Kodak Site, Harrow View, Wealdstone in the London Borough of Harrow Planning Application No

planning report PDU/2830/02 14 August 2012 Kodak site, Harrow View, Wealdstone in the London Borough of Harrow planning application no. P/3405/11 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 permission for comprehensive redevelopment of Kodak factory site and adjacent sports ground to provide up to 35,975 sq.m. business and employment space, 985 residential dwellings, up to 220 units of student accommodation, up to 9,300 sq.m. senior living accommodation and assisted living accommodation, up to 5,000 sq.m. retail and restaurant uses, up to 8,830 sq.m. of community facilities including primary school, health centre and community and leisure uses, energy centre and associated access, parking, landscaping and provision of utilities. The applicant The applicant is LS Harrow Properties Ltd., and the architect is BDP. Strategic issues The strategic issues raised at consultation stage with respect to employment, open land, retail, housing, student housing, health and social care, urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport have been resolved, and the application now accords with the London Plan. The Council’s decision In this instance Harrow Council has resolved to grant permission subject to planning conditions and conclusion of a section 106 legal agreement. Recommendation That Harrow 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 30 December 2011 the Mayor of London received documents from Harrow 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 the following categories of the Schedule to the Order 2008: page 1 1A (1) “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats.” 1B (1c) “Development… 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.” 1C (1c) “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building… more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.” 3B (1a,b) “Development which occupies more than 4 hectares of land which is used for a use within Class B1 (business), B2 (general industrial) or B8 (storage or distribution) of the Use Classes Order; and which is likely to prejudice the use of that land for any such use.” 3C (1b) “Development which is likely to prejudice the use as a playing field of more than 2 hectares of land which… has at any time in the five years before the making of the application been used as a playing field.” 3E (1a,b) “Development which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and comprises or includes the provision of more than 2,500 square metres of floorspace…”. 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 7 February 2012 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2830/01, and subsequently advised Harrow Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 193 of the above-mentioned report, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 195 of that report could address those 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 and further information and assurances have been provided (see below). On 26 June 2012 Harrow Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission subject to planning conditions and conclusion of a section 106 legal agreement, and on 3 August 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 Harrow Council under Article 6 to refuse the application, or issue a direction to Harrow 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 16 August 2012 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) Regulations 2011 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. page 2 Update 6 At consultation stage Harrow Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 193 of the above-mentioned report, but the possible remedies set out in paragraph 195 of that report could address these deficiencies: Employment: The applicant should address the concerns raised in the employment section of this report in an effort to overcome the in principle objection raised with respect to London Plan Policy 2.17. Open land: The applicant should address concerns raised with respect to reconfiguration of open space, sports pitches and other sports facilities to ensure accordance with London Plan policies 3.19 and 7.18 Retail: The submitted retail study should be fully assessed at the local level to ensure accordance with London Plan Policy 4.7. Housing: A proposed housing schedule, including detail of affordable housing provision, should be provided so the outline application may be assessed against London Plan policies 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.11 and 3.12. Student housing: The applicant should respond to the matters raised in the student housing section of this report to ensure accordance with London Plan Policy 3.8. Health and social care: The applicant should have regard to the informatives raised with respect to London Plan policies 3.8 and 3.17. Urban design: The applicant should address concerns with respect to green link, employment layout, access, movement and parking, masterplan blocks and masterplan design guidance to ensure accordance with London Plan policies 2.17, 5.10, 6.10, 7.1, 7.5 and 7.18. Inclusive access: The applicant should respond to the matters raised with respect to dwellings and public realm to ensure accordance with London Plan policies 3.8 and 7.2. Sustainable development: The applicant should address the matters raised with respect to renewable energy, urban greening, sustainable urban drainage, ambient noise and air quality, to ensure accordance with London Plan policies 5.7, 5.11, 5.13, 7.14 and 7.15. Transport: The applicant should address the matters raised with respect to trip generation and highway impact, parking, London Buses, Harrow-on-the-Hill station and Harrow Bus Station, walking and cycling and travel planning, to ensure accordance with London Plan policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.7, 6.10, 6.13 and 6.14. The applicant should also have regard to the informative provided with respect to the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy, in accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3. page 3 Employment Relevant updates of employment policy and guidance 7 Since consultation stage the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been published. With respect to employment land, the NPPF states that “Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.” 8 Since initial representations were issued at consultation stage the Mayor has published the consultation draft ‘Land for Transport and Industry SPG’. The SPG provides guidance on industrial land requirements as well as on possibilities, appropriate processes and suitable locations for release of surplus industrial land. With respect to the London Borough of Harrow, the SPG identifies the potential for the release of 18 hectares of industrial land between 2011 and 2031. 9 At the time that the Mayor’s initial representations on this application were issued, the ‘Harrow and Wealdstone AAP’ was at preferred options stage. Now, following two previous stages of early consultation, the ‘Harrow and Wealdstone AAP’ has now been published at the pre- submission stage (the final point of public consultation before the document is submitted to the Secretary of State for public examination). Public consultation is currently underway, but at the time of writing this report the Mayor is yet to express his view of the document’s general conformity with the London Plan. Nevertheless, GLA officers have maintained close engagement with the Council as the document has evolved, and the Mayor’s representations issued at the preferred options stage state that: “The GLA is satisfied that figure 6.8 [site specific guidance for preferred layout of Kodak site] represents a pragmatic, evidence based, approach to comprehensive redevelopment of this site, and one which would support wider objectives of the intensification area, including the key requirement to improve access to open space.” 10 The layout for the redevelopment of the Kodak site promoted within the ‘Harrow and Wealdstone AAP’ has been refined slightly since the previous stage of consultation, but has not changed substantially in terms of the general approach to SIL consolidation at the site.

Load more