Magistrates Court, 70 Horseferry Road in the City of Westminster Planning Application No

Home , Horseferry Road

planning report PDU/2501a/02 2 May 2012 Magistrates Court, 70 Horseferry Road in the City of Westminster planning application no. 12/00258/FULL

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 Demolition of the Magistrates Court and erection of an eleven-storey residential building comprising 132 units.

The applicant The applicant is Barrett West London and the architect is GRID.

Strategic issues The Mayor previously raised issues relating housing, urban design, inclusive design, and transport. These matters have now been largely resolved and the proposed application is, on balance, acceptable in strategic planning policy terms.

The Council’s decision

In this instance Westminster Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Westminster City 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

1C: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building… that is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London. “

2 On 3 April 2012 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2501a/01, and subsequently advised Westminster City Council that the application did not comply with the

page 1 London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 79 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 80 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 19 April 2012 Westminster City Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 30 April 2012 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 Westminster City Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Westminster City Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application. The Mayor has until to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

5 At the consultation stage Westminister Council was informed that the application did not comply with the London Plan for the following reason:

 Principle of development: The applicant has provide sufficient information to establish that the court facilities have been re-provided on another site and therefore the principle of redeveloping this site for another use is accepted. The application complies with London Plan Policy 3.16.

 Housing: Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan affordable housing policy.

 Children’s playspace: Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan Policy 3.6.

 Urban design: Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan Policy.

 Inclusive design: The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 7.2.

 Climate change: The carbon dioxide savings exceed the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan.

 Transport: Further information and a reduction in the level of car parking are required to ensure the application complies with London Plan transport policy.

6 However, the consultation report stated that the following changes might remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Housing: The applicant is required to justify the reduction in the amount of affordable housing offered and is required to submit a viability assessment.

 Children’s playspace: The applicant should provide further information regarding the design of the playspace. The Council may wish to secure a contribution towards off-site play provision.

page 2  Urban design: The applicant is required to provide additional information and justification regarding the impacts on Tufton and Romney Streets, the lack of direct street access for ground floor units, the proportion of single aspect units. The applicant is also required to provide additional visualisations showing the materiality of the building in its context.

 Inclusive design: The applicant is required to reconsider the ground floor layout and the use of a platform lift to address level changes.

 Transport: The application should provide a draft construction logistics plan and make the required changes to the Travel Plan, including, measures to reduce car use and parking. The Council should secure the electric vehicle charging points, the level of cycle parking and the construction logistics plan by condition. Housing

7 At the consultation stage the applicant was required to justify the reduction in the amount of affordable housing offered from the pre-application meeting and it was required to submit a viability assessment if the level of affordable housing was not increased.

8 It was accepted at the consultation stage that the level of affordable housing and the principle of off-site provide has been largely established by the extant permission on the site, which was not referable to the Mayor. The extant permission was for 60 affordable units off-site at Seymour Place. The applicant subsequently purchased an adjoining site, which will deliver an additional six units. Due to the strong link between this site and the wider scheme, Westminster City Council required the applicant to provide two of these additional six units as affordable housing. Furthermore, due to the uplift in floorspace proposed in comparison with the extant permission, Westminster City Council requires one of the remaining four units to become affordable housing and at the consultation stage the applicant offered two of the units as additional affordable housing, bring the total number of affordable housing units up to 64 units.

9 However, during discussion with the applicant at the pre-application stage the applicant stated that it intend to provide 66 affordable units, and officers stated that given the precedent set by the previous application, the small uplift in floorspace and the fact that the applicant was offering all four units as affordable the GLA would not expect a viability assessment to be submitted with the application in this instance.

10 The applicant has now agreed to increase the level of affordable housing and will provide 66 affordable units as agreed at the pre-application stage and this is welcomed. Children’s playspace

11 At the consultation stage, the applicant was required to provide further information regarding the design of the playspace to ensure that the courtyard functions well as both an amenity space and as a children’s playspace.

