To: Councillor Paul Scott (Chairman); Councillor Humayun Kabir (Vice-Chairman); Councillors Jamie Audsley, Kathy Bee, Luke Clancy, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Manju Shahul-Hameed, Susan Winborn and Chris Wright
Reserve Members: Jeet Bains, Simon Brew, Richard Chatterjee, Sherwan Chowdhury, Pat Clouder, Steve Hollands, Karen Jewitt, Bernadette Khan, Shafi Khan and Maggie Mansell
A meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE which you are hereby summoned to attend, will be held on Thursday 15th December 2016 at the rise of Planning Sub- Committee but no earlier than 6:30pm, in The Council Chamber, The Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX.
JACQUELINE HARRIS-BAKER MARGOT ROHAN Acting Council Solicitor and Acting Senior Members Services Manager Monitoring Officer (020) 8726 6000 extn.62564 London Borough of Croydon [email protected] Bernard Weatherill House www.croydon.gov.uk/agenda 8 Mint Walk, Croydon CR0 1EA 6 December 2016
Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting. If you require any assistance, please contact the person detailed above, on the righthand side. To register a request to speak, please either e-mail [email protected] or call MARGOT ROHAN by 4pm on the Tuesday before the meeting. PLEASE NOTE: This meeting will be paperless. The agenda can be accessed online via the mobile app: http://secure.croydon.gov.uk/akscroydon/mobile - Select ‘Meetings' on the opening page AGENDA - PART A
1. Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 1st December 2016 (Page 1)
To approve the minutes as a true and correct record.
2. Apologies for absence
3. Disclosure of Interest
Members will be asked to confirm that their Disclosure of Interest Forms are accurate and up-to-date. Any other disclosures that Members may wish to make during the meeting should be made orally. Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose relevant disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting.
4. Urgent Business (if any)
To receive notice from the Chair of any business not on the Agenda which should, in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.
5. Exempt Items
To confirm the allocation of business between Part A and Part B of the Agenda.
6. Development presentations
To receive the following presentation on a proposed development:
There are none.
7. Planning applications for decision (Page 5)
To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:
7.1 16/01880/P 35 Cornwall Road, Croydon, CR0 3RD Demolition of existing buildings; erection of four storey building comprising 13 one bedroom 16 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom flats formation of vehicular access and provision of landscaping and associated parking spaces Ward: Broad Green Recommendation: Grant permission 7.2 16/02158/P Norbury Police Station, 1516 London Road, Norbury, London, SW16 4ES Alterations and refurbishment of the existing police station to provide 188m2 D1/D2 floorspace on the ground floor and 8 one bedroom flats on first and second floors; erection of three/four storey building at rear comprising 8 three bedroom, 5 two bedroom and 1 one bedroom flats; provision of associated landscaping, cycle parking, refuse storage and ancillary works Ward: Norbury Recommendation: Grant permission
7.3 16/02994/P & 16/05204/L6C Purley Baptist Church And Hall, Banstead Road, 1-4 Russell Hill Parade,1 Russell Hill Road and 2-12 Brighton Road and 1-9 Banstead Road Purley CR8 3EA 16/02994/P: Planning application for - Demolition of existing buildings on two sites; erection of 3 to 17 storey building with basements comprising 114 flats, community and church space and a retail unit on “Island Site” and a 3 to 8 storey building comprising 106 flats on realm “South Site” and public improvements with associated vehicular accesses 16/05204/LBC: Listed Building application for - Removal of section of low perimeter wall within the curtilage of Purley Library and replacement with new steps to join library forecourt, demolition of unlisted Purley Baptist Church which abuts a gate adjoining the Library Ward: Purley Recommendation: Grant permission
7.4 16/03965/P Electricity Substation and Land Adjoining 154 Epsom Road, Croydon, CRO 4UP Demolition of electricity substation; erection of three storey building with accommodation in roofspace comprising 5 one bedroom flats Ward: Waddon Recommendation: Grant permission
7.5 16/04561/RSM 24 Onslow Gardens, South Croydon CR2 5A6 Erection of 2 detached houses at rear (approval of reserved matters in respect of outline planning permission 16/00455/P) Ward: Sanderstead Recommendation: Grant permission
8. Items referred by Planning Sub-Committee
To consider any item(s) referred by a previous meeting of the Planning Sub- Committee to this Committee for consideration and determination:
There are none.
9. Other planning matters
To consider the accompanying report by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:
There are none. 10. [The following motion is to be moved and seconded as the “camera resolution” where it is proposed to move into part B of a meeting]
That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of businesson the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.
AGENDA - PART B None Planning Committee
Meeting held on Thursday 1st December 2016 at 6:30pm in The Council Chamber, The Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX
MINUTES - PART A
Present: Councillor Paul Scott (Chairman); Councillor Humayun Kabir (Vice-Chairman); Councillors Jamie Audsley, Kathy Bee, Luke Clancy, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Manju Shahul-Hameed, Susan Winborn and Chris Wright
Also present: Councillor Steve O'Connell
A155/16 Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 17th November 2016
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 17 November 2016 be signed as a correct record.
A156/16 Disclosure of Interest
There were no disclosures of a pecuniary interest not already registered.
A157/16 Urgent Business (if any)
There was none.
A158/16 Exempt Items
RESOLVED to that allocation of business between Part A and Part B of the Agenda be confirmed.
A159/16 Development presentations
There were none.
A160/16 Planning applications for decision
7.1 16/03806/P Cherry Trees, 40 Welcomes Road, Kenley, CR8 5HD Demolition of existing building; erection of 2 four bedroom detached houses and car port and associated access, parking and landscaping Ward: Kenley Page 1 of 122 Mr Geoff James (representing Kenley and District Residents' Association) spoke in objection Mr David Cranmer (OSP Architecture), spoke in support, as the agent of the applicant Councillor Steve O'Connell, ward Member for Kenley, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents
After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Jason Perry proposed and Councillor Chris Wright seconded REFUSAL, and the Committee voted 4 in favour, 6 against, so this motion fell.
The Committee then voted on a second motion, supporting the officer's recommendation, proposed by Councillor Paul Scott and seconded by Councillor Manju Shahul-Hameed, 6 in favour and 4 against, permission was GRANTED for development at Cherry Trees, 40 Welcomes Road, Kenley, CR8 5HD.
7.2 16/04727/FUL Magdalen Court 45 Enmore Road South Norwood London SE25 5NH Demolition of a single storey garage block. Erection of 2 three bedroom and 1 two bedroom houses and a three storey building comprising 3 one bedroom and 1 two bedroom flats. Construction one new refuse store to the front of the site, and one replacement refuse store to the rear. Associated landscaping works. Ward: Woodside
Mrs Shelley Brasnell and Mr Robert Logan, representing the views of the neighbouring nursery and parents of attending children, spoke in objection Mr Grant Richards, a resident of Magdalen Court, spoke in support of the application.
After consideration of the officer's report and the addendum, Councillor Paul Scott proposed and Councillor Jamie Audsley seconded the officer's recommendation, and the Committee voted 6 in favour, 4 against, so permission was GRANTED for development at Magdalen Court 45 Enmore Road South Norwood London SE25 5NH, with additional details in the landscaping condition to address amenity/safeguarding issues with the nursery.
A161/16 Items referred by Planning Sub-Committee
There were none.
A162/16 Other planning matters
There were none.
Page 2 of 122 MINUTES - PART B
None
The meeting ended at 7:45pm
Page 3 of 122 This page is intentionally blank
Page 4 of 122 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 15 December 2016
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 In this part of the agenda are reports on planning applications for determination by the committee.
1.2 Although the reports are set out in a particular order on the agenda, the Chair may reorder the agenda on the night. Therefore, if you wish to be present for a particular application, you need to be at the meeting from the beginning.
1.3 Any item that is on the agenda because it has been referred by a Ward Member, GLA Member, MP, Resident Association or Conservation Area Advisory Panel and none of the person(s)/organisation(s) or their representative(s) have registered their attendance at the Town Hall in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (paragraph 3.8 of Part 4K – Planning and Planning Sub-Committee Procedure Rules) the item will be reverted to the Director of Planning to deal with under delegated powers and not be considered by the committee.
1.4 The following information and advice applies to all reports in this part of the agenda.
2 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The Committee is required to consider planning applications against the development plan and other material planning considerations.
2.2 The development plan is:
the London Plan July 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies April 2013 the Saved Policies of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan April 2013 the South London Waste Plan March 2012
2.3 Decisions must be taken in accordance with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the Committee to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application; any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application; and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Committee to make its determination in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations support a different decision being taken.
2.4 Under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects listed buildings or their settings, the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses.
Page 5 of 122 2.5 Under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a conservation area, the local planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.
2.6 Under Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for any development, the local planning authority must ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees.
2.7 In accordance with Article 31 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010, Members are invited to agree the recommendations set out in the reports, which have been made on the basis of the analysis of the scheme set out in each report. This analysis has been undertaken on the balance of the policies and any other material considerations set out in the individual reports.
2.8 Members are reminded that other areas of legislation covers many aspects of the development process and therefore do not need to be considered as part of determining a planning application. The most common examples are:
Building Regulations deal with structural integrity of buildings, the physical performance of buildings in terms of their consumption of energy, means of escape in case of fire, access to buildings by the Fire Brigade to fight fires etc. Works within the highway are controlled by Highways Legislation. Environmental Health covers a range of issues including public nuisance, food safety, licensing, pollution control etc. Works on or close to the boundary are covered by the Party Wall Act. Covenants and private rights over land are enforced separately from planning and should not be taken into account.
3 PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 In accordance with Policy 8.3 of the London Plan (2011) the Mayor of London has introduced a London wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to fund Crossrail. Similarly, Croydon CIL is now payable. These would be paid on the commencement of the development. Croydon CIL provides an income stream to the Council to fund the provision of the following types of infrastructure:
Education facilities Health care facilities Projects listed in the Connected Croydon Delivery Programme Public open space Public sports and leisure Community facilities
3.2 Other forms of necessary infrastructure (as defined in the CIL Regulations) and any mitigation of the development that is necessary will be secured through A S106 agreement. Where these are necessary, it will be explained and specified in the agenda reports.
Page 6 of 122 4 FURTHER INFORMATION
4.1 Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.
5 PUBLIC SPEAKING
5.1 The Council’s constitution allows for public speaking on these items in accordance with the rules set out in the constitution and the Chair’s discretion.
6 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
6.1 The background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 6 are generally the planning application file containing the application documents and correspondence associated with the application. Contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419) for further information. The submitted planning application documents (but not representations and consultation responses) can be viewed online from the Public Access Planning Register on the Council website at http://publicaccess.croydon.gov.uk/online- applications. Click on the link or copy it into an internet browser and go to the page, then enter the planning application number in the search box to access the application.
7 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 The Committee to take any decisions recommended in the attached reports.
Page 7 of 122 Page 8 of 122 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 15 December 2016
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision Item 7.1
1 APPLICATION DETAILS
Ref: 16/01880/P (Link to related documents on the Planning Register) Location: 35 Cornwall Road, Croydon, CR0 3RD Ward: Broad Green Description: Demolition of existing buildings; erection of four storey building comprising 13 one bedroom 16 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom flats formation of vehicular access and provision of landscaping and associated parking spaces Drawing Nos: 01, 02, 03 RevB, 05 RevB, 06 RevB, 07 RevB, 08 RevB, 11 RevA, 12 RevA, 15 RevA, 16 RevA, 17 RevA, 18 RevB, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26. Applicant: Viridian Housing and Maytrix Group Ltd Agent: Suzanne Kimman Case Officer: Toby Gethin
1.1 This application is being reported to Planning Committee as objections above the threshold in the Committee Consideration Criteria have been received.
SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
• The proposal would provide additional housing including affordable housing in an existing residential area. • The application site is on a previously developed plot which has previous permissions for new housing. • The Council’s community facilities protocol has been sufficiently followed and no firm offers to buy the site for a community use have been received. • The loss of local heritage value would not be significant and the locally listed park would not be harmed. • The proposed building’s appearance would be of a high quality and would not harm the area’s surrounding character. • There would be no detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers. • The proposal would not harm the safety and efficiency of the adjoining highway network and sufficient off-street car and cycle parking would be provided. • No park trees or trees within the site worthy of future preservation would be lost, and the landscaping scheme would offset the loss of trees that would be removed. • The risk of flood would be minimal and the proposal would decrease flood risk to surrounding properties. • Future occupiers would have adequate living conditions. • The proposal would not harm local wildlife/ecology. • Adequate refuse storage and collection arrangements are proposed.
2 RECOMMENDATION
2.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conclusion of a s106 agreement to secure the following:
• The provision of on-site affordable housing Page 9 of 122 • Resident parking permit restrictions • Engagement win car club provisions • Monitoring fees.
2.2 That the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions [and informatives] to secure the following matters:
Conditions
1. The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved drawings and other documents submitted with the application. 2. Submission and approval of details and samples of external facing materials, including detailed scaled drawings covering transition of materials, depth of reveals, railings etc… 3. Submission of the following details: • External fully enclosed cycle stores sufficient for 51 cycles (locations, dimensions, materials/appearance, suitable access) • Bin store (dimensions and appearance) • Site/security lighting • Location of Electrical Vehicle Charging Points (number and locations). 4. Provision of a full landscaping plan (to include details of existing and proposed hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatment). 5. Submission of a detailed drainage strategy (SUDS) prior to commencement of work. 6. Compliance with the details and recommendations set out in the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy (Revision A) dated 24 October 2016. 7. Compliance with the details and recommendations set out in the Extended Phase I Habitat Survey (dated April 2016) and the Bat Roost Assessment and Emergence and Return Surveys (dated June 2016). 8. Compliance with the details and recommendations set out in the ‘Arboricultural Implications Assessment’ report (ref J50.56, dated 6 May 2016). 9. Submission of an updated Travel Plan prior to occupation 10. Parking area hard surfaces to be made of permeable materials. 11. Highways agreement prior to commencement of work 12. Submission and approval of a construction logistics plan. 13. Compliance with the delivery management plan 14. Provision of pedestrian visibility splays prior to commencement of development 15. Provision and retention of the car parking area and access, cycle storage and refuse storage. 16. 35% reduction in CO2 emissions beyond 2015 Building Regulations. 17. Water usage limited to 110lts p/person p/day. 18. Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning.
Informatives
1) Removal of site notices 2) Code of Practice regarding construction 3) Any [other] informative(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning
Page 10 of 122 2.3 That the Planning Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
3.1 Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a four-storey building comprising 13x1 bedroom, 16x2 bedroom and 3x3 bedroom flats. A new vehicular access and parking area would be provided, along with provision of associated landscaping and a refuse store.
3.2 The existing building on the site would be demolished and replaced with a four-storey building consisting of brick and wooden cladding. A total of 32 flats would be provided. The applicant’s intention is that all of the flats would be provided as affordable housing. The Council would secure (by means of a legal agreement) 50% of the units (16 flats) as affordable housing.
3.3 The proposal would result in the removal of some preserved trees on the site. Replacement trees and numerous shrubs would be planted.
3.4 The application was the subject of two consultation processes. This was because it was found (following the first consultation period) that the original application was deficient and included insufficient information. This included a lack of information regarding bats, an inadequate flood risk assessment and an incomplete community facilities protocol. During determination, the applicant addressed these issues by submitting amended and additional information. Given the new/revised information received and that the application was subsequently considered to be a departure from the development plan (on flood risk grounds), a second consultation process was undertaken. This involved advertising the application as a departure and providing the public with an opportunity to consider and comment on the new details.
Site and Surroundings
3.5 The site is located on the south west side of Cornwall Road, diagonally opposite the junction with Westfield Road. It is rectangular in shape and is approximately 0.20 hectares in area, enclosed by fencing and railings. The closest part of Cornwall Road to the application site has a reduced carriageway width of between 3.5m and 4.5m. The area is located within a Parking Control Zone (CPZ).
3.6 The site is occupied by a variety of buildings including a brick constructed former church and attached two-storey house, a large dilapidated corrugated metal single- storey building with a pitched roof and a single-storey brick building (used as a Scout HQ). All are disused and appear to have been vacant for a considerable time.
3.7 The site is enclosed on three sides by Wandle Park, which is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance, Local Open Land and a locally listed Historic Park and Garden. There are a significant number of trees within and surrounding the site (in Wandle Park). Several of these trees are considered to provide important amenity value. As such, a Tree Preservation Order has been served (TPO No. 36, 2016), protecting trees of varying species around the outer boundaries of the site.
