planning report D&P/4428/01 12 February 2018 Land to the north of Grant Road Clapham Junction in the Borough of Wandsworth planning application no. 2017/6864

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning () Order 2008.

The proposal Demolition works and construction of three buildings ranging from 6 to 20 storeys in height comprising mixed use development including a total of 139 residential units, a school and a place of worship and flexible commercial uses together with landscaping, play area and open space including a Multi-Use Games Area.

The applicant The applicant is Winstanley and York Road Regeneration LLP and the architects are HTA, Figure Ground and HBBR.

Strategic issues summary Principle of development: The redevelopment of the currently underutilised site for a mixed use residential-led scheme is strongly supported. Provision of a temporary MUGA and a community use agreement (in association with the school) must be secured. (Para’s 16-21) Affordable housing: The applicant proposes 31% affordable housing (by habitable room) comprising solely affordable rented tenure. The affordable housing will be used to decant residents from the wider estate. Due to the cost of the replacement place of worship and school the provision of 31% affordable housing exceeds the maximum level. In recognition of the early delivery of affordable housing for decant, the drawdown of the deficit may be appropriate. GLA officers will scrutinise the applicant’s viability assessment to determine the level of deficit. Should a level of deficit be established, GLA officers will work with the Council and the applicant to determine how to recognise this in the viability of the master plan site. (Para’s 22-30) Design: further discussion required on ground floor layout of blocks A and C. Design detail including defensible space, materials, elevational treatment and environmental mitigation measures should be secured to ensure the highest design quality is achieved on all elements of the scheme. (Para’s 31-34, 37-46) Outstanding issues regarding Transport and Energy must also be addressed.

Recommendation That Wandsworth Council be advised that while the scheme is broadly supported, it does not yet comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 61 of this report; however, the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies.

page 1 Context

1 On 12 January 2018, the Mayor of London received documents from Wandsworth 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 must provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan and draft 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 Categories 1(B)(c) and 1C(c) of the Schedule to the 2008 Order: • 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 the Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres’

• 1C(c) ‘Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of more than 30 metres high and is outside of the City of London’

3 Once Wandsworth 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 site is situated to the north of Grant Road and currently comprises a car park, standalone garages, multi-use games area as well as green space fronting Plough Road. The site also contains part of Thomas Baines Road.

6 The site forms part of the wider 1960’s Winstanley and York Road housing estates. Clapham Junction Railway Station lies to the south of the site. Adjacent to the site on Grant and Plough Roads are midrise residential blocks.

7 The site has a PTAL rating of 6b (on a scale of 1-6b where 6b has the highest amount of public transport accessibility) indicating high public transport accessibility. Clapham Junction rail station immediately adjoins Grant Road to the south and there are 16 bus routes within an acceptable walking distance. The Winstanley/York Road Estates are bound by the A3205 York Road to the north, Plough Road to the west, Grant Road to the south and Falcon Road and Ingrave Street to the east. The A3205 York Road forms part of the Transport for London Road Network. Cycle Superhighway 8 runs along York Road. Details of the proposal

8 Wandsworth Council identified the Winstanley and York Road Estates, along with the Bramlands area adjacent to Clapham Junction station, as an area with opportunity to provide current and future residents with new homes through redevelopment. Master planning for the 13- hectare site has been in progress since 2013. In 2017 the Council established a joint venture (JV) partnership with Taylor Wimpey to deliver the project.

page 2 9 The applicant proposes demolition works and the construction of three buildings ranging from 6 to 20 storeys in height comprising mixed use development including a total of 139 residential units, a school and place of worship and flexible commercial uses together with landscaping, play area and open space, a new Multi Use Games Area, car parking, the realignment of Thomas Baines Road and other associated works. The application does not include the demolition of any existing residential units, and the redevelopment of the site forms a standalone part of the regeneration to the estate. The proposal includes 93 private residential units (housed in block C), and 46 affordable units (housed in block A), to be used to decant residents from the wider estate, a relocated Thames Christian College and Chapel Baptist Church and a replacement MUGA. The remainder of the estate is expected to come forward for redevelopment separately in the future. The planning merits of any future application for estate regeneration are not considered within this report; any future application will be determined on its own merits against all relevant planning policies. Case history

10 On 29 September 2017, a pre-application meeting was held with GLA officers regarding the above proposal (D&P/4428). The principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential and social infrastructure uses was strongly supported; however, concerns regarding the following strategic issues were raised; affordable housing, residential quality, design quality, energy, sustainability and transport.

