PDU Case Report XXXX/Yydate
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report PDU/0704b/02 1 July 2009 Woodberry Down Estate in the London Borough of Hackney planning application no. 2008/1050 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 Outline planning permission to provide 4,664 residential units, 30,000 sq.m. education, health and community facilities, 3,144 sq.m. business use, 5,194 sq.m. retail units, provision of open space and landscaping, remodelling of Seven Sisters Road and site access points; and car parking. The applicant The applicant is Hackney Homes Ltd, and the architects are Matrix Partnerships and Shepheard Epstein Hunter. Strategic issues The issues raised regarding inclusive design, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and transport have all been satisfactorily addressed. Recommendation That 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 direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 5 June 2008 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. This was referred to the Mayor under under the following Categories of the Schedule of the Order 2008: • 1A (a) “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”. • 1B (c) “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…outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres”. page 1 • 1C (c) “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London”. • 3A (a) “Development which is likely to result in the loss of more than 200 houses, flats, or houses and flats (irrespective of whether the development would entail also the provision of new houses or flats).” • 3F “Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the provision of more than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use”. 2 On 15 July 2008 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0704b/01, and subsequently advised Hackney Council that the application broadly complies with the London Plan, but that further information is required to address current deficiencies, as detailed in paragraph 82 of that report. 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. On 16 October 2008 Hackney Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, and on 19 June 2009 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 Hackney Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Hackney 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 2 July 2009 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 consultation stage Hackney Council was advised that the application complied with the London Plan, but that further information is required to address current deficiencies, as detailed in paragraph 82 of that report: • Access: The applicant was required to include inclusive design principles within the masterplan and design codes documents. • Climate change and mitigation: The applicant was required to submit a revised energy strategy, which reflects the previously agreed strategy. • Due to the outline nature of the proposals, the Council was required to adequately secure the agreed housing schedule, the design code and masterplan documents, which include the proposals for play facilities, and the final agreed energy strategy. 7 Following a series of discussions between GLA officers and the Council, revised masterplan and design codes documents were produced which included inclusive design principles. The revisions are strongly supported and address the issue raised at consultation stage. In addition, the Council has amended the energy strategy to reflect that previously agreed. The final masterplan energy strategy accords with London Plan energy policies and is to be highly commended. page 2 8 The Council has confirmed that appropriate measures to secure the parameters of the masterplan will be included within the conditions attached to the final grant of planning permission and the legal agreement. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority 9 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation which satisfactorily addresses that matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Transport for London 10 Since consultation stage, TfL has been working with the Council to resolve outstanding matters such as trip generation and distribution, and highway modelling so that the impact of the proposals on the Transport for London Road Network can be fully understood. Subject to formal notification under the Traffic Management Act 2004, TfL supports the principle of reducing Seven Sisters Road from six to four lanes in view of the regeneration benefits of the scheme in terms of improved public realm and connectivity. The applicant will be responsible for delivering the road scheme and accordingly will be required to enter into a section 278 agreement with TfL. The Council has agreed to include this requirement in the draft grant of planning permission. It should be noted that TfL is not responsible for the funding of this project. 11 TfL is satisfied that other transport aspects associated with the masterplan are acceptable and that necessary planning conditions or section 106 heads of terms have been secured. Planning conditions will cap parking levels to an average of no more than 0.473 spaces per residential unit, with distribution related to public transport accessibility levels. Cycle parking has been increased to 5,182 residential spaces, with 263 commercial spaces. A quiet route for cyclists as an alternative to a route adjacent to the New River has also been identified. Further details of the extended controlled parking zones to be submitted with each subsequent reserved matters applications have been secured by through condition, together with a contribution of £20,000to help fund their implementation. In order to mitigate the impact of the development on the bus capacity network TfL welcomes the contribution of £270,000. TfL expect this contribution to be agreed with the Council either through a sponsored route agreement with London Bus Service Limited, or by an agreed payment to TfL. The contribution will be used by TfL to mitigate the impact on bus services as a result of the additional demand generated by the development. The further development of travel plans has been secured through condition, together with a £20,000 contribution agreed for their monitoring. Response to consultation 12 Hackney Council has provided a detailed summary of representations received, and a response to any objections. This is in addition to the summary included within the committee report. 13 A total of 5,455 notification letters were delivered to all households in and around Woodberry Down. Forty-six objections and 31 letters of support were received. In addition, the Woodberry Down Community Organisation submitted a number of concerns. The objectors raised the following issues: • Housing: no justification for total redevelopment of estate; need to provide replacement shared ownership homes; over-development; insufficient provision of social rented and family units; the delivery of social housing is dependent on the sale of private homes, and no housing allocated for the Jewish, or other communities. page 3 • Design: height of new buildings; loss of sunlight/daylight and overlooking; construction impact; impact of new bridge, and increase in crime due to increase in population. • Transport: oppose narrowing of Seven Sisters Road; inadequate provision of car parking; excessive car parking; impact of construction on traffic flows; inadequate public transport capacity; impact of one-way flow, and need for cycle parking. • Mix of uses: should retain John Scott Health Centre, loss of established Robin Redmond community centre; insufficient cultural provision; should ensure no disruption of leisure centre at the west reservoir, and no demand for new retail. • Open space: loss of, and disturbance to, wildlife along New River and reservoirs, and loss of trees. • Sustainability: should be more renewable technology. 14 The Council has assessed the local issues surrounding loss of daylight and sunlight, overlooking, and construction impacts and has concluded that the proposals would not result in an unacceptable impact, or has included appropriate conditions to the draft grant of planning permission to mitigate any impact. 15 The masterplan application has been the subject of considerable years of discussions between local residents, the Council and GLA officers.