Page 11 of 122 3.8 Given its location, the site is separated from other existing properties. The closest residential properties are on Westfield Road and Cornwall Road. These consist of two- storey residential terraced dwellings to the south and east of the site (on Cornwall Road and Westfield/Theobald Roads respectively). To the south of the site, on Cuthbert Road, there is a three-storey block of flats. Several commercial premises lie to the north/north-west of the site.
3.9 The site is statutorily listed as being located within Flood Zone 2. As identified in the Local Plan, the site is also within an area of High Density, an Archaeological Priority Zone and the Croydon Opportunity Area.
Planning History
3.10 85/00333/P – permission granted for continued use of premises for the storage, packing and distribution of gramophone records and tapes with ancillary offices.
3.11 90/00618/P – permission granted for continued use of premises for the storage, packing and distribution of gramophone records and tapes with ancillary offices.
3.12 92/02230/P – temporary permission granted for use of hall for storage and distribution of soft drinks and use of former church for storage purposes. Prior to this date there had been various storage/commercial uses on the site since the early 1960's which had the benefit of temporary planning permissions.
3.13 94/00115/P – permission refused for demolition of existing church; detached scout hall and warehouse buildings; erection of 2/3 storey building comprising 14x2 bedroom flats; alterations to vehicular access and provision of 17 parking spaces.
3.14 01/02412/P – application withdrawn for demolition of two community buildings at front; erection of a two storey building for use as shared housing for 6 residents leaving care and a single storey building for use as scouts store; formation of vehicular access and provision of a total of 15 parking spaces
3.15 06/05004/P – permission granted for demolition of existing buildings; erection of 4x3 three bedroom terraced houses with accommodation in the roofspace; a single storey church/community hall and two-storey detached house to be used as a Vicarage with attached garage; alterations to vehicular access; provision of access road and associated parking
3.16 10/03847/P – permission granted for Demolition of existing buildings; erection of 4x3 bedroom terraced houses with accommodation in the roofspace; a single storey Church/Community Hall and two-storey detached house to be used as a Vicarage with attached garage; alterations to vehicular access; provision of access road and associated parking (renewal of planning permission 06/05004/P). This permission was not implemented and has since lapsed.
4 CONSULTATION RESPONSE
4.1 The views of the Planning Service are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
4.2 Given the nature and location of the proposal, the following statutory consultees were consulted regarding the application:
Page 12 of 122 Historic England (no objection and no recommendation for any conditions); Lead Local Flood Authority, LLFA (no objection subject to planning conditions securing further details); Environment Agency (no objection); and Natural England (providing general advice on the protection afforded to bats).
5 LOCAL REPRESENTATION
5.1 The application has been publicised by way of four site notices displayed near the application site. As the application was subsequently considered to be a departure from the development plan, it was the subject of a further site notification process, being advertised in the local press and through the display of further site notices near the application site. The number of representations received from neighbours, local groups etc in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual responses: 47 Objecting: 46 Supporting: 0
No of petitions received: 1 (objecting to the application, containing 154 signatures)
5.2 The following Councillors made representations:
• Councillor Stuart Collins, objecting to the application.
5.3 Several local groups also commented on the application. Their comments are addressed in substance in the next section of this report:
Friends of Wandle Park (objecting) The Victorian Society (objecting) Apostolic Faith Assembly (objecting).
5.4 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in substance in the next section of this report:
Overdevelopment; High density; No need for more housing/development; Application site is not brownfield; Local residents planning to form a Neighbourhood Forum/Plan (OFFICER COMMENT): the objector initially raising this issue was provided with advise in terms of how to progress such matters. It is however important to note that the Government is very clear that it will not be possible to use Neighbourhood Plans to stop development where it is being proposed in broad compliance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development); Loss of church and its history/heritage; Impact on Wandle Park (including the church’s importance to the park’s character and harm to recent improvements works in the park and on park visitors); Church should be re-used/converted; Other uses of the site/other proposed buildings (OFFICER COMMENT): some objectors suggested alternative uses and/or alternative replacement buildings. This includes an outline proposal for potential use of the site by the Apostolic
Page 13 of 122 Faith Assembly and the Friends of Wandle Park. Use of the site is considered in detail below, but as the proposals for potential use of the site [including by the Apostolic Faith Assembly and the Friends of Wandle Park] do not form part of the planning application, such potential proposed uses are therefore not specifically considered further; Insufficient evidence provided of developer approaching community groups and that the Council’s agreed protocol has been followed; Mixed and balanced communities and concern about additional affordable housing; Application inconsistent with enforcement action against nearby flat development on Theobold Road (OFFICER COMMENT): this relates to a different site and is therefore not directly relevant to this site and application; There are no buildings higher than two storeys within vicinity of the site and these should be the reference point for the development (rather than developments on the other side of the park); Out of character and scale and dominating to the surrounding area; Out of scale with the 1870s terraced cottages of surrounding streets; Site is in/should be in a conservation area (OFFICER COMMENT): the application site is not within or adjacent to a conservation area, which have been identified following a detailed review by the Council of their appropriate boundaries. The nearest conservation area is Church Road, located about 0.25km from the site, on the other side of Roman Way. It is therefore considered that the site is not within the setting of and would not harm the conservation area or that of the nearby to Old Town Masterplan area; Materials are not sympathetic to the surrounding area; Height will dominate area and block views; Trees would not screen the building in winter; Harm to/loss of protected trees; Highways (traffic and parking pressure; need for restriction on resident parking permits; narrow roads; TA flawed as assumes only ten cars; Wandle Park spaces will be used by new residents/their visitors); Safety of highway- and park-users; Harm to wildlife (including bats using the site and the need for a bat survey); Amenity issues (overlooking, increased noise and pollution, loss of light/sunlight); Safety/crime/social problems; Disturbance and pollution from construction (a justified concern but one which can be suitably controlled by CLP etc); No provision for children’s play area; Flooding and drainage; Litter/rubbish issues; No communication direct to neighbours (OFFICER COMMENT): rather than sending letters to neighbours, the Council displays site notices near application sites in accordance with the Council’s adopted protocol.
5.5 The following issues were raised in representations that are not material to the determination of the application:
Property prices (OFFICER COMMENT): this is not a material planning consideration.
Page 14 of 122 6 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:
1. The principle of the development 2. Housing policy 3. The impact on the character of the area and visual amenity of the street scene 4. Residential amenities of adjoining occupiers 5. Parking and highway safety 6. Trees and landscaping 7. Ecology and wildlife 8. Flooding/Sustainable Urban Drainage 9. Living conditions for future occupiers 10. Refuse/recycling 11. Sustainability and energy 12. Contaminated land 13. Archaeology
The principle of the development
6.2 The Council primarily assesses planning applications against policies in the London Plan 2015, the Croydon Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013 (CLP1), the Croydon Replacement Unitary Plan 2006 (2013 Saved Policies, as identified in Appendix 4 of CLP1). For convenience, the plans are respectively referred to as the London Plan, CLP1, and CRUDP in the sections below.
6.3 The principle of development has two aspects:
Provision of new housing; and Loss of community facilities.
These, along with various other issues raised by objectors, are considered in turn below.
6.4 In addition to this, flooding/flood risk is also relevant to determination of the application. The topic is considered in detail in a dedicated section below. However, it is relevant to note here that the site is partly within Flood Zone 2 and the application provides for the creation of residential units which is not necessarily required to support the Council’s current five-year supply of housing. The application has therefore been treated as a departure from the development plan and has been advertised as such.
New Housing 6.5 The NPPF requires planning applications to be determined with a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Chapter 6 states that it is the role of local planning authorities to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.
6.6 Nationally and locally, there is a recognised need for new housing/accommodation. Subject to high quality design and a good standard of amenity for occupiers, the NPPF supports delivery of housing and a wide choice of homes and encourages the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land, provided that it is not of high environmental value). It states that housing applications
Page 15 of 122 should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and supports the effective use of land that has been previously developed. The London Plan promotes a balanced mix of tenures to provide mixed communities and states that “London desperately needs more homes in order to promote opportunity and real choice for all Londoners, with a range of tenures”.
6.7 Policy SP2.1 of CLP1 states that to provide a choice of housing for people in socially- balanced and inclusive communities in Croydon, the Council will apply a presumption in favour of development of new homes, provided applications for residential development meet the requirements of Policy SP2 and other applicable policies of the development plan. It sets out that one way of doing this is “concentrating development in the places with the most capacity to accommodate new homes whilst respecting the local distinctiveness of the places and protecting the borough's physical and historic environment”. SP2.2 states that the Council will not permit developments which would result in a net loss of homes or residential land. CRUDP Saved Policy H2 (Supply of Housing) provides support to housing subject to proposals respecting character and not resulting in the loss of protected uses.
6.8 There is a need for new homes both nationally and locally and there is strong national and local policy support for new housing. The need for the proposed development is therefore recognised and accepted and would result in the re-use of previously developed (brownfield) land. The provision of much need affordable housing (considered in detail below) adds further support to the proposal. The proposal would however result in the loss of a protected use (community facilities) which is addressed in the next section of this report.
Loss of community facilities 6.9 CLP1 Policy SP5.3 states that the Council and its partners will encourage the creation of healthy and liveable neighbourhoods by; (a) ensuring the provision of a network of community facilities, providing essential public services and (b) protecting existing community facilities that still serve, or can serve the needs of the community. For proposals which involve the loss of a community facility, applicants are expected to contact a list of community facility providers and groups to show there is no demand for the existing facility before a change of use or redevelopment will be considered acceptable. London Plan Policy 3.16 is also relevant, stating that proposals which would result in a loss of social infrastructure in areas of defined need for that type of social infrastructure without realistic proposals for re-provision should be resisted and that where the current use of a facility is no longer needed, boroughs should take reasonable steps to identify alternative community uses.
6.10 The previous use of the site by a church and a scout hut, both of which are community facilities, means that these policies are required to be properly considered and tested. The existing buildings on the site have been vacant for several years. The 2006/2010 permissions (both now having lapsed) indicate that re-development of the site is likely to be acceptable in principle. However, those permissions were for a mix of residential units and community use (a church/community hall) whilst the current proposal is for a solely residential scheme on the site and does not include the provision of community facilities on the site.
6.11 Before a solely residential development can be considered acceptable, the applicant has been required to follow the Council’s community facility protocol. This involves contacting community facility providers and groups to ascertain whether there is a realistic demand for the site and premises from other community facility groups and
Page 16 of 122 providers. The protocol requires that if there are any expressions of interest from relevant organisations about use of the site for community facility, these will need to be explored.
6.12 Details of the applicant’s approach to the community facilities protocol was submitted with application. The applicant’s approach was acceptable in general terms and broadly in-line with the Council’s requirements. However, not all organisations listed were successfully consulted by the applicant and during the first public consultation on the application, two local groups (Friends of Wandle Park and the Apostolic Faith Assembly – both of whom are not listed in the Council’s community facilities protocol) objected to the loss of community facilities and indicated an interest in providing a community use from the site.
6.13 The Council therefore requested that the applicant undertake further engagement with these organisations (as well as fuller engagement with the other groups listed in the Council’s community facilities protocol). The applicant subsequently submitted an updated Community Facilities Consultation Exercise (dated August 2016) setting out the further/full engagement undertaken, including with the Friends of Wandle Park and the Apostolic Faith Assembly.
6.14 The updated consultation exercise has been reviewed by officers who are satisfied that the protocol has been adequately followed; including attempts to engage in dialogue when interest has been expressed. It is therefore considered that the applicant has met the policy requirement.
6.15 During the second public consultation on the application (following the provision of further details during the determination period) representations (including from the Apostolic Faith Assembly) raised concerns that requests to access the site (to value it) was refused by the applicant. In response, the applicant has stated that they did respond to the Apostolic Faith Assembly’s request, but that it was unfortunately not able to allow access onto the site. Officers believe that access difficulties relate to H&S and public liability issues; the site has become dangerous, in a state of disrepair and contains various health hazards including drug paraphernalia, overgrown vegetation and fallen branches. It is further understood that the Apostolic Faith Assembly did not respond to the agent’s reply.
6.16 Given the dilapidated state of the site, the applicant’s position (that the site is unsafe) is not considered unreasonable. Whilst full access would have assisted the church with valuing the site, the site is clearly visible from the public realm and there was nothing stopping the church from following up on the rejection of access and providing an offer to buy the site subject to planning and site investigation. It is therefore considered that the applicant has followed the Council’s protocol and made best endeavours to identify any real interest in the site which involved an actual offer to purchase it.
6.17 The applicant has also provided details that the Scout Group which previously used the site have relocated their headquarters to the large church hall at Croydon Minster. The applicant has also provided details of community facilities available for hire in Croydon, with an accompanying map. This demonstrates that there are several sites within the borough that can provide community uses/facilities.
6.18 Following submission of the additional information by the applicant, the details demonstrate that the Council’s community facility protocol was sufficiently followed and the relevant groups – including the additional two community groups objecting to the
Page 17 of 122 application and expressing an interest in using/buying the site – were approached but no firm offer for the site has been put forward. It is therefore considered that the provision of a solely residential scheme on the site is acceptable in land-use terms.
Loss of the church/heritage issues 6.19 One of the NPPF's core principles is to ‘conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’, and NPPF para 135 states ‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be considered in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’.
6.20 During determination of this planning application, Historic England received an application to add the church to the List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest (i.e. to list the church as a nationally designated heritage asset). The response from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was that the application would not be taken forward to a full assessment and the building would therefore not be added to the list.
6.21 The Council has also received requests to add the church to the local list. The Council is however unable to carry out local listings on an ad-hoc basis and any such local listing would have to form part of an update/review of the Local List SPD.
6.22 Significant concern has been raised by objectors about demolition of the church. Information has been provided by objectors, including a booklet (titled ‘The Little Church in the Park, A Brief History of Pitlake Mission 1881-1968’) setting out a detailed history of the church. It is understood that Cecilie Mary Parker designed a stained- glass window for the Victorian neo-gothic church. However, that window unfortunately no longer remains.
6.23 Loss of the windows has reduced the historic interest of the church through its association with Parker. It is however considered that the buildings have some architectural interest and therefore should be considered as a non-designated heritage asset.
6.24 Given this and the church’s history, its demolition would result in the loss of some local heritage. Although the loss of the buildings would be total, the significance of the buildings (and their contribution to the locally listed park) is limited and therefore the overall level of harm is limited. Having regard to the public benefits of the scheme and NPPF para 135 (which requires a balanced judgement to be made having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset) the principle of its demolition and subsequent heritage loss is acceptable. No objection is raised to the loss of the buildings in this instance (subject to a planning condition securing a photographic building record of the church prior to its demolition). Th reasons for this approach are as follows:
the church is not nationally/statutory or locally listed, meaning there is limited protection afforded to its retention; having been disused for a considerable period, the church (and all buildings on the site) is clearly in a poor state of repair and increasingly dilapidated condition;
Page 18 of 122 the church has some street presence, but this is limited due to high vegetation levels and a later building which presents a blank brick wall to the street frontage; the building has lost some of its original (heritage) features, such as Cecilie Mary Parker stained glass window. The principle of its demolition has also already been previously accepted given the previous recent planning permissions on the site.
Impact on the Locally Listed Historic Park and Garden 6.25 CRUDP Policy UC10 states that the Council will resist development proposals which would adversely affect the aspects of locally listed parks and gardens which led to their inclusion in either category.
6.26 The site lies adjacent to and is surrounded on three sides by Wandle Park, a locally listed historic park and garden. Objectors have raised concern that loss of the church and the proposed replacement building would harm the character of the locally listed park.
6.27 Wandle Park is included on the Local List of Historic Parks and Gardens due to “sufficient layout and features evident to reflect the design of the 1890s and important in local context as one of the oldest public spaces in Croydon”. The local list assessment description identifies St Edmund’s Church and Mission Hall as being located ‘lodge-like’ at the north east entrance to the park. Although not forming part of the layout or design for which the park is designated, the church is considered of some interest/relevance to the park due to its ‘lodge-like’ relationship which adds interest to views in the park.
6.28 The church was built in 1881 and thus separately to the park’s creation. The boundaries between the church and park are screened by vegetation, limiting views between the two. It is acknowledged that there would be greater visibility in winter when the deciduous trees lose their leaves, although a level of screening remains. The buildings do not present their principle frontage or entrances to the park; those elevations most visible are relatively blank elevations which limits the significance of those views that are present. These factors reduce the ‘lodge like’ relationship of the church to the designated park and thus the contribution the church makes to its interest. Whilst the demolition of the church would mean its contribution to the locally listed park is removed, given that the local designation does not rely or focus on the church and its contribution to Wandle Park is limited, the overall level of harm caused to the locally listed park would be limited. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not harm the park or the reasons for its inclusion on the local list.
