Our ref: APP/l5240/V/17/3174139 Nexus Planning Your ref: Riverside House 2a Southwark Bridge Road London SE1 9HA 3 December 2018 Dear Sirs TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77 APPLICATION MADE BY THORNSETT GROUP AND PURLEY BAPTIST CHURCH LAND AT 1 RUSSELL HILL ROAD, 1-4 RUSSELL HILL PARADE, 2-12 BRIGHTON ROAD, PURLEY HALL, PURLEY BAPTIST CHURCH, BANSTEAD ROAD, 1-9 BANSTEAD ROAD, PURLEY, CR8 2LE APPLICATION REF: 16/02994/P 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of David Nicholson RIBA IHBC, who held a public local inquiry on 9- 17 January 2018 into your client’s application for planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings on two sites; erection of a 3 to 17 storey development on the ‘Island Site’ (Purley Baptist Church, 1 Russell Hill Road, 1-4 Russell Hill Parade, 2-12 Brighton Road, Purley Hall), comprising 114 residential units, community and church space and a retail unit; and a 3 to 8 storey development on the ‘South Site’ (1-9 Banstead Road) comprising 106 residential units, and associated landscaping and works, in accordance with application ref: 16/02994/P, dated 20 May 2016. 2. On 12 April 2017, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your client’s application be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that planning permission be granted. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He has decided to refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1626 Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Procedural matters 5. At the time of the Inquiry the Local Plan had not been adopted. Having been informed that the adoption would probably take place before the submission of his report, the Inspector asked parties to make their closing submissions on this basis to avoid seeking further comments. The Council subsequently confirmed the adoption of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (Croydon LP) on 27 February 2018. The Secretary of State does not consider that the subsequent adoption of the Croydon LP raises any matters that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision on this application and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been prejudiced. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 6. On 30 July 2018, the Secretary of State wrote to the main parties to afford them an opportunity to comment on the publication of the new National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”). These representations were circulated to the main parties on 13 August 2018. A list of representations received since the inquiry closed is at Annex A. Those received in response to the circulation of 13 August 2018 were not circulated as the Secretary of State did not consider that they raised any further matters which might affect the decision. However, they are now attached to this letter for completeness. 7. The Secretary of State is satisfied that no other new issues were raised in this correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. Copies of all the letters referred to at Annex A may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy and statutory considerations 8. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 9. In this case the development plan includes the London Plan 2016 and the Croydon LP referred to in paragraph 5 above. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR3.2-3.14. 10.Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the Framework and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as the London Mayor’s A City for all Londoners (October 2017) and the Housing White Paper: Fixing our broken housing market (February 2017). The revised Framework was published on 24 July 2018, and unless otherwise specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the revised Framework. 11. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 2 Main issues Character and appearance 12.Having carefully considered the Inspector’s findings at IR15.3-15.8, the Secretary of State disagrees that, for most of the scheme, the overall standard of design can be described as being sufficiently high to merit substantial weight (IR15.7). While the Secretary of State agrees that the standard of design for parts of the scheme is more than acceptable, particularly some of the lower elements, he has some serious concerns around design, as discussed in the next paragraph. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector (IR15.7) that compared with the existing situation, some lower elements of the scheme would provide an enormous lift to the appearance of the area. He further agrees that it is clear that the tower would stand out as a marker of the road junction and the start of the town centre (IR15.8). However, he disagrees with the Inspector that this necessarily amounts to good urban planning and attributes limited weight to this aspect. Design 13.Having carefully considered the Inspector’s reasoning at IR15.9-15.11, the Secretary of State does not agree with him that, taken in the round, the proportions of the tower would be of a high standard of design (IR15.11) and, in particular, he has serious concerns about the height of the tower in this location. Although the Secretary of State acknowledges that LP policy DM42.1 refers to the potential within Purley District centre for “a new landmark of up to a maximum of 16 storeys” (IR15.12), he notes that not only would the current proposal exceed that maximum height but the table 11.10 of the LP is not site specific and no specific justification has been given in either the LP or the application to support the height of this site as proposed, having regard to its relationship with the existing built urban form. 14.The Secretary of State also has concerns about the quality of some of the elements of the design of the South Site proposals which fail to meet the high standards required of a scheme on the site and in proximity to adjoining neighbours with a significantly lower density. The built form, proportions, composition and use of materials of the frontage facing on Banstead Road is unsympathetic to the existing adjoining buildings and the north-west elevation is a featureless elevation that impacts on adjoining owners. There are also a number of single aspect homes that face north east, in conflict with the GLA requirements. The Secretary of State therefore considers that, if the scheme were to proceed, more attention should be given to that aspect. Overall, therefore, while the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector in principle that the scheme would improve the current public realm in accordance with LP Policies SP4.5-SP4.10, he considers that this could have been achieved in a way which paid greater respect to the character of the area and he gives substantial weight against the scheme to this factor. 15.The Secretary of State therefore does not consider that the design of the proposal is of ‘exceptional quality’ as required by LP Policy DM15c nor that it incorporates ‘the highest standards of architecture..’ as required by London Plan Policy 7.7C(e). Rather, whilst he considers that the design of some elements is more than acceptable, he has concerns about the poor design of the South Side proposals and the intrusive height and proportions of the tower and attributes this 3 substantial weight against the proposal. Overall, he considers that the proposal is not in accordance with relevant policies in the development plan. Heritage assets 16.The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR15.17–15.19. He agrees with the Inspector that, in regard to the listed Purley Library, the proposed alterations to the public realm at ground level would amount to both a heritage and a public benefit (IR15.18). However, he further agrees that the presence of the tower would distract from the enjoyment of the facades and civic presence of the library, and cause harm to this heritage asset and this weighs against the proposal (IR15.19). The Secretary of State therefore does not agree that the proposal would comply with LP Policy SP4.13 overall and he considers that the proposal would not comply with LP Policies DM15d, DM18.1 and DM18.2. The Inspector considers that the degree of harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial (IR15.19), but the Secretary of State, for the reasons set out above and having had regard to paragraphs189-197 of the Framework, considers the degree of harm to be of a higher magnitude, at the upper end of less than substantial, and that this would be a further contributory factor against the scheme.