Putney Place, 84-88 Upper Richmond Road in the London Borough of Wandsworth Planning Application No

planning report PDU/1445a/02 17 November, 2008 Putney Place, 84-88 Upper Richmond Road in the London Borough of Wandsworth Planning application no. 2008/3321

Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal A detailed application for demolition of the existing office buildings and a redevelopment of the site to provide a residential-led mixed-use scheme comprising 300 residential units, 3,439 sq.m. of office space, 114 sq.m. of retail (Class A1) space, 443 sq.m. of flexible retail/restaurant/office (Classes A1, A3 and B1) space, 2,862 sq.m. of public amenity space, 32 car parking spaces, 213 sq.m. of cycle storage in excavated basement, associated plant and new public art, accommodated in two separate 26-storey (84m) and 21-storey (67.5m) buildings; and the erection of a single-storey building to contain 84 sq.m. of retail/cafe (Class A1/A3) space and landscaped public realm.

The applicant The applicant is Oracle Residential Ltd and the architects are SMC Alsop.

Strategic issues Wandsworth Council has resolved to refuse permission for this application. The Mayor must consider whether the application warrants a direction to take over determination of the application under Article 7 of the Mayor of London Order 2008. Having regard to the Council’s draft decision notice there are no sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case and, therefore, no basis to issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order 2008.

Recommendation That Wandsworth Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 16 September 2008, the Mayor of London received documents from Wandsworth Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1A, 1B(c), and 1C(c), of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

1A-”Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or

page 1 houses and flats. ”

1B- “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings— (c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

1C- “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions—(c) the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

2 On 22 October 2008, the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1445a/01, and subsequently advised Wandsworth Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 110 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 111 of that report could address these deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report.

4 On 6 November 2008, Wandsworth Council resolved to refuse planning permission for the development, and on 10 November 2008 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 23 November 2008 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

5 The Council’s draft decision notice includes the following five reasons for refusal:

i) The proposal would create an overbearing and incongruous form of development of inappropriate form, size, height, design, materials and appearance- out of character with the built form of the surrounding area, and of an inappropriate layout and design which would be to the detriment of visual amenity, to the detriment of the amenity of users of the development, and would form an overdevelopment of the site with inappropriate environmental conditions, to the detriment of the area and surrounding infrastructure, with insufficient benefits to the quality of the townscape, the quality of the public realm and funding contributions toward off-site improvements- contrary to UDP policies GEN7,TBE1, TBE2, TBE4,TBE5 and T1, and the Core Strategy Proposed Submission policies PL4, PL14 and IS3.

ii) The proposal by reason of its height, layout and proximity to residential properties, would form an overbearing and dominant feature, having adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers, contrary to UDP policies GEN12 and H3, and Core Strategy Proposed Submission Policy PL6.

iii) The loss of office space, which would lead to the loss of employment accommodation within the town centre and which is not considered adequately justified, has been put forward to take a contrary approach to UDP policy BIN3 and Core Strategy Proposed Submission Policies PL6, PL8, and PL14.

iv) The proposal comprises below standard proportion affordable housing and an inappropriate split between shared ownership and social rented accommodation with no justification, contrary to the requirements of GEN 13, Core Strategy Proposed Submission policy IS5 and London Plan policy 3A.9.

page 2 v) The proposal fails to provide satisfactory information to demonstrate acceptable levels of energy efficiency, measures to minimise environmental impact and to ensure an optimum sustainable form of development in accordance with the requirements of UDP policy GEN1 and Core Strategy Proposed Submission policy IS2.

6 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

7 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

Policy test guidance Circular GOL Circular 1/2008

8 The initial policy test regarding the Mayor’s power to take over and determine applications referred under parts 1 and 2 of the schedule to the Order is a decision about who should have jurisdiction over the application rather than whether planning permission should ultimately be granted or refused.

9 The policy test consists of the following three parts, all of which must usually be met in order for the Mayor to take over the application: a) significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan; b) significant effects on one or more borough (except applications under Category 1A); and c) sound planning reasons for his intervention.

10 Parts (a) and (b) of the test identify the impact an application would have on the Mayor’s policies and the geographical extent of the impact, whilst part (c) deals with the reasons for the Mayor’s intervention, having regard to the Council’s draft decision on the application. These tests are intended to ensure that the Mayor can only intervene in the most important cases.

11 This report considers the extent to which the policy tests under Article 7(1) apply in this case and whether, therefore, the Mayor should direct that he is to be the local planning authority and apply the tests set out under Article 7(3) of the Order 2008.

Policy test 7(1)(c): Sound planning reasons for intervening

12 Notwithstanding parts (a) and (b), part (c) of the policy test is whether the Mayor considers there to be sound planning reasons to intervene. Having regard to the details of the proposal and the Council’s draft reasons for refusal, together with the outstanding issues from stage one described in paragraphs 14 to 22 below, there are no sound planning reasons to intervene in this case.

13 In order for the Mayor to issue a direction that he is to be the local planning authority, relevant policy tests a) and c) must be met. Given policy test (c) has not been met, there is no basis to issue a direction under Article 7.

14 Notwithstanding the above, should the scheme be considered at appeal or a revised application submitted the applicant should have regard to the following matters considered below.

• The submission of a housing toolkit appraisal to assess the financial viability of the scheme and to justify the low provision of affordable housing.

page 3 • Confirmation as to whether a registered social landlord has been secured, how the proposed sheltered housing would be managed, whether a housing grant has been sought and if not, the reasons for that stance.

• Confirmation of firm proposals to meet the shortfall in children’s playspace required as part of this development.

• Further discussions with GLA officers, the Council and the applicant on the scale and design of the tower buildings.

• Addressing the energy issues raised in paragraphs 44 to 57 of the attached planning report.

• The submission of a noise assessment report to address the issues raised in paragraphs 70 to 75 of the attached report report.

• The submission of further details in respect of the access provisions for disabled people (e.g. secure storage or charging facilities for residents who use a mobility scooter, and the provisions made for people with sensory impairments) as described in paragraphs 76-82 of the attached report.

• A full response to each of the issues raised by Transport for London, as outlined in paragraphs 83-100 of the attached report.

