the comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification.
2.2 This is the first presentation to the Planning Committee.
3 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
3.1 The proposal is for a two phased retail development. Phase 1 (which would allow retention of the existing John Lewis store) would be submitted in full detail with Phase 2 submitted in outline. The planning application would therefore be in a hybrid form, with full permission sought for Phase 1 and outline permission for Phase 2.
3.2 Phase 1 would include the erection of single storey buildings (with mezzanine) to accommodate a convenience goods store of Gross Internal Area (GIA) of 1,831m2, and 2,322m2 of bulky goods sales space alongside retention of existing ‘John Lewis’
Page 9 of 36 store. Phase 2 proposes to demolish the existing John Lewis building and to re-provide its area alongside an additional 6,513m2 (GIA) of bulky good sales space within a single storey building (with mezzanine). The applicant also proposes to provide an ‘island’ A3 unit (restaurants and cafes) near the front of the site, primarily as a rest and refreshment area for users of the wider site. New parking provision would also be made, alongside the landscaping and service areas.
3.3 A new signal controlled junction would be provided to the north of the site onto the Purley Way. This would include a pedestrian crossing and be designed in line with the junction proposed for the previously consented ‘Tesco’ scheme to prevent queuing of vehicles onto the Purley Way.
Site and Surroundings
3.4 The application site is located to the west of Purley Way, just north of the junction with Mill Lane in Waddon. The total site area is approximately 2.33 hectares. The site fronts Purley Way and Mill Lane, but does not include the intersection of these two roads, which is occupied by two residential terraces. There is an existing ‘Currys’ unit at the north end of the site, although no works to this area are proposed. A retail warehouse was constructed on the southern portion of the site in 1987 and this is the space currently occupied by “John Lewis at Home”. In front of the retail warehouse is a car park laid out for approximately 169 parking spaces. Access to the car park is from Purley Way.
3.5 The western side of this part of Purley Way has a number of large non-food retail warehouses such as Currys and Sofaworld with industrial units behind. The area with the industrial units is known as the ‘Mill Lane Trading Estate’ and is classified on the Proposals Map of the Croydon Plan as being a Strategic Employment Location. However, the retail warehouses do not carry a special designation.
3.6 The area to the south of the application site has a residential character comprising small terraced houses. The east side of Purley Way currently has mix of commercial and residential uses. The former British Gas site has recently been developed for a mixed use scheme comprising residential units, commercial floor space and a deculverting of the River Wandle.
3.7 Purley Way is part of the A23 and part of the Transport for London (TfL) Road Network. The site is classified as an ‘Area at risk of Flooding’ in the Croydon Plan. Furthermore the area is marked as an ‘Area of High Density’ on the Proposals Map.
Planning History
3.5 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:
12/01776/P – Permission granted for demolition of existing buildings; construction of a foodstore (Class A1), employment floorspace (Class B1/B8), café (Class A3), with associated landscaping, highway works and works to facilitate the deculverting and partial diversion of the River Wandle 11/01351/P – Outline permission granted for erection of a building for use as a non food retail warehouse unit within Use Class A1. Erection of 2 buildings for use within Use Classes B1(b)and(c), or B2 or B8 and buildings fronting Mill Lane comprising 17 residential units. Formation of vehicular accesses onto Mill Lane
Page 10 of 36 and Purley Way and provision of associated parking (renewal of outline planning permission 05/02683/P)
3.6 Approval was sought for a number of the reserved matters associated with consent, but the scheme was never implemented.
4 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
4.1 Planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material consideration dictate otherwise. The Council's adopted Development Plan consists of the Consolidated London Plan 2015, the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 (CLP1), the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2006 Saved Policies 2013 (UDP).
4.2 Government Guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), issued in March 2012. The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development, requiring that development which accords with an up-to-date local plan should be approved without delay. The NPPF identifies a number of key issues for the delivery of sustainable development, those most relevant to this case are:
Promoting sustainable transport; Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; Requiring good design.
4.3 The main policy considerations raised by the application that the Committee are required to consider are:
4.4 Consolidated London Plan 2015 (LP):
2.8 Incorporate green infrastructure, linking to blue ribbon network 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 5.3 Sustainable design and construction 5.7 Renewable energy 5.9 Overheating and cooling 5.10 Urban greening 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs 5.13 Sustainable drainage 5.15 Water use and supplies 5.21 Contaminated land 6.3 Effects of development on transport capacity 6.9 Cycling 6.10 Walking 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion 6.12 Road Network Capacity 6.13 Parking 7.1 Lifetime neighbourhoods 7.2 An inclusive environment 7.3 Designing out crime 7.4 Local character 7.5 Public realm
Page 11 of 36 7.6 Architecture 7.14 Improving Air Quality 7.15 Reducing and managing noise 7.28 Enhance and restore blue ribbon network 8.2 Planning obligations 8.3 Community infrastructure levy
Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 (CLP1):
SP1.1 Sustainable Development SP3.1 Employment SP3.2 Innovation, Investment & Enterprise SP4.1-4.3 Urban Design and Local Character SP4.7-4.10 Public Realm SP6.1 Environment and Climate Change SP6.2 Energy and CO2 Reduction SP6.3 Sustainable Design and Construction SP7.3 Create new green spaces, improve links between existing green spaces and Support Delivery of the Wandle Valley Area Frameworks SP7.4 Enhance biodiversity SP8.3-8.4 Development and Accessibility SP8.6 Sustainable Travel Choice SP8.7(h) Cycle Parking SP8.13 Motor Vehicle Transportation SP8.15-16 Parking
Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2006 Saved Policies 2013 (UDP):
UD1 High Quality and Sustainable Design UD2 Layout and siting of new development UD3 Scale and Design of new buildings UD6 Safety and Security and New Development UD7 New Development and Access for All UD8 Protecting residential amenity UD13 Parking Design and Layout UD14 Landscaping UD15 Refuse and Recycling Storage EP1 – EP3 Pollution EP5 - EP7 Water – Flooding, Drainage and Conservation T2 Traffic Generation from Development T4 Cycling T8 Parking
There is relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance as follows:
Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment SPG Sustainable Design and Construction SPG SPG Note 3 – Designing for Community Safety SPG Note 10 – Designing for Accessibility SPG Note 12 – Landscape Design
Page 12 of 36 SPG Note 15 – Renewable Energy SPG Note 17 – Sustainable Surface Water Drainage SPG Note 18 – Sustainable Water Usage
4.5 The Partial Review of Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (CLP1.1) and the Croydon Local Plan: Detailed Policies and Proposals (CLP2) have been approved by Full Council on 5 December 2016 and was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State on 3 February 2017. The Examination in Public of the document by the Inspectorate has now been completed. When the Inspectors letter is received (anticipated for September) greater weight will be afforded to the emerging policies as there will be more certainty of adoption. Full adoption is anticipated for December 2017.
