PDU Case Report XXXX/YY Date
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report GLA/4463a/02 26 November 2018 Britannia Leisure Centre, Shoreditch in the London Borough of Hackney planning application no. 2018/0926 Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The proposal Hybrid planning application for the demolition of existing leisure centre and redevelopment of the site to provide a secondary school, a replacement leisure centre and an ‘Early Years Centre’ and up to 481 residential units, within 6 blocks of three to 25 stories The applicant The applicant is Hackney Council and the architects are Faulkner Browns Architects and Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios. Key dates Stage 1 considered: 22 May 2018 Hackney Council Planning Committee: 5 November 2018 Strategic issues Affordable housing: It is proposed to provide 19% affordable housing, comprising 60% affordable rent and 40% shared ownership, which was considered to be unacceptable in isolation at consultation stage; however, it was noted that it was cross-subsidising the provision of a secondary school and a replacement leisure centre. Since consultation stage, the applicant has illustrated the ‘equivalent’ affordable housing of the school and the leisure centre, which shows that the school is broadly equivalent to 20% affordable housing and the leisure centre to 25% affordable housing. Taken together with the actual affordable housing offer, it could be said that the proposals, in financial terms, are equivalent to the provision of 64% affordable housing. In this instance, whilst the affordable housing offer is not acceptable in isolation, when considered as part of the wider package of social infrastructure benefits, the proposals are, on balance, acceptable. Further, early and late stage reviews have been secured, with the late stage review ensuring that 100% of any surplus generated is put back into affordable housing. Other strategic issues raised at consultation stage have been satisfactorily addressed, and appropriate planning conditions and obligations have been secured. The Council’s decision In this instance Hackney Council has resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions. Recommendation Hackney 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 that he is to be the local planning authority. page 1 Context 1 On 27 March 2018, the Mayor of London received documents from Hackney Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. 2 The application is referable under Category 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: • Category 1A: Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats. • Category 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 outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres. • Category 1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London 3 On 22 May 2018, the Mayor considered planning report GLA/4436a/01, and subsequently advised Hackney Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 72 of that report could address these deficiencies. 4 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. On 5 November 2018, Hackney Council (hereafter, the Council) resolved to grant planning permission in accordance with officer’s recommendation, and on 13 November 2018, 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 Hackney Council to refuse planning permission under Article 6, or issue a direction, under Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with Article 7 of the 2008 Order, 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 27 November 2018 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 5 The Mayor’s decision on this case, and the reasons, will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Consultation stage issues summary 6 At the consultation stage, Hackney Council was advised that, whilst the application was broadly supported in strategic planning terms, it did not comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan for the following reasons: • Principle of development: The proposed masterplan-led redevelopment of the site, including up to 481 residential units, a replacement leisure centre, with qualitative improvements to facilities, and a secondary school is strongly supported in principle. • Affordable housing: It is proposed to provide 19% affordable housing, comprising 59% social rent and 41% shared ownership. In isolation, this affordable housing offer is unacceptable. However, it is acknowledged that the residential development is enabling development to cross subsidise the provision of the school and the leisure centre. The applicant’s financial viability assessment will, therefore, be robustly page 2 interrogated by GLA officers. The applicant should confirm whether amending the tenure mix of the present proposal would result in a greater affordable housing offer. • Leisure centre and open space designation: It is proposed to construct the leisure centre on locally designated open space, resulting in a loss of 3,421 sq.m of previously developed open space. The applicant is proposing 3,220 sq.m of new open space to offset this loss. Quantitative and qualitative improvements to leisure facilities are also proposed; however, before the proposals can be considered acceptable in line with London Plan Policy 7.18 and draft London Plan Policy G4, the applicant must explore opportunities to provide an additional 201 sq.m of open space to ensure no net loss and provide details on any proposed community uses of the building. • Urban design: The applicant has engaged positively with GLA officers in both the preapplication and application process, which is welcomed. Notwithstanding this, further information is required on the following: methods to mitigate overlooking into the school grounds; the articulation of the ground floor of blocks H1 and H2; winter views of the scheme; and inclusive access. • Energy: Further information is required on the following: the ‘be lean’ element of the hierarchy; the proposed connection to the adjacent Colville Estate energy network; and the Combined Heat and Power Network. • Transport: The bus trip generation data must be updated with school exit and entry times and provided to TfL. Once this has been provided, TfL will assess whether any mitigation measures are required. A Travel Plan, Outline Construction Logistics Plan and Delivery and Servicing Plan must be secured by condition. Strategic planning and guidance update 7 The revised National Planning Policy Framework was adopted in July 2018, and the Minor Suggested Changes to the draft London Plan were published in August 2018. Update 8 Since the Stage 1, GLA officers have engaged in discussion with the applicant, the Council and TfL to address the outstanding issues. Having regards to this, an assessment against the outstanding strategic issues raised at the consultation stage is set out below. Principle of development 9 The proposed masterplan-led redevelopment of the site, with 481 residential units, a replacement leisure centre and a new secondary school, was strongly supported in principle at consultation stage. Housing 10 At consultation stage, the applicant proposed to provide 19% affordable housing by habitable room, comprised of 59.3% affordable rent and 39.7% intermediate, which was considered to be unacceptable in isolation; however, it was acknowledged that the proposals cross- subsidised a replacement leisure centre and a new secondary school, which limited the ability of the applicant to provide additional affordable housing. The applicant was asked to consider alternative tenure mixes and provide the school and leisure centre as an ‘affordable housing equivalent’. 11 The applicant has subsequently run an alternate appraisal, maintaining all assumptions, to show that were all the affordable units proposed to be shared ownership, the scheme could provide an additional 22 units, equivalent to 5% affordable housing overall. Whilst this would result in a higher ‘headline’ affordable housing offer, GLA officers consider that the proposed offer is preferable due to the mix of tenures proposed and the high number of social rented units, both of page 3 which ensure mixed and balanced communities. In addition, and as set out in the consultation response, prior to the submission of the application, Hackney Council’s cabinet considered various tenure splits and opted to provide a mix of tenures on the site, where affordable rent was prioritised. 12 The applicant has run appraisals to illustrate the