• Address the employment and training issues identified by the London Development Agency in paragraphs 101-105 of the attached report. Transport for London’s comments

15 Transport for London raised a number of issues at consultation stage. These included the underestimation of trip generation, the need for further information concerning the car club, and the need for additional work on the residential travel plan. TfL also required the provision of a workplace travel plan and appropriate conditions for securing it, a construction logistics plan, and a delivery and servicing plan. A contribution for a public realm study of the area around East Putney station and possible subsequent highways works was also requested in order to help mitigate the impact of this development.

16 TfL remains concerned that the increase in passengers, particularly those heading northbound in the morning peak, will prevent passengers further up the line from being able to board trains.

17 From pre-application stage, the applicants have been aware of TfL’s concerns regarding the land between East Putney Underground station and the development site, including the station forecourt and pedestrian crossings. As outlined in the previous report, this area of land is subject to numerous competing demands, which must be carefully balanced. TfL has, therefore, proposed a study to understand the situation, including the competing demands, and identify suitable approaches to the public realm and road space allocation issues. It remains TfL’s view that this development can only be acceptable in planning and transport terms if an appropriate level of contribution is secured.

18 Should the scheme be considered at appeal or a revised application submitted, the applicant should ensure that the following outstanding issues are appropriately addressed:

• Assessment of the trip generation based on proposed quantum of development.

page 4 • Cumulative impact analysis with any nearby developments that may be forthcoming at the time.

• Clarification of the car club proposals.

• Revision of the residential travel plan as outlined in the Stage 1 report and provision of a workplace travel plan.

• Contribution towards mitigating the development’s impact on the area between the site and East Putney station.

19 A delivery and servicing plan and a construction logistics plan will be required and should be secured, along with the travel plan, as part of the Section 106 agreement. Planning conditions will also be required to secure the cycle parking, disabled car parking, and any car club parking spaces. London Development Agency’s comments

20 The principle of development of this mixed-use scheme is supported, as it would contribute to the vibrancy and vitality of this part of the Putney town centre.

21 The LDA is, however, concerned at the net loss of office space from 7,600 sq.m. to 3,439 sq.m. as proposed in this application. Wandsworth Council needs to be satisfied that the proposed loss is justified given local demand and supply. The emerging Wandsworth core strategy highlights the need for the provision of affordable accommodation for smaller businesses in this town centre location and thus the LDA reiterates its earlier comments that the applicant should seek a range of different types, sizes and costs of B1 office space to meet the needs of the different sectors of the local business community, especially small to medium size businesses, as well as micro businesses, in accordance with Policy 3B.1 of the London Plan.

22 The LDA reiterates that the Councils should seek to ensure that local residents and businesses benefit from jobs created by the proposal. Initiatives to create training and employment opportunities for local people, and address other barriers to employment, should be formalised through a Section 106 agreement. This should also include local opportunities for residents and businesses during construction as well as within the completed development as appropriate, including the supply of goods and services and sub-contracting. The LDA recommends that a training and employment strategy be produced to address the issues raised above Proposed legal agreement

23 The applicant has indicated willingness to enter into a legal agreement with Wandsworth Council to secure:

• The operation of an on-site car club. • The provision of 90 bicycle storage facilities outside East Putney Station. • A financial contribution towards an off-site children’s play area. • The provision of on-site affordable housing in accordance with proposals indicated in the planning application. Response to consultation

24 Representations addressed directly to the Mayor were reported to him in paragraph 106 of the initial GLA officer report (copy attached), which he considered on 22 October 2008.

page 5 25 In addition to those, Wandsworth Council received 487 written objections and 3 letters of support from local occupiers. The main grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• The excessive height and density of the buildings were out of scale with Oxford Road, the surrounding area and Putney as a whole. • The design and external materials of the buildings were out of character with the locality. • The proposal would dominate the skyline, leading to overlooking and overshadowing of homes in Disraeli Road, Fawe Park Road and Woodlands Court. • The scheme and its inadequate parking would add to traffic congestion on the South Circular Road. • The development would place undue pressure on local infrastructure, especially schools, health care facilities, buses, and add to congestion at the ‘tube’ station and on trains. • The use of Woodlands Way to service the site and high probability that the publicly accessible uses would serve as a magnet for congregating youth, give rise to safety concerns for pedestrians using the area, especially at night. • The net loss of employment space is contrary to UDP policy. • Disruption due to noise, pollution and general nuisance during construction.

• Loss of television reception as a result of the tall buildings. Legal considerations

26 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. The Mayor must have regard to the guidance set out in the GOL circular 1/2008 when deciding whether or not to issue a direction under Articles 6 or 7. Financial considerations

27 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 8/93 (‘Award of Costs in Planning and Other (including Compulsory Purchase Order) Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

28 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

page 6 Conclusion

29 Having regard to the Council’s draft decision notice there are no sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case and, therefore, no basis to issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order 2008.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] David Blankson-Hemans, Senior Strategic Planner (Case Officer) 020 7983 4268 email [email protected]

page 7

planning report PDU/1445a/01 22 October 2008 Putney Place, 84-88 Upper Richmond Road in the London Borough of Wandsworth planning application no.2008/3321

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The applicant The applicant is Oracle Residential Ltd and the architects are SMC Alsop.

Strategic issues The key issues to consider are- the regeneration of Putney town centre; the principle of siting two tall buildings in this location; urban design; the quantum, unit sizes and mix of market and affordable housing; the mix of uses; climate change issues, including energy and sustainable development; transport issues; access/social inclusion; and the impact of train movements on ambient noise and the proposed residential environment. Recommendation That Wandsworth Council be advised that, on balance, the application does not fully comply with the strategic policies of the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 110 of this report; but that the remedies set out in paragraph 111 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

30 On 16 September 2008, the Mayor of London received documents from Wandsworth Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 28 October 2008 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for

page 8 taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

31 The application is referable under Categories 1A, 1B(c), and 1C(c), of the Schedule of the Order 2008:

1A-”Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats. ”

32 Once Wandsworth Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

33 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

34 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

35 The application relates to an under-used site, 0.52 hectares in size, situated close to the edge, but entirely within, Putney town centre. It is situated on the north side of the A205 Upper Richmond Road (which forms part of the South Circular Road and the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). East Putney underground station is situated directly opposite, on the south side of the road. The A3 West Hill, also part of the TLRN, is 600m east of the site. The nearest Strategic Road Network (SRN) is the A219 Putney Hill/Putney High Street, located approximately 500m west of the site.