4.6 The emerging site allocation in CLP2 is particularly relevant to this case, and is discussed in detail below under the relevant consideration.
5 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 The main planning issues raised by the development that the committee should be aware of are:
1. Principle of the proposed development 2. Townscape and design 3. Connectivity across the site and the provision of green infrastructure 4. The impact on adjacent occupiers 5. The impact on highway and parking conditions in the locality 6. The environmental impact and sustainability of the development 7. Other planning matters
Principle of the proposed development
5.2 The site does not sit within a designated centre (such as a Metropolitan or District Centre), and therefore is considered to be an ‘out of centre’ location for retail which is sequentially less preferable to sites within or adjacent to the centre in accordance with the NPPF.
5.3 On this basis, in order to confirm the acceptability of a retail development in principle, a sequential assessment is required, alongside an Impact Assessment given the significant scale of the development. There is concern that in Phase 2 a number of small retail units are proposed. These units could potentially be occupied by operators who would normally locate in town centres. A sequential and impact assessment is required in order to understand whether the out of centre provision of retail space can be justified.
5.4 The applicant has been encouraged to explore the provision of residential accommodation on site in order to provide a higher density environment with greater townscape contribution and place making characteristics, to address the significant need for housing within the Borough and appropriately manage the relationship with existing residential to the south in Mill Lane.
5.5 The applicant has chosen to proceed without residential accommodation and as the applicant and Members should be aware, the emerging allocation for the site in CLP2 includes the provision of a mixed use scheme with retail and a residential element. If
Page 13 of 36 the allocation is adopted in the form submitted to the Secretary of State, the lack of residential accommodation will therefore represent a departure from policy and would weigh heavily against the scheme in the balance of considerations relevant to the determination of the scheme.
5.6 It is anticipated that the Inspectors Report into the Local Plan Examination in Public should be available around September 2017 and significant weight will be afforded to this emerging policy.
Townscape and Design
Layout and Massing
5.5 Officers are broadly comfortable with the massing of the proposed new buildings. In particular how development transitions between the small scale residential dwellings along Mill Lane, to the adjoining large steel frame warehouse type structure on the adjoining site is supported. However, the arrangement and layout of the site still poses several issues. The current arrangement is very inward looking and still retains a strong out of town, car dominated typology. Additionally, the scheme lacks a strong street frontage in both phases, maintaining the existing condition of a fully open eastern boundary. Whilst the proposed Units 9 and 10 might alleviate this to a limited extent, it is felt the proposal could do far more to improve this relationship. It is the ambition of the Planning Framework for the Borough to move away from the out of town typology along the Purley Way and this site is considered a key opportunity to achieve this.
Materiality
5.7 The choice of materials are acceptable and the introduction of timber has been meaningfully incorporated to an extent and work is being done by the applicant to ensure this is detailed well. More could be done to improve the appearance of the building and officers will continue to work with the applicant to bring forward a high quality design.
5.8 The applicants stated intention to include a unified signage strategy across all units is fully supported and would help to create an environment with a high quality appearance and minimal clutter.
Car Parking
5.7 Car parking is considered to be an overly dominant feature of the proposal, additionally insufficient provision has been made for pedestrians. Some landscaping has been added, however this is limited and additional landscaping is required to soften the visual appearance of the car-parking proposed.
Connectivity across the site and the provision of green infrastructure
5.8 The key strategic ambition for the scheme is to provide a green walking and cycling link between the de-culverted Wandle River route that finishes at the edge of the new South Quarter development and the green link that begins again at Waddon Ponds which is accessed off Mill Lane. This is a key requirement for the Council and is not being provided weighs heavily against the scheme in the balance of considerations relevant to its determination. The provision of a low-flow channel for the River Wandle (maintaining the culvert underneath the ground that lies adjacent to the site for main
Page 14 of 36 flow to minimise flood risk) would represent a significant public benefit of the scheme if brought forward. However, the applicant does not propose this and the Council cannot insist upon it, but in any case would like to see a passive provision made for this within the green buffer area to allow future provision.
5.9 Whilst the current scheme proposes some form of green buffer space along the eastern and south-eastern site boundaries, this is minimal and a greater provision of urban greening should be provided. The applicant currently proposes to close off the existing informal pedestrian access across the site to Mill Lane and the access to Waddon Ponds. This is of significant concern and the applicant has been asked to increase landscaping on site and connectivity to Waddon Ponds. The absence of a link to Waddon Ponds weighs heavily against the scheme in the balance of considerations.
The impact on adjacent occupiers
5.10 The distance from the back of the proposed retail units in Phase 2 to the adjacent residential accommodation on Mill Lane is considered to be sufficient to prevent loss of light and visual prominence, provided that suitable landscape screening is provided. However, further detail is recorded in order to assess the impacts of the development in occupiers of these dwellings in terms of noise and general disturbance. In Phase 1 there would be an intensification of the use of Mill Lane by servicing vehicles and this would adversely impact on the amenity of residents in Mill Lane by way of noise and disturbance.
The impact on highways and parking conditions in the locality
5.11 Purley Way forms part of the Transport for London (TfL) controlled Strategic Road Network. For this reason, to date the applicant detailed discussions with regards to transportation have been with TfL. The applicant proposes to provide a new signalised junction over the Purley Way (with pedestrian crossing). A draft Transport Assessment (TA) has recently been shared with the Council and identifies some issues which must be resolved and further information which must be received before it is possible to show that the proposals are acceptable in highway terms. It is essential that this information is received as part of pre-application discussions in order to allow an assessments of the impacts of the Croydon Council controlled local road network. There is also concern regarding the intensification of use of Mill Lane for deliveries to the new units in Phase 1 (with all deliveries being diverted to the current customer car park access off Purley Way in phase 2), and sufficient detail to enable a conclusion to be reached on this matter is not provided within the Draft TA. The TA also demonstrates that the level of trip generation for which the proposed Purley Way junction was designed (that of the previously consented Tesco scheme) was significantly higher than that generated as a result of the proposal. Therefore, as it stands a robust justification for the size of the new junction has not been provided (which is unacceptable given the townscape impacts associated with such a large access way).