12 The applicant has now provided further detailed information regarding the design of the courtyard which demonstrates the space can be used successfully by both adults and for play and how these uses will relate to one another. The application now complies with London Plan Policy 3.6. Urban design

13 At the consultation stage the applicant was required to provide additional information and justification regarding the impacts on Tufton and Romney Streets, the lack of direct street access

page 3 for ground floor units, the proportion of single aspect units. The applicant was also required to provide additional visualisations showing the materiality of the building in its context.

14 The applicant has now provided additional justification and information regarding the design. With regard to the impact on Tufton Street and Romney Street and the lack of active frontage, the applicant has stated that is has sought to minimise servicing uses at ground floor but some must remain. It states that the street is overlooked by the higher level accommodation within the building and by accommodation within Romney House and Lansdale House. This justification is accepted.

15 With regard to the lack of direct access to the ground floor units, the applicant states that due to the flood level and the requirement for raised accommodation, steps would be required in the ground units which would not be in line with the requirements of lifetime homes standards to provide step-free access to residential units. It continues it would also impact on the basement area beneath the entrances, making those areas of the basement unusable.

16 The typology of this residential development, which will be a highly managed with a central entrance and concierge service, does not fit within the traditional typolologies considered within the Housing Design Guide. Therefore, whilst the principle of direct access to ground floor units is the favoured, in this instance, given the nature of the residential product and the concerns regarding level access, the applicant’s approach is accepted.

17 At the consultation stage the number of single aspect units was raised as a concern. The applicant has stated that the perimeter block design and the chosen typology, with one single entrance and concierge service, necessitates the cores to be located within the internal corners, which leads to double banked corridors in each wing and there for a higher proportion of single aspect units. Whilst the applicant’s justification is understood, it is disappointing that the applicant did not seek reduce the number of single aspect units further. However, on balance, the proposed accommodation is likely to be of very high quality in other aspects, with good levels of daylight and as such the applicant’s approach is accepted in this instance. Inclusive design

18 At the consultation stage the applicant was required to reconsider the ground floor layout and the use of a platform lift to address level changes. Previously the applicant was required to consider a solution involving the use of a double sided passenger lifts rather than platform lifts. The applicant has now stated that this solution would have a detrimental effect on the floor to ceiling heights of the basement car park and that part of the basement car park would become unusable. The applicant states that as the scheme is using the existing basement, it would require a substantial and expensive amount of work to lower the basement.

19 Whilst the use of the platform lift is very disappointing, given the work required to lower the basement level, it is accepted in this instance. Furthermore, whilst not best practice, there will be level access at all times to and from Romney Street. The Council should put in place an appropriate obligation to ensure the platform lift remains in good working order and is repaired swiftly and ensure that level access to and from Romney Street remains a key feature at the detailed design of the courtyard.

20 The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 7.2., but in this instance, given the exceptional circumstances regarding the flood levels and the substantial changes that would be required to the retained basement, this is accepted. Transport

page 4 21 At Stage 1 a reduction in car parking provision was requested, and while this has not been achieved, the borough has secured a parking management plan to ensure only residents of the development will have access to the parking provided, which is ultimately accepted by TfL.

22 In addition, electric vehicle charging points (EVCP), cycle parking provision and a construction and logistics plan (CLP) have all been secured by condition, which is supported.

23 TfL agreed improved targets within the travel plan produced by the applicant, and as such TfL require the plan to be secured either by condition or through the legal agreement, as a separate document from the transport assessment. London Plan policy 6.3, requires the production of a travel plan for such a proposal and as such TfL would expect its inclusion into the drafting of the s106. Response to consultation

24 Westminster City Council consulted 430 local addresses and received ten letters of objection. The Mayor did not receive any representation directly.

25 The main concerns raised in objection to the scheme include the height and massing, residential amenity, impact on the nearby conservation area, loss of trees on Romney Street, lack of consultation, lack of active frontage and retail amenity within the building and density.