36 The site is bounded on three sides by railway lines - an elevated section of the District Line on the west, a further line routed over viaducts occupied by small businesses on the east, and a surface railway track linking Putney to Wandsworth Town station across its northern boundary.

37 The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 5, on a scale of 1 to 6 where 6 is most accessible. East Putney Underground station provides access to the Wimbledon branch of the District line. Putney railway station is also within 550m of the site. Bus routes 37 and 337 operate along Upper Richmond Road, with the nearest bus stops within 75m of the site. A number of other routes operate along Putney High Street and West Hill, both of which are within walking distance.

38 The site comprises two office buildings, 84 and 86-88 Upper Richmond Road, and ancillary surface parking for 58 cars. Number 84 is a six to seven-storey 1980s block containing 2,700 sq.m. net internal office space, with vehicle access from the north-eastern corner of the site via Woodlands Way. Number 86-88 is a vacant seven to eight storey 1960s block containing 4,900 sq.m. net internal office space accessed from the south-west, directly off Upper Richmond Road.

page 9 39 A site location map is provided in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Site location map

40 A seven-storey office block is situated to the immediate east of the site. To the west, across the District Line, is a three to four-storey terraced block with a mix of commercial uses at ground floor and office and residential accommodation on the upper floors- a number of single-storey workshops are located to the rear of this terrace. To the north, a series of three-storey terraced buildings on Disraeli Road and Fawe Park Road back on to the railway cutting.

41 The surrounding area is predominantly residential, though Upper Richmond Road is dominated by ground floor shops with offices and residential above, and by 1960s office blocks.

Details of the proposal

42 Full permission is sought for the erection of a 26-storey (84m) building to be named No.1 Putney Place, and a 21-storey (67.5 m) block named No. 2 Putney Place, to accommodate:

• 300 residential units. • 3,439 sq.m. of office space. • 114 sq.m. of retail (Class A1) space. • 443 sq.m. of flexible retail/restaurant/office (Classes A1, A3 and B1) space. • 2,862 sq.m. of public amenity space. • 32 basement car parking spaces. • 213 sq.m. of basement cycle storage. • Associated plant and new public art.

page 10 43 A single-storey building (3 Putney Place) is also proposed for the provision of 84 sq.m. of retail/cafe (Class A1/A3) space and landscaped public realm. Case history

44 The principle of a residential-led mixed-use development of 86-88 Upper Richmond Road was established by a grant of planning permission in November 2003, for: demolition of existing seven-storey office building and the erection of a new building (up to nine storeys in height) to provide 3,042 sq.m. of office (Class B1) space, 1,043 sq.m. of health club/cafe space, 69 residential units (of which 19 would be affordable), and the formation of basement and surface level parking accessed from Upper Richmond Road.

45 That permission has not been implemented. The development site has since been extended to include 84 Upper Richmond Road within the current application. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

46 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

• Economic development/ Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy • Retail London Plan; PPS6; PPG13 • Employment London Plan; PPG4; draft PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG • Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG • Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG • Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG • Mix of uses London Plan • Urban design London Plan; PPS1 • Tall buildings/views London Plan; View Management Framework SPG • Sustainable development London Plan; PPS, PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG • Transport/parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13; • Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM) • Equal opportunities London Plan; Planning for Equality and Diversity in Meeting the spatial needs of London’s diverse communities SPG; Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide (ODPM) • Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24

47 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the Wandsworth Unitary Development Plan 2003 and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

48 The Wandsworth Core Strategy (Proposed Submission) Consultations, July 2008, and the draft Site Allocations Development Plan Document are also relevant material considerations.

page 11 Economic development and regeneration

49 Putney is identified in the London Plan as a ‘Major Centre’ in the South West London sub- region, but is not formally designated as an ‘Opportunity Area’ or an ‘Area of Intensification’. It does, however, have good public transport accessibility and can, therefore, benefit from a substantial growth in population, consumer demand, a diversification of uses and environmental improvements. From a strategic perspective, the Council is expected to consider how Putney’s role can be consolidated and enhanced to meet retail and other consumer needs; and to increase its capacity for mixed-use development, including housing. The proposed mix of uses is, therefore, consistent with the land use objectives identified in the London Plan and the affirmation of Putney town centre as an appropriate office and residential location.

50 Advising the developer on the office market in Putney, CB Richard Ellis confirmed a strong demand but tight supply of local office space; due in part to a preponderance of second-hand stock, a paucity (i.e. less than 30%) of speculative new development in the area in recent years, and an unsatisfied demand for ‘headquarters quality’ accommodation in the area. These constraints in quality and availability of office space have meant the area being unsuccessful in attracting a wider range of corporate occupiers, and a relative decline in the long-term competitiveness of Putney as a potential business location.

51 In terms of regeneration, the key features of the application proposals are its new landmark buildings, a significant intensification in the use of the site, and its transformation from an exclusive office use to a predominantly residential one.

52 Whilst the introduction of 557 sq.m. of commercial space for retail and restaurant uses on the site would be a particularly welcome development, its employment-generating office capacity would be reduced from an existing 7,600 sq.m. to 3,439 sq.m; albeit with scope to further increase that amount in a 443 sq.m. unit to be allocated for flexible retail/restaurant/office use within the scheme. The latter would raise the potential office space to an overall total of 3,882 sq.m., which is still significantly below the existing 7,600 sq.m.

53 It is pertinent to note, however, that a substantial proportion of the existing office space is dilapidated, obsolete and redundant. The two buildings are dated, inadequate and in poor condition; with inappropriate layouts and substandard floorplates that are unsuitable for multiple lettings and wholly incapable of meeting the requirements of contemporary business occupiers. As a consequence, number 84 remains grossly under-occupied; and 86-88 has been vacant since 2006, having been marketed for a number of years prior to that.