5.12 With regards to parking, it is noted that the site has a PTAL of 4, indicating good accessibility. The parking provision in phase 1 (378 spaces) is over the maximum parking standards, although the applicant has indicated that they feel this is justified due to the existing levels of overprovision. Based on the information provided in the TA, the parking provision for phase1 should be reduced in order for the proposal to become acceptable. The parking levels proposed for phase 2 (289 spaces) is at the higher end of the maximum range outlined in transportation policy. The excessive
Page 15 of 36 parking provision is problematic from an urban design/place-making perspective. Additionally, the parking and access arrangements make navigating the site problematic for pedestrians and cyclists, and no PERS was provided as part of the Draft TA. Safety concerns are also raised as it is far from clear how pedestrians will be adequately separated from vehicles.
The environmental impact and sustainability of the development
5.13 New development should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions and should incorporate on site renewable energy generation. Zero carbon is sought for the 2016-2031 period. A detailed sustainability strategy has not yet been confirmed. The applicant should seek to meet the above policy requirements in this regard.
5.14 Full discussions in relation to air quality, overheating, surface water drainage, micro climate and lighting impacts have yet to be held, but the developer is aware of the relevant policy requirements. The subsequent application must be accompanied by a detailed Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Urban Drainage Strategy.
Other Planning Matters
5.15 Consideration will need to be given as to the requirement for any planning obligations required to mitigate the impact of the development.
Summary
5.16 It is accepted that the scheme is at pre-application stage and changes can obviously still be made to improve the acceptability of the scheme. However, a number of fundamental concerns exist, in terms of the principle of the development, its contribution towards creating a green walking and cycling link between the de- culverted Wandle river route that finishes at the edge of the new South Quarter development, and the green link that begins again at Waddon Ponds. Additionally the extent of car parking is considered excessive and opportunities to mitigate the visual and safety impacts are not being taken. Better provision must also be made for the movement of pedestrians and cyclists through and around the site.
5.17 Officers will continue to work with the applicant to reach a position where the scheme could be supported.
Page 16 of 36 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 20 July 2017
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 In this part of the agenda are reports on planning applications for determination by the Planning Committee.
1.2 Although the reports are set out in a particular order on the agenda, the Chair may reorder the agenda on the night. Therefore, if you wish to be present for a particular application, you need to be at the meeting from the beginning.
1.3 Any item that is on the agenda because it has been referred by a Ward Member, GLA Member, MP, Resident Association or Conservation Area Advisory Panel and none of the person(s)/organisation(s) or their representative(s) have registered their attendance at the Town Hall in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (paragraph 3.8 of Part 4K – Planning and Planning Sub-Committee Procedure Rules) the item will be reverted to the Director of Planning to deal with under delegated powers and not be considered by the committee.
1.4 The following information and advice applies to all reports in this part of the agenda.
2 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The Committee is required to consider planning applications against the development plan and other material planning considerations.
2.2 The development plan is:
the London Plan July 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies April 2013 the Saved Policies of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan April 2013 the South London Waste Plan March 2012
2.3 Decisions must be taken in accordance with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the Committee to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application; any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application; and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Committee to make its determination in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations support a different decision being taken. Whilst third party representations are regarded as material planning considerations (assuming that they raise town planning matters) the primary consideration, irrespective of the number of third party representations received, remains the extent to which planning proposals comply with the Development Plan.
2.4 Under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects listed buildings or their settings, the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses. Page 17 of 36 2.5 Under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a conservation area, the local planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.
2.6 Under Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for any development, the local planning authority must ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees.
2.7 In accordance with Article 31 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010, Members are invited to agree the recommendations set out in the reports, which have been made on the basis of the analysis of the scheme set out in each report. This analysis has been undertaken on the balance of the policies and any other material considerations set out in the individual reports.
2.8 Members are reminded that other areas of legislation covers many aspects of the development process and therefore do not need to be considered as part of determining a planning application. The most common examples are:
Building Regulations deal with structural integrity of buildings, the physical performance of buildings in terms of their consumption of energy, means of escape in case of fire, access to buildings by the Fire Brigade to fight fires etc. Works within the highway are controlled by Highways Legislation. Environmental Health covers a range of issues including public nuisance, food safety, licensing, pollution control etc. Works on or close to the boundary are covered by the Party Wall Act. Covenants and private rights over land are enforced separately from planning and should not be taken into account.
3 ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
3.1 The role of Members of the Planning Committee is to make planning decisions on applications presented to the Committee openly, impartially, with sound judgement and for sound planning reasons. In doing so Members should have familiarised themselves with Part 5D of the Council’s Constitution ‘The Planning Code of Good Practice’. Members should also seek to attend relevant training and briefing sessions organised from time to time for Members.
3.2 Members are to exercise their responsibilities with regard to the interests of the London Borough of Croydon as a whole rather than with regard to their particular Ward’s interest and issues.
4. THE ROLE OF THE CHAIR
4.1 The Chair of the Planning Committee is responsible for the good and orderly running of Planning Committee meetings. The Chair aims to ensure, with the assistance of officers where necessary, that the meeting is run in accordance with the provisions set out in the Council’s Constitution and particularly Part 4K of the Constitution ‘Planning and Planning Sub-Committee Procedure Rules’. The Chair’s most visible responsibility is to ensure that the business of the meeting is conducted effectively and efficiently.
4.2 The Chair has discretion in the interests of natural justice to vary the public speaking rules where there is good reason to do so and such reasons will be minuted.Page 18 of 36 4.3 The Chair is also charged with ensuring that the general rules of debate are adhered to (e.g. Members should not speak over each other) and that the debate remains centred on relevant planning considerations.
4.4 Notwithstanding the fact that the Chair of the Committee has the above responsibilities, it should be noted that the Chair is a full member of the Committee who is able to take part in debates and vote on items in the same way as any other Member of the Committee. This includes the ability to propose or second motions. It also means that the Chair is entitled to express their views in relation to the applications before the Committee in the same way that other Members of the Committee are so entitled and subject to the same rules set out in the Council’s constitution and particularly Planning Code of Good Practice.
5. PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
5.1 In accordance with Policy 8.3 of the London Plan (2011) the Mayor of London has introduced a London wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to fund Crossrail. Similarly, Croydon CIL is now payable. These would be paid on the commencement of the development. Croydon CIL provides an income stream to the Council to fund the provision of the following types of infrastructure:
i. Education facilities ii. Health care facilities iii. Projects listed in the Connected Croydon Delivery Programme iv. Public open space v. Public sports and leisure vi. Community facilities
5.2 Other forms of necessary infrastructure (as defined in the CIL Regulations) and any mitigation of the development that is necessary will be secured through A S106 agreement. Where these are necessary, it will be explained and specified in the agenda reports.
6. FURTHER INFORMATION
6.1 Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.
7. PUBLIC SPEAKING
7.1 The Council’s constitution allows for public speaking on these items in accordance with the rules set out in the constitution and the Chair’s discretion.
8. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
8.1 The background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 6 are generally the planning application file containing the application documents and correspondence associated with the application. Contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419) for further information. The submitted planning application documents (but not representations and consultation responses) can be viewed online from the Public Access Planning Register on the Council website at http://publicaccess.croydon.gov.uk/online- applications. Click on the link or copy it into an internet browser and go to the page, then enter the planning application number in the search box to access the application.
9. RECOMMENDATION Page 19 of 36 9.1 The Committee to take any decisions recommended in the attached reports. LBLBLB
CRCRCR CRCRCR
4242 282828 4242424242 1515151515282828 SouthSouth NorwoodNorwood 4242 151515 35 3535353535 24 2424242424
434343 434343 434343 17 1717171717
54 54545454545454 54 2323232323 4343434343 2323 54 43 5454545454 5656 545454 56565656565656 50.0m50.0m50.0m 36 50.0m50.0m50.0m 3636363636
6060606060 60 31 3131313131 606060 222 60606060 22222 6060 2 42 LBLBLB 4242424242
46 4646464646
ElEl Corporation ElEl CorporationCorporationCorporationCorporation
7272727272 39 72 3939393939 56 WoodsideWoodside 5656565656 454545 53 72727272 4545454545 53535353 7272727272 45 55555555 53535353 WrWrWr Pt Pt Pt 45 55555555 WrWrWr Pt Pt Pt 454545 52 4545 54 5252525252 1818181818 5454545454 181818 1111 50 49494949 1111 5050505050
74a74a74a74a 74a74a74a74a74a 74b74b74b74b 74b74b74b74b74b 74c74c74c74c 74c74c74c74c74c 84 5555555555 8484848484 55 1 11111
76b76b76b 76b76b76b76b76b 76b 76c76c76c76c 76c76c76c76c76c 76d76d76d76d 76d76d76d76d76d CARMICHAELCARMICHAELCARMICHAEL ROAD ROAD ROAD CARMICHAELCARMICHAELCARMICHAEL ROAD ROAD ROAD
6565656565 32 65 3232323232 22222 80a80a80a80a 222 15 94949494 80a80a80a80a80a 1515151515 94949494 80b80b80b80b 13131313 1515 80b80b80b80b80b 13131313 ScrapScrap 80c80c80c80c ScrapScrap 80c80c80c80c80c 777777 82 77 8282828282 7575 828282 7575757575
525252 CROWTHERCROWTHERCROWTHER
1414141414 106 909090 14 106106106106106 9090909090 46.4m46.4m46.4m 106106 ROADROAD 0 25 90 50 46.4m46.4m46.4m ROADROAD 11 2727272727 11111 27 29 2929292929 48 1 4848484848 1111 meters
98989898 9898989898 CROYDON www.croydon.gov.uk © Crown Copyright and database right 2011. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019257
London Borough Croydon Scale 1: 1250 Page 20 of 36 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 20 July 2017
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision Item 7.1
1 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION DETAILS AX10+15-53-101
Ref: 17/00650/FUL (link to associated documents on the Planning Register) Location: Rear of 1 to 9 Birchanger Road SE25 5BA Ward: Woodside Description: Erection of 4 two-storey houses (3 x 3 bedroom, 1 x 4 bedroom) with accommodation in the roof space; formation of vehicle access and provision of 5 parking spaces, refuse storage and cycle stores. Drawing Nos: Site Plan 197-10-101/A, Elevation 197-10-313/A, Elevation 197-10- 310/A, Elevation 197-10-306, Elevation 197-10-305/A, Floor Plan 197- 10-201/C, Floor Plan 197-10-202/C, Section 197-10311/A, Section 197-10-312/A. Applicant: Mr Burroughs Java Asset Management Agent: Mr Ben Reed Case Officer: Christopher Grace
1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed Houses 0 0 3 1 Flats 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 3 1
Type of floorspace Amount proposed Amount Amount lost retained Residential 423Sq.m 0 Sq m 0Sq m Number of car parking spaces Number of cycle parking spaces 5 8
1.1 This application is being reported to Planning Committee because objections above the threshold in the Committee Consideration Criteria have been received.
2 RECOMMENDATION
2.1 That the Planning Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission.
2.2 That the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport has delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions [and informatives] to secure the following matters:
Conditions
1) Built in accordance with approved plans 2) Materials to be submitted for approval 3) No additional windows to be inserted in the walls of the buildings other than as specified with obscured glass to corner section of house 4 4) Details to be provided:- a) Finished floor levels
Page 21 of 36 b) Hard and soft landscaping – including species / size and use of SUDs c) Boundary treatment – including private amenity space enclosures between the houses and to the rear of no.1 Birchanger Road d) Vehicle site lines along Birchanger Road 5) Refuse storage requirements 6) Cycle storage requirements 7) Disabled parking 8) Electric vehicle charging point 9) Demolition and construction method statement 10) 19% reduction in carbon emissions 11) 110 litre water consumption target 12) Parking to be provided before the buildings are occupied 13) Removal of permitted development rights 14) Details of security lighting 15) Details of Suds measures 16) Commence within 3 Years
Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport, and
Informative
1) CIL - granted 2) Site notice removal 3) Code of Practice regarding small construction sites 4) Highways works to be made at developer’s expense
Any [other] informative(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning
2.3 That the Planning Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
3.1 The proposal would involve backland development to construct four-two storey houses each with a further floor of accommodation within the roof to provide a total of three x 3 bedroom houses (each 99sq.m internal floorspace) and one x 4 bedroom house (124.5sq.m internal floorspace).
3.2 The proposed development would be off Birchanger Road along a vehicle access point 36m into the site. The proposed buildings would be in pairs of two with buildings 6.8m wide, 6m long, 10.3m high (7.1m at eaves) and 6.8m wide, 6m long, 9.8m high (6.6m at eaves).
3.3 The proposed buildings would be constructed of the following materials: - decorative yellow solider brick, metal standing seam roof and rear dormers, aluminium windows and timber doors.
3.4 The proposal would include parking for 5 car parking spaces including 1 disabled space 20m into the site from Birchanger Road; cycle storage within secured unit’s in
Page 22 of 36 the rear gardens of the houses and refuse stores 9m into the site from Birchanger Road
3.5 The proposal would include extensive landscaping with private garden areas to each house. In addition there would be hard landscaping and concrete paving to pedestrian routes, new boundary treatment between the buildings with a variety of tree/shrub planting in and surrounding the site boundary.
Amendments:
The proposed drawings have been amended to provide greater clarity in relation to the height and design of the buildings with single dormer windows in rear roof slope, detail of rear boundary treatment, vehicle sight lines
The proposed drawings now include a through section of the buildings to demonstrate height of rooms within the roof space and the relationship of new buildings to properties in Birchanger Road.