11 Given the strategic priority afforded to maximising affordable housing delivery through planning, and the Mayor’s requirements with regards to estate regeneration, following the pre- application meeting, further meetings and discussions were held between the applicant, Wandsworth Council and the GLA to discuss the affordable housing strategy and viabilty.

12 The applicant and Wandsworth Council have also entered into informal discussions with the GLA regarding the wider regeneration of the York Road/Winstanley Estate. A formal pre- application meeting has been scheduled in February 2018. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

13 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 Wandsworth Local Plan Core Strategy 2016, Wandsworth Local Plan – Development Management Policies 2016, Wandsworth Local Plan – Site Specific Allocations Document 2016 and the London Plan 2016 (consolidated with alterations since 2011)

14 The following are also relevant material considerations: • The National Planning Policy Framework, • National Planning Practice Guidance. • Draft London Plan (consultation draft December 2017)

15 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows: • Estate regeneration London Plan; Good Practice Guidance to Estate Regeneration; Affordable Housing and Viability SPG • Social infrastructure London Plan; Social Infrastructure SPG • Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; Affordable Housing and Viability SPG; Play and informal recreation; Character and context

page 3 • Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG; Housing SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG • Inclusive design London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG • Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy • Climate change London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy

Principle of development

16 The site is located within the Clapham Junction Opportunity Area, which the draft London Plan identifies for a minimum of 2,500 new homes. The redevelopment of currently underutilised sites to provide additional private and affordable housing is strongly supported in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.3 which seeks to increase London’s supply of housing and Policies H1 and H3 of the draft London Plan which seek to ensure boroughs optimise the potential for housing delivery on underutilised sites.

17 In addition, the replacement MUGA is strongly supported in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.19 and Policy S5 of the draft London Plan. The applicant proposes to construct a temporary MUGA on adjacent land to mitigate any loss as part of proposal for the permanent re- provision. The provision of a temporary MUGA must be secured.

18 The early delivery of replacement facilities for Thames Christian College and Battersea Chapel Baptist Church is strongly supported as it enables these key pieces of social infrastructure to remain in operation during the subsequent redevelopment of the York Road/Winstanley estate. This decant strategy for the school and place of worship represents best practice and is in line with London Plan Policies 3.16 and 3.18, Policies S1 and S3 of the draft London Plan and the Social Infrastructure SPG. In addition, the facilities represent a qualitative improvement over the existing. In relation to Thames Christian College, London Plan Policy 3.18E and Policy S3 of the draft London Plan expect community use of education facilities to be maximised. A detailed community use agreement for out-of-school-hours usage of appropriate facilities must be secured by the Council.

19 The applicant proposes a flexible commercial unit on the ground floor of the 20-storey residential block which is supported in line with both the London Plan and the draft London Plan and would contribute toward London Plan employment targets as well as activating the ground floor and enhancing the public realm.

20 It should be noted that block A will be constructed on approximately 600 sq.m. of existing open space which currently consists of a grassed lawn surrounded by mature trees. While the loss of local space is resisted under London Plan Policy 7.18 and Policy G4 of the draft London Plan, it is acknowledged that the site is not in an area of open space deficiency. In addition, as a whole the proposals result in a minor increase in the quantum of open space across the site as well as providing a qualitative improvement to the overall provision of open space. Therefore, the loss of open space in this instance is acceptable.