54 The latest proposals represent a qualitative improvement in office accommodation, which in conjunction with some new commercial space and a significant amount of residential accommodation, are sufficient to outweigh the reduction in quantum of office space and result in a more efficient use of this highly accessible town centre site.

55 Using the occupancy densities cited in Guide A of the Chartered Institution of Building Service Engineers (CIBSE) i.e. 1:6 to 1:10/sq.m. for inner city developments (mostly open plan), and average fit-outs of 1:8/sq.m. including meeting rooms, it is calculated that the proposed 3,439 sq.m. of office space would attract approximately 430 employees. The retail, restaurant and residential accommodation are likely to add to that number. Retail use

56 The development provides a potential for 557 sq.m. of retail/restaurant space, comprising a large (443 sq.m.) unit of flexible space and a smaller (114 sq.m.) shop unit. It is proposed to site

page 12 the smaller unit on the frontage of Upper Richmond Road, where it would be most accessible, and to restrict its use to class A1 retail shopping purposes only. The larger unit would be located within the site, to be let on a speculative basis for retail, restaurant or office purposes.

57 In view of their limited scale and siting within (albeit close to the edge of) the town centre boundary, the retail proposals have not been subjected to the ‘need’ or sequential location tests described in PPS 6 (Planning for Town Centres). To support the role and function of Putney as a ‘major centre’, both the Council’s UDP and emerging Core Strategy Document encourage small scale new retail, bar and restaurant uses as part of the renovation of office blocks outside the main shopping core of Upper Richmond Road, so as to maintain its active frontage and enhance overall provision of retail space within the centre.

58 A similar mix of uses is supported in the ‘compact city’ and sustainable development policies of the London Plan, especially given its potential to reduce the frequency and length of vehicle trips in high-density developments.

Housing issues

59 The London Plan sets a strategic target for 7,450 homes to be built in the borough of Wandsworth between 2007/8 and 2016/17, with an annual target of 745, as indicated in table 3A.1 of the London Plan. The Council’s emerging Core Strategy (Proposed Submission) raises that target to 7,500 new units, representing a 6% increase the borough housing stock over the same period.

60 The proposal is for a total of 300 residential units, comprising a mixture of studio, one, two and three-bedroom flats built at a density of 577 units per hectare (or 1,519 habitable rooms per hectare). Despite the relatively small size of the site, a mix of other uses, and an extended public realm, that density is above the indicative range (of 215-405 units per hectare or 650-1,100 habitable rooms per hectare) the London Plan suggests for a site in a central location with good public transport accessibility. It would largely be achieved by a high-rise construction that would appear above a local skyline generally devoid of similarly tall buildings. Affordable housing 61 London Plan Policy 3A.10 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mix-use schemes. In doing so, each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. Policy 3A.9 states that such targets should be based on an assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply, and should take account of the London Plan strategic target that 35% of housing should be social and 15% intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. In addition, Policy 3A.10 encourages councils to have regard to the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development, and to the individual circumstances of the site. Targets should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements. 62 Policy 3A.10 is supported by paragraph 3.52, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified.

63 Wandsworth Council has set an overall borough target of 50% (equivalent to 3,725 units of affordable housing from all sources) in its emerging Core Strategy (Proposed Submission) document, which is in line with the London Plan; and to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on individual schemes of ten or more units (net).

page 13 64 Of the 300 residential units proposed, a total of 108 (36%), including seven ‘supported housing’ units, would be affordable. The affordable units would be split equally between social rented and shared ownership tenures, which the applicant expects the Council to secure by legal agreement. The split falls short of the London Plan aspiration to secure a higher ratio of social rented to intermediate housing. A full breakdown of the housing is provided in table 1 below:

Unit Affordable Market Total % size housing housing Studio 0 11 11 1-bed 50 61 111 41 2-bed 46 109 155 3-bed 12 11 23 59

Total 108 192 300 100

% 36 64 100 -

Table 1: Breakdown of the mix and tenure of the proposed housing

65 From a policy perspective, although the current application represents a significant improvement in both the quantum (108 rather than 19 units) and proportion (36% instead of 28%) of affordable housing permitted in the previous scheme, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the latest offer of affordable housing is the maximum reasonable amount the scheme can provide, given that Oracle Residential had yet to submit an appraisal of financial viability at the time of writing. A housing toolkit appraisal should be provided in order that the viability of the scheme can be assessed. It would also be helpful if the applicant could confirm whether a registered social landlord has been secured for the scheme, how the proposed sheltered housing would be managed and whether a housing grant had been sought.

Children’s play space

66 Policy 3D.13 of the London Plan sets out that “the Mayor will and the boroughs should ensure developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 160 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 1,600 sq.m. of playspace.

67 The development makes an on-site provision of play space for children under five. The equipped space, approximately 385 sq.m. in size, would be sited towards the north-east corner and equipped with a polished slide with cone access tower, climbing poles, curved polycarbonate screens and an elevated timber deck.

68 No on-site play provision is designated for children over five. The applicant has, however, indicated a willingness to consider making a financial contribution towards the enhancement of existing play facilities at Wandsworth Park, which is located to the northeast and begins just beyond a 400-metre radius of the application site, but can only be accessed by footbridge over a railway line and crossing a major road. In its present form, the scheme falls short of the London Plan policy and supplementary guidance on the provision of play space for residential developments; full details are required of the applicant’s proposals for off-site provision.

page 14 Urban design and architectural quality

69 The site is in close proximity to Putney town centre and adjacent to East Putney Station- a high-density development and potentially a high-rise development could, therefore, be supported. In terms of building height, the area has a mixed character, with a series of bland 1960s and 1970s blocks of four to eight storeys located around the station. To the north are two-storey Edwardian terraces and beyond those, a recent residential conversion of a 1960s office tower that fronts the River Thames at Putney Bridge. Although the area contains some individual tall buildings, it does not comprise a cluster of tall buildings.

View 1: Looking west towards Upper Richmond Road (Source: SMC Alsop Design & Access Statement).