26 The Thorney Island Society, a local group, also made a detailed representation objecting to the application. The main concerns raised were the size and quality of the residential accommodation, the scale of the elevations and how this relates to the buildings residential function, the choice of limestone as the main material over brick and its impact on the historical context of the area and the lack of on-site affordable housing.

27 The Westminster Society, another local group, commented on the application but does not object to it. The Society states that further design work may be required on the roof elevations and landscaping.

28 All of the issues raised have been addressed either within this report, the stage I report (PDU/2501a/01) or Westminster City Council’s committee report.

Statutory Consultees

29 Environment Agency – The Environment Agency has stated that the application will only be acceptable if a condition regarding the flood risk assessment. The Council has included this obligations as part of permission. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

30 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 the matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

31 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

page 5 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. Financial considerations

32 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

33 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.

34 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion

35 At the consultation stage, outstanding issues were raised in relation to housing, children’s play space, urban design, inclusive design and transport. As described in this report, these issues have now been largely addressed by the applicant. The application now, on balance, complies with the London Plan.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Gemma Kendall, Case Officer 020 7983 4310 email [email protected]

page 6

planning report PDU/2501a/01 03 April 2012 Magistrates Court, Horseferry Road in the London Borough of Westminster planning application no. 12/00258/FULL

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 proposal Demolition of the Magistrates Court and erection of an eleven-storey residential building comprising 132 units. The applicant The applicant is Barrett West London and the architect is GRID.

Strategic issues The main strategic issue is whether the principle of the redevelopment of this social infrastructure site for residential development is acceptable in strategic planning policy terms. Further information is also required regarding affordable housing, urban design, inclusive design, climate change and transport.

Recommendation

That Westminster City Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 22 February 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Westminster City 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 3 April 2012 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for 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.

2 The application is referable under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

“Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building… that is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London. “

page 7 3 Once Westminster City 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.

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

5 The 0.27 hectare site is located on Horseferry Road, 400 metres west of Lambeth Bridge and the river Thames. The site is located within the Central Activities Zone.

6 It is bound by Romney House, a residential block comprising 169 flats, to the north; the new Home Office building to the west; St Johns Court, a residential block and gardens to the south; and Lansdale house another residential block to the east.

7 The site is currently occupied by an eight-storey brick building which was purpose built as a magistrates court in the 1970s. Her Majesty’s Court Service (HMCS) previously decided to consolidate its court services on a single site and this site is now surplus to requirement.

8 The site fronts onto the B323 Horseferry Road to the south. The west of the site is bordered by the B326 Marsham Street while Romney Street runs along the rear of the site to the north and Tufton Street to the east. All of these roads are part of the borough highway network. The nearest parts of the strategic road network and Transport for London road network are the A3212 Millbank towards Westminster and west of the Horseferry Road junction, 250m east of the site. A number of bus routes operate within reasonable walking distance of the site. In addition, three underground stations including St James Park, Westminster and Pimlico are within close proximity. Cycle super highways 8 is also located close to the site providing links to Wandsworth. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of the site is therefore good to excellent, ranging between 5 to 6a (from a scale of 1 – 6 where 1 is poor and 6 is high).

Details of the proposal

9 The applicant is seeking full planning permission to demolish the existing magistrate’s court and erect a ten-storey residential building comprising 129 residential units with 150 sq.m. fitness suite and underground parking for 130 cars and 170 bicycles.

10 64 affordable housing units will be delivered off-site in lieu of onsite provision and planning permission has already been secured for this at 171&175 Seymour Place. Case history

11 On 28 June 2010 three planning permissions were granted related to this scheme. Two of the permission were a classical and contemporary variations for an eight/nine-storey residential building on the site comprising 144 units (7x studios, 34 x one-beds, 57 x two-beds, 46 x three- beds), 130 car parking spaces in the basement, and 190 cycle-parking spaces. The third application was for 60 affordable units to be delivers off-site at 171 and 175 Seymour place (09/05979/FULL) These application were not referable to the Mayor.