21 The applicant has demonstrated that it has undertaken full and transparent consultation and engagement with the existing residents of the wider York Road and Winstanley Housing Estates in accordance with the Mayor’s Good Practice Guidance on Estate Regeneration. No existing residential units are being demolished by this application. Any future planning application for estate regeneration at the York Road and Winstanley Estates will be assessed against the

page 4 principles of the Mayor’s Good Practice Guidance. Compliance with these principles will be a priority in the acceptability of any proposal. Housing

Affordable housing

22 London Plan Policies 3.11 and 3.12 and draft London Plan Policies H5 and H6 require the maximum amount of affordable housing to be delivered in all residential developments above ten units. Draft London Plan Policy H6 and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG set out a ‘threshold approach’ whereby schemes meeting or exceeding a specific threshold of affordable housing (in this case 50%) by habitable room without public subsidy and which meets other criteria are not required to submit viability information to the GLA, nor would the application be subject to a late stage review mechanism. The site falls within the definition of public land under Policy H6 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s SPG which states that development on public land will only qualify for the fast track route if it provides a minimum of 50% affordable housing without public subsidy and meets the criteria as set out. Draft London Plan Policy H7 and the Mayor’s SPG sets out a preferred tenure split of at least 30% low cost rent (social or affordable rent, significantly less than 80% of market rent), at least 30% intermediate (with London Living Rent and shared ownership being the default tenures), and the remaining 40% to be determined by the local planning authority.

23 The applicant proposes 46 affordable rented units which equates to 31% by habitable room (33% by unit). The provision of wholly affordable rented units would enable residents to be decanted from the wider York Road and Winstanley Estates to help facilitate the estates redevelopment. The units will be provided to the decanted residents at their existing rent levels in accordance with Policy H10 of the draft London Plan, the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and the Mayor’s Good Practice Guidance on Estate Regeneration, full details of which must be robustly secured.

24 The Mayor’s commitment to developments with a mix of tenures, including a mix of affordable tenures, and to tenure-blind development, is embedded in the draft London Plan. Policy D4 makes clear that the design of housing developments should not differentiate between housing tenures, and equality of design quality must be delivered in the design, orientation, layout and scale of each residential entrance and core, regardless of its tenure. However, the financial challenges of internally sharing service charge costs for affordable housing providers is acknowledged, and as such, the need for internal arrangements that reflect this is accepted where parity of quality is secured. In this application, site constraints exist limiting the number of cores that could be achieved in both residential blocks and as such each block is proposed to be single tenure. In addition, the provision of wholly low cost rented units is driven by the councils need to decant residents from the wider estate. Both blocks represent high quality design and are located within close vicinity to each other. Therefore, in this instance the construction of two single tenure blocks is considered acceptable.

25 The expectation for affordable housing delivery on public land is 50%. Given that the application falls beyond that threshold and is sole tenure, the applicant has submitted a viability assessment under the draft London Plan viability tested route. This report demonstrates that the quantum of affordable housing proposed exceeds the maximum viable level and the scheme results in a deficit against the existing land use value. This position has been verified at a high level by GLA officers; however, the level of deficit has yet to be determined subject to Council and GLA officer’s thorough review of the schemes viability. GLA officers will continue to work the Council and the applicant to verify the level of deficit.

page 5 26 At pre-application stage it was requested by GLA officers that the applicant provide a viability scenario that did not include the cost of decanting the school and the place of worship to determine what the viable level of affordable housing with a policy compliant tenure split could be. The applicant’s viability assessment states that without the cost of the replacement school and place of worship, the provision of 33% affordable housing at a policy compliant tenure split would be unviable. GLA officers not agree with this assessment and believe that a scenario that discounts the relocated place of worship and school could viably provide a minimum of 35% affordable housing at a 60% (affordable rent)/ 40% (intermediate) tenure split.

27 It is on the basis of the deficit created by the frontloaded provision of social infrastructure that the applicant proposes to link the cost of the delivery of the residential blocks, the school and place of worship to the wider estate masterplan through a memorandum of understanding with the Council. The intention of the MoU would be to bank the viability deficit as a credit for subsequent draw down in the viability of a subsequent phase of the master plan.

28 In recognition that the proposal enables the early delivery of affordable housing to be used to decant residents from the master plan site, the principle of the applicant’s proposal to drawdown on the deficit on the masterplan site is acceptable subject to robustly securing the decant strategy. However, given the lack of financial detail provided at pre-application stage and scrutiny at this stage the level of deficit is yet to be determined. In addition, the level of deficit could well be different at scheme commencement (if delayed) and at late stage review in the development. Therefore, it is proposed that a bespoke late stage review mechanism is secured that establishes the level of deficit based on actual values achieved and costs incurred at 75% of sales. Should a level of deficit be established at that stage, then further discussion between the applicant, Council and the GLA will be required to discuss how best to recognise this in the masterplan viability. As an example, a way to recognise the deficit could be to incorporate it into the benchmark land value of a phase of the master plan at a point of midterm review. GLA officer’s welcome further discussion on this with the Council and applicant.