6.29 Objectors have also raised concern that the proposal would harm the park’s recent improvement works and park visitors. Those works, funded by Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), involved amongst other aspects de-culverting the River Wandle, creating new bankside and meadow habitats for wildlife, improvements to park facilities including upgrading the pavilion and café, improving play facilities, new seating, signage and interpretation, and a programme of activities for the public and volunteers.
6.30 Being set outside the park, the proposal would not directly affect or harm any of the improvement works at Wandle Park. In addition, the HLF website sets out that the “improvements have created a more welcoming area and altered people’s perception of crime and security in the park”. The proposal would result in removal of the existing vacant and increasingly dilapidated structures on the site and replacement with a building that would increase natural surveillance of the park. It is considered that this would positively assist with people’s perception of crime and safety in the park.
Page 19 of 122 Development density 6.31 The site has a PTAL rating of 5-6a. With train stations and tram and bus stops nearby, the site is accessible by a range of public transport options. The site is also located within 800 metres of Croydon Town Centre. Using the London Plan definitions, the site is therefore considered to have central locational characteristics. The London Plan’s Sustainable Residential Quality density matrix (covering habitable rooms and dwellings per hectare) sets out a density of 650–1100 habitable rooms per hectare (hrph) for sites such as this in ‘central’ locations. The density of the proposal would be 177.7 units per hectare or 425 hrph which would be well within (indeed below) the London Plan’s density matrix. Whilst the site could therefore arguably have contained more units, the density is considered suitable given the site’s setting adjacent to Wandle Park and its relationship to generally smaller two-storey single-family dwelling houses (and a lower density residential area). It is therefore not considered that the scheme would be an over-development of the site or provide an unacceptable level of density.
6.32 The proposal has been considered against other relevant Development Plan policies to ascertain whether it is acceptable in relation to all relevant issues. These are covered in detail below. Of relevance is the scheme’s appearance and massing in relation to its surroundings, its impact on adjoining occupiers and (given the site is partly within Flood Zone 2) flood risk considerations. However, given the recognised need for new housing and the applicant has followed the Council’s community facilities protocol (which has not resulted in any concrete interest leading to formal offers to buy the site) the proposal is supported in land-use terms.
Housing Policy
6.33 London Plan Policies 3.10-3.13 require Boroughs to seek to maximise affordable housing provision. CLP1 Policy SP2.4 states that developments should seek to provide 50% of housing units as affordable accommodation. If this cannot be met, a viability assessment must be submitted and verified to justify any reduced provision. Policy SP2.4 also indicates that there should be a 60:40 tenure split within the affordable housing provision between affordable (or social) rent and intermediate low cost home ownership including shared ownership.
6.34 There is a significant and pressing need for affordable housing both within the borough and across London. The proposal is to provide 100% on-site affordable homes.
6.35 In line with policy, the Council will secure 50% of the units (16 in total) as affordable housing via a legal agreement. This will consist of a mix of units (7x1 bed, 6x2 bed and 3x3 bed units) with a split of 62.5% affordable rent and 37.5% shared ownership. This is considered acceptable and will be secured by the S.106 Agreement. The scheme may ultimately not provide 100% affordable housing (as only 50% will be secured through the legal agreement). However, a scheme which does provide compliant (or even higher) levels of affordable housing in the borough is welcome given the current economic climate and the borough’s significant need for affordable housing (as set out in the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment).
6.36 Concern has been raised by objections that providing affordable housing on the site will harm the local community, resulting in an over-supply of affordable homes in the area and not lead to a mixed and balanced community (as per the London Plan). Balanced and mixed communities is clearly an important issue which needs consideration. Part C of Policy SP4.2 in CLP1 is also relevant, requiring development to enhance social cohesion and well-being.
Page 20 of 122 6.37 Whilst it is acknowledged that 32 new flats will not be seen by neighbours as insignificant, the scheme is not considered to be substantial in relation to the need for and amount of new housing being constructed in the borough and across London; especially given the built-up nature of the surrounding area. For this size of scheme, it is not expected that a mixed community would be provided from within the development alone (although it should be noted that the scheme does provide a mix of unit sizes and tenure types, as set out below). The surrounding area includes a mixture of housing, including a significant amount of single-family dwelling houses in the immediate vicinity. New flats in the area would therefore result in a greater mix of unit types. In addition, only 50% of the scheme will be secured as affordable housing through the town planning process. The affordable housing will also be a mix of rental and shared ownership units. It is therefore not considered that the provision of affordable housing on the site would harm the local community or create an unacceptable mix of homes in the area.
6.38 Policy SP2.6 of CLP1 states that ‘Council will seek new homes to meet the needs of residents over a lifetime and contribute to sustainable communities with the borough)’ and London Plan Policy 3.8 sets 10% of homes to be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users, in accordance with the GLA Best Practice Guide on Wheelchair Accessible Housing. The policy also sets a requirement for all new homes to be built to the Lifetime Homes standards.
6.39 The units would meet Building Regulations Part M (2) for accessible and adaptable homes. 10% of the proposed units (three of the ground floor units) would also be fully wheelchair accessible and three parking spaces would be provided on site for disabled users. The proposal also includes level access and a lift, meaning all floors would be easily accessible.
6.40 CLP1 Policy SP2.5 sets a strategic target for a proportion of new homes to provide three or more bedrooms. In this part of the Opportunity Area, the Council has a strategic target of 45% of all new homes to have three or more bedrooms. The unit mix proposed is 13 one-bed (circa 40%), 16 two-bed (50%) and 3 three-bed (circa 10%). Whilst the provision of 3 three bed units would not meet the strategic target, larger two- bed four person homes would provide an element of family sized homes. In this case, the proposal incorporates 12 two-bed four-person units. Taking this into account, the scheme would provide circa 47% larger family homes, which is considered acceptable and would therefore support delivery of the London Plan’s aim for mixed and balanced communities.
The impact on the character of the area and the visual amenity of the street scene
6.41 Chapter 7 of the NPPF requires good design. Policy 7.1 of the London Plan states that the design of new buildings and the spaces around them should reinforce or enhance the character of the neighbourhood. Policy 7.4 seeks high quality design responsive to its surroundings. Policy 7.6 seeks high quality architecture and materials and design appropriate to its context. CLP1 Policy SP4.1 requires development of a high quality which respects and enhances Croydon's varied local character and contributes positively to public realm, landscape and townscape. CRUDP Saved Policy UD2 requires development proposals to reinforce and respect existing development patterns and plot and building frontage widths where they contribute to local character. Policy UD3 permits development proposals provided they respect the design, scale, height and proportions of surrounding buildings which play an important role in determining the character of a street. Paragraph 4.26 of Policy UD3 states that
Page 21 of 122 “...respecting the layout, scale, massing, proportions, height and materials of surrounding buildings is of paramount importance…building on the best characteristics of the local area”. Saved Policy H2 allows housing development in built-up areas, provided that it does not conflict with the aim of respecting the character of residential areas.
6.42 The site is located within an area where the predominant surrounding building heights are two-storey. However, the proposed building would be set back from Cornwall Road and would be well separated from surrounding buildings. As such, it would be set away from existing buildings and would be seen as more of a pavilion building in its own setting (it would also be screened by existing and proposed replacement vegetation in and around the site). Its four-storey height is therefore considered acceptable in terms of its height and massing and would not be out of character with or dominating to the surrounding area. There are also examples nearby of buildings of more than two- storeys, including the three-storey flatted development on Cuthbert Road, to the south of the application site.
6.43 The proposal for a contemporary building in this location is supported given the building would be high quality and well designed, with a simple and coherent appearance. The building would not harm the character and setting of its surroundings, including that of the historic park and the local area.
6.44 The palette of materials proposed (pale grey bricks, glass and balconies) would be different to the predominant cream and red brick of the surrounding two-storey dwellings. However, the building would be well separated from surrounding dwellings and the palette of materials is simple and acceptable for that of a flatted development. It is considered that the contrast of materials to the existing surrounding dwellings would not be detrimental in townscape terms. The materials proposed are also considered to be suitable for the type of building proposed and to ensure a high standard of development, full details of all external materials and features can be secured by condition.
6.45 Objectors have raised concerns that the height of the building would block views and that the building would be more visible in winter months. The building would be well separated from adjoining dwellings. It would also be screened by existing (and proposed replacement) vegetation in and around the site. It is acknowledged that there would be greater visibility in winter when the deciduous trees lose their leaves. However, a level of screening would remain and with the proposed palette of materials and the care that has been given to design detailing and architectural treatment, officers are confident that the proposed building should represent a suitable addition to the immediate locality. It is therefore not considered that the building would reduce views into or across the park to any real extent and that natural screening of the building would occur throughout the year.
6.46 It is considered that the proposal would be of a high quality and would sufficiently respond to and contribute to the area. It would not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area or the park.
Impact on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers
6.47 CRUDP Saved Policy UD8 states the Council will have regard to the form and layout of existing and adjacent buildings and the privacy and amenity of occupiers of surrounding buildings ensuring that both new and existing occupiers are protected from
Page 22 of 122 undue visual intrusion and loss of privacy. London Plan Policy 7.6 states that new buildings should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings. CRUDP Policy EP1 (Control of Potentially Polluting Uses) and London Plan Policy 7.15 (Reducing Noise) also seek to protect residents from pollution associated with new development, such as increased noise and disturbance.
6.48 The application site is bounded by residential properties on two sides (to the south and east). However, the proposed building is set back from Cornwall Road and is well removed from the nearest residential dwellings. This reduces concerns that the proposal will lead to an impact on residential amenity of adjoining occupiers with regards to adjoining occupiers suffering from overlooking and a loss of privacy. However, given that the proposed development would be higher than the existing building, there could be a loss of light and/or overshadowing to adjoining occupiers.
6.49 A daylight/sunlight assessment was submitted with the application. It concludes that the proposal would not harm the nearest adjoining occupiers (28, 29-37 Theobald Road, 18 & 19 Westfield Road, and 31 & 33 Cornwall Road) through loss of light/sunlight. The report sets out that all the properties assessed would also retain daylight and sunlight levels and would comply with BRE criteria. Its conclusions are considered acceptable.
6.50 The creation of residential units would result in some increased noise and disturbance. However, the building would be detached and well separated from surrounding residential dwellings. In view of the built up nature of the surrounding area and the public use of Wandle Park (which generates some noise and disturbance) it is not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance compared to the existing situation.
6.51 Concern has been raised by objectors about the potential for safety/crime/social problems arising from the proposed development. It is considered that the creation of residential accommodation at the site could improve the existing situation. For example, the proposal would result in removal of the existing vacant and dilapidated/unsafe structures which could attract vandalism and other undesirable activities taking place on site. The replacement building would increase natural surveillance of the park and surrounding area. It is therefore considered that this would assist with people’s perception of crime, safety and anti-social behaviour in the area.
6.52 Objectors have also raised concerns about construction works causing noise/air pollution and dust. Some noise and disturbance from construction works cannot be avoided. However, this would be subject to separate environmental legislation. The Council and the GLA also produce good practice guidance on this matter, of which the developer would be informed. Access to the site for construction works, including hours of operation, site management, control of dust and debris etc could also be managed through the conditioning of a Construction Logistics Plan.
The impact on parking and highway safety
6.53 CLP1 Policy SP8 (Transport and Communication) sets out numerous relevant policies relating to accessibility, sustainable transport and parking. Policy SP8.17 of the Croydon Local Plan states that outside high PTAL areas, the Council will apply the standards as set out in the London Plan. The CRUDP also has several policies relevant to this proposal. Saved Policy UD13 states that car parking must be designed as an
Page 23 of 122 integral part of a scheme and should be safe, secure, efficient and well designed. Saved Policy T2 states that planning permission will only be granted where the traffic generated by a development can be satisfactorily accommodated on nearby roads. Saved Policy T8 sets out maximum parking standards for new development and states that the Council will restrict the amount of car parking space in new development to promote sustainable transport choices. T4 states that the Council will seek the provision of cycle parking facilities in relevant developments. The London Plan sets out the latest requirements. London Plan 2015 Policy 6.3 states that development proposals should ensure that impacts on transport capacity and the transport network, at both a corridor and local level, are fully assessed. It sets out that development should not adversely affect safety on the transport network. Policy 6.13 states that a balance needs to be struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision, and that in locations with high accessibility that car free development should be promoted.
6.54 The Council’s Strategic Transport team were consulted on the application. They have raised no objection subject to conditions.
6.55 The site is in area with a PTAL accessibility rating of 5-6a and is therefore considered to have very good-excellent accessibility to public transport links. It is within 800 metres from Croydon Town Centre and is nearby to various bus stops and within walking distance of Reeves Corner tram stop.
6.56 Cornwall Road is a narrow single carriageway road. It runs along the frontage of the site with double yellow line restrictions on both sides of the carriageway. Cornwall Road has a general road width of between 3m-4mts in this section and is subject to a 30mph speed limit. To the south of the site, Cornwall Road widens and is subject to on-street parking on both sides of the carriageway. The car parking bays are restricted to use by permit holders or pay and display with a 4 hour maximum stay. Along the frontage of the site and to the north, a single footway runs along the western side of the narrow section of the carriage and to the south, footways are present along both sides of the carriageway.
6.57 Vehicular access to the site would be from 2 locations directly off Cornwall Road. The northern of the access points would provide access to a parking area housing 7 spaces, with the southern access point leading to 3 spaces. The access and parking layout proposed is considerable acceptable. A planning condition will be needed to secure a highways agreement prior to commencement of works. To provide for pedestrian safety, visibility splays to either side of the vehicular accesses will also need to be secured by condition.
6.58 As the site is well located to local amenities and public transport facilities and given that 13 of the units would be one bedroom flats (which typically attract a lower level of car ownership) the level of parking can be reduced below the Council’s maximum standards. 10 car parking spaces (including the provision of three disabled spaces) is therefore considered acceptable. A planning condition is recommended to secure the provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Points in accordance with the London Plan.
6.59 Residents have raised concerns that the off-street parking provision is inadequate and that this would increase parking pressure on the surrounding streets. Concerns have also been raised that new residents would park in Wandle Park. To ensure the proposal does not result in an unacceptable increase in parking pressure and given the site is within a Controlled Parking Zone, it is considered necessary to restrict future residents
Page 24 of 122 from applying for on-street resident parking permits. The applicant has accepted this and the S.106 Agreement will secure this restriction. Given this and that the parking spaces in Wandle Park are clearly marked for use by park visitors, it is considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable increase in parking pressure on surrounding streets.
6.60 The previous community use of the site would have generated several vehicular trips. However, most trips generated by these uses would take place outside of the peak hours whereas the proposed residential units would generate peak time vehicular traffic. The Transport Assessment submitted with the application interrogated the TRICS database to establish the potential vehicle trips generated in the AM and PM peak periods by the proposed residential development. The results of the traffic generation exercise indicate that the 32 proposed residential units will generate a small number of two-way trips in both the AM peak hour and PM peak hour and that is unlikely to have a significant impact on the adjoining highway network. Given that the number of off-street parking spaces is limited to ten cars and residents would not be allowed to apply for on-street parking permits, it is considered that the additional trip generation from the development would not be material or harm the highway in terms of vehicular or pedestrian safety (including of local residents and park visitors).
6.61 Sufficient cycle parking would also be provided in accordance with the London Plan standards. Details of the proposed external cycle stores can be secured by condition.
6.62 As set out above, a Demolition/Construction Logistic Plan (including a Construction Management Plan compliant with Chapter 8 of the Road Signs Manual for temporary Works) should be secured by condition. In addition to this managing noise and disturbance to neighbours, it would also ensure suitable management of vehicular movements and therefore avoid harm to traffic flow etc during construction.
6.63 The applicant has also submitted a Delivery Management Plan in support of the application. This is acceptable and a condition can secure compliance with its approach. The submitted Travel Plan is also broadly acceptable and a condition can secure an updated final Travel Plan is produced prior to occupation.
Trees and landscaping
6.64 CRUDP Saved Policy NC4 states the Council will refuse permission for proposals that result in the loss of valued trees, especially those protected by Tree Preservation Orders and that landscaping proposals to be considered as an intrinsic part of the design concept. Policy 7.21B of the London Plan states that existing trees of value should be retained and any loss as the result of development should be replaced following the principle of 'right place, right tree'. CRUDP Saved Policy UD14 sets out that landscaping should be considered as an integral part of proposals.