12 In February 2011, planning permission was granted to build a further six units offsite at Seymour Place. Of which two are affordable and four are market units.

13 On 11 August 2011, a pre-application meeting with GLA officers was held.

page 8 Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

14 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG; Affordable Rent draft SPG; draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan  Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13;  Crossrail London Plan; draft Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Climate change London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG

15 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 2011 Westminster Core Strategy and the 2011 London Plan. Principle of development

16 London Plan Policy 3.16 ‘Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure’ states that proposal which would result in a loss of social infrastructure in areas of defined need for that particular type of infrastructure and without realistic proposals for re-provision should be resisted. It goes on to say that on redundant social infrastructure sites, alternative social infrastructure uses for which there is a defined need should be assessed before alternative developments are considered. Paragraph 3.86 of the London Plan lists policing and other criminal justice or community safety facilities as social infrastructure.

17 The principle of residential development on this site is already established by the extant permission and it is understood that HMCS has consolidated its activities onto a single site on Marylebone Road. The applicant states that consequently, the application site was deemed to be surplus to requirements by HMCS and is currently vacant. The applicant also states that the disposal of the site by HMCS directly funded the construction of the new Court building, which are much better suited to the needs of the modern court service.

18 The applicant has provide sufficient information to establish that the court facilities have been re-provided on another site and therefore the principle of redeveloping this site for another use is accepted. The application complies with London Plan Policy 3.16.

page 9

Housing

19 The proposal is for 129 private units. Whilst the extant permission was for 144 private units, the current proposal would result in an uplift of over 1488 sq.m. in floor space. The applicant also has permission for 62 affordable units at a different site, Seymour Road, which are currently under construction. Subsequently, the applicant purchased an adjoining site on Seymour Road that can deliver 6 further affordable units. A comparison of the unit sizes and tenures is set out below.

Horseferry Road (table 1)

Size of units (private) Current proposal Extant permission Studio 8 (6%) 7 (5%) 1-bed 37 (29%) 34 (23%) 2-bed 45 (35%) 59 (41%) 3-bed 39 (30%) 45 (31%) Total 129 (100%) 144 (100) Total floorspace 14,510 sq.m. 13,417 sq.m.

Seymour Place (table 2)

Size of units (affordable) Updated proposal Extant permission 1-bed 18 (28%) 18 (30%) 2-bed 24 (38%) 20 (33%) 3-bed 22 (34%) 22 (36%) Total 64 (100%) 60 (100%)

Affordable housing

20 London Plan Policy 3.11 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 3.12 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 3.12 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.

21 Policy 3.12 is supported by paragraph 3.71, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three

page 10 Dragons’ development control toolkit is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified.

22 The Council’s Policy CS16 ‘Affordable housing’ states “at least 22% of new homes to be affordable homes to 2012, and aim to exceed 30% for the remaining plan period… Proposals for housing developments of either 10 or more additional units or over 1,000 sq.m additional residential floorspace will be expected to provide a proportion of the floorspace as affordable housing.”

23 As part of the extant permission, a separate permission for offsite provision of affordable housing was granted on another court site on Seymour Place. The permission was for 60 units. The applicant has subsequently purchased an adjoining site, which will deliver an additional six units. Due to the strong link between this site and the wider scheme, Westminster Council required the applicant to provide two of these additional six units as affordable housing. Furthermore, due to the uplift in floorspace proposed in comparison with the extant permission, Westminster Council requires one of the remaining four units to become affordable housing. However, the applicant is offering two of the units as additional affordable housing and therefore the applicant does not intend to submit a viability assessment to demonstrate that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being delivered.

24 The Mayor’s Interim Housing SPG states that affordable housing should normally be provided onsite and that it will only be accepted offsite in exceptional circumstances.