70 The architectural approach to the proposals is striking, both in its use of colour and geometry, and the area could benefit from having a focus and a marker for the station, as well as some visual relief from the monotony of Upper Richmond Road. In addition the development would provide a new public space in front of the station, with active ground floor uses contributing to the vitality of Upper Richmond Road, which is welcome.

71 The principal design issue is the scale and height of the proposed buildings, particularly in relation to the residential housing to the north, and in respect of the taller building, its proportions in terms of its relative width to its height. The taller building, though it narrows to the top, is relatively wide and bulky.

page 15

View 2: From East Putney Station (Source: SMC Allsop Design & Access Statement)

72 Whilst the distinctive architectural approach is supported, as is the potential of having a taller building in this location, it is considered that the case for a building of the height proposed has yet to be made, which would address the requirements of policy 4B.10 of the London Plan (Large- scale buildings-design and impact) that tall buildings be suited to their wider context in terms of proportion and composition and should be attractive city elements as viewed from all angles. Further discussions with the applicant and the Council would be welcomed.

View 3- View from Upper Richmond Road (Source: SMC Alsop Design & Access Statement)

page 16

View 4: From the junction of Oxford Road and Upper Richmond Road (Source SMC Alsop Design & Access Statement).

Climate change mitigation

73 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 4A collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures, prioritising decentralised energy supply, and incorporating renewable energy technologies with a target of 20% carbon reductions from on-site renewable energy. The policies set out ways in which developers must address mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of climate change. Energy

74 Policies 4A.1 to 4A.8 of the London Plan focus on how to mitigate climate change, and the carbon dioxide reduction targets that are necessary across London to achieve it.

Be Lean (policies 4A.3 and 4A.4)

75 Baseline emissions of 1,321 tonnes of CO2/year have been calculated using suitable software (building regulations approved modelling tools have been used). Total energy, i.e. unregulated energy usages has been accounted for.

76 A range of energy efficient design measures has been proposed that reduces CO2 emissions by 20%. Measures include improved fabric insulation and air tightness beyond building regulations minimum requirements, low energy lighting and appliances and access to daylight amongst others.

page 17 77 The applicant should resubmit table 2, as it is not shown clearly in the energy strategy. This table should contain the Target Emissions Rate and Dwelling Emissions Rate (after proposed demand reduction measures and before Combined Heat and Power and renewables) for the representative dwelling types that have been modelled.

Be Clean (policies 4A.5 and 4A.6 of the London Plan)

78 There is no known district heating network to which this scheme could connect.

79 The applicant proposes to install a site-wide heating system with plant located in the basements. In addition, it is confirmed that the plant configuration would allow future connection into a local district-heating scheme. The applicant should clarify whether all heat generating plant would be located in a single plant room, or in two different plant rooms located in the basements of each building.

80 A detailed Combined Heat and Power feasibility analysis has been undertaken; it concludes that a 100kWe CHP plant would be suitable and able to reduce CO2 emission by 12.8%.

81 The energy statement provides very little comment on a cooling strategy for the scheme. The applicant should, therefore, confirm that the CO2 emissions due to the cooling provision for some of the apartments have been taken into account in the baseline emissions; describe how cooling to both dwellings and offices would be provided; and clarify which design measures have allowed the cooling energy consumption to be so significantly reduced from baseline level to the proposed energy efficient scheme.

82 Wandsworth Council is requested to secure, by planning condition or legal agreement, a single heating distribution network to supply all the space heating and domestic hot water requirements of all apartments and non-domestic energy usages within the development.

Be Green (policy 4A.7)

83 A boiler running on liquid bio-fuel is proposed, to achieve approximately 9.8% CO2 savings. This seems to assume a carbon dioxide emission factor of zero for the bio fuel. That is not appropriate and needs to be revised to properly reflect the carbon intensity of the proposed fuel source.

84 In general, there are concerns around the use of liquid bio-fuels for this scheme based on the amount of information presented. Although the scheme falls short of the renewable target (20% CO2 savings), the applicant has eliminated the use of photo-voltaics for non-technical reasons. It should be technically feasible to accommodate 240 sq.m. of photo-voltaics, thereby saving a further 1.5% of carbon emissions.

85 With regard to the use of liquid bio-fuel, the applicant needs to carry out the following measures and provide the relevant information before that option can be considered sufficiently robust: • Re-calculate the CO2 savings using a carbon dioxide emission factor calculated in accordance with the guidelines published by the Renewable Fuel Agency (Carbon and Sustainability reporting within the Renewable Fuel Transport Obligation). • Identify suitable suppliers. • Calculate carbon emissions savings by taking into account the relative percentages over a year that the boiler is expected to run using bio-fuel and fossil fuels. • Storage requirements and its location within the development.

page 18 • In addition, the applicant needs to consider the running costs related to bio-fuels and to give consideration to the viability of operating this solution.

86 The scheme is not currently consistent with London Plan energy policies and the applicant should address the points set out above.

Climate change adaptation

87 Developments are required to be adaptable to the climate they will face over their lifetime and to address the five principles set out in policy 4A.9 of the London Plan. These are: to minimise overheating and contribution to heat island effects; minimise solar gain in summer; contribute to flood risk reductions, including the application of sustainable drainage principles; minimise water use; and protect and enhance green infrastructure. Specific policies cover overheating, living roofs and walls, and water conservation.

Overheating (policy 4A.10)

88 In a sustainability statement submitted with the proposals, the applicant describes how passive measures are incorporated into the scheme, using the form, orientation and fabric of the buildings to reduce the need for mechanical intervention to create appropriate environmental conditions, and thereby reduce the base energy requirements of the development. The measures include maximizing daylight and natural ventilation where appropriate, nighttime cooling, generous insulation, air tightness, and the control of solar gain to maintain comfortable internal temperatures.

89 With regard to the residential units, the probability of summertime overheating is reduced by installing windows that are capable of being opened on floors two to sixteen, so as to benefit from natural ventilation as well as night-time cooling; however, flats on the upper five floors (seventeen to twenty-one) would include artificial cooling, in order to achieve the internal conditions required in high-end market units.

90 For the offices, the specification is to provide full air conditioning with no opening windows or natural ventilation. The facade would be tightly sealed to prevent any infiltration of uncontrolled external air entering the internal space. Summertime overheating is also addressed by the addition of shading and solar glazing where appropriate.