Site and Surroundings
3.6 0.08ha L shaped vacant brownfield backland site situated on the north east side of Birchanger Road. The site is accessed along a 36m vehicle drive north of boundary with no.1 Birchanger Road and continues to the rear of properties 1 to 9 Birchanger Road. Nos 1 – 9 Birchanger Road consists of pairs of two storey semi-detached and detached houses. To the north of the site are school grounds to Birchanger Primary School, to the south are rear gardens to properties in Birchanger Road. To the east are rear gardens to detached and semi-detached houses 58-70 in Crowther Road. The surrounding area is residential in character with pitched roof forms and brick construction.
3.7 The site is located within an area of Surface Water Flood Risk (1:1000yr). There are no protected trees identified within the site or immediate surroundings and no other designations for the site identified on the Croydon Local Plan Policies map.
Planning History
3.8 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:-
80/20/807 – Erection of open sided building to be used for the storage of new vehicles. 85/1346/P – Use of office, store and light industry. Granted. 11.07.85. 03/02550/P – construction of roller shutter door. Granted. 12.09.03. It is to be noted that in the officer’s report for the application the site is described as being occupied by a motor repair company. 08/03595/P- refused permission for partial demolition of existing buildings; alterations erection of single storey buildings comprising two bedroom and 4 one bedroom flats; provision of associated parking. (Reason: loss of an employment generating use; overcrowded and cramped development; vehicular parking detrimental to the residential amenities by reason of noise and general disturbance; design and layout of the access road with no visibility splays). (Dismissed on appeal December 2009 ref: APP/L5240/A/09/2107976 on ground s of living accommodation for future occupants, harm to safety of drivers and pedestrians).
Page 23 of 36 14/04502/P- refused permission for erection of two storey building with accommodation in loftspace comprising 5 two bedroom and 3 one bedroom flats; alterations to vehicle access and provision of associated parking (Reason; loss of employment; overdevelopment of the site; visual impact; sub-standard accommodation; inadequate design and layout of access road and not ensure safety.
4 SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The proposed would provide an appropriate scale for a backland development making effective use of brownfield site and increasing the Council housing stock.
4.2 The proposed new buildings would enhance the character of the area and would not harmfully affect the appearance of the immediate surroundings
4.3 The proposed new buildings would not have a detrimental effect on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers and would provide an acceptable living environment for the future occupiers.
4.4 The development would provide an appropriate level of parking for the proposed development, encourage sustainable modes of transport other than the car, incorporate safe and secure vehicle access to and from the site and would have an acceptable impact on the highways network.
4.5 The development would incorporate sustainability requirements and incorporate sustainability technics as part of the overall drainage strategy.
5 CONSULTATION RESPONSE
5.1 The views of the Planning Service are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
5.2 The following were consulted regarding the application:
6 LOCAL REPRESENTATION
6.1 The application has been publicised by way of one or more site notices displayed in the vicinity of the application site. The number of representations received from neighbours, local groups etc. in response to initial consultation notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual responses: 20 Objecting: Supporting: 0
No of petitions received: 3 objecting: one containing 141 signatories, 60 signatories and 22 signatories
In response to revised drawings:-
No of individual responses: 5 Objecting: Supporting: 0
No of petitions received: None
Page 24 of 36 6.2 The following issues were raised in representations. Those that are material to the determination of the application, are addressed in substance in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section of this report:
Summary of objections Response Principle of development State of existing yard is The principle of residential development on this handiwork of existing occupiers; site is considered to be acceptable and would site was a perfectly usable light make effective use of a brownfield site. Refer to industrial commercial paragraphs 8.2-8.6 of this report. floorspace; not for car repairs as stated but workshop by local carpenter; loss of commercial area; antisocial development Scale and massing More detail required in terms of Officers consider that the proposal in terms of height of buildings; building four scale, massing and creates an acceptable too close to neighbours transition in scale between the application site boundary. and the surrounding buildings. Refer to paragraph 8.5 to 8.12 of this report. Appearance Appearance out of keeping with The proposed design of the building are area; in appropriate design with considered to be acceptable. The proposal no detail of brick boundary would involve repair and reconstruction of treatment; condition required to existing boundary treatment. Refer to paragraph ensure repair and replacement 8.8 and 8.13 of this report. of boundary fence. Density An area of high density, suffers Maximise the potential site with suitable scaled for overcrowding and buildings limited physical impact. Refer to overdevelopment places undue paragraph 8.11 of this report. stress and pressure on all local services, schools, surgeries etc. concerns not overcome in revised proposal Daylight and sunlight Loss of light to properties in Officers consider that due to the position and Crowther Road and Birchanger height of the buildings the resultant levels of Road; Over shadowing of daylight/sunlight are acceptable within an urban neighbouring gardens; details setting. Refer to section 8.13 of this report. have not been provided
Outlook The proposal will block Officers consider that the proposal will have neighbours outlook and view. some impact on neighbour’s outlook but this is considered to be acceptable. There is no right to a protection of view under planning. Refer to paragraph 8.15 of this report. Overlooking Unacceptable overlooking, lack The proposal would result in some overlooking of privacy to rear gardens and Given the position of the buildings and the use of upper floor windows of condition to secure neighbour amenity it is
Page 25 of 36 properties in Birchanger Road considered that the impact of the proposed and Crowther Road. None of development would be limited in terms of the issues addressed in revised overlooking or loss of privacy. Refer to section proposal. 8.18 of this report.
Lighting Safety concerns over lack of In view of the sites backland location, a condition lighting; Impact of light overspill, requiring details of safety measures including light pollution and disturbance. lighting and level of illuminance to the rear Concerns not addressed in should protect neighbour amenity. Refer to revised proposal section 8.18 of this report. Noise Increase in noise and Officers consider that the introduction of disturbance. Not overcome in residential use in the residential area would not revised details. lead to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance. Refer to paragraph 8.16 of this report. Standard of accommodation Cramped overcrowded Officers consider the proposal would provide a development, small gardens; reasonable level of accommodation including unsuitable loftspace; buildings amenity provision in line with London Plan to meet lifetime homes. standards. Refer to paragraph 8.20 -8.21 of this report.