6.65 During pre-application discussions with the applicant, an Area Wide Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was issued by the Council (TPO No. 20, 2015) on a temporary basis to protect the group of trees within the site whilst scheme was in development. This Area Wide TPO has recently be renewed (reference TPO No. 36, 2016) to ensure continued protection of the trees. This new TPO preserves four trees. This is a reduced number since making the first TPO due to a recent tree failure of the most prominent tree within the site boundaries (to the front of the site).
Page 25 of 122 6.66 Officers will update and finalise TPO No. 36 2016 once the development is complete, assuming planning permission is forthcoming. The final TPO will ultimately preserve those trees which are considered to provide amenity value and which should therefore be preserved. At that stage, the Council may also consider preserving the newly planted trees (as provided in the landscape scheme) if it is considered necessary at that time to ensure a good visual transition between the new development and Wandle Park.
6.67 A full tree report was submitted with the application, covering assessment of the proposal’s impact and tree protection measures (including ground protection, fencing and construction management measures). The report covers a total of 28 trees and two additional small groups of trees, and includes assessment of their size, condition, age, amenity value etc. The proposed development would result in loss of some trees within the application site. However, several of these trees are considered to be of limited value and/or of poor quality and/or are damaged.
6.68 The development has been sited to avoid the root protection area of park trees and those trees within the site which officers consider should remain and not be harmed by the development. Those trees within the site that are proposed to be removed to make way for the development do not offer important amenity value and/or are not good quality specimens worthy of preservation. The 12 replacement trees proposed on the site will offset the overall loss of trees arising from the development. This is considered acceptable. Conditions can secure compliance with the arboriculture report/tree protection plan and the submission of a landscaping scheme to provide full details of proposed soft (and hard) landscaping and replacement trees.
Ecology and wildlife
6.69 Policy SP7.4 of CLP1 sets out that the Council’s approach to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity across the borough. CRUDP Policy NC1 covers Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and NC2 covers protected species and habitats. London Plan Policy 7.19 is also relevant.
6.70 Wandle Park is identified as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The latest review of such sites was in 2013. This evaluated Wandle Park as having a local conservation value/importance.
6.71 The application was accompanied by an Extended Phase I Habitat Survey. This sets out the species and habitats considered as part of the work and the species and habitats found on the site which were subsequently assessed. The report sets out that the development would not result in unacceptable harm to protected species and habitats within and beyond the application. Construction works would be restricted to within the application site boundary and no notable fauna within the Wandle Park listing were found that would be significantly disturbed during construction. The report also sets out further work/assessments required and proposes mitigation measures to avoid harm to wildlife and ecology.
6.72 The Extended Phase I Habitat Survey set out that a bat survey should be undertaken. During determination of the application (after the first public consultation completed) the applicant therefore submitted a completed bat survey. This survey and assessment confirmed that the development would result in the loss of one small common pipistrelle summer non-breeding bat roost. Various mitigation measures for the loss of the one bat roost and to reduce the impact of the development overall are proposed.
Page 26 of 122 6.73 The loss of a bat roost requires the applicant to apply for a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) from Natural England following any grant of permission. The Council is also required to satisfy itself that, prior to granting permission, the relevant EPSL tests could be met by the applicant. The Council therefore consulted Natural England on the loss of the bat roost. Natural England confirmed that for this type of development, they would consider the national and local need for new housing and in such cases, they have advised that there is no reason why a EPSL would not be granted. They further stated that they expect all planning issues and conditions to be resolved prior to a EPSL application being submitted to Natural England.
6.74 To ensure the development (including demolition/construction works and eventual use of the flats) does not harm wildlife and ecology within the site or in Wandle Park, a condition is required to secure compliance with the recommendations in the phase I report and bat survey regarding mitigation and enhancement measures. The applicant will also need to comply with other relevant environmental legislation, including regarding bats. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to wildlife and local ecology within the site or Wandle Park.
Flooding and sustainable urban drainage
6.75 The NPPF sets out that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Policy SP6 (Environment and Climate Change) of CLP1 sets out the Council’s approach to flooding. It identifies that Croydon is ranked the 4th settlement in England most susceptible to surface water flooding. The policy requires: Flood Risk Assessments to be submitted for major developments, with proposals in Flood Zones 2 and 3 providing site-specific information proportionate to the degree of flood risk posed to and by the development.
6.76 In accordance with the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, all applications for major developments must also give priority to the provision of sustainable drainage systems unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. The relevant policies of the London Plan (5.13) and CLP1 (SP6.4) require all new development to utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) to reduce surface water run-off and provide water treatment on site.
6.77 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the Environment Agency (EA) were consulted on the application with regards to the submitted drainage strategy/SUDS and flood risk assessment. The LLFA reviewed the proposed SUDS and subject to a standard condition securing further details prior to commencement of work, did not object to the proposal. The EA did not object, responding that they would not formally comment on the application as it is covered by their flood risk standing advice and the proposal should therefore be determined by the Council in accordance with relevant development plan policies and guidance.
6.78 The site was previously in Flood Zone 3, but the EA recently updated its flood mapping. Based on the latest EA flood maps, the site is partially within Flood Zone 1 partially within Flood Zone 2. Croydon’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) identifies the site as having a low risk of surface water flooding. The 1:1000 year flood level nearest to the site is of 41.31mts AOD. Proposed ground levels around the building will be higher than this (41.46mts AOD), approx. 300mm above the 1:1000 year flood level. This complies with/is beyond that required by the EA. Surface water is modelled to flood to a depth of 100mm - 300mm (max 41.5m AOD) in Cornwall Road, in the 1 in
Page 27 of 122 200 year event. The risk of surface water flooding in the 1 in 75 year event is considered to be Low (<100mm). Complying with EA advice, all new ground floor levels will be set at least 300mm above the 1 in 1000 year (+ Climate Change) fluvial flood level of 41.31m AOD, as indicated in the EA’s Product 4 data. The proposal comprises ‘More Vulnerable’ development in Flood Zone 2.
6.79 Given the size of the proposed development and its location (partly within Flood Zone 2) a sequential test is needed for the development, as required by policy, the SFRA and government/EA guidance. The NPPF sets out that when “determining planning applications, LPAs should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific FRA following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:
within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location, and development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.”
6.80 The application was originally not accompanied by a sequential test. However, during determination of the application, an updated Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), including a sequential test and exception test was submitted. The sequential test demonstrates that the borough is currently achieving its 5 year housing land supply. The borough does therefore not currently need to rely on housing within flood zones 2 or 3 to ensure sufficient provision of a 5 year supply of housing in-line with the NPPF. However, the updated FRA provides more detailed assessment of the potential flood risk to the proposed development and the surrounding area, indicating that the risk of flooding is minimal and residential development on the site would be acceptable in this instance.
6.81 The FRA demonstrates that most the site (as existing) is within FZ1; the FZ2 area (extending into the site from the northern boundary) is only able to occupy a localised depression in the site; the proposed development ground levels would remove this depression and the development would therefore mean the future extent of FZ2 would not extend into the site (meaning the site after development would be classified as within FZ1). The FRA assesses that the risk of flooding post-development would range from no risk to a reduced offsite risk. The updated FRA also proposes various flood resilience and mitigation measures to avoid and reduce flood risk to future and surrounding occupiers. Amongst other aspects, this includes: floor levels and access complying with EA guidance; evacuation procedures; internal fit out reducing the impact of flooding; suitable building materials.
6.82 Exception tests are not required for developments defined as more vulnerable which are in FZ2 (such as this site). An exception test is also only required when a sequential test is passed. In this case, the sequential test cannot be passed because the Council is currently meeting its required five-year housing supply. However, the applicant completed an exception test nonetheless. This sets out that the proposal contributes several wider sustainability benefits that outweigh the (limited) flood risk and justifies how the building will be safe for its lifetime (considering users’ vulnerability) and will not increase flood risk elsewhere. Combined with the acceptable SUDS proposed, it is considered that the proposal would also assist in reducing flood risk in the surrounding area by reducing surface water run-off when compared to the existing situation.
Page 28 of 122 6.83 The Council is arguably only achieving its 5 year land supply due to significant numbers of residential units arising from office to residential prior approvals. There is uncertainty as to whether these prior approvals will be delivered and of course some of these converted units do not provide good living conditions for future occupiers. In this context, 35 Cornwall Road would deliver high quality units providing suitable living conditions for future occupiers, would provide much needed affordable housing and various other public and sustainability benefits. It is also relevant to note that residential use on the site has previously been approved, including as recently as 2011 when the site was still designated as Flood Zone 3. Given this and the above considerations, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable with regards to flood risk both within and surrounding the site. A departure from policy is not significant and has in this case been clearly and robustly justified. A condition should be included to ensure compliance with the details and recommendations set out in the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy (Revision A) dated 24 October 2016.
Living conditions of future occupiers
6.84 Policy SP2.6 of CLP1 states: ‘The Council will seek to ensure that new homes in Croydon meet the needs of residents over a lifetime and contribute to sustainable communities with the borough. The Policy states that all new homes should meet the minimum standards set out in the Mayor of London’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG, 2016). London Plan Policy 7.6 states that buildings and structures should provide high quality indoor and outdoor spaces and integrate well with surrounding streets and open spaces. The London Plan 2015 (including Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2016), the Mayor’s Housing SPG 2016 and the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Technical Housing Standards (Nationally Described Space Standard, March 2015) set out minimum space standards for dwellings of different sizes.
6.85 All the units would comply with the minimum floorspace standards. Each flat would also provide sufficient external amenity space through either a private balcony or garden. The total amount of private amenity space provided would be 651sqm, which is divided into a total of 145sqm of private balcony space and 506sqm of garden space. This provision is above the London housing quality standard of 194sqm required for the proposed number and type of units.
6.86 The majority but not all units would be dual aspect. This could result in limited light and natural ventilation for the single aspect units. However, the daylight/sunlight assessment confirms that 99% of the habitable rooms would receive sufficient natural light and 55% would exceed BRE sunlight levels. There would be one room, a ground floor bedroom, which would fall slightly short of the BRE daylight standards and 15 living rooms (with a north facing aspect) falling short of sunlight standards. Some flats are single aspect, hence the daylight/sunlight assessment’s findings. However, on balance, it is considered that the living conditions of future residents would be acceptable given sufficient natural glazing ensuring 99% of all habitable rooms would achieve BRE daylight standards and residents would have acceptable outlook.
6.87 Concern has been raised about children’s playspace. London Plan Policy 3.6 (Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities) sets out the Mayor’s approach to housing development providing play and informal recreation space where relevant. The Mayor’s Housing SPG provides some further direction, including ‘Where a development includes family housing, accessible play spaces designed to meet the needs of younger and older children should be provided, taking account of the
Page 29 of 122 projected child population in line with Policy 3.6’ (para 1.3.21) and ‘A careful balance should be struck between optimising housing output, enabling infrastructure delivery and achieving residential and environmental quality…This may generate comparatively reduced on-site requirements for social infrastructure, play and open space provision, thus enabling higher residential densities to be achieved’ (para 1.3.58).
6.88 Given the site’s location and high PTAL, it is considered suitable for the site to not involve specific play space provision within the development. However, it is noted that the family sized units are on the ground-floor and have private amenity space which would provide play space for children living in those flats. The site’s proximity to Wandle Park would also enable other children living in upper floor flats to utilise the extensive play facilities available in the Park (which has dedicated play facilities including play area for young children, a basketball area, skate park and large grassed areas available for various other sport/play activities). On balance, the lack of dedicated play provision within the site is therefore considered acceptable.
Refuse/recycling
6.89 Saved Policy UD15 of CRUDP states that “new development…will only be permitted if it provides temporary storage space for refuse which is generated by the development and which is adequately screened and conveniently located.”
6.90 A refuse store of sufficient size to accommodate refuse and recycling from the proposal would be provided along the southern boundary of the site. This proposed location would make it possible to collect refuse within 20 metres of the highway). This will ensure that rubbish generated by residents would not be left to build up and create a nuisance in terms of smells, litter and an attractant for animals.
6.91 Its location would make it visible from the public realm (both from the highway and access to the park). However, the proposed store would be constructed of high quality materials (including finished with a sedum roof) and suitable boundary treatment (in the form of face brick walling, metal railings and soft landscaping) would be provided. Subject to a condition securing full final details of the proposed materials and final appearance of the store, and landscaping, this is considered acceptable.
Sustainability and energy
6.92 The relevant policies of the London Plan (5.2) and CLP1 (SP6.3) require new residential development to promote sustainable energy use, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Level 4 or equivalent.
6.93 Energy and sustainability reports were submitted with the application. They outline that the proposed development will incorporate various measures to reduce the buildings’ energy and water use, generate on-site renewable energy (through solar PV panels) and maximise sustainability principles during construction and occupation (including re-using materials, minimising construction waste, maintaining/enhancing the site’s ecological value and maximising sustainable transport options such as cycling). These are considered acceptable and relevant energy/sustainability issues can be secured by condition.
Contaminated land
Page 30 of 122 6.94 London Plan Policy 5.21 (Contaminated Land) and CRUDP Policies EP2 and EP3 (Land Contamination) seek to ensure that the land is suitable for the use proposed and that the impacts on health and the environment from contaminated development sites are minimised. The policies require an environmental and historical site review to be undertaken where relevant and further intrusive investigation and remediation if necessary.
6.95 The Council’s Environmental Health team reviewed the application and site history. They have confirmed that a contaminated land assessment will not be required in this instance.
Archaeology
6.96 The NPPF (Section 12) and the London Plan (Policy 7.8) emphasise that the conservation of archaeological interest is a material consideration in the planning process. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF says that applicants should be required to submit appropriate desk-based assessments, and where appropriate undertake field evaluation, to describe the significance of heritage assets and how they would be affected by the proposed development. This information should be supplied to inform the planning decision. Saved Policy UC11, Development Proposals on Archaeological Sites, is also relevant, stating that development will only be permitted if proposals are properly assessed where they may affect the archaeological heritage of a site.
6.97 Historic England (The Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service, GLAAS) were consulted on the proposal. They reviewed the application regarding information held in the Greater London Historic Environment Record and/or made available about this application. They have concluded that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest and have therefore not objected and have not recommended any conditions.
Conclusions
6.98 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been considered. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out above. The details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION.
Page 31 of 122 Page 32 of 122 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 15 December 2016
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision Item 7.2
1 APPLICATION DETAILS
Ref: 16/02158/P (Link to related documents on the Planning Register) Location: Norbury Police Station, 1516 London Road, Norbury, London SW16 4ES Ward: Norbury Description: Alterations and refurbishment of the existing police station to provide 188 sq m of D1/D2 floorspace on the ground floor and 8x1 bedroom flats on first and second floors; erection of three/four storey building at rear comprising 8x3 bedroom, 5x2 bedroom and 1x1 bedroom flats; provision of associated landscaping, cycle parking, refuse storage and ancillary works Drawing Nos: 2039_GA_L01_P, 2039_GA_L00_P, 2039_GA_L00_P_RevA, 2039_GA_L02_P, 2039_GA_L03_P, 2039_GA_EL_N_S_RevA, 2039_GA_W_E_RevA, 2039_GA_EL-PS, 2039_GA_RP_P, 2039_GA_S_A-B, 2039_EX_EL_A-D, 2039_EX_EL_E-N, 2039_EX_PLANS_l00_RL, 2039_EX_P_A_L00, 2039_EX_P_A_L01, 2039_EX_P_A_L02, 2039_EX_P_A_L03, 2039_EX_P_L00, 2039_EX_SL, 2039_GA_BL_P, Applicant: Norbury PS Ltd Agent: Brian Coughlan RPS CGMS Case Officer: Emily Napier
1.1 This application is being reported to Planning Committee as the “Love Norbury Residents Associations Joint Planning Committee” made representations in accordance with the Committee Consideration Criteria and requested Planning Committee consideration.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 This scheme was presented at pre-application stage (15/03203/PRE) to Planning Committee on 22nd October 2015.
2.2 The following comments were raised by Members during the presentation;
• The Committee was supportive of how the scheme worked with the Locally Listed Building; • Need for explanation as to why some of the units within the existing building did not comply with London Plan Standards (49 sq m instead of 50 sq m and a number of units being only single aspect); • Explanation required on how the amenity space will work for residents and the wider local community; • Scale modelling of the site and the possibility of more massing to provide larger (3- 4 bed) units, if done in an interesting way; • Access for car parking; • Location of bin storage; • Flood risk from Norbury Brook;
Page 33 of 122 • Affordable housing offer will need to be identified with recognition of planning policy position.