25 As the previous scheme was not referable to the Mayor, the GLA was not involved in discussions regarding the level of affordable housing or the principle of off-site provision. However, it is accepted that these have been largely established by the consented scheme. At the pre-application stage the applicant stated that it intend to provide all four the additional units as affordable house, and officers stated that given the precedent set by the previous application, the small uplift in floorspace and the fact that the applicant was offering all four units as affordable the GLA would not expect a viability assessment to be submitted with the application in this instance. However, as the applicant has reduced the number of affordable units offered by two, the applicant is required to justify the reduction in the amount of affordable housing offered and is required to submit a viability assessment.

26 Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan affordable housing policy. The applicant is required to justify the reduction in the amount of affordable housing offered and is required to submit a viability assessment.

Tenure split

27 London Plan Policy 3.13 seeks to ensure that 60% of affordable housing is social housing and 40% is intermediate. The applicant intends to provide 40 social units and 26 intermediate units on the Seymour Place site which equates to a 62.5%/37.5% split. This is well matched with the London Plan Policy.

Mix of units

28 London Plan Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’ states that new developments should offer a range of housing choices, in terms of the mix of housing sizes and types taking account of regional and local level demand.

29 The proposed housing mix for this site is set out in table 1 whilst the affordable housing mix (which is already consented) is set out in table 2. The housing mix for the private units is well balances and the 39 family sized units are particularly welcomed. At the pre-application stage the

page 11 proportion of studios was raised as a concern. Officers therefore support the reduction in the proportion of studios from 10% (13) to 6% (8).

Children’s playspace

30 London Plan Policy 3.6 sets out that “The Mayor and appropriate organisations should ensure that all children and young people have safe access to good quality, well-designed, secure and stimulating play and informal recreation provision.” In developing the proposal further, the applicant should have regard to the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ and calculate the anticipated child population within the development and ensure that, as a minimum, sufficient facilities are provided on-site for the under-five’s.

31 The applicant has calculated the expected child yield of the development to be 29 children, of which 17 are expected to be under five, 8 are expected to be between five and eleven and four are expected to be eleven or older. Therefore, the applicant is expected to provide 290 sq.m. of play space for this site in line with the 10 sq/m/ minimum set out in the Children’s playspace SPG.

32 The applicant is proposing that the 255 sq.m. courtyard be used as a dual purpose amenity space/child play space. This will provide adequate on-site play space for children up to the age of eleven. The applicant is proposing that the children over eleven will be able to use nearby open space. The closest public space to the proposal is St. John’s Garden, 100 metres from the site.

33 The applicant has not yet worked up a design strategy/ playspace strategy for the courtyard. However, it suggests that a water feature may form part of the courtyard. Given the dual use of the space, good design will be paramount to ensure that the courtyard functions well as both an amenity space and as a children’s playspace and the applicant should provide further information regarding the design of the this space. In addition, the Council may wish to secure a contribution towards off-site play provision.

34 Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan Policy 3.6. The applicant should provide further information regarding the design of the playspace. The Council may wish to secure a contribution towards off-site play provision.

Urban design

Layout

35 Of particular relevance to this proposal is London Plan Policy 7.3B that sets out a series of overarching principals to ensure that the design of a development should look to reduce the opportunities for criminal behaviour by maximising activity throughout the day and night, clearly articulating public and private spaces, enabling passive surveillance over public spaces and promoting a sense of ownership and respect; and London Plan Policy 7.1D that sets out the requirement for developments to reinforce or enhance the permeability and legibility of neighbourhoods, so that communities can easily access community infrastructure, commercial services and public transport. This includes the impact that development will have on the quality of surrounding streets and spaces.

36 The scheme proposes a U-shaped building with a small courtyard in the middle. As a full perimeter block does not fit on the site this approach is welcomed, as it provides enclosure over

page 12 the public realm on three sides and has the opportunity to provide overlooking and activity to make the surrounding streets safe and well used.