Waste Lead to increase refuse The applicant plans includes refuse storage provision. Refer to paragraph 8.27 of this report. Transport Use of garden for parking five Officers consider the level of on-site parking and cars detrimental; extra traffic. bicycle provision to be appropriate and that congestion and parking detailed planning conditions would secure unacceptable on Birchanger suitable and safe vehicle movement to and from Road; major health and safety the site. Refer to paragraph 8.20-8.21 of this issues in terms of access; report. access road deemed as potential danger especially to children of South Norwood Primary School; increase on street parking; issues not addressed in revised details. Construction Extent of building works in the Disruption during build will be minimised through area will lead to increase noise, an approved Construction Management Plan. disruption, congestion during Refer to paragraph 8.25 of this report. construction and lead to accidents and health and safety issues; construction should not occur at weekends and only after 0800hrs weekdays Sustainable issues Use of rear garden of no.1 is A detail informative would ensure that the environmentally unsound with development would incorporate sustainable
Page 26 of 36 negative consequences on requirements and the Council Code of Practice garden of no.3; noise fumes of the control of pollution. Refer to paragraph and enjoyment of these areas 8.26 of this report. Trees Mature trees, shrubs and A condition requiring details of landscaping and vegetation put at risk; condition protection measures should ensure that all required to prevent damage to neighbouring trees are safeguarded. Refer to neighbouring root systems; paragraph 8.16 of this report. details of trees need to be provided Other issues In accuracies in planning All covered in report. statement in terms of description of proposal, landscaping layout, detail of parking and factual accuracy of site
7 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
In determining any planning application, the Council is required to have regard to the provisions of its Development Plan so far as is material to the application and to any other material considerations and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Council's adopted Development Plan consists of the Consolidated London Plan 2015, the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 (CLP1), the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2006 Saved Policies 2013 (UDP) and the South London Waste Plan 2012.
Government Guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), issued in March 2012. The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development, requiring that development which accords with an up-to- date local plan should be approved without delay. The NPPF identifies a number of key issues for the delivery of sustainable development, those most relevant to this case are:
Achieving sustainable development (Chap 1) Promoting sustainable transport (Chap 9) Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes (Chap 6) Requiring good design (Chap 7) Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change (Chap10). Conserving and enhancing the natural environment (Chap 11)
The main policy considerations raised by the application that the Committee are required to consider are:
Page 27 of 36 Consolidated London Plan 2015 (LP):
3.3 Increasing housing supply 3.4 Optimising housing potential 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments 3.6 Children’s and young people’s play area 3.8 Housing choice 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide 5.3 Sustainable design 5.12 Flood risk management 5.14 Water quality and wastewater infrastructure 5.17 Waste capacity 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity 6.9 Cycling 6.13 Parking 7.4 Local character 7.6 Architect Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 (CLP1):
SP2 Homes SP2.2 Quantities and locations SP2.5 Mix of homes by size SP2.6 Quality and standards SP4.1 Urban design and local character SP6.1 Environment and Climate Change SP6.2 Energy and carbon dioxide reduction SP6.6 Sustain able design and construction SP4.2 Flooding SP6.6 Waste management SP8.1 Transport and communication SP8.6 Sustainable travel choice
Page 28 of 36 SP8.15 Parking
Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2006 Saved Policies 2013 (UDP):
(UD1) High Quality and Sustainable Design (UD2) Layout and Siting of New Development (UD3) Scale and Design of New Buildings (UD7) Inclusive Design (UD7) (UD8) Protecting Residential Amenity (UD13) Parking Design and Layout (UD14) Landscape Design (UD15) Refuse and Recycling Storage (EP5-EP7) Water – Flooding, Drainage and Conservation (EM5) Employment (T2) Traffic Generation from Development (T3) Pedestrians (T4) Cycling (T8 and T9) Parking (T11) Road Safety (H2) Supply of new housing (UD9 and H10) Residential Density There is relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance as follows:
Croydon Opportunity Area Planning Framework
8 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:
1. Principle of development 2. Townscape and visual impact and consideration of density 3. Residential amenity/Daylight & Sunlight for neighbours 4. Housing/Affordable Housing/Mix/Tenures 5. Housing Quality/Daylight & Sunlight for future occupiers 6. Transport 7. Sustainability 8. Waste 9. Flooding
Page 29 of 36
Principle of Development
8.2 In considering this proposal the local planning authority has had regard to delivering a wide choice of homes in favour of sustainable development in line with the principles of paragraph of the NPPF, Policy 3.3 of the London Plan relating to increase housing stock; policy SP2.1 of the Croydon Local Plan in providing a choice of housing for all people at all stages of life in line, and Policy H2 of the Croydon Unitary Development Plan in supplying new housing.
8.3 The application site has been vacant for at least nine years with the last known use as a car repair site and other employment uses. Neighbours have commented that previous buildings on this site have been removed. Private vehicles now occupy the site and that the current proposal would result in a loss of a suitable commercial use. Policy EM5 seeks to protect employment sites but recognises that the principle of residential development in such areas would only be acceptable if the existing use harms residential amenity; if it is demonstrated that there is no demand for the employment use; the proposal is for housing and the proposed use would not prejudice adjacent employment uses.
8.4 Two previous proposals for residential redevelopment of this site have been refused planning permission due to the loss of employment, scale of development, access and vehicle safety and standard of accommodation; the most recent (ref 14/04502/P) in 2014 and before that (ref 08/03595/P) in 2009. The earlier proposal (2009) was dismissed on appeal. The Inspector in considering the appeal had regard to policy EM5 but did not rule out the principle of residential development of the site dismissing the appeal on grounds of a cramped form of development and concerns over vehicle access. The Inspector in the decision expressed grave concerns about the possible impacts recommencing the sites lawful employment use particularly in connection to highway safety grounds and considered that such impact on amenity would outweighed the employment protection of the site under policy EM5.
8.5 The applicants have identified effective use of brownfield sites in providing suitable housing land has significantly increased since the last refusal in 2014. The London Plan (2015) has placed even greater importance on the principles of the NPPF, the use of brownfield sites, and in making more of small sites and surplus industrial land to provide much needed housing. The policy approach at a national and regional level is reflected at a local level. When applying EM5 consideration is given to the previous employment use associated with this site. The previous uses and extent and limitations of the site is associated with low employment levels. Currently the site has a number of vehicles parked on it which if unchecked could harm residential amenity of the area. Although no survey information has been provided to demonstrate marketing of the site, the absence of any business for at least 9 years could be a reflection of the lack of demand in this particular instance. Furthermore, the proposed site does not lie within a designated employment area and is instead within a residential surround adjoining a local school. The proposed development would provide a suitable contribution to housing.
8.6 On balance therefore, it is considered that there is significant policy reasoning to justify the loss of the employment use in this case. The sites vacancy, location in residential area, low employment generating numbers during the previous
Page 30 of 36 employment use and the sites apparent constrains which would impede the recommencement of an employment use, all support this view. The proposal would make effective use of a brownfield site which would add to the Council housing stock. Subject to an appropriately scale of development in line with NPPF requirements of sustainability and good design, and with regard to amenity considerations and conserving the natural environment, therefore there is no objection in principle to the introduction of the residential accommodation in this location.