3 SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
3.1 The Council’s community facilities protocol has been sufficiently followed and no firm offers to buy the site for a community use have been received.
3.2 The conversion and retention of the locally listed former police station is supported.
3.3 The height and massing of the proposed rear buildings has been assessed in relation to its impact from a range of viewpoints and has been found to be satisfactory, including in relation to impact on heritage assets.
3.4 The appearance and detailed façade treatment of the building would be of a high quality, displaying an appropriate response to the surrounding character including the locally listed police station.
3.5 The development has demonstrated that there will be no adverse impacts from loss of light, outlook or overshadowing on existing residential properties .
3.6 The proposed unit mix at 36.4% provision of three bed units is supported. Whilst this is below the 60% guidance threshold, it is noted that the provision is restricted due to the conversion of the locally listed building. The provision of three beds when assessed solely on new build elements is 57.1%. The mix across tenures is supported and the marginal shortfall is acceptable due the fact that a higher proportion of larger two bedroom units than expected will be delivered and that the scheme proposes no studio units.
3.7 The proposal provides 7 shared ownership units, representing 30% of all residential provision in the scheme and 50% of new build. The applicant has demonstrated that the scheme is eligible for Vacant Build Credit and subsequently this provision forms 50% of the uplift once Vacant Building Credit has been applied.
3.8 The site is situated within Flood Zone 2 and 3. A sequential test and exceptions test have demonstrated that the site can mitigate impacts of flood risk and that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the risk of the site’s location and the degree of vulnerability to flooding.
3.9 The highways effects of the development would be acceptable. Three wheelchair accessible parking spaces would be provided adjacent to the site in the adjoining car park to serve wheelchair users who may occupy the development. Furthermore, sufficient bicycle spaces are proposed for the users/occupiers of the buildings.
4 RECOMMENDATION
4.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
A. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:
a) Provision of 7 shared ownership units (31% habitable units on site) (or 50% of the uplift of units); b) Restriction of residents to apply for parking permits;
Page 34 of 122 c) Membership of car club; d) Travel Plan e) Provision of off-site disabled car parking spaces; f) Employment and training strategy;
4.2 That the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4.3 That the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions [and informatives] to secure the following matters:
Conditions
1) Development in accordance with approved drawings 2) No development shall commence until details of Landscaping Plan, including hard and soft landscaping with specified materials and drawings at 1:200, are submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. 3) No development shall commence until typical details showing the material build- up of the new build are submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in Writing. This should show the junctions of the building in sections from roof to ground, including balcony junctions. Drawings submitted should include those at 1:20 and 1:10. 4) Typical window details of new build. 5) Material sample board of external facing materials 6) Details as to how the locally listed building will be restored and made good (including restoration of original window detailing) 7) No development shall commence including demolition until and Construction Logistics Plan/ Demolition Plan/ Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. 8) Unless otherwise previously agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing 10% of the dwellings shall be designed to be Category 3 ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ M4(3). The units shall be provided prior to any residential occupation of the building and shall be retained as such for so long as the development remains in existence. Reason: To ensure that an acceptable standard of flexible and adaptable housing is provided and retained in accordance with the London Plan. 9) Due to the proximity of the main road (London Road), an assessment of environmental noise is required to demonstrate any necessary mitigation measures. 10) Details of cycle storage, refuse storage and security lighting to be submitted prior to the commencement of development. 11) 35% reduction in CO2 emissions beyond 2015 Building Regulations. 12) Water usage limited to 110lts p/person p/day. 13) Restriction of hours of use of ground floor units. 14) Compliance with Flood Risk Assessment. 15) Prior to construction, information concerning to the following points should be formalised in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Sustainable Drainage Assessment (SDA) (Hemsley Orrell Partnership, August 2016) and submitted to the LPA for approval: • The FRA should acknowledge the surface water flood risk to the site. The responses provided in the email (dated 29/09/16 from Hemsley Orrell Parntership)
Page 35 of 122 should be formalised, with references to the Environment Agency flood maps and site topography • The volume of attenuation provided by the bio-retention area and green roof area should be provided in the SDA, following recommendations from the CIRIA SuDS Manual. • Section 4.5 of the SDA should acknowledge the ACO channel in the components that require maintenance once the development is occupied. 16) Contamination 17) Within 3 years of date planning permission granted
Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning
Informatives
1) In this type of development, this department normally expects the 'good’ standard for acoustic design criteria under the British Standards Institute BS8233:2014 ‘‘Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings’’ in living rooms and bedrooms as described in the table below.
Indoor ambient noise levels for dwellings Activity Location 07:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 07:00 Resting Living room/area 35dB LAeq, 16 hour - Sleeping Bedroom 30dB L 35dB LAeq, 16 hour Aeq, 8 hour (daytime resting)
In bedrooms at night, individual noise events should not normally exceed 45 dB LA MAX. 2) Site notice removal 3) Code of practice for construction 4) Any other informatives considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport.
4.4 That, if by 15th March 2017 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
5 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
5.1 Full planning permission is sought for:
5.2 Alterations and refurbishment of the locally listed former police station to provide 188 sq m of D1/D2 floor space at ground floor and 8x1 bedroom flats on first and second floor.
5.3 Erection of part three/ part four storey building at rear to provide 8x3 bedroom, 5x2 bedroom and 1x1 bedroom flats with associated car parking (for residents with disabilities) and landscaping.
Site and Surroundings
Page 36 of 122 5.4 The site is located on the eastern side of London Road, just to the north of Norbury Railway Station. The site is bounded to the east by Norbury Park (an area of designated Local Open Land and a Site of Nature Conservation Importance). To the north, south and west are a mix of two and three storey terraced properties in commercial use at ground floor with residential and office uses over. To the north- east of the site lies a sizeable Council-owned car park, which has a vehicular access to the north, adjacent to 1544 London Road.
5.5 The police station (which is now vacant) is a three-storey locally listed building. To the rear of the site lies a two storey building with a dual pitched roof and gable ends. High brick wall bound the site to the south, east and north.
5.6 The application site is located within an area designated as an area of high density in Norbury District Centre, but outside of the Primary Shopping Area which is approximately 100m to the south.
5.7 The site is also located within the Environment Agency’s defined Flood Zones 2 and 3. London Road is within the Transport for London Road Network. The site is located within an Archaeological Priority Zone.
Planning History
5.8 None relevant.
5.9 The application was the subject to pre-application advice and was presented to Planning Committee on 22nd October 2015. The advice and comments offered are set out in paragraph 2.2 of this report.
6 CONSULTATION RESPONSE
6.1 The views of the Planning Service are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
6.2 The following were consulted regarding the application:
The Environment Agency (Statutory Consultee)
6.3 The site is situated within Flood Zone 2 and subsequently The Environment Agency were consulted on the application.
6.4 Following receipt of additional information in the form of an updated FRA, the Environment Agency have no objection to the proposals (FRA dated June 2016 and subsequently superseded by FRA dated August 2016). The site is shown as being located within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3. The proposal for the site is for 22 residential units and the retention of the 2 existing commercial units. The majority of the site is located in Flood Zones 1 and 2 and with this in mind the Environment Agency do not object to the proposals.
Transport for London (Statutory Consultee)
6.5 The site lies on the section of London Road that is a Transport for London Road Network Road (TLRN). TFL were consulted on the application on the 4th May 2016 and at the time of writing this report no representation has been received.
Page 37 of 122 Lead Local Flood Authority
6.6 Following the receipt of additional information, the Lead Local Flood Authority have raised no objections to the proposals, subject to the inclusion of conditions in the event of an approval.
LOCAL REPRESENTATION
6.7 The application has been publicised by way of one or more site notices displayed in the vicinity of the application site. The application has also been publicised in the local press. The number of representations received from neighbours, local groups etc in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual responses: 0
The following local groups/societies made representations:
• Love Norbury Residents Associations Joint Planning Committee [Objecting]
6.8 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in substance in the next section of this report:
Objections
• Rear building is overdevelopment; • Rear building at three to four storeys adversely conflicts with the locally listed building and dominates the site and surrounding area; • Concerned with increase of studio, one bedroom and two bedroom properties in the area; • More visual interest in the design of the building is required; • Provision of wheelchair accessible housing is “tokenistic” and doesn’t provide enough choice; • Insufficient refuse storage for amount of units proposed; • Concerned with crime and safety issues - the proposed reduction of the wall will reduce security into the site. • Proposed disabled parking will not restrict public from parking there; • Concerns with regards to drainage of roof; • Concerns with future uptake of D1 units; • Lack of affordable housing; • Planning Statement gives impression residents groups were more supportive of proposals than they were.
Supporting comments
• Removal of chimney and platform on locally listed building is supported as they currently detract from the appearance of the building. • Joint Planning Committee supports detailed drainage work that has been undertaken; • Energy and water use is supported.
Page 38 of 122 7 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the Planning Committee is required to consider are as follows:
1. The acceptability of the proposed residential and community uses 2. Housing typology 3. Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the locally listed building 4. Amenities of Neighbouring Occupiers 5. Quality of the living environment provided for future residents 6. Parking and highways considerations 7. Flood risk and drainage
The acceptability of the proposed residential and community uses
7.2 Police stations (and buildings last in use as a police station) are considered to be a community facility under the terms of Policy SP5.3 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies. This policy states that the Council will encourage the creation of healthy and liveable neighbourhoods by protecting existing community facilities that still serve, or have the ability to serve the needs of the community. This is supported by London Plan Policy 3.16 which defines policing facilities as social infrastructure. Clause B of the policy states that “the suitability of redundant social infrastructure premises for other forms of social infrastructure for which there is a defined need in the locality should be assessed before alternative developments are considered”.
7.3 Policy CS2 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013 states that development which would lead to the loss of community facilities including education, health and medical care, day care provision for children and places of worship, will not be permitted unless it has been demonstrated that there is no need for them or there are no alternative community uses which could make use of the buildings or site.
7.4 A community facility survey has been undertaken which details that there has been no concrete interest in the use of the whole building for an alternative community facility although it is understood that there is interest to use the ground floor of the premises as a nursery facility which could be accommodated in the proposed D1 use of the ground floor of the former police station. Notwithstanding the above, the principle of the loss of the former community use of the whole site is considered acceptable.
Housing typology
7.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to sustainable development. London Plan 2011 (with 2015 alterations) policy 2.15 supports housing growth through intensification and selective expansion in appropriate locations. Policy 3.3 states that there is a pressing need for more homes in London and Policy 3.8 states that Londoners should have a genuine choice of homes.
7.6 Croydon Local Plan 1 Strategic Policy SP1.1 states that when considering development proposals, the Council will adopt a positive approach. SP2.1 states that in order to provide a choice of housing for people in socially-balanced and inclusive
Page 39 of 122 communities in Croydon, the Council will apply a presumption in favour of development of new homes, provided applications for residential development meet the requirements of Policy SP2 and other applicable policies of the Development Plan.
7.7 Policy SP2.4 states that the Council will negotiate to achieve up to 50% affordable housing provision on sites with ten or more units on the basis set out in Table 4.1 of the Plan. If this cannot be met a viability assessment must be submitted and fully verified, in order to justify any reduced provision. There is also the presumption that all affordable housing is provided on-site.
7.8 The Council also has a strategic target for 60% of all new homes outside of the Croydon Opportunity Area (COA) to have three or more bedrooms, as set out in policy SP2.5 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 1. Whilst it is not expected that this level of provision will be accommodated on every scheme, it does seek a positive and constructive response to the high level of local and regional need for family homes. Since receiving comment from Planning Committee last year, the proposals have sought to include a higher proportion of family sized 3 bedroom units into the scheme. Whilst this would represent less than the 60% target, this provision (36.4%) is restricted to some extent by the desire to maintain the character (internally as well as externally) of the locally listed building; the existing locally listed fabric significantly limits the deliverability of larger units within the existing building. 57.1 % of new units proposed within the new build element of the proposed development would have three bedrooms – which would help compensate for the lack of provision within the locally listed building.
7.9 Policy 3.8 of the London Plan seeks for 10% of new housing to be wheelchair accessible. The proposed development would provide three wheelchair accessible units which equates to 13%.
7.10 The development would be split into two forms, the conversion of the locally listed police station and the demolition of the building at the rear of the site and erection of a four storey building.
7.11 The unit mix is reproduced for ease of reference:
Type Number % Number % TOTAL % (Market) (Affordable: Shared Ownership)
1 Bedroom 8 36.4 0 0 8 36.4 2P (conversion)
1 Bedroom 0 0 1 4.5 1 4.5 2P (Wheelchair)
2 Bedroom 1 4.5 0 0 1 4.5 3 P
2 Bedroom 1 4.5 1 4.5 2 9.1
Page 40 of 122 3P (Wheelchair)
2 Bedroom 0 0 2 9.1 2 9.1% 4P
3 Bedroom 5 22.7 3 13.6 8 36.4% 4P
Total 15 68.2 7 31.8 22 100
Affordable Housing
7.12 The applicant has completed an affordable housing viability assessment, which has been assessed by an independent RICS surveyor on behalf of the Council, who has subjected the assessment to rigorous testing to ensure that this is the maximum viable level that the scheme can deliver. The initial offer of 0% affordable housing was recalculated to include a mix of 7 shared ownership shared units. Whilst this mix does not accord with Croydon or London Plan Policy (in terms of overall percentage or tenure split), the applicant has demonstrated that they approached Registered Providers, offering the scheme at a policy compliant split. Given the small number of units proposed as part of the development and an understanding of how the scheme might be able to be managed by Registered Providers, those approached considered that a 60:40 split (in favour of affordable rent) would not have been a manageable and/or viable proposition. A Registered Provider has put in an offer for seven shared ownership units and under the circumstances of this particular case, this is considered acceptable and satisfactorily deals with the affordable policy requirements.
7.13 The provision of 7 units equates to 30% of the scheme. The building has been vacant since August 2013 and therefore qualifies for the Government’s Vacant Building Credit. Planning Practice Guidance states:
“National policy provides an incentive for brownfield development on sites containing vacant buildings. Where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer should be offered a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of relevant vacant buildings when the local planning authority calculates any affordable housing contribution which will be sought. Affordable housing contributions may be required for any increase in floorspace”.
7.14 In essence, this means that the Council’s affordable housing requirement can only be applied to the net increase of floor space on the site. The current buildings on site provide 1,094 sq m of internal (gross internal) floorspace, with the proposed additional floorspace (gross internal floor space) providing a further increase of 844.7 sq m. Consequently, with the 50% minimum affordable housing policy applied, 422.35sqm would be required to be delivered as affordable housing. The 7 shared ownership units would provide 487sqm of affordable housing within the rear new build block as (1x1 bedroom - 2 person wheelchair accessible unit, 1x2 bedroom - 3 person wheelchair accessible unit, 2x2 bedroom 4 person units and 3x3 bedroom 4 person unit) providing approximately 57.6% of the new floor space and 50% in the
Page 41 of 122 increase in dwelling units. This would also be acceptable and officers are satisfied that the delivery of affordable housing has been maximised.
Impact on the character and appearance of the locally listed building and surrounding area
Locally Listed Building
7.15 The site itself is dominated by the locally listed police station, of which the conversion forms part. The rear of the site is currently occupied by some more modest buildings, which will largely be removed under the proposed plans to accommodate the new residential block at the rear of the site. The site backs onto Norbury Park, with the south of the site facing the entrance to the park, at the junction of Norbury Avenue and London Road.
7.16 The context of the area is defined by a mix of buildings largely two and three storey in height. Properties Fronting London Road largely comprise retail at the ground floor level with residential uses above. Along Norbury Avenue, the context is formed largely of detached two storey dwellings.
7.17 The siting of the new build element will have some impact upon the visual amenity of the wider area; there will be visibility from the park and park entrance, due to its siting at the rear of the site. However, in terms of the scale and height of the building, it is considered that it will respect the existing scale and massing of the wider built environment, in that the building would not exceed building heights in the wider area. It is considered in this respect that the proposals accord with London Plan Policy 7.4. It is also considered that proposals accord with the principles of Saved Policy UD3 of the Croydon Plan.
7.18 The design of the rear block has evolved significantly through the pre-application process, influenced by several factors. There were concerns about the dominance and impact of the proposed building on the setting and character of the locally listed building (Norbury Police Station) as well as the residential amenity of adjacent occupiers situated along London Road. Whilst officers previously expressed a preference for a part 2/3 storey scheme, following previous discussions at pre- application stage, officers are satisfied that the principle of a 3/4 storey building would work satisfactorily, especially as it helps provide for larger family units as part of the housing mix along with the delivery of affordable housing on site.