91 As artificial lighting can form a high proportion of energy usage, the buildings are designed to ensure energy consumption is reduced to a minimum by allowing solar access to the maximum number of dwellings, and aiming to achieve the maximum daylight factor to the commercial areas, whilst limiting solar gain. The offices would incorporate daylight dimming and occupancy sensor- controlled lighting, to ensure usage only when there is a demand for it. Similarly, compact or linear fluorescent lamps are proposed for the commercial areas, whilst the communal areas such as stairs, corridors and car parking areas would be occupancy controlled using movement sensors.

Living roofs (policy 4A.11)

92 It is proposed that a proportion of the roof area will be given over to the planting of green roofs. These absorbent areas of roof act to significantly attenuate the peak storm water flows from the site and absorb then transpire a proportion of the rainfall. They also serve to reduce the ‘heat island’ effect in the city centre. The provision should be maximised and secured by condition.

page 19 Sustainable drainage/surface water run-off (policy 4A.14)

93 The proposal is for the majority of the roof areas to be planted with extensive green roofs that will attenuate the peak rainfall and absorb a small proportion. It is not considered appropriate to collect rainwater from green roofs nor paved landscape, due to problems with contamination from bio-particulates and hydrocarbons respectively. As an alternative, the applicant proposes an investment in water demand reduction measures rather than rainwater harvesting. These measures are in line with the sustainable drainage hierarchy specified in the London Plan and should be secured by an appropriate planning condition.

Water conservation (policy 4A.16)

94 Population growth and the potential for reduced rainfall as result of climate change is expected to put additional pressure on London’s water supply. A hierarchical approach to consumption is therefore required: reduce the demand for water; then aim to use a non-treated source to supply outlets that do not require high quality water, e.g. toilet flushing and gardening.

95 Residential water supply is currently about 122 litres per person per day. The target set out in policy 4A.16 is to achieve an average water use of 105 litres/person/day, while metering all new supplies. Work by the Environment Agency suggests this can be reduced further to 92 litres per person per day without significant lifestyle changes.

96 The applicant proposes to achieve an appropriate reduction by: • Installing 4/6 litre dual-flush WCs, with siphons to reduce leakage, as standard. • Installing taps and showerheads designed to reduce hot water demand. • Fitting all dwellings with an individual water meter for revenue charging. • Housing association to provide low water use domestic appliances, or incentives for responsible purchasing. • Installing infrared sensing taps in the commercial areas of the scheme.

Sustainable design and construction

97 To maximise the effectiveness of the design, the client has appointed a licensed BREEAM assessor to advice the design team and assesses the performance of buildings against a range of sustainability criteria; including the sourcing and use of materials, recycling and waste management.

98 It is also proposed to achieve the minimum target of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes in accordance with the Housing Corporation’s revised ‘Scheme Development Standard’. This is the minimum required for the corporation to fund a registered social landlord. Ambient noise

99 There are several potentially significant noise and vibration impacts that could arise from this development. These are: high levels of railway noise and vibration from the railway tracks that abut the site on three sides, construction noise, and their potential impact on the high-density residential development proposed.

100Clearly, the facades of the development nearest the railway lines could be subjected to undesirably high levels of noise. Although it is not unusual to permit development in London in such cases, London Plan policy 4A.20 requires that noise-sensitive developments should be

page 20 separated from major sources of noise wherever practicable. The preferred remedy is for habitable rooms to be placed on quieter facades, or where this is not possible, for sound insulation to be incorporated within the development. Given the London Plan policy, it would be strongly preferable to avoid placing habitable rooms on the noisiest facades and further consideration should be given to how this could be achieved. It is essential that to enable this, an acoustic study be undertaken in accordance with PPG 24, to determine how railway (and road traffic) noise will impact the residential elements of the development and to propose mitigation in line with the above, before consent is granted. This is in line with the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy.

101 Irrespective of the above, where external noise levels are such that windows need to be kept closed to achieve acceptable internal noise levels, some form of acoustically attenuating ventilation needs to be provided as an alternative to opening the windows. This should enable a positive flow of air – ideally using a system such as a passive stack, rather than energy consuming mechanical ventilation. Suitable glazing and ventilation should be required by condition.

102Demolition and construction noise and vibration cannot be predicted in detail at this stage of the planning process, but given the scale of the development and the proximity of sensitive receptors could at times cause adverse impacts without mitigation.

103A range of measures is likely to be required to address both construction noise and vibration impacts. Wandsworth Council has powers under the Control of Pollution Act to agree or impose limits on the hours of work and noise and vibration levels. It should be possible, with these measures, to reduce the impacts to acceptable levels.

104The Council should ensure that the applicant submits a comprehensive noise assessment report, including proposals to implement appropriate attenuation measures, prior to any further referral of this scheme to the Mayor.

Access/social inclusion

105London Plan policy 4B.5 aims to achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion at the planning application stage of development. It requires the submission of design and access statements to demonstrate that the design process has, from the outset, considered how everyone, including disabled and deaf people, older people, children and young people, would be able to use the accommodation and spaces proposed.

106Buro Happold Inclusive Design and SMC Alsop have prepared an access statement to demonstrate how inclusive design elements would be integrated into the Putney Place development. In terms of accessing the site, East Putney Station does not have step-free access. Visitors with impaired mobility have to rely on alternative means of reaching the site. The access statement identifies the potential for an additional pedestrian crossing or raised shared surface across Upper Richmond Road to connect the pedestrian route through the site, beyond its north- eastern boundary and across the railway bridge. For those arriving by car, a two-way access would be available off Upper Richmond Road, extending into a 32-space basement car park, of which five (16%) would be accessible. A one-way taxi pick-up and drop-off loop would be integrated into the site access, but there is no mention of secure storage or charging facilities in the basement for residents who use a mobility scooter.