29 In accordance with Policy H6 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG, both early and late stage review mechanisms must be secured. As discussed above GLA officers will work with the applicant and the Council to secure a bespoke and robust late stage review mechanism in recognition of the early delivery of affordable housing in the context of the wider estate regeneration project.

30 The Council must publish the financial viability assessment in accordance with the Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability SPG. GLA officers will ensure that the assessment is made available, to ensure transparency of information.

Residential quality

31 London Plan Policy 3.5 and Policy D4 of the draft London Plan promotes quality in new housing provision, with further guidance provided in the Housing SPG. The scheme has been designed to meet and exceed London Plan and draft London Plan minimum residential space standards and the layout of the residential blocks has been designed to maximise dual and triple aspect units. The development does not contain any north facing single aspect units, which is strongly supported.

32 As highlighted at pre-application stage, given the entirely affordable tenure of the lower block (Block A), it is crucial that the highest design quality is employed and that the development ensures that the residential quality is the same as the private block (Block C) in accordance with paragraph 3.76 of the London Plan and Policy D4 of the draft London Plan. The retention of the schemes architects via a section 106 obligation should be secured to ensure the highest design quality is achieved.

page 6 33 Whilst the residential quality of the proposal is supported, GLA officers have outstanding concerns, as raised at pre-application stage, regarding the ground floor units of Block A. At pre- application stage the applicant was advised to redesign the layout to include duplex units at ground floor. The applicant has provided evidence that single level units within the development are required for the decant of residents from the York Road Estate, which is likely to consist of over 55’s. Whilst GLA officers encourage the applicant to further explore a duplex option for units on the ground floor, it is acknowledged that this may not meet the specific needs of decanted residents. Should single storey ground floor units be pursued the Council should secure the detail of high quality defensible space. The defensible space should be accessible by all ground floor units.

34 Given the sites proximity to Clapham Junction, the applicant has demonstrated how negative environmental factors resulting from the railway have been mitigated. The mitigation measures should be secured by condition.

Children’s play space

35 Policy 3.6 of the London Plan and Policy S4 of the draft London Plan, seeks to ensure that development proposals include suitable provision for play and recreation. Further detail is provided in the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation’, which sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child play space to be provided per child, with under-fives play space provided on-site as a minimum.

36 The SPG guidance would expect the proposal to provide 353 sq.m. of playspace; 176 sq.m. to be dedicated to under-five’s doorstep play. The application includes provision of 360 sq.m. of doorstep playspace which exceeds London Plan and draft London Plan standards and is supported. In addition, the proposal includes the improvement of the existing MUGA providing playspace options for the 12+ age group. Details of the play space should be secured via condition. It is also recognised that the site is in close proximity (i.e. within 400 metres of) several playgrounds including Livingstone Walk Playground, Ganley Court Playground and Meyrick Road Playground which provides additional facilities for older children. Urban design

37 The design principles in chapter seven of the London Plan and chapter 3 of the draft London Plan place expectations on all developments to achieve a high standard of design which responds to local character, enhances the public realm and includes architecture of the highest quality that defines the area and makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and cityscape.

38 London Plan Policy 3.4 and Policy D6 of the draft London Plan seek to optimise housing density. The scheme would have a net density of 233 units per hectare and 612 habitable rooms by hectare, which is within the relevant density ranges contained within London Plan Policy 3.4 and Policy D6 of the draft London Plan. The proposal has been subject to pre-application design review by both the GLA and Council officers, and has been presented to the Wandsworth Design Review Panel. The proposal seeks to make efficient use of an under-developed site, optimising housing density on the site through a design-led approach and is therefore strongly supported.