37 However, as outlined in the pre-application note, the open side of the courtyard looking on to Romney Street raised a number of concerns with regards to the quality of the street and the privacy of the courtyard. These issues have since been addressed through the design of the boundary treatment between the courtyard and street, allowing activity within the development to provide overlooking on to the public realm which will ensure it feels safe and well used. Whilst this does undermine the privacy of courtyard itself, it is the best solution for this constrained site.

38 The pre-application note outlined concern over the negative impact that inactive uses on the ground floor of the proposal will have on the surrounding Tufton and Romney Streets. Further information on how the changes undertaken address this issue is required.

Residential layout

39 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan introduces a new policy on the quality and design of housing developments. Part A of the policy states that housing developments should be of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to the wider environment. Part C of the policy states that new dwellings should generally conform with the dwelling space standards set out in Table 3.3, have adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts. Part E of the policy states that the Mayor will provide guidance on implementation of this policy including on housing design for all tenures. The reasoned justification provides further guidance and explanation. In particular, paragraph 3.32 makes clear that “Securing new housing of the highest quality and protecting and enhancing residential neighbourhoods are key Mayoral priorities”. The Mayor’s draft Housing Design Guide (July 2009) and the draft replacement Housing SPG (December 2011), provides further guidance on the implementation of these policies.

40 All units conform to the minimum space standards set out in the policies above which is welcomed.

41 The scheme proposes that all units are all accessed from a single concierge service that provides access to two vertical circulation cores. This is not in keeping with advice in the London Housing Design Guide, which advises that ground floor units should have direct access from the street, increasing the level of activity and animation on to it. As outlined in the pre-application note, further justification of why this is not provided is required.

42 The pre-application note outlined that if direct entrances are not provided from the street the design of the interface between ground floor units and the street will need to carefully balance the need for achieving a reasonable level of privacy to ground floor units whilst ensuring a good level of overlooking of the public realm. This concern has been addressed through changes to the ground floor plan that avoids privacy sensitive uses being located facing on to the street unless a wide balcony is provided as a privacy buffer.

43 The pre-application note outlined that whilst the raised ground floor of the development is a good way to provide privacy to units facing the street, parapets and sill levels should be kept as low as possible to ensure that the public realm is well overlooked and not flanked by a blank wall.

44 Whilst concern was previously expressed with regards to the number of units served from each core differing from recommendations from the London Housing Design Guide, officers are convinced that as this is an exceptionally high end development, it will be highly managed and this is not a concern.

page 13 45 A large number of units in the proposal are single aspect. Single aspect units are more difficult to ventilate, are more likely to overheat, will usually have rooms with no daylight and are less adaptable. The London Housing Design Guide advises that the number of single aspect units in a proposal should be minimised and evidence of how this was done is still required.

Scale, height and massing

46 London Plan Policy 7.6B sets out the requirement for development to be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances, activates and appropriately encloses the public realm. As outlined in the pre-application note, the proposed development is in keeping with the scale of development in the surrounding area and provides appropriate enclosure over surrounding streets and spaces. Therefore, there is no concern over the design of this aspect of the development.

Appearance

47 Whilst there is no particular concern with regards to the overall appearance of the development, further clarification on its concept and intentions are required. Because of the schemes high density and prominence on the townscape it needs to be of an outstanding architectural quality with only the highest levels of detailing and materials used. Officers are not yet convinced this is the case and realistic visualisations are required that show the materiality of the building in its context.

Summary

48 Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan Policy. The applicant is required to provide additional information and justification regarding the impacts on Tufton and Romney Streets, the lack of direct street access for ground floor units, the proportion of single aspect units. The applicant is also required to provide additional visualisations showing the materiality of the building in its context. Inclusive design

49 Inclusive design principles if embedded into the development and design process from the outset help to ensure that all of us, including older people, disabled and deaf people, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity. The aim of London Plan Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’ and 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, not just the minimum. The applicant should therefore seek to design a scheme that is exemplary in terms of inclusive access. The design and access statement submitted with the application should explain the design rationale behind the application and demonstrate how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific access needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development from the outset and how inclusion will be maintained and managed.