7.19 The application provides visuals of proposed building within the setting of the locally listed building and is considered that the bulk and massing of the proposed building would not over-dominate or overwhelm this setting and relationship. The bulk of the four storey element would be centrally located, which would reduce the visual appearance of this massing when viewing the site from London Road, helping to ensure that the locally listed building can still be viewed as the predominate feature of the site. The rear block would read against the setting of the park and this would help to ensure that the two buildings read as separate forms.
7.20 The refurbishment of the locally listed police station is welcomed. The proposed external elevations indicate the retention of the existing mass and therefore the proposal is not considered to detriment the integrity of the existing locally listed building. The Heritage Assessment demonstrates that the buildings at the rear have been modified to an extent that they are no longer of local interest and the loss of this
Page 42 of 122 rear element can be supported. The submission emphasises that the primary aspect of the building which has the greatest local significance is the main elevation fronting onto London Road. It proposes that all the original steel-framed windows will be retained and made good – which is recommended to be controlled through use of a planning condition. Furthermore, the two main entrances either side of the existing covered passage would be reused, ensuring that the original circulation spaces are maintained without any loss of significant historical fabric. The proposals also seek to reduce the height of the boundary wall which encloses the rear and sides of the site. The Heritage Assessment has adequately demonstrated that the upper elements of this wall are later additions to the structure and officers are satisfied that there will be minimal impact upon the integrity of the historic elements of this boundary.
7.21 Whilst it is accepted that the creation of an additional access in this wall to serve the car park will lead to the removal of some historic fabric, it is considered that this is minimal and on balance acceptable, bearing in mind the benefits of creating an additional access.
Design
7.22 The scheme seeks to create a secondary street between the two masses and creates a communal entrance through to the rear which would help deliver an inclusive an open development. The rear block would provide communal and private entrances with the ground floor units being served by separate entrances. This would further help define the street like appearance within this rear space. The use of fencing, to mirror that of balcony materiality would also help to create defensible space in front of these entrances separating communal space from private space.
7.23 The application of materials would be varied throughout the elevations of the new build and therefore introduce appropriate texture and interest. The design has removed the patterned GRC cladding, so that one type of GRC is proposed and this is supported as the use of these two materials would have over-complicated the overall design of the rear building and would not have reflected the architectural form of the locally listed building in a sympathetic or positive manner.
7.24 A focus on varying the pattern and appearance of the brick throughout the elevation is supported. Generally, the layout of the scheme is satisfactory and accommodates a mixture of accommodation types.
Impact on Adjoining Occupiers
7.25 One of the core planning principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) is that decisions should ‘always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings’. London Plan Policy 7.1 states that in their neighbourhoods, people should have a good quality environment. Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies SP4.1 and SP4.2 seek to respect and enhance character to create sustainable communities and enhance social cohesion and well-being. Croydon Plan Policy UD8 states that the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers should be protected. The compliance of the proposal with these policies is now considered below in relation to each impact.
7.26 The applicants have carried out an analysis following BRE Guide to Sunlight and Daylight on surrounding residential properties. The report prepared by “Right of Light Consulting” on 19 th April 2016 demonstrates that all windows which face within 90
Page 43 of 122 degrees of due south pass both the total annual sunlight hours test and the winter sunlight hours test and subsequently the proposed development satisfies the BRE direct sunlight to windows requirement.
7.27 There will be a minimum separation distance of 18m between the windows of properties fronting on to London Road and the proposed rear building. This distance is considered acceptable in terms of overlooking between habitable windows.
7.28 On testing the massing of the rear building, it has been demonstrated that the impacts from the additional proposed storey would not be significant; there will be no significant amenity effects experienced by neighbouring occupiers through loss of light. When considering the separation distance, it is not considered that this will detrimentally reduce the outlook available to occupiers of properties along London Road.
7.29 The rear block will sit approximately 20 metres away from the nearest residential property on Norbury Avenue (328 Norbury Avenue). This property is located to the south east of the site and does not directly face the site (with the rear elevation facing North East towards Norbury Park). Given the proximity and siting of this dwelling, it is not considered that there will be any significant impacts upon the amenity of occupiers of the dwelling through loss of light, outlook or privacy.
Amenity of future occupiers
7.30 London Plan Policy 3.5 states that new residential units should provide the highest quality internal environments for their future residents and should have minimum floor areas in accordance with set standards. Policy UD8 of the Croydon Plan states that external amenity space should be provided to serve new residential units at a level which is commensurate with that provided in the surrounding area. London Plan Policy 3.8 states that all new housing should meet ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards and that 10% of new residencies within a development should be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. The London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) provides further details in relation to housing standards, including in relation to the provision of dual aspect units and private amenity space. Housing SPG standard 4.10.1 states that 5 sq m of private amenity space should be provided for each one bedroom unit, with a further 1 sq m provided for each additional occupant. Standard 4.10.3 states that the minimum length and depth of areas of private amenity space should be 1.5 m and standard 5.2.1 states that developments should avoid single aspect units which are north facing, have three or more bedrooms, or are exposed to a particularly poor external noise environment.
7.31 All the proposed units in the new build element of the scheme would meet London Plan Policy 3.5 in terms of the required internal floor space standards relevant to the number of bedrooms they provide. All the units would also meet the requirements outlined in the Housing SPG in relation to amenity space quantum and minimum dimensions. Furthermore, all proposed three bedroom units have dual aspect and therefore. There would be no single aspect units which are north facing, have three or more bedrooms, or are exposed to a particularly poor external noise environment. All units would be built to Lifetime Home standards and more than 10% of units would be wheelchair adapted or capable of easy adaptation for wheelchair users, and this could be secured by planning condition. The Policy and Housing SPG
Page 44 of 122 requirements outlined above are therefore met for the rear new build element of the scheme.
7.32 The proposed conversion of the locally listed building does result in three units falling slightly short of the 50sqm minimum space standard for 1 bedroom 2 person flats. However, in considering that these units are situated within a conversion and fall marginally below the minimum GIA (the greatest shortfall being 0.8sqm) this is considered acceptable (in view of the constraints associated with converting a locally listed building).
7.33 None of the units in the converted police station building provide level access to private amenity space. However, the provision of such private amenity space would have likely harmed to the overall character and appearance of the building and therefore on balance such an omission from the conversion is acceptable. Furthermore, the units will all have access to the communal amenity space contained within the development and Norbury Park is immediately adjacent to the site and is clearly available for use by future residents.
7.34 A few units within the converted police station building would be single aspect - although two units would provide dual aspect, with windows on the south-eastern elevation which are considered acceptable. There are two additional units on the northern (rear elevation) which are seemingly single aspect (the bedrooms have an additional eastern facing window although these would have a limited degree of outlook due to the siting and layout of the existing building) and there are four single aspect units facing towards London Road. As the building is a conversion and measures have been taken to retain historic fabric (including chimney breasts) this has constrained the potential layout of units within the conversion.
7.35 The Council’s Environmental Health team have been consulted on the proposals and no objection has been raised, subject to a noise survey being submitted and the ‘good’ standard acoustic design criteria under the British Standards Institute BS8233:2014 ‘‘ Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings ’’ in living rooms and bedrooms. On balance, given that any potential noise impacts can be mitigated and the delivery of a restored locally listed building in a sensitive manner, officers are satisfied that the provision of some single aspect units as part of the conversion would be acceptable under the circumstances.
Parking and Highways
7.36 Chapter 4 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable transport. London Plan Policies 6.3 and 6.13 and Croydon Plan Policies T2 and T8 require that development is not permitted if it would result in significant traffic generation which cannot be accommodated on surrounding roads. They also require that acceptable levels of parking are provided. Disabled parking spaces are required by Policy 6.13 of the London Plan and the accompanying Housing SPG.
7.37 London Plan Policy 6.9 states that secure, integrated and accessible cycle parking should be provided by new development in line with minimum standards. These are 1 space per units for those with 1 and 2 bedrooms and 2 spaces per unit for those with 3 or more bedrooms. The proposed cycle parking provision accords with the standards set out in the London Plan and is therefore acceptable for the scale of development proposed.
Page 45 of 122 7.38 The site is located in an area with a PTAL of 4, which is well located to Norbury Rail Station and a number of bus routes. It is also well located for all the services and amenities available within the Norbury District Centre.
7.39 Given the site’s accessibility, the level of on-site car parking should be limited only to car parking for disabled drivers (basically car free development). It is proposed that 3 disabled car parking spaces will be made available within the adjoining Council owned public car park. This would be captured as a planning obligation attached to a S.106 Agreement along with resident engagement in local car club activities.
7.40 The site falls within a Controlled Parking Zone and it is recommended that a further planning obligation be attached to a grant of planning permission, to prevent future residents from applying for on-street parking permits.
7.41 A Transport Statement (TS) has been produced to support the application and is considered acceptable; confirming that the traffic generation from the proposed development will be insignificant in terms of impacting on the surrounding road network.
7.42 The TS includes a short section regarding a Construction Management Plan. Whilst this is acceptable, a full Demolition/Construction Logistic Plan (including a Construction Management Plan compliant with Chapter 8 of the Road Signs Manual for temporary Works) should be submitted for approval before commencement of work.
7.43 A Travel Plan is submitted, which is acceptable and a legal agreement will be required to ensure that the measures set out in the document are implemented.
Flood risk and sustainable urban drainage
7.44 The NPPF sets out that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Policy SP6 (Environment and Climate Change) of CLP1 sets out the Council’s approach to flooding. It identifies that Croydon is ranked the 4th settlement in England most susceptible to surface water flooding. The policy requires: Flood Risk Assessments to be submitted for major developments, with proposals in Flood Zones 2 and 3 providing site-specific information proportionate to the degree of flood risk posed to and by the development.
7.45 In accordance with the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, all applications for major developments must also give priority to the provision of sustainable drainage systems unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. The relevant policies of the London Plan (5.13) and CLP1 (SP6.4) require all new development to utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) to reduce surface water run-off and provide water treatment on site.
7.46 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the Environment Agency (EA) were consulted on the application with regards to the submitted drainage strategy/SUDS and flood risk assessment. The LLFA reviewed the proposed SUDS and subject to a standard condition securing further details prior to commencement of work, did not object to the proposal. The EA removed objections following the submission of additional information; a planning condition is recommended to ensure that the
Page 46 of 122 development is carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Urban Drainage details.
7.47 The Croydon Local Plan Strategic Policy SP6.4 requires ‘major developments in Flood Zone 1 and all new development within Flood Zones 2 and 3 to provide site specific Flood Risk Assessments proportionate with the degree of flood risk posed to and by the development, taking account of the advice and recommendations within the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan’. The London Borough of Croydon expects all new developments to meet the drainage requirements of the London Plan 2011, policy 5.13 and its supporting document; Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance (2014).
7.48 The proposed development site is located in fluvial Flood Zone 2 and 3 associated with the Norbury Brook meaning that each year, this area has a chance of flooding from rivers of between 1 in 1000 (0.1%) and 1 in 100 (1%). A Flood Risk Assessment and Sequential Test including flood mitigation methods was submitted as part of the application.
7.49 Given the size of the proposed development and its location (partly within Flood Zone 2 and 3), a sequential test is needed for the development, as required by policy, the SFRA and Government/EA guidance. The NPPF sets out that “when determining planning applications, LPAs should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific FRA following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:
• within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location and
• development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.”
7.50 The sequential test demonstrates that the borough is currently achieving its 5 year housing land supply. The borough is therefore not currently reliant on the provivion of housing within Flood Zones 2 or 3 to ensure sufficient provision of housing in-line with the NPPF. However, the updated FRA provides more detailed assessment of the potential flood risk to the proposed development and the surrounding area, indicating that the risk of flooding is minimal and residential development on the site would be acceptable in this instance. The commercial sequential test demonstrated that there are no suitable D1 or D2 sites available within the Norbury District Centre and this element of the sequential test is passed.
7.51 An exception test is only required when a sequential test is passed. In this case, the sequential test cannot be passed because the Council is currently meeting its required five year land supply. However, the applicant completed an exception test nonetheless. This sets out that the proposal contributes a number of wider sustainability benefits that outweigh the (limited) flood risk and justifies how the building will be safe for its lifetime (taking into account users’ vulnerability) and will not increase flood risk elsewhere. Combined with the acceptable SUDS proposed, it
Page 47 of 122 is considered that the proposal would also assist in reducing flood risk in the surrounding area over the existing situation.
7.52 The exceptions test carried out sets out that the site provides development which is safe for its lifetime (as demonstrated in the Flood Risk Assessment dated August 2016). In addition to the benefits of the scheme delivering a sustainable, car free residential development that will contribute to the Community Infrastructure Levy, the exceptions test also considers the benefits of the scheme, including the provision of 7 shared ownership units (at 31% of the total scheme, and 50% when taking Vacant Building Credit into account) and 36% family sized accommodation. The scheme will renovate and safeguard the future use of a locally listed building, ensuring the long term security of a non-designated heritage asset.
7.53 The Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority have both considered the details provided in support of the application and have not raised objections, subject to inclusion of planning conditions, of which those are set out in paragraph 4.3 of this document. Officers are satisfied the development would be satisfactory form a flood risk point of view.
7.54 The exceptions test has demonstrated that the site provides a number of benefits that outweigh the sites location within the Flood Zone and the associated risks, which in any event, are proposed to be mitigated to the satisfaction of statutory consultees.
Sustainability and energy
7.55 The relevant policies of the London Plan (5.2) and CLP1 (SP6.3) require new residential development to promote sustainable energy use, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Level 4 or equivalent.
7.56 Energy and sustainability reports were submitted with the application. They outline that the proposed development will incorporate various measures to reduce the buildings’ energy and water use, generate on-site renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. These are considered acceptable and relevant energy/sustainability issues can be secured by condition.
Other Planning Issues
7.57 None relevant
Conclusions
7.58 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been considered. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out above. The details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION.
Page 48 of 122 This page is intentionally blank
Page 49 of 122 Page 50 of 122 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 15 December 2016
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision Item 7.3
1 APPLICATION DETAILS
Ref: 16/02994/P and 16/05204/LBC (Links to related documents on Planning Register) Location: Purley Baptist Church and Hall, Banstead Road, 1-4 Russell Hill Parade,1 Russell Hill Road and 2-12 Brighton Road and 1-9 Banstead Road Purley CR8 Ward: Coulsdon West and Purley Description: 16/02994/P Planning application for - Demolition of existing buildings on two sites; erection of 3 to 17 storey building with basements comprising 114 flats, community and church space and a retail unit on “Island Site” and a 3 to 8 storey building comprising 106 flats on “South Site” and public realm improvements with associated vehicular accesses 16/05204/LBC Listed Building application for - Removal of section of low perimeter wall within the curtilage of Purley Library and replacement with new steps to join library forecourt, demolition of unlisted Purley Baptist Church which abuts a gate adjoining the Library
Drawing Nos: 16/02994/P A304_PL_001, A304_PL_002, A304_PL_003, A304_PL_004, A304_PL_005, A304_PL_006 Rev A, A304_PL_010, A304_PL_011, A304_PL_012, A304_PL_013 Rev B, A304_PL_014 Rev B, A304_PL_015 Rev B, A304_PL_016, A304_PL_017, A304_PL_018, A304_P_019, A304_P_020, A304_P_021, A304_PL_022, A304_PL_023, A304_PL_024, A304_PL_025, A304_PL_026, A304_PL_027, A304_P_028, A304_P_029, A304_PL_050. A304_PL_051, A304_PL_100, A304_PL_101, A304_PL_102, A304_PL_103, A304_PL_104, A304_PL_105, A304_P_106, A304_PL_107, A304_PL_108, A304_PL_109, A304_PL_110, A304_PL_111, A304_PL_112, A304_PL_113, A304_PL_114, A304_PL_115, A304_PL_116, A304_PL_117 Rev B, A304_PL_130, A304_PL_131, A304_PL_132, A304_PL_133, A304_PL_150, 1272- CA-A-XX-DR-PL Rev P1, 1272-CA-A-XX-DR-PL-096 Rev P1, 1272- CA-A-LG-DR-PL-099 Rev P1, 1272-CA-A-GF-DR-PL-100 Rev P3, 1272-CA-A-01-DR-PL-101 Rev P5, 1272-CA-A-02-DR-PL-102 Rev P5, 1272-CA-A-03-DR-PL-103 Rev P2, 1272-CA-A-04-DR-PL-104 Rev P2, 1272-CA-A-05-DR-PL-105 Rev P2, 1272-CA-A-06-DR-PL- 106 Rev P1, 1272-CA-A-RL-DR-PL-107 Rev P1, 1272-CA-A-XX-DR- SE-200 Rev P1, 1272-CA-A-XX-DR-SE-201 Rev P1, 1272-CA-A-XX- DR-EL-300 Rev P1, 1272-CA-A-XX-DR-EL-301 Rev P1, 1272-CA-A- XX-DR-EL-302 Rev P3, 1272-CA-A-XX-DR-EL-303 Rev P2, 1272-CA- A-XX-DR-EL-310 Rev P1, 1272-CA-A-XX-DR-EL-311 Rev P1, 1272- CA-A-XX-DR-EL-320 Rev P1, 423.01 Rev E, 423.02 Rev D, 423.03 Rev D, 423.04 Rev A, 423.05 Rev A, 423.06, 423.07, 423.08, 423.09, A083346-SK036, A083346-SK037 and MSTE100 Rev 0
Page 51 of 122 16/05204/LBC A304_PL_001 and A304_PL_060
Applicant: Thornsett Group Plc and Purley Baptist Church Agent: Nexus Planning Case Officer: Mr White
1.1 The application 16/02994/P is being reported to Planning Committee because the development is a Large-scale Major development. Furthermore, the number of individual objections has exceeded the thresholds and the application has been referred by Local Ward Members and Resident Associations.