39 Given the sites location within an area undergoing extensive redevelopment, it is essential that an open dialogue with adjacent landowners is maintained. The existing condition of Grant Road is a hostile environment due to the considerable extent of inactivity along the railway tracks. It is therefore fundamental that the ground floor layouts of the proposed buildings deliver a high quality and well activated street frontage.

page 7 40 As raised during pre-application discussions the individual architects should work collectively to ensure that the buildings work together to activate the MUGA as a new urban square, ensuring ground floors of the residential tower and school have a clear connection. Whilst is it acknowledged the applicant responded positively in response, the ground floor layout of block C should be revised further to improve activity.

41 Block A contains large extents of inactive frontage. It is acknowledged that the site is constrained; however elevational treatment to the ground floor servicing will be particularly important to achieve high quality public realm. It is noted that the building entrances are well articulated; this detail should be extended across the whole ground floor.

42 The height and massing of the proposed buildings are acceptable. Building C will act as a key marker to the station entrance, which is supported. The massing of the building has been designed in response to the potential visual impact from the neighbouring residential tower with a stepped form minimising the impact to the existing residential accommodation, which is welcomed.

43 The design of the school is well considered; however as raised at the pre-application stage further work is needed to relate the elevation to a human scale (particularly at ground floor level) and activate the streetscape through ground floor use, articulation of entrances and architectural detailing. The applicant has responded positively to concerns raised which have been partially addressed through scheme amendments including additional fenestration and entrances and the introduction of benches; however the entrances should be further articulated to express each use through detailing. To ensure high quality finishing and attention to detail is delivered it is recommended that the architect is retained through construction.

44 The applicant should further develop and test the design of the ‘crown’ to the residential tower, which will be prominent from street level. Technical elements of the design should be resolved to ensure that the design is deliverable. Where there is a change in the facade materials careful detailing is needed to ensure the building weathers well. Details of this element should be secured by condition.

45 In accordance with paragraph 3.76 of the London Plan and Policy D4 of the draft London Plan the quality and robustness of materials and architectural detailing must be consistent across all residential elements of the scheme irrespective of tenure. These details should be secured by condition.

46 In accordance with Policy D11 of the draft London Plan, the Council should secure an Informative requiring the submission of a fire statement, produced by a third party suitable qualified assessor. Inclusive design

47 London Plan Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’ and Policy D5 of the draft London Plan requires that 90% of new housing meets Building Regulation requirement M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ and 10% meets Building Regulation requirement M4(3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’, that is, designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. The application has demonstrated that these requirements will be met and the plans identify the location of the wheelchair accessible homes. The Council should secure M4(2) and M4(3) requirements by condition.

Climate change

Energy

page 8 48 In accordance with the principles of London Plan Policy 5.2 and Policy SI2 of the draft London Plan, the applicant has submitted an energy statement, setting out how the development proposes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In summary, the proposed strategy comprises: energy efficiency measures (including a range of passive design features and demand reduction measures); three separate energy centres (one for each block); and renewable technologies (comprising a ASHP system to supply Block B and 9kWp photovoltaic panels on the roofs of all three buildings). The approach proposed would achieve a 36% carbon dioxide reduction on the residential elements, and a 30% carbon dioxide reduction on the place of worship and school.

49 The applicant is not proposing to install a site heat network due to the remote nature of Building A. Although the limitations of linking Block A to Blocks B and C are acknowledged, the applicant should provide a site heat network for Blocks B and C, given the lack of any inherent constraints. The applicant should also give consideration to connecting Block C to an energy centre proposed for Phase 2 of the estate regeneration scheme. Should the applicant pusue this option a temporary boiler solution for Block C would be most appropriate. If this approach were followed, the tower can claim carbon savings from the connection provided the connection to the phase 2 energy centre was secured by Section 106 obligation.

50 The applicant must explore the potential for additional measures to deliver further carbon dioxide reductions. Once all opportunities for securing further feasible on-site savings have been exhausted, a carbon offset contribution should be secured to mitigate any residual shortfall. Transport

51 The residential trip generation assessment submitted should be revised to contain an accurate total person PM trip rate for residential units. Furthermore, the schools trip general assessment must be revised to contain information on the net increase in pupil trips by mode. This assessment must be based on the total capacity of 400 pupils. The submitted transport assessment must be revised to include predicted service vehicle trips.