50 The applicant’s commitment for all of the units to meet Lifetime Homes Standards and to provide thirteen wheelchair adaptable units is welcomed. The applicant has demonstrated the location and layout of the proposed accessible units and provided drawings to show that the necessary space is available for the units to be adapted when required.

51 At the pre-application stage the applicant was required to re-consider the use of a platform lift to overcome the level change into the ground floor lobby entrance. Platform lifts are not an inclusive solution and should be avoided in a new building. They are more appropriate in historic

page 14 buildings where access for disabled people cannot be achieved by any other means. At the pre- application stage a solution involving the use of a double sided passenger lifts rather than platform lifts was suggested. The applicant’s access statement considers four alternatives, including the use of a double-side passenger lift but states that the disadvantage of this approach is that there will be a level change between the ground floor apartments and the concierge. This is not considered to be a sufficient reason to justify the use of a platform lift.

52 The applicant has not made the suggested changes and this is disappointing. The applicant is required to reconsider the ground floor layout so that it meets the highest levels of accessibility and inclusion in line with London Plan Policy 7.2.

53 The applicant is providing 13 parking spaces for disabled residents and has included details of the location of the blue badge parking bays and this is welcomed.

54 The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 7.2. The applicant is required to reconsider the ground floor layout and the use of a platform lift to address level changes. Climate change

55 The London Plan climate change policies set out in Chapter 5 collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change, and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. London Plan Policy 4.2 sets out an energy hierarchy for assessing applications, London Plan Policy 5.3 ensures future developments meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, and London Plan Policies 5.9-5.15 promotes and supports effective adaptation to climate change. Further detailed policies on climate change mitigation and adaptation are found throughout Chapter 5 and supplementary guidance is also given in the London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG.

Energy efficiency standards

56 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include energy efficient lighting.

57 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 10 tonnes per annum (6%) in regulated carbon dioxide emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

District heating

58 The applicant has carried out an investigation and there are no existing or planned district heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development. The applicant has, however, provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available.

59 The applicant is proposing to install a site heat network. The applicant has confirmed that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network.

60 The site heat network will be supplied from a single 80 sq.m. energy centre on the ninth floor of the development.

Combined Heat and Power

page 15 61 The applicant if proposing to install 70 kWe gas fired CHP unit as the lead heat source for the site heat network. The CHP is sized to provide the domestic hot water load, as well as a proportion of the space heating.

62 A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 29 tonnes per annum (19%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

Renewable energy technologies

63 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels with an output of 18.2 kWp and an area of approximately 145 sq.m. A drawing has been provided to illustrate the proposed layout of PV panels on the roof.

64 A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 7 tonnes per annum (5%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

Summary

65 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 115 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account.

66 This equates to a reduction of 45 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 28%. The carbon dioxide savings exceed the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. Transport

67 A development of this scale is unlikely to have any significant impact on public transport or highways in this location.

68 The development provides 130 car parking spaces (including 13 disabled parking spaces) for only 129 dwellings. London plan policy 6.13 and the accompanying table 6.2 states that ‘All developments in areas of good public transport accessibility should aim for significantly less than one space per unit’. Therefore the level of car parking proposed is excessive for such an accessible location and a reduction in line with London Plan policy is required. It should also be noted that the previously permitted scheme provided a lower ratio of parking at 0.9 spaces per dwelling.

69 The applicant’s commitment to provide electric vehicle charging points in line with London plan standards is welcomed and this should be secured by condition. The provision of 170 cycle parking spaces is also welcomed, in line with the London Plan standards, and should be secured by condition.

