PDU Case Report XXXX/Yydate
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report PDU/0098c/02 17 December 2008 Seager Distillery Site, Deptford in the London Borough of Lewisham planning application no. DC/08/69448 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 The redevelopment of the Seager Buildings site to provide a 27-storey residential tower, part 5 part 6-storey building fronting Brookmill Road, a 5-storey stepped building rising to 11-storeys adjacent to Broadway Fields, a 3-storey courtyard building, 2-storey roof extension on Holland House fronting Deptford Bridge and the retention of International House. Development comprises 207 private residential units, 96 affordable units, 7 live work units and a total of 4,697 sq.m. of commercial floorspace, including a cafe/restaurant, gymnasium, bookshop and art gallery, together with 60 basement car parking spaces, associated motorbike/scooter parking and 393 cycle parking spaces and a viewing gallery. The applicant The applicant is Galliard Homes, and the architect is BUJ Architects. Strategic issues The principle of this residential led mixed-use development is supported. The design is of an acceptable standard and the housing mix and energy strategy proposed are acceptable. The outstanding issues relating to affordable housing, energy, transport and flood risk that were raised at Stage I have been resolved. Recommendation That Lewisham 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 refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 8 August 2008 the Mayor of London received documents from Lewisham 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 Category 1A and 1C: 1A: ”Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats or houses and flats.” 1C “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of more than 30 metres high outside the City of London.” page 1 2 On 15 September 2008 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0098c/01, and subsequently advised Lewisham Council that the application complied with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 79 of the above-mentioned report but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 81 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. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 27 November 2008 Lewisham Council agreed a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed by 19 December 2008, for the revised application, and on 5 December 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, direct Lewisham Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Lewisham Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 18 December 2008 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 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. 5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 6 At the consultation stage Lewisham Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 79 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 81 of that report could address these deficiencies. 7 The Stage I report set out the following strategic issues: “The principle of this residential led mixed-use development is supported. The design is of an acceptable standard and the housing mix and energy strategy proposed are acceptable. There are outstanding detailed issues relating to affordable housing, energy, transport and flood risk.” 8 The following remedies to address the deficiencies set out in the report were suggested: • Urban Design: Submission of further views from Assessment Point 6A.1 should be submitted and the materials and access standards should be secured by condition. • Blue Ribbon Network: agreement of the Environment Agency to the revised flood risk assessment and sustainable urban drainage measures. • Energy: Further consideration of incorporation of PV and clarification on the change in carbon dioxide emissions. • Transport: contribution to urban realm improvements for pedestrians and cyclists; contribution to upgrade bus-stops; contribution to improvements to the DLR; amendments to the travel plan; and the provision of a construction logistics plan. page 2 • Employment and training: increase the s 106 contribution to reflect the increase in floorspace. Urban design 9 The Stage I report concluded the following on design: “The design of the scheme has significantly improved from the refused scheme particularly in terms of the use of materials and access to the neighbouring open space. Subject to the submission of further views from Assessment Point 6A.1 and confirmation that there is no impact on this view together with the inclusion of conditions to secure the quality of materials and the access standards the proposal complies with the London Plan in this regard.” 10 Additional visual material has been submitted and the building appears in the southern foreground of the view from Blackheath to St Paul’s but is some way from the geometrically defined corridor. It would not inhibit the ability of the viewer to recognise and appreciate the strategic landmark. The building would appear as part of a series of other tall buildings in the view and would not attract the focus of the viewer. It would not harm the ability to appreciate and understand the view from the principal landmark in the view- St Paul’s. 11 The use of the materials specified in the submitted drawings is conditioned. Any variation from the use of these materials would need to be agreed in writing by the Council prior to the construction of any phase commencing. The provision of 10% wheelchair housing and for all the units to be built to lifetime homes standards is secured by the Section 106 agreement. As such the application now complies with the London Plan in this regard. 12 The applicant was asked to confirm the exact quantum of roof terrace play space provision. This is now confirmed to be 525.5 sq.m. Together with the ground floor amenity space of 718 sq.m. there is therefore a total of 1243.5 sq.m. of child playspace provided within the scheme. This is in excess of the 880 sq.m. target calculated using the methodology in the Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG. Blue ribbon network 13 The Stage I report set out that the Council should ensure that the Environment Agency is satisfied with the revised flood risk assessment and the proposed measures to deal with surface water run-off before granting planning permission for the development. The Environment Agency has stated that it does not object to the proposed development however, the proposed development will only be acceptable if planning conditions are included in the decision notice that require the detailed design of environmental mitigation and enhancements and a suitable Section 106 contribution for enhancements to the River Ravensbourne are agreed. The Environment Agency has also stated that it is satisfied with the flood risk and drainage details that have been provided. Planning conditions that satisfy the concerns of the Environment Agency have been included on the draft decision notice. 14 The Stage I report set out the following with regard to de-culverting the river: “The development includes partial de-culverting through provision of a series of small terraces along part of the riverside. A riverside path is provided along the length of the development site. Whilst these measures are supported, the applicant should justify why it is not possible to increase the amount of de-culverting currently proposed in order to provide increased enhancement of biodiversity.” page 3 15 It has not been possible to naturalise the river along the site due to the location of the proposed buildings. The applicant has justified why the buildings cannot be resited. The applicant has agreed to undertake works within Broadway Fields, adjacent to the site, and a strip of 8m was left within the park during the recent refurbishment to allow for sufficient room to undertake the works. 16 The applicant has submitted proposals to the Council and the Environment Agency for consideration along with costings. These proposals involve: • Removal of the concrete channel on the eastern side of the river. • Fendering along the length of the existing wall to encourage birds. • Timber balks bolted onto the river bed to encourage aquatic invertebrates and fish. • Along the wider southern part of the site, stepped terraces would be introduced into the river wall to compensate for the additional timber features added to the river volume and to mitigate the risk of flooding.