planning report PDU/0498b/02 19 January 2011 Silvertown Quays, Royal Docks in the London Borough of Newham planning application no. 10/00860/OUT 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 Application for an extension for implementation of the previously approved scheme 03/2006; an outline application for the redevelopment of the site for mixed-use purposes, including the alteration and conversion of the Millennium Mills and Silo D buildings and the construction of 4930 residential units, 25,290 sq.m. of shop, food, drink, and office floorspace, leisure (including an aquarium), 300 bed hotel, library, school and health centre and public open space. The applicant The applicant is the London Development Agency. Strategic issues The Mayor previously raised a series of strategic planning concerns in relation to: housing, urban design, climate change, children’s play space and transport. Following the Mayor’s original comments these issues have all now been satisfactorily addressed. The Council’s decision In this instance Newham Council has resolved to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date. Recommendation That Newham 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 page 1 1 On 29 April 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Newham 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 Categories 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “ 1A “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”. 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 or buildings… in Central London (other than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres”. 1C ”Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions…the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”. 2 On 18 May 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0498b/01, and subsequently advised Newham Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 69 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 71 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 13 December 2010 Newham Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date, and on 10 January 2011 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 Newham Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Newham 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 23 January 2011 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 Newham Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 69 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 71 of that report could address these deficiencies. Housing 7 At stage 1 the applicant was advised to present further information in respect of the level of affordable housing on offer. The scheme as approved, provided 27.5% of the total number of page 2 residential units as affordable housing units of which 60% are social rented and 40% intermediate housing, spread proportionally throughout each phase of the four-phased development. The percentage of affordable units in each phase in the approved scheme was expected to be 23% on Phase I, 29% on Phase II, 27% on Phase III and 28% on Phase IV. Given the time since the original assessment and the potential change to residential values since then, the Mayor requested that an up to date viability assessment be provided to demonstrate that the applicant was securing the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and also that a re-appraisal be conducted closer to implementation of each phase in keeping with the guidance contained in the Interim Housing SPG published in April 2010. 8 The applicant has undertaken a viability assessment which has been reviewed and accepted by Newham Council. The appraisal concludes that the proposal would not generate realistic levels of developer profit with an affordable unit proportion much above 10%. Nevertheless the applicant is willing to offer 27.5% as on the previous application. The previously approved review mechanism remains in place whereby should no affordable housing provider make an offer to purchase all the units an alternative proposal for a revised mix of affordable housing can be made or a commuted sum would be payable and market units provided on-site instead. In this scenario market units cannot be occupied until the commuted sum has been paid. 9 It is considered that in the light of the results of the financial assessment that the affordable housing represents the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. The approach set out above has been negotiated to secure what GLA officers consider to be a policy compliant approach to affordable housing delivery for this site at this time, providing for affordable housing whilst recognising the overall benefits the scheme will have in terms of regenerating this site and facilitating a mixed and balanced community. It maintains the ability to achieve the policy objective having regard to the range of factors set out in policy 3A.10 and to the strategic target for affordable housing in the London Plan and is acceptable on that basis. In line with Newham Council it is considered that the solution offered is pragmatic and realistic, offering a guaranteed minimum of affordable and significant regeneration benefit in terms of the proposed aquarium. 10 The proposed mix which was approved in 2007 remains. It is as follows: Housing tenure 1bed 2bed 3bed 4/5bed Market 40% 40% 20% Social rent 20% 40% 25% 15% Intermediate 47.5% 47.5% 5% 11 This mix is considered to be justifiable as it will in itself create a mixed and balanced community, in keeping with London Plan strategic objectives. Urban Design 12 At stage 1 a commitment was sought that the reserved matters application would seek to meet the Mayor’ housing design guide standards and this has been secured by condition. Children’s play space 13 Further detail was requested from the applicant to ensure that the quantum of child play space to be provided on this site would meet the standards contained in the Mayor’s SPG, ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’. Based on the benchmark standard contained within the SPG, this scheme should provide a minimum of 12,823 sq.m. for the page 3 anticipated 1,282 children. The areas of open space within this site amount to 22,252 sq.m. within which there are two locally equipped play areas (LEAPs) and one multi-use games area (MUGA). Additionally, the site will be linked directly by footbridge to Thames Barrier Park, a 9 hectare open space to the south which includes a play area and a 5 a side football/basketball court. 14 This level of provision provides both a mix of defined play space and informal recreation space sufficient to meet London Plan objectives. Climate change adaptation and mitigation 15 At stage 1, further information regarding overheating, passive design, green and brown roofs and walls and water use was required. In this regard the applicant has agreed to a supplementary clause to the existing section 106 agreement which requires the submission of a revised site wide energy strategy subject to approval by the Council and the GLA. This approach is accepted given the time that has elapsed since the previous permission. The Council should ensure that this strategy also encompass climate change adaptation. Transport for London’s comments 16 At consultation stage, TfL expected that as a minimum the package previously agreed as part of the s106 should be retained and secured for the site as part of this renewal. In order to comply with latest transport planning policies as well as to take into account the changes brought to the operations and funding of the public transport and highway networks, TfL also requested further mitigation measures over and above the agreed original s106.