1.2 The application 16/05204/LBC is being reported to the Planning Committee because the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport considers Planning Committee consideration to be necessary – as the application for listed building consent is integral to the consideration of the above planning application.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 This scheme was presented to Planning Committee during the pre-application process on 24 July 2014, 14 May 2015 and most recently on the 28 January 2016.
2.2 The proposed development was reported to enable members of the Planning Committee to view it before a planning application was submitted and to comment upon it. The development presentations did not constitute an application for planning permission and any comments made were provisional and without prejudice to full consideration of any subsequent application and any comments received following consultation, publicity and notification.
2.3 The following comments were raised by the Planning Committee during these presentations:
14 May 2015
• Principle of residential and community uses was supported by the Committee • Priority should be given to achieving a greater amount of affordable accommodation rather than community uses. A figure of 25% affordable accommodation was proposed. The use of a financial review mechanism was suggested to ensure max amount of affordable accommodation; • Members were particularly interested in the community facilities that would be available to non-church bodies. Details of other uses and an access/management plan should accompany any planning application. If generating income from community space, how affordable will it be? • The large number of smaller residential units in the development was accepted given the overall character of Purley – being more focussed around family sized dwellings; • Height of the tower - the majority of members did not object to a 16 storey tower; • Opportunity exists to increase the height of the Banstead Road development where it fronts onto the roundabout. This could facilitate the provision of more affordable accommodation; • Development needs to be of very high design quality; • Important trees need to be protected; Page 52 of 122 • Concern over lack of parking for church/community uses. Potential for agreement with Tesco to share their car park
24 July 2014
• Welcomed the principle of developing this long term vacant site; • An appropriate split between on-site parking facilities for residents, church and community users is required to ensure that the overall provision of on-site car parking is adequate (with the possibility of cycle space re-allocation); • Inquiring whether other sports providers have been contacted to engage in the overall sports provision; • Landmark site - design needs to be of high standard for this iconic location - potential for innovation with overall acceptance of a taller building in principle within the District Centre; • Opportunity for widening Banstead Road and improving gyratory should be further explored (along with cycle safety) with further consideration being given to planning for a greater level of pedestrian movement around the site with the need for on-going dialogue with TfL; • Lack of affordable housing on the site – which should be accommodated as part of this scheme whilst acknowledging the need to deliver replacement community facilities; • Ensuring an appropriate mix of residential unit sizes – catering for both family and non-family; • The design of the scheme would need to respect the setting of the adjacent listed library; • Should further explore the overall height and massing of the building – with a more even distribution of mass across the site; • Amenity space - possibility of roof terraces and ensuring a good hierarchy of private and communal spaces across the scheme; • Questions around whether the facility would have capacity to accommodate future growth in congregation and associated use.
28 January 2016
Affordable Housing and Provision of Community Facilities • Some concern about only 17% but clear recognition that viability is an important consideration - need to get the balance right; • Need for a review mechanism if the affordable percentage remains low; • Question about the distribution of affordable 1, 2 and 3-bed units; • Potential for affordable 4-bed family units; • Whilst the Committee welcomed the opportunities for wider community focus around the church related facilities, it is necessary for the facilities to be advertised widely and be broadly available to maximise use across all sections of the community (linked to a formalised community contract).
Design • Some concerns about the tower but generally acceptable; needing careful consideration about the development of the scheme; • Importance of the south corner of the tower on Banstead Road, approaching from the south; • Possibility of more height on the Banstead Road tower;
Page 53 of 122 • Importance of ensuring housing and housing association standards are met - encouraged by fact that discussions have been taking place; • Relationship with the back gardens of properties in Purley Knoll and need for a positive boundary with good screening;
Highways & Parking • Concern over inadequate parking but recognition of the high PTAL rating (5); • Possibility of sharing car parking with other providers, such as Tesco; • Request for a green travel plan; • Importance of TFL discussions, looking carefully at the Banstead Road corner with Brighton Road; • General desire to local access arrangements onto both sites - in view of the current highway conditions.
Amenities • Trees - positive reaction to plan for street trees and Scots Pines on the top of the tower
3 SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
3.1 The proposed “Island Site” element of the proposal (hereinafter referred to as Site 1) is within Proposal Site H85 of the Saved UDP where the preferred uses are identified as community uses, residential and shopping. A mixed use residential, community and commercial scheme is therefore acceptable in principle. The loss of vacant offices and an expired car parking use on the “South Site” (hereinafter referred to as Site 2) and the provision of replacement residential uses is also acceptable.
3.2 The development would provide 18% affordable housing when measured by units. A viability assessment has been submitted and independently verified to confirm that this is the maximum level of affordable housing which the development could provide. The tenure mix within the affordable housing would be 69% affordable rent to 31% intermediate housing. In addition, a review mechanism would be secured which may allow for an increased affordable housing provision, dependant on future viability. Given the significant amount of new high quality community facilities and the regeneration of a prominent site, the short fall in affordable housing is not sufficient to warrant refusal and therefore acceptable in this instance.
3.3 In relation to heritage assets, there will be no loss of significance or substantial harm caused to the Upper Woodcote Village and Webb Estate Conservation Area and the United Reformed Church Grade II Listed Building. The current uninterrupted skyline will be broken by the development, altering the way in which the Grade II listed Purley Library, nearby locally listed buildings and Local Area of Special Character are experienced within the predominantly low-rise character of the District Centre. However, the public benefits of the scheme within the application would outweigh the less than substantial harm caused to the setting of the heritage assets. The development is acceptable in relation to its impact on the locally listed buildings and the Local Areas of Special Character.
3.4 The townscape impacts of the “Island Site” development in terms of its bulk, height, layout and massing are acceptable. The architectural expression of the tower focuses on a tracery façade that sits in front of glazed walling, which is complemented by exposed trees and lower podiums, primarily constructed in brick.
Page 54 of 122 The buildings proposed for the “South Site” would be mainly constructed of two brick types with stone banding. The approach is supported. Whilst further design details are required and will be secured by planning condition, it is considered that the design and townscape impacts are acceptable.
3.5 The development would comply with residential standards in terms of internal floor areas and all of the units would also meet the requirements in relation to amenity space, both the quantum and minimum dimensions. Most of the units would receive good levels of daylight and sunlight and there is children’s play space on both parts of the application site. Accordingly, the living conditions provided for future residents would be acceptable.
3.6 The residential density of the proposed development would be high and would slightly exceed the density indicated in the London Plan. However, given that the development is considered acceptable in in terms of townscape, residential amenity, residential quality, environmental and public transport accessibility, the density of development would be acceptable.
3.7 The development proposes a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom homes. 10% of units would have 3 or more bedrooms. This is below the 60% sought by relevant policies, but this is a strategic target and not site specific. Furthermore, there are a higher percentage of 2 bedroom - four person units (29%). Overall the proposed mix of units is acceptable in the circumstances.
3.8 The site is near to both residential and commercial accommodation. There would be some impacts on neighbouring amenity, particularly in relation to privacy and lighting conditions for some occupiers of the buildings fronting onto Russell Hill Road. However, when weighed up against benefits delivered by the scheme and with the imposition of planning conditions, the impact is not considered sufficient to warrant a refusal of permission.
3.9 The wind conditions within and around the site would be acceptable. Subject to relevant planning conditions in relation to contamination and noise, these aspects would be acceptable. Other environmental impacts of the development including air quality, wind and electronic interference are acceptable.
3.10 The development would have a low risk of flooding from watercourses and the scheme has been designed so that it suitably mitigates surface water and groundwater flooding, as well as incorporating sustainable urban drainage features.
3.11 The proposal would result in a loss of 21 trees. Individually none are worthy of retention which, when weighed up against benefits delivered by the scheme alongside the provision of good quality replacements in the landscaping scheme to be approved, the loss would be acceptable.
3.12 The highway layout and access points are acceptable. Due to the high PTAL rating, further on-site parking provision cannot be justified. Adequate cycle and parking would be provided for the occupiers of the development. Studies demonstrate that trip generation and impact on public transport services is acceptable. Refuse collection for both sites can be accommodated in accordance with Council standards. Overall the proposed parking, including electric vehicle charging points and other transportation impacts of the development are considered acceptable and would be further controlled using planning conditions.
Page 55 of 122 3.13 Given the excellent public transport links and site constraints adequate Blue Badge parking is provided, pedestrian access points are level and the residential units would be constructed to part M4(3) and M4(2) of Building Regulations.
3.14 Subject to conditions relating to lighting and CCTV the development would be safe and secure.
3.15 The development would meet BREEAM level ‘Excellent’ for the non-residential aspect and would offset 35% of carbon emissions above a baseline of the 2013 Building Regulations. Site wide communal heating would be installed, allowing for future connection to a wider heating system, albeit not between sites. This complies with the relevant policy requirements and can be secured by conditions.
4 RECOMMENDATION
16/02994/P Planning Application
4.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
A. Any direction by the London Mayor pursuant to the Mayor of London Order
B. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations / obligations:
a) Provision of affordable housing – including review mechanism b) Provision of employment and training strategy c) Financial contribution for maintenance of street trees d) Restrictions for future residents applying for on street parking permits e) Travel plan monitoring f) Provision off site car club and membership funding g) Public realm maintenance h) Safeguard parcel of land for TfL in the event they require the land for highway works. i) Highway scheme/works to adjacent roads j) Adoption/safeguarding land required for highway works k) Community use management plan l) Retention of architects (or ones of similar calibre). m) Detail of works linking through to Purley library/commuted payment for maintenance costs n) Any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport
4.2 That the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4.3 That the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the following matters:
Conditions
0) defined terms relating to ‘Phase 1’, ‘Phase 2’ and Highway Agreements
Conditions specifically applicable to Phase 1 (South Site) Page 56 of 122
1) Windows to be obscure glazed north western elevation. 2) Roofs not to be used as outdoor space 3) Tree protection plan 4) Highway scheme/ works adjacent to South site
Conditions specifically applicable to both Phases (South Site and Island Site)
5) Material samples and design detail (VL to provide final wording) 6) Details of landscaping to be submitted, approved and provided prior to occupation. 7) Details of doorstep play and retention 8) Drainage schemes to be approved 9) Piling method statement to be submitted 10) Impact study on water supply 11) Archaeological evaluation and mitigation of identified evidence 12) Screening to any such external mechanical plant 13) Electric and passive provision vehicle charging points 14) Safeguarding land at Russell Hill Road/Brighton Road junction 15) Car/Mini bus parking, cycle parking, access points, refuse storage and outdoor spaces to be provided as indicated in drawings. 16) Detailed Travel Plans for community and residential uses. 17) Delivery and Servicing Plan 18) Waste collection management 19) In accordance with air quality report 20) In accordance with noise assessment report 21) Plant noise restricted. 22) Noise standards 23) Heat and power systems to be air quality neutral 24) Green and brown roofs 25) Reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 35% 26) Incorporate design features to make future connection to District Energy Network possible 27) Water consumption will meet a target of 110 litres or less per day 28) Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) 29) 10% of the dwellings shall be designed to be Category 3 ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ 30) 90% of the dwellings shall be Category 2 ‘accessible and adaptable’ 31) Contamination - site investigations 32) Site investigation scheme 33) Contamination not previously identified that may be found during development 34) Verification report following remediation strategy 35) Restriction on drainage 36) Restriction on piling and penetrative methods 37) Construction Method Statement / Logistics Plan with a Site Waste Management Plan 38) Carried out entirely in accordance with the approved drawings 39) 3 years for implementation
Conditions specifically applicable to Phase 2 (Island Site)
40) Public Ream management and maintenance strategy
Page 57 of 122 41) 24 hours public access maintained to all public realm areas 42) Public Art 43) Highway scheme/ works adjacent to Island site 44) Car park management strategy 45) Petrol and oil interceptors shall be fitted in all new car parking facilities. 46) Windows to be obscure glazed north west elevation – Core A. 47) Window cleaning equipment 48) Visitor Management strategy / Insulation details / Ventilation strategy 49) Restriction on openings serving multi-purpose hall 50) Noise limiting and cut out devices 51) Effectiveness of noise limiting and cut out devices to be assessed 52) Restriction of hours 53) Lighting plan 54) BREEAM 55) Protection of adjacent listed library - during the demolition and construction 56) Protection of adjacent listed library - construction methodology 57) CCTV 58) Aviation warning lights 59) Aviation warning lights construction 60) Meantime use 61) Tree Planting Strategy 62) Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport
Informatives
1) CIL 2) Site notice removal 3) Lighting 4) Information from Thames Water 5) Croydon code of Construction 6) Archaeological investigation in accordance with Historic England’s Guidelines 7) Subject to Section 106 agreement 8) Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport
4.4 That the Committee confirms that it has had special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings and features of special architectural or historic interest as required by Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
4.5 That the Committee confirms that it has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Upper Woodcote Village and the Webb Estate Conservation Areas as required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
4.6 That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
4.7 That, if by 1st March 2017 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
Page 58 of 122 16/05204/LBC Listed Building Consent
4.8 That the Committee resolve to GRANT Listed Building Consent.
4.9 That the Director of Planning is delegated authority to issue the Listed Building Consent and impose conditions to secure the following matters:
Conditions
1) Works carried out in accordance with the drawings. 2) Making good carried out in materials to match existing 3) Details of construction method within proximity 4) 3 years for implementation 5) Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport
Informatives
1) Site notice removal 2) Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport
4.10 That the Committee confirms that it has had special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings and features of special architectural or historic interest as required by Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
5 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
16/02994/P - Full Planning Permission
5.1 The proposal comprises two linked sites:
Purley Baptist Church and Hall, 2-12 Brighton Road, 1 Russell Hill Road and 1-4 Russell Hill Parade, known as the ‘Island Site’ (Site 1) and 1-9 Banstead Road, known as the ‘South Site’ (Site 2). The two sites are detailed in the OS plan shown overleaf.
Page 59 of 122 Island Site Site 1
South Site Site 2
Island Site (Site 1)
• Demolition of existing buildings • Erection of a 3-7 storey building with 17 storey tower with 2 storey basement comprising: • Multi-purpose space for church and community uses, including main hall with 500 seat capacity. The floor area of the church and community areas amounts to 3,452 sq m (the useable church and communal areas and excluding retail and car parking areas). • The three main Church Sunday services are proposed as follows: 09:30 congregation of 150; 11.15 congregation of 450; and 19.30 congregation of no more than 100. • 114 residential units (floor area of 7,901 sq m) comprising 40x1 bed 2 person (55.1%), 26x2 bed 3 person (22.8%), 33x2 bed 4 person (28.9%) and 15x3 bed 6 person (13.2%). • Ground floor unit, 146 sq m, fronting Russell Hill Road for retail (Class A1) purposes • Vehicular access from Russell Hill Road for visitors, residents and servicing. • 78 car parking spaces (50 for the church/community uses and 28 for the residential units, 11 of which will be set aside for Blue Badge holders) 1 mini bus space, cycle spaces and refuse storage at part-basement level. New drop off bay on Banstead Road. • Pedestrian access from Russell Hill Road, Brighton Road and Banstead Road. Page 60 of 122 • Associated communal amenity space (including play space) – 275 sq m • Small area of land at Russell Hill Road/Brighton Road junction reserved for future highway improvements.