Townscape and visual impact and consideration of density
8.7 The proposed development would be located 36m into the site down the side and behind the rear gardens of nos. 1-9 Birchanger Road. The site adjoins residential gardens on three of its four sides and school playground towards the north west and is predominantly residential in character. The surrounding residential properties comprise of dwelling houses although some of the properties are subdivided into flats.
8.8 The proposed development would introduce two pairs of dwellings within an enclosed boundary to the rear of properties in Birchanger Road to the south west with back to back relationship with neighbouring properties in Crowther Road to the north east. 3 of the 4 houses would be uniformed in appearance between 4m from the rear garden gardens of properties in Birchanger Road with the exception of house 4 which would have a front two storey section 1m from the rear garden boundary with no.7 Birchanger Road. The proposed houses would be 5.2m from the rear gardens of properties in Crowther Road.
8.9 A number of neighbours have raised concern over the height of the proposed houses and their impact on the immediate surroundings and consider the location of building 4 to be too close to neighbouring boundaries. The applicant’s section drawing demonstrates the ridge height of the proposed houses equal with that of Birchanger Road properties. In terms of the overall height the scheme presents no strategic concern and is seen as being generally in keeping and sympathetic with the surrounding contextual.
8.10 The proposed houses would be of a significantly reduce scale and form when compared with the neighbouring properties. The houses would be between 19m to 20m from the rear of nos.5 and 7 Birchanger Road. Officers acknowledged that the house no.4 would be nearer to neighbouring garden boundaries of no.5 and 7 Birchanger Road than the remaining proposed houses. However in view of the mass, form and distance between buildings the proposal is considered to be acceptable. The separation distance between the site and surrounding buildings would ensure that the proposal responds positively both visually and physically to the local context
8.11 Following the initial consultation the developers have refined the design of the buildings to provide greater context and identity in their appearance. The design language, maximising the roof space, and mix of materials to be used on the proposed buildings, would give a modern contemporary approach to characteristic of surroundings providing both symmetry and balance to the site. Only two of the buildings would be visible from a considerable distance when passing the entrance to the site from Birchanger Road and therefore would not unduly impact on the street scene appearance. The proposed parking would be located behind the rear
Page 31 of 36 garden of no.1 Birchanger Road and north west of no.3 Birchanger Road. The potential for improvements to the vehicle crossing would create the correct conditions for pedestrian activity.
8.12 The mass, setting and design of the proposed new buildings would integrate well within the existing site and surrounding and is considered to be acceptable. The proposed design would make a positive contribution to this backland site and enhance the local character in line with national, regional and local policies.
8.13 Neighbours have objected to the proposal as a high density form of the development. With a site area of 865sqm the proposed density is 90 units/ha 384 habitable rooms/ha. Table 3.4 of the London Plan sets a density range of u/ha and hr/ha if between 45-90u/ha and 200-350hr/h. The proposal would therefore be just over the density range for suburban location as set out in the London Plan. The London Plan however identifies that density is only the start of the planning housing development and not the end. Furthermore the application of the density range should not be applied mechanistically. The range, for a particular location, is broad enabling account to be taken of other factors including local context, design and transport capacity which, where appropriate, can provide a tool for increased density in certain situations. It is considered that in view of the sites location, design, transport capacity and parking provision density above this range is justified. The proposal would therefore accord with London Plan requirements in promoting housing.
8.14 The proposed development would be significantly less than the previous proposal considered by the Planning Inspectorate in 2014 in terms of scale and form. The proposal would be in line with NPPF requirements of sustainable development, good design and conserving the natural environment; London Plan policies 3.3 increasing housing supply , 3.4 optimising housing potential, 3.5 quality and design of housing, 7.4 Local character and 7.6 Architecture; CLP1 policies SP2.2 quantities and locations, SP4.1 urban design and local character and UDP policies UD1 high quality sustainable design, UD2 Layout and siting of new development, UD3 scale and design of new buildings, UD7 inclusive design, H2 supply of new housing, UD9 and UD10 residential densities. Subject to details regarding sample materials, this part of the proposal is acceptable.
Residential Amenity Daylight/Sunlight, Overlooking, Privacy, Outlook, Noise, Lighting construction for neighbours.
8.15 The proposed houses would be located between 19m-22m from the rear buildings of properties 1 to 7 Birchanger Road to the south west and rear gardens of buildings 58-70 in Crowther Road to the north east. The proposal would involve repair of the existing 2.8m high boundary wall along the south west and retain the 3.6m high wall boundary wall along the north east and introduce a 2m high wall along the boundary with no.1 Birchanger Road which currently has a fence. Details of the proposed boundary treatment is to be conditioned. Officers consider the proposed houses to be at a suitably distance so as not to result in undue loss of light to neighbouring properties or gardens. The proposal would result in some overshadowing of parts of rear gardens of the adjoining properties. However neighbour amenity in terms the impact of sun on ground is only likely to affected for limit times during the day and would not result in large areas of neighbouring gardens being constantly overshadowed. Due to the position of the proposed buildings, the distance between neighbouring properties and height of proposed
Page 32 of 36 boundary enclosure it is considered that the proposal would not unduly impact on neighbours in terms of daylight/ sunlight or overshadowing.
8.16 Both the front and rear elevations of the proposed houses would contain windows at upper levels. The proposal would result in some overlooking of neighbouring properties. The upper floor level windows of the proposed houses would be to bedrooms and the window to window relationship would be less than that witnessed between nos.1-7 and those neighbouring directly opposite along the front of Birchanger Road. A concern of house 4 would be the proximity of the projecting bay of this property to neighbouring sites. However the upper floor would possess a corner window which if partially obscured should protect neighbour amenity at this level. Given the position of the buildings and the use of condition to secure neighbour amenity it is considered that the impact of the proposed development would be limited in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy.
8.17 The proposed development would change the outlook when viewed from the rear of the surrounding neighbouring properties and gardens. There is no right to a view under planning however given the separation distances the development would not appear cramped or overbearing. The contemporary approach would involve a series of buildings unobtrusive in their form and composition, the details of which are to be controlled to ensure a suitable appearance. Details of landscaping measures including measures to protect existing neighbouring trees would ensure suitable softening of the development. The proposed buildings are therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of outlook from this neighbours property.