107No gradients across the site would be greater than 1:21; main entrances into the retail, restaurant and residential parts of the building would comprise a set of double-leaf outward swinging doors with level surface approach. Only the office entrance and a retail/restaurant entrance on the south-facing elevation of 1 Putney Place would be fitted with automatic sliding doors.

page 21 108The access statement confirms that the internal layouts of all the residential units would be designed to Lifetime Homes standard, and a minimum of 10% of the units would conform to the Wheelchair Housing Design Guide. The communal corridors of the flats would be 1500 mm wide, though a number of ‘passing places,’ where widths increase to 1800 mm, would be provided at certain intervals to enable two wheelchair users pass each other in opposite directions.

109In No.1 Putney Place, the wheelchair housing would comprise one and two-bedroom apartments on floors 4-23 and the two three-bedroom penthouses on the 24th floor. For No. 2 Putney Place, a mixture of one two and three-bedroom apartments would meet wheelchair standards. It is proposed that the fifth floor should consist entirely of wheelchair units, though the largest number of mixed-sized wheelchair units would be located on the first to fourth floors. A two-bedroom wheelchair apartment would also be provided on each of floors six, nine, ten and fourteen.

110In terms of vertical circulation, 1 Putney Place would contain three cores: a primary office core with two lifts (basement to third floor); a secondary office core with staircase; and a residential core, with two residential and fire-fighting lifts (basement to penthouse level, including office floors)- a third lift would provide access to an upper floor restaurant. No 2 Putney Place would be a single core building with two residential and fire-fighting lifts. The lifts (1100 mm x 2000 mm) would have unobstructed landings (1500 mm x 1500 mm) and be suitable for wheelchair users to use independently. The access statement confirms that an emergency evacuation strategy for disabled people would be devised in conjunction with the fire strategy and management policies, with specific reference to the good practice recommendations in B.S.5588: Parts 5 and 12.

111It appears, however, that the access statement is focussed more on ambulant disabilities and less on sensory impairments such as blind or deaf people. Some additional information on this would be useful. Transport for London’s comments

Transport assessment & trip generation

112In order to assess whether the application complies with London Plan policy 3C.2 (Matching development with transport capacity), TfL requests an updated schedule of proposed uses as the documents provided are inconsistent regarding the quantum of development. TfL notes that the real level of trip generation and the resulting impact on footways and Underground network could be substantially higher than has been assessed, depending on the actual quantum of development proposed.

Car parking

113It is understood that a total of 32 car parking spaces will be provided in the basement of the development for residents only. 5 of these spaces will be allocated to disabled users and located around the lifts to the two building cores; these should be made available to on-site staff as well as residents. The developers have also offered some of the car parking spaces for car club vehicles, which would be welcomed. Given the high PTAL and location of the development, this restraint- based approach to car parking is supported by TfL and is in line with London Plan policy 3C.23 (Parking strategy).

Highways

page 22 114Access to the site for cars is proposed from Upper Richmond Road using the existing access at the southwest corner of the site, whilst delivery and servicing vehicles would access the northeast corner of the site from Woodlands Way. TfL supports these arrangements as all vehicles would enter and leave the TLRN in forward gear, thereby reducing traffic disruption and improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

London Underground

115An assessment of physical capacity within East Putney Underground station has been provided; TfL accepts that the expected increase in station users from this development would not overwhelm the station facilities.

116However, TfL remains concerned that the increase in passengers, particularly those headed northbound in the morning peak, will prevent passengers further up the line from being able to board trains. To help mitigate this impact and therefore comply with London Plan policy 3C.2, TfL requests that the residential and workplace travel plans focus on and strongly encourage travel by walking, cycling, and bus.

Buses

117TfL considers the expected impact on local bus services as a result of this development to be acceptable.

Cycling

118Advisory cycle lanes have recently been implemented on Upper Richmond Road directly outside the site. National Cycle Network routes 4 and 20 run within 1 kilometre of the site, with additional local routes available in the area.

119A total of 370 parking spaces are proposed on the site, of which 350 would be secure internal storage and 20 would be provided at ground level for visitors to the site, which is welcomed. This level of provision exceeds TfL’s cycle parking standards and is therefore in line with London Plan policy 3C.22.

120In order to support cycling as a realistic mode of transport in line with London Plan policy 3C.22 (Improving conditions for cycling), showers and changing facilities should be provided within the office/retail elements of the proposal.

Walking

121TfL welcomes the proposal’s intention to improve pedestrian connections, particularly between East Putney station and Disraeli Road. However, TfL is concerned that the proposals would generate a significant increase in pedestrians wanting to cross Upper Richmond Road directly across from East Putney station, where there is presently no crossing. The applicants have proposed a new pedestrian crossing in this location; however, there are two existing crossings in close proximity and a third would be unacceptable given the strategic nature of Upper Richmond Road. In order to determine an acceptable balance between pedestrian needs and the requirement to keep traffic movement, a study will need to be undertaken that can determine a way forward, which should be funded by the developer. This would help bring the proposals in line with London Plan policies 3C.1 (Integrating transport and development), 3C.3 (Sustainable transport in London), 3C.19 (Local transport and public realm enhancements), and 3C.21 (Improving conditions for walking).

Travel Plans

page 23

122The measures identified in the residential travel plan are generally thorough and suitable for the residential portion of the development, although clarification is requested regarding the car club proposals. TfL also requests the provision of showering / changing / locker facilities for office and retail staff. Further work is needed on targets, objectives, marketing, funding, and monitoring. TfL can provide additional detailed comments regarding the changes necessary to bring the residential travel plan into compliance with London Plan policy 3C.2.

123No workplace travel plan has been submitted as part of this application. In line with London Plan policy 3C.2, a workplace travel plan developed in line with TfL’s workplace travel planning guidance will be required. Due to existing pressures on the London Underground network, TfL requests that this focus particularly on promoting walking, cycling, and bus travel to employees.

124TfL requires both travel plans to be iTRACE compliant and secured, enforced, monitored and reviewed as part of the Section 106 agreement.

Delivery and Servicing Plan

125TfL will require the preparation of a delivery and servicing plan (DSP), which should seek to minimise the impact of servicing activity on the local road network, particularly the A205 Upper Richmond Road. The DSP must be submitted to and agreed by TfL prior to first occupation of the development in order to comply with London Plan policy 3C.25 (Freight strategy). TfL requests that the borough secure the development and implementation of the DSP as part of the Section 106 agreement.