South site (1-9 Banstead Road) (Site 2)
• Demolition of existing buildings; • Erection of a 3-8 storey building comprising 106 residential units (floor area of 7,048 sq m) comprising 51x1 bed (48%), 18x2 bed 3 person (17%), 30x2 bed 4 person (28%), 7x3 bed 5 person (7%). • Vehicular access and service bay off Banstead Road. • 9 accessible car parking spaces, refuse and cycle storage. • Provision of a car club space near to the site • Associated landscaping (including play space) – 470sqm
5.2 The development would be phased with the Site 2 being delivered as a first phase. The floorpsace set aside for each of the proposed uses is set out in the table below
Residential Community / Retail Use Open / Proposed Use m² church Use m² Green development m² space m² space m²
Site 1 12,099 m² 4,795 m² 146 m² 2,549 m² 19,589 m²
Site 2 9,761 m² 0 m² 0 m² 3,037 m² 12,798 m²
Sites 1 & 2) 21,860 m² 4,795 m² 146 m² 5,586 m² 32,387 m²
Land Use 67.5% 15% 0.5% 17% 100% %
16/05204/LBC - Listed Building Consent
5.3 The application for listed building consent seeks removal of a section of low perimeter wall within the curtilage of Purley Library and its replacement with new steps to link the application site with the library forecourt. It is also proposed to demolish the part of the unlisted Purley Baptist Church which immediately abuts a gate adjoining Library.
Site and Surroundings
5.4 Site 1 is a key location within Purley District Centre. It is 0.43 hectares in area and is bounded by the three heavily trafficked roads that form the one way gyratory system around Purley: Russell Hill Road; Brighton Road and Banstead Road. Land levels generally rise from the south to north and north-west.
5.5 This part of the site is occupied by a mix of buildings and vacant spaces. The Banstead Road frontage is primarily occupied by buildings historically associated with the Purley Baptist Church. This currently includes the church and a two storey hall/community building with forecourt area as well as a parking area/games court.
Page 61 of 122 5.6 Land to the south-east of the games court is vacant having previously been occupied by a large retail building (demolished over 20 years ago) and three/four storey commercial/residential buildings (10-12 Brighton Road). These buildings were demolished in 2010.
5.7 The Russell Hill Road frontage (1-4 Russell Hill Parade) consists of 4 single storey commercial units (A1/A3/D1/Youth Centre uses) fronting the highway. These are all currently vacant.
5.8 There is one large tree in the forecourt of the church and several significant trees within the grounds of the adjacent Purley Library to the northwest of the site fronting Banstead Road, which is a Grade II Listed Building.
5.9 Russell Hill Road is characterised by substantial three storey mansion house type buildings comprising ground floor retail (designated as a Secondary Retail Frontage within a Primary Shopping Area) with residential flats above. The buildings on the opposite side of Russell Hill Road have mock Tudor detailing typical of many of the buildings characteristic of Purley District Centre.
5.10 The rear of the Russell Hill Road properties back onto the application site, separated by a private vehicular access that provides servicing and parking arrangements. There have been several alterations and additions to these properties over the years, to provide and improve residential units that face towards and overlook the application site. The access to this private route is off Foxley Lane, at the top end of the block, where there are several two storey buildings in care home and health related use that face obliquely towards the site.
5.11 The Brighton Road frontage faces onto the Purley gyratory and the landscaped pedestrian routes/underpass, beyond which are a number of buildings of differing styles and ages; including Tesco’s superstore, the two storey Jolly Farmer public house and the 5 storey office development known as Purley Point. The main retail focus of Purley District Centre is to the north-east of the site, comprising substantial three storey buildings of sufficient merit to warrant designation as a Local Area of Special Character.
5.12 The “South Site” (Site 2) is located beyond the Purley District Centre designation and has an area of 0.41 hectares. The site is currently occupied by three, two storey buildings. 1 Banstead Road is a vacant office situated on the corner of Banstead Road and Brighton Road. This property has previously been used as a detached house. The frontage of 3 and 5 Banstead Road is currently in use as a temporary car park; owned and utilised by the Baptist Church, the rear of which is currently overgrown with vegetation. 7 and 9 Banstead Road is used as offices by Eldon Housing Association – which has previously been in residential use.
5.13 There are existing trees between numbers 9 and 11 Banstead Road and three TPO’s to the front of the site; a Horse Chestnut on Brighton Road and a Robinia and Lime (now dead) on Banstead Road, close to the junction with Brighton Road.
5.14 Further to the north-west the buildings on Banstead Road are two storey semi- detached properties, primarily in residential use, although some have been occupied for commercial purposes such as solicitors and dentists. These buildings become increasingly elevated in in a westerly direction in comparison to the road.
Page 62 of 122 5.15 All roads surrounding the site are Strategic Roads and designated as “Red Routes” by Transport for London (TfL). Traffic flows on these roads are all one-way; northwards along Banstead Road, southwards along Russell Hill Road and north- eastwards along that part of Brighton Road immediately in front of the site. The main junctions are controlled by traffic lights with pedestrian crossing facilities and there is an additional pelican crossing opposite 3-5 Banstead Road.
5.16 The Croydon Local Plan Proposals Map identifies Site 1 as being within the Purley District Centre. The southern part of the site is within an Archaeological Priority Zone. The main and secondary retail frontages of Purley and the Purley Local Area of Special Character lie to the north and north-east. A thin strip of the south-eastern section of Site 1 is located within Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3. The site has a PTAL rating of 5 (Public Transport Accessibility Level). It is approximately 300m from Purley Railway Station. Both sites are located within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).
5.17 Apart from the existing tree preservation order there are no land use designations relating to Site 2.
Planning History
5.18 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:
Purley Island and 1-9 Banstead Road (Sites 1 and 2)
15/2877/DT Environmental Screening Application to establish the need for and Environmental Impact Assessment in respect of redevelopment of the site to provide community, church, residential and retail facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment was not required
Purley Island Site (Site 1)
05/00611/P Environmental Screening Application to establish the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment in respect of redevelopment of the site to provide community, church, residential and retail facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment was not required
06/2756/P Demolition of existing buildings; erection of 6 storey building comprising retail use on ground floor and community/church use on upper floors; erection of 6 storey building comprising 65 flats with basement parking on two levels (115 spaces in total); and construction of vehicular accesses off Russell Hill Road and Banstead Road (Outline application with only siting and means of access to be determined). Permission granted (not implemented; expired March 2014). This scheme proved unviable as the quantum of housing did not generate sufficient value to deliver the church and community facilities
10/0564/P Demolition of the existing buildings at 10-12 Brighton Road. Prior Approval Approved (implemented)
3-5 Banstead Road (Part of Site 2)
10/0593/P Demolition of existing buildings
Page 63 of 122 Prior approval granted (implemented)
11/0017/P Continued use of the land as a car park in connection with Purley Baptist Church and community centre Permission granted (temporary; expired April 2014)
14/1156/P Continued use of the land as car park in connection with Purley Baptist Church and community centre Permission granted (temporary; expired November 2015)
1-5 Banstead Road & 14 Brighton Road (Part of Site 2)
06/4916/P Demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a three/four storey building for use as residential care home and provision of associated parking. Refused (2007) and appeal dismissed (2008) on grounds relating to character and appearance and trees.
9 Banstead Road (Part of Site 2)
06/1266/P Use within class B1 (Business) as an extension to the existing B1 office use at 7 Banstead Road. Permission granted
Adjacent to the site
5 Russell Hill Parade
15/03638/P Demolition of existing building; erection of a three storey building comprising a ground floor for A1/2 use and two one bedroom flats above. Refused on grounds relating to a detrimental impact on visual, neighbouring and future occupier amenity.
15/05286/P Demolition of existing building; erection of a three storey building comprising a ground floor for A1/2 use and two one bedroom flats above. Refused on grounds relating to a detrimental impact on visual and neighbouring amenity. Appeal allowed (not yet implemented)
15/00997/GPDO Use of first floor as flat Prior approval granted.
11-29 Banstead Road
08/2117/P Demolition of the existing houses and the erection of a new development comprising 4 three/four storey buildings with accommodation in roofspace and parking in a basement area, comprising a total of 34 two bedroom, 25 one bedroom, 8 three bedroom flats and 2 studio flats; erection of 7 four bedroom terraced
Page 64 of 122 and a pair of four bedroom semi-detached houses; formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking. Non determined and appeal dismissed on grounds relating to character and harm to adjoining occupiers.
6 CONSULTATION RESPONSE
6.1 The views of the Planning Service are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
6.2 The following were consulted regarding the application:
Greater London Authority (GLA) (Statutory Consultee)
The GLA have provided Stage 1 comments:
Principle of development; The principle of residential development and social infrastructure facilities are supported with the latter subject to the outcome of the viability review (see below).
Affordable housing: A total of 39 affordable units (18% by unit), made up of 27 affordable rent and 12 intermediate shared ownership units are proposed. The applicant should confirm the affordable housing percentage by habitable room. The inclusion of affordable housing is welcomed.
Whilst affordable housing and transport are given the highest priority at the strategic level, the need for planning obligations to fund social infrastructure is also acknowledged as important.
The Church currently provides space for a wide range of activities and organisations which are proposed to be extended. Given this and the strategic support for social infrastructure, the proposal to fund community facilities may be acceptable, subject to the results of an independent review, which should be shared with the GLA before the application is referred to the Mayor. The proposition of a review mechanism is welcomed.
The proposed affordable housing mix includes 69% affordable rented units and 31% intermediate units is considered acceptable, subject to the outcome of the viability review.
Housing Choice: The proposals include only 10% family-sized units and none of these are affordable. This is a highly accessible town centre site and the affordable unit sizes meet the needs of Eldon Housing and Amicus Horizon. Subject to the outcome of the viability review, the choice of units is acceptable.
Density: The scheme does not display symptoms of over-development and the density is appropriate in this highly accessible location, most of which is within a town centre.
Children’s play space: The proposed play provision meets London Plan policy requirements. The Council should ensure that the play space is fully useable and whether off-site play space will require financial contributions. (OFFICER COMMENT) CIL contributions cover off site play requirements.
Page 65 of 122 Historic environment: GLA is satisfied that there will be no loss of significance or harm caused to the heritage assets (listed buildings and their settings) and whilst some harm will be caused to the setting of non-designated assets, particularly Brighton Road Local Area of Special Character, this is outweighed by the public benefits. The demolition of Purley Baptist Church raises no concerns.
Urban design and tall buildings: The proposals provide an opportunity to introduce improved definition to this prominent location in Purley Town Centre. Notwithstanding this, a building of 17 storeys on the “Island Site” will represent a departure from that of the surrounding area and it is therefore crucial that the scheme successfully balances the need to optimise the development potential of each site, while respecting the established character of the town centre.
“Island Site” (Site 1): The layout well considered and reinstates a strong building line along the edge of the gyratory. The inclusion of an area of public realm is welcomed.
The ramped access to the residential lobby at the junction of Brighton Road/Banstead Road is at risk of detracting from the need to provide a welcoming and legible entrance area to the building. It is suggested that the applicant explore options for creating a less obtrusive entry sequence.
There are concerns about the accessibility of cores from street level for the lower rise blocks as level access is only possible to Core B via the ramps between Cores A and B. A reconfiguration is suggested to enable entrance lobbies to be accessed directly from Banstead Road.
The overall residential layout of the “Island Site” is broadly supported, although the linear arrangement of units, from first to third floor level along the north-eastern flank of the blocks raises some concerns in relation to daylight/sunlight received. Alternative layouts should be explored or studies submitted to demonstrate adequate accommodation.
Whilst not adopted yet, the Croydon Local Plan: Detailed Policies and Proposals (Preferred and Alternative Options) (2015) supports a new landmark building of up to 16 storeys within Purley District Centre. The overall form and massing is broadly supported, with most of the scheme being consistent in scale with the neighbouring context. The tallest 17-storey element sits directly on the gyratory, forming an appropriate scale of development to mark the entrance to the High Street on the approach from the railway station. The top of the tower incorporates a colonnade, to be planted with multi-stemmed Scots Pines on all four elevations, which contributes to a distinctive building and is supported.
“South Site” (Site 2): The layout provides a well-defined residential frontage to the street and clear delineation between public and private realm. Due to level changes, ramped access has been used. To optimise the feeling of a conventional residential street, the applicant should utilise the full width of this zone and include individual entrances to all ground floor units.
In addition, the location of internal car-parking, refuse storage and the sub-station results in frontage that will detract from the quality of public realm. A raised courtyard deck creating a podium containing all parking and servicing may be an option, particularly considering the need for additional Blue Badge parking.
Page 66 of 122 The location of cores provides potential for efficient core to unit ratios overall, although Cores F and G raise concern as they are only accessible via a narrow passage from the link along the southern edge of the block. At fourth and fifth floor levels, Core F serves only one unit, while up to 11 units are served by a long internal corridor from Core E. Reconfiguration of Core F could allow for a better ratio.
Suitability of size and positioning of windows on the western elevation is questioned and further daylight studies should be undertaken. In addition, several units along the Banstead Road edge of the block have predominantly north-facing aspects. The applicant should consider the use of decked access to increase the proportion of dual aspect units, reduce north-facing aspects and to introduce animation and a sense of community within the courtyard.
Inclusive design: Pedestrian safety at the servicing entrance to the Island Site from Russell Hill Road should be explored.
90% and 10% of new housing should meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ and M4(3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ respectively.
Community Infrastructure Levy: The required CIL should be confirmed once the components of the development have themselves been finalised.
Climate change: The carbon dioxide savings meet the target set.
A commitment to ensure that the proposal is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should be sought. Connecting the sites should be explored.
Drawing details regarding the linking of the network to be provided along with the floor area and location of the energy centre
A roof layout of the likely PV installation; and further information on how the ASHP system will work in combination with the CHP should be provided. The use of CHP should be optimised before considering the use of renewable technologies.
Climate change adaptation: Subject to appropriate run-off calculations and consequently correctly-sized attenuation tanks to restrict peak surface water run-off for the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event to 5l/s, the proposals are acceptable.
The FRAs propose green roofs and rainwater harvesting systems, which are welcomed and should be secured via appropriate planning conditions.
Conclusion: The application does not yet comply with the London Plan, but the possible remedies set out could address these deficiencies.
The Mayor made additional comments in a covering letter which are as follows:
Level of affordable housing should be increased and that a viability review should set out the level of affordable housing that could be provided with no community/church space, purely for comparison purposes. Suggests that the 13 storey ‘campanile’ element should be reduced in height in order to reduce the apparent massing of the development.
Page 67 of 122 (OFFICER COMMENT) In response to the above comments further studies and information has been submitted.
This includes the following: justification letters; further viability exercises, sunlight and daylight ADF studies; revised sustainability statement; revised FRA; overheating analysis; Technical Transport Note (including tracking drawings/indicative car club location/bus stop assessment/audit of two footway routes/a resubmitted Travel Plan for community uses/15 th floor tree details).
Officers are of the view the amended submission details satisfactorily address issues raised by the GLA (this information will be formally considered by the GLA at Stage 2).
Transport for London (TfL) (Statutory Consultee)
Notes that vehicles will be able to manoeuvre on site and exit the site in a forward gear.
In relation to the proposed layby/loading bay on the southern side of Banstead Road, TfL would welcome further discussions regarding potential pedestrian safety issues and conflicts with the layby usage and vehicle access.
Two ‘drop off’ bays are proposed to be inset into the footway on the northern side of Banstead Road in accordance with TfL advice. Operation of these bays would need to be controlled.
TfL would request that the applicant enters into a S.278 Agreement under the Highways Act 1980, to cover any highway works on the TLRN and a S.38 Agreement to allow for the adoption of the land where the proposed public footways encroaches onto the applicants land (in order to maintain sufficient footway width behind new drop off bays).
A small portion of land in the north-eastern corner of the “Island Site” should be safeguarded for adoption as highway land by TfL. This should be at nil cost to TfL and should be secured though the S.106 Agreement.
9 Blue Badge parking spaces are provided for Site 2 and for this to be London Plan complaint, an additional 2 Blue Badge parking spaces would need to be provided.
Swept path analysis has only been provided for 4 of the 9 spaces, but should be provided for all 9.
28 residential car parking spaces are proposed for Site 1 which equates to a car parking ratio of 0.25 spaces per unit; of these, 11 spaces will be Blue Badge. The residential car parking provision is acceptable given the outer London location.
A further 50 car parking spaces will be provided on Site 1 for the church use, including 3 Blue