8.18 The provision of further residential accommodation would result in increased activity to this site. Neighbours have raised concerned over possible noise, fumes and disturbance from vehicle parking, movement to the rear of their properties and the unsuitability of residential development on amenity when compared with the reinstatement of the previous light industrial activity which would not require planning permission. However, there would be no change in the residential character of the area, the level of vehicle movement would be low. The reinstatement of a light industrial use, could result in equal or levels of activity beyond that anticipated in terms of vehicle movement, noise and operation without conditions to protect neighbour amenity. In view of the residential setting it is not considered that the proposal would result in undue loss of amenity in terms of noise disturbance.
8.19 It is acknowledged that there will be some noise and disturbance during the construction process, with pollution also a concern expressed by neighbours however this would be of a temporary nature. A planning informative is recommended to advise the applicant to follow the Councils “Code of Practice on the Control of Noise and Pollution from Construction Sites”.
8.20 In view of the sites backland location, a condition requiring details of safety measures including lighting and illuminance to the rear and along the vehicle approach would ensure that neighbours amenity is protected. The proposal is therefore considered to acceptable and would be in line with London Plan policy 7.6 Architecture for good design and Council policy UD8 protecting residential amenity.
Housing Tenure
Page 33 of 36 8.21 The proposed development would provide a combination of 3 three bedroom and 1 four bedroom houses. CLP1 Policy SP2.5 sets out an aspiration for 60% of all new homes outside the Croydon Opportunity Area to have three or more bedrooms and setting a preferred mix on individual sites through the CLP detailed policies and proposals. In terms of this policy requirement, the proposed mix would be 100% of the total number of houses in line with this target. The proposal would provide suitable family housing in line with the principles of the NPPF in delivering a wide of choice of quality homes and London Plan Policies 3.8 housing choice, 3.9 mixed and balance communities.
Housing Quality/Daylight and sunlight for future occupiers
8.22 All 4 houses would accord with the Mayoral Guidelines housing standards in terms of floor space requirements. Each house would have more than one form of outlook and should receive good levels of sunlight and daylight. The applicants have demonstrated through section drawings that sufficient head height would be afforded to the accommodation within the roof space. This arrangement is, therefore, considered acceptable.
8.23 Each of the houses would have their own private garden space in excess of Mayoral minimum guidelines for family sized dwellings. The proposal would include landscaping and planting the details of which would be secured by condition. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with the principles of the NPPF in delivering a wide of choice of quality homes and London Plan Policies, 3.6 Children’s and young people’s play area, CLP1 policy SP2.6 quality and standards; UDP policies UD3 scale and design, UD14 landscape design.
Transport
8.24 The site is located in an area with a PTAL of 4, which is good and is closely located for Norwood Junction rail station and South Norwood district centre. Car parking is proposed for 5 vehicles and neighbours have raised concern over the lack of parking provision and increase congestion making parking along Birchanger unacceptable. Given the accessibility of the site this level of off-street parking could be considered as an overprovision. It is not considered that the proposal would lead to increase congestion along Birchanger Road. Indeed Officers have considered that as the proposal provides family houses, the level of parking is acceptable. The applicants have amended the proposal to provide a disabled space and the provision of an electric vehicle charging point in accordance with London Plan standards each of which to be controlled by condition
8.25 A major concern with local residents has been the issue of pedestrian safety with vehicles entering and leaving the site which they regard as a deemed as a potential danger especially to children of neighbouring South Norwood Primary School. Officers are of the opinion that traffic generation from the proposed development will be very low and the parking layout means that vehicles will be able to turn on site and exit in forward gear. In addition the applicants have included details of the arrangements to improve vehicle access to the site, to provide a visibility splay to either side of the access. The applicant is to meet the cost of any new access improvements associated with the development and ensure that vehicles can leave appropriately to prevent any accident along this new point. Based on the limited number of vehicles on this site, the ability to enter and leave in forward motion and improvements to vehicle access point the proposal is considered to be acceptable.
Page 34 of 36 The proposed measures would ensure safe movement of vehicles and pedestrian movement to and from this site and addressing the concerns of the previous Planning Inspectors decision.
8.26 The proposal would encourage alternative sustainable forms of transport in accordance with London Plan standards through cycle storage provision located within the rear gardens of the houses. The proposal would also provide 8 cycle spaces in line with Council requirements for cycle provision and encouraging sustainable modes of transport the details of which are to be conditioned.
8.27 It is also recommended that a demolition / construction logistics plan be provided in order to reduce amenity considerations, traffic impacts and safeguard the development during the build; the detail of which is to be controlled by condition. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with London Plan policies 6.3 assessing effects on development capacity, 6.9 cycling, 6.13 parking; CLP1 policies SP8.1 transport and communication, SP8.8 sustainable travel choice, SP8. parking; UDP policies T2 traffic generation, T3 pedestrians, T4 cycling, T8 and T9 parking, T11 road safety.
Sustainability
8.28 The Council would seek new homes to meet the needs of residents over a lifetime and be constructed using sustainable measures to reduce carbon emissions. In line with Policy 5.2 of the London Plan, the development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions. The development would need to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 19% beyond the 2013 Building Regulations and demonstrate how the development will achieve a water use target of 110 litres per head per. An informative requiring developers to meet air and pollution requirements under code of practice for small developments should ensure sustainable construction methods are applied to this site Subject to condition the proposal would be in accordance with NPPF guidelines on meeting climate change; London Plan Policy 5.2 minimising carbon dioxide, 5.3 sustainable design, 5.14 water quality and waste water infrastructure; CLP1 policies SP6.1 environment and climate change, SP6.2 energy and carbon dioxide reduction, SP6.6 sustainable design construction; UDP policies EP5-EP7 water.
Waste
8.29 The proposed plans indicate the location for the waste storage facilities within a reasonable distance for collection. It is considered that the proposed bin storage is acceptable and should provide suitable housing for landfill, comingled dry recycling and food recycling storage. In order to ensure that a suitable level of bin provision is provide a condition requiring details of this space should ensure that the proposal is in line with the principles of London Plan policy 5.17 waste capacity; CLP1 policy SP6.6 waste management and UDP policy UD15.
Flooding:
8.30 The property has been identified as being located within an area subject to surface water flooding (1 in 1000yrs). The proposed development would therefore need to ensure that suitable SUDS measures are introduced to safeguard against potential flooding. The details of such measures would be controlled subject to condition in order to ensure that the proposal complies with the principles of the NPPF in
Page 35 of 36 meeting flooding requirements; London Plan policy 5.12 flood risk management; CLP1 policy SP4.2 flooding and UDP Policies EP5-EP7 flooding/drainage and conservation.
Conclusions
8.31 The recommendation is to grant planning permission.
8.32 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been taken into account.
Page 36 of 36