70 In order to manage the impact of the construction phase on the highway network and to accord with London Plan policy 6.14, a construction logistics plan is required. This should be submitted in draft form at the application stage and secured by condition.

71 The content of the submitted travel plan is welcomed but the monitoring surveys should be carried out to a TRAVL compliant standard. It should also include a target to reduce the number of car trips as the current draft endorses no change and is therefore contrary to Mayoral policies promoting a shift from private cars to more sustainable modes. TfL therefore requests that measures are put in place to reduce car use, for example by providing fewer parking spaces as advised above.

page 16 Summary

72 Further information and a reduction in the level of car parking are required to ensure the application complies with London Plan transport policy. The application should provide a draft construction logistics plan and make the required changes to the Travel Plan, including, measures to reduce car use and parking. The Council should secure the electric vehicle charging points, the level of cycle parking and the construction logistics plan by condition. Community Infrastructure Levy

73 In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3, the Mayor of London proposes to introduce a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that will be paid by most new development in Greater London. Following consultation on both a Preliminary Draft, and then a Draft Charging Schedule, the Mayor has formally submitted the charging schedule and supporting evidence to the examiner in advance of an examination in public. Subject to the legal process, the Mayor intends to start charging on 1 April 2012. Any development that receives planning permission after that date will have to pay, including:

 Cases where a planning application was submitted before 1 April 2012, but not approved by then.  Cases where a borough makes a resolution to grant planning permission before 1 April 2012 but does not formally issue the decision notice until after that date (to allow a section 106 agreement to be signed or referral to the Secretary of State or the Mayor, for example),.

74 The Mayor is proposing to arrange boroughs into three charging bands with rates of £50 / £35 / £20 per square metre of net increase in floor space respectively (see table, below). The proposed development is within the London Borough of Westminister where the proposed Mayoral charge is £50 per square metre. More details are available via the GLA website http://london.gov.uk/ .

75 Within London both the Mayor and boroughs are able to introduce CIL charges and therefore two distinct CIL charges may be applied to development in future. At the present time, borough CIL charges for Redbridge and Wandsworth are the most advanced. The Mayor’s CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail.

Mayoral CIL London boroughs Rates charging zones (£/sq. m.) Zone 1 Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hammersmith £50 and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond- upon-Thames, Wandsworth

2 Barnet, Brent, Bromley, Ealing, Greenwich, Hackney, £35 Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Redbridge, Southwark, Tower Hamlets

3 Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Croydon, Enfield, Havering, £20 Newham, Sutton, Waltham Forest

page 17 Local planning authority’s position

76 Westminster Council’s position is unknown. Legal considerations

77 Under 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

78 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

79 London Plan policies on are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Housing: Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan affordable housing policy.

 Children’s playspace: Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan Policy 3.6.

 Urban design: Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan Policy.

 Inclusive design: The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 7.2.

 Climate change: The carbon dioxide savings exceed the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan.

 Transport: Further information and a reduction in the level of car parking are required to ensure the application complies with London Plan transport policy.

80 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan. The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

page 18  Housing: The applicant is required to justify the reduction in the amount of affordable housing offered and is required to submit a viability assessment.

 Children’s playspace: The applicant should provide further information regarding the design of the playspace. The Council may wish to secure a contribution towards off-site play provision.

 Urban design: The applicant is required to provide additional information and justification regarding the impacts on Tufton and Romney Streets, the lack of direct street access for ground floor units, the proportion of single aspect units. The applicant is also required to provide additional visualisations showing the materiality of the building in its context.

 Inclusive design: The applicant is required to reconsider the ground floor layout and the use of a platform lift to address level changes.

 Transport:: The application should provide a draft construction logistics plan and make the required changes to the Travel Plan, including, measures to reduce car use and parking. The Council should secure the electric vehicle charging points, the level of cycle parking and the construction logistics plan by condition.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Gemma Kendall, Case Officer 020 7983 6592 email [email protected]

page 19