52 The applicant proposes 19 additional car parking spaces, 7 of which would be blue badge spaces for the residential uses, 7 car parking spaces for the place of worship and 5 for the school. The car free (with the exception of blue badge parking) nature of the residential development is welcomed in accordance with draft London Plan Policy. The applicant should consider further reducing the car parking associated with the place of worship and school to blue badge parking only. Electric Vehicle Charging Points must be provided in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.13 and draft London Plan Policy T6 and T6.1

53 The proposal also includes the re-provision of 159 of the 256 existing car parking spaces provided onsite and on the public highway. The applicant must reduce the number of car parking spaces to be re-provided in accordance with draft London Plan Policies T2 and T6. The existing CPZ’s should be extended to include the estate.

54 A total of 308 cycle parking spaces will be provided which does not accord with London Plan and draft London Plan Cycle standards and must be increased. In addition, the applicant must confirm the staff numbers for the place of worship to ensure London Plan and draft London Plan cycle standards are met with regard to this element. Cycle parking must be designed to meet London cycle design standards.

55 The applicant proposes the removal of the existing 14 cycle docking points from the Grant Road Central cycle hire docking station. The removed docking points must to be re-

page 9 provided in close proximity to the site. The relocation of the docking points must be secured through a S106 obligation.

56 The proposal would not directly impact upon the Crossrail 2 safe guarded route.

57 Conditions and section 106 obligations are required to secure the following; car park management plan; exclusion of future occupiers from obtaining parking permits within the local CPZ; EVCP provision; cycle docking station; cycle hire membership; travel plan; delivery and servicing plan; and construction and logistics plan. Local planning authority’s position

58 The applicant has undertaken pre-application discussions with Wandsworth Council planning officers who are understood to be supportive of the proposal. Council officers are waiting for the independent review of the applicant’s viability assessment to be undertaken which will be submitted to the GLA for scrutiny. The application is likely to be taken to Wandsworth Council’s March planning committee meeting. Legal considerations

59 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. 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

60 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

61 London Plan and draft London Plan policies on opportunity areas; social infrastructure; estate regeneration; affordable housing; urban design; inclusive design; transport; and climate change are relevant to this application. While the application is broadly supported, it does not yet comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan. The following strategic issues must be addressed for the application to fully accord with the London Plan and draft London Plan: • Principle of development: The redevelopment of the currently underutilised site for a mixed use residential-led scheme is strongly supported. Provision of a temporary MUGA and a community use agreement (in association with the school) must be secured. • Affordable housing: The applicant proposes 31% affordable housing (by habitable room) comprising solely affordable rented tenure. The affordable housing will be used to decant residents from the wider estate. Due to the cost of the replacement place of worship and school the provision of 31% affordable housing exceeds the maximum level. In recognition of the early delivery of affordable housing for decant, the drawdown of the deficit may be appropriate. GLA officers will scrutinise the applicant’s viability

page 10 assessment to determine the level of deficit. Should a level of deficit be established, GLA officers will work with the Council and the applicant to determine how to recognise this in the viability of the master plan site. • Design: further discussion required on ground floor layout of blocks A and C. Design detail including defensible space, materials, elevational treatment and environmental mitigation measures should be secured to ensure the highest design quality is achieved on all elements of the scheme. • Energy: The applicant should investigate a site heat network that connects buildings B and C and/or opportunities to connect Block C to the phase 2 energy centre. In addition, the applicant must explore the potential for additional measures to deliver further carbon dioxide reductions. Once all opportunities for securing further feasible on-site savings have been exhausted, a carbon offset contribution should be secured to mitigate any residual shortfall. • Transport: car parking (including the re-provision of both on and off-street car parking) must be reduced in accordance with Policies T2 and T6 of the draft London Plan. Further information is required on cycle parking and trip generation. Conditions and Section 106 obligations are required to secure the following; car park management plan; exclusion of future occupiers from obtaining parking permits within the local CPZ; EVCP provision; cycle docking station; cycle hire membership; travel plan; delivery and servicing plan; and construction and logistics plan.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Juliemma McLoughlin, Assistant Director - Planning 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Sarah Considine, Senior Planning Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 5751 email [email protected] Kate Randell, Senior Strategic Planner, Case Officer 020 7983 4783 email [email protected]

page 11