Construction Logistics Plan

126TfL will require the preparation of a construction logistics plan (CLP), which should seek to minimise the impact of construction traffic on nearby TLRN and SRN roads, particularly the A205 Upper Richmond Road. This should also take the likely cumulative construction movements of any other nearby developments into consideration and investigate the use of the river to transport construction materials. The CLP must be submitted to and approved by TfL before construction works begin in order to comply with London Plan policy 3C.25. TfL requests that the borough secure the development and implementation of the CLP as part of the Section 106 agreement.

Section 106 contributions

127The applicants have proposed to provide a street crossing directly in front of East Putney station and improvement works to the station forecourt. There are numerous demands for space in the forecourt and on the footways on Upper Richmond Road, including servicing and emergency access to the station, pedestrian movements, existing businesses, cycle parking, and a potential pedestrian crossing. TfL also has a duty to ensure that road traffic moves efficiently along the TLRN, and this must be balanced with the above demands in this area. TfL proposes that a study be undertaken which would include all necessary modelling works and gain stakeholder requirements, generate recommendations and options for a high-quality public realm scheme for the area.

128This study is expected to cost in the region of £75,000; TfL, therefore, requests that the developer fund this, in order to help mitigate the impacts of the development. Pending the outcome of the study, TfL expects that one crossing would need to be installed, at a cost of £200,000, and that at least one crossing would have to be removed at a cost of £100,000 each. TfL expects the applicants to make a S106 contribution towards works that may be required as a result of the study and wish to discuss this with the applicants at the earliest opportunity.

page 24 Summary

129In summary, TfL has concerns about the development proposals and requires further information and mitigation before this application could be supported. Additional information is required regarding the quantum of development being proposed as part of this application. A construction logistics plan, delivery and servicing plan, and workplace and residential travel plans will be required and should be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement. Finally, £75,000 is requested to fund a study for improvements to the area, and a further contribution will be expected in order to help implement any necessary works.

London Development Agency’s comments

130In principle this mixed-use development is supported as it contributes to the vibrancy and vitality of this part of the Putney town centre. The Economic Development Strategy for London supports this application, as it seeks to support the delivery of the London Plan, to promote sustainable growth and economic development.

131The Agency welcomes the provision of business class employment uses as well as other commercial uses within this residential led scheme. As outlined in policy 3B.1 of the London Plan the Wandsworth Council should seek a range of different types, sizes and costs of B1 office space to meet the needs of the different sectors of the local business community specifically small to medium size businesses as well as micro businesses. The proposal represents a loss of employment floorspace from 7,600 sqm to 3,439 sq.m. which, although largely vacant, are occupied by existing businesses that probably cannot be re-accommodated within the scheme as proposed. The Agency therefore asks that the applicant to submit a local relocation strategy and to clarify the existing position. In light of the evidence presented by the applicant, as outlined in paragraphs 19 to 25 of this report, the principle of a net loss of employment space is welcomed given that the site has been left semi-vacant for a number of years and that it has been actively marketed by CB Richard Ellis during that period.

132The Council should be satisfied that there will not be an overall deficiency in community facilities as a result of the number of households this proposal will deliver. Should there be a need for additional social facilities as a result of this proposal, the developer should be asked to contribute to the provision of any additional infrastructure required as part of the negotiations for a section 106 agreement.

133In accordance with London Plan policy 3B.11 and objectives set out in the Mayors Economic Development Strategy, the Council should seek to ensure that local residents and businesses benefit from jobs created by this proposal. Initiatives to create training and employment opportunities for local people and address other barriers to employment should be formalised through a Section 106 agreement. This should also include local opportunities for residents and businesses during construction as well as within the completed development as appropriate, including the supply of goods and services and sub-contracting. The LDA recommends that a training and employment strategy be produced to address the issues raised above.

134The LDA would welcome a discussion with the Wandsworth Council with regard to the above issues as and when appropriate. Subject to the resolution of other issues raised in this report the LDA supports this application in principle.

Comments from local residents

page 25 135Four objection letters (including one signed by three residents) were addressed directly to the Mayor. The objections were on grounds that:

• The excessive height and density of the buildings were out of scale with the surrounding area and Putney as a whole.

• The proposal would dominate the skyline and would lead to overlooking and overshadowing of homes in Disraeli Road, Fawe Park Road and Woodlands Court.

• The scheme and its inadequate parking would add to traffic congestion on the South Circular Road.

• The development would place undue pressure on local infrastructure, especially schools, health care facilities and buses.

• The use of Woodlands Way to service the site and the likelihood that the public uses would serve as a magnet for congregating youth, raise safety concerns for pedestrians using the area, especially at night. Local planning authority’s position

136Wandsworth Council officers propose to report this application to their planning committee on 6 November 2008, but had not decided what recommendation to make at the time of writing. Legal considerations

137Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

138There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

139On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan in respect of the affordable housing provision, children’s playspace, energy, ambient noise, access provisions and transport. 140The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

• Submission of a housing toolkit appraisal to assess the financial viability of the scheme and to justify the low provision of affordable housing.

page 26 • Confirmation as to whether a registered social landlord has been secured, how the proposed sheltered housing would be managed and whether a housing grant has been sought.

• Confirmation of firm proposals to meet the shortfall in children’s playspace required as part of this development.

• GLA officers would welcome further discussions with the applicant and the Council on the scale and design of the tower buildings.

• Address the energy issues raised in paragraphs 44 to 57 of this report.

• Submission of a noise assessment report to address the issues raised in paragraphs 70 to 75 of this report.

• Provision of further details in respect of the access provisions for disabled people (e.g . secure storage or charging facilities for residents who use a mobility scooter, and the provisions made for people with sensory impairments) as described in paragraphs 76-82 of this report.

• A full response to each of the issues raised by Transport for London, as outlined in paragraphs 83-100 above.

• Address the employment and training issues identified by the London Development Agency in paragraphs 101-105 of this report.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Frameworks) 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] David Blankson-Hemans, Senior Strategic Planner (case officer) 020 7983 4268 email [email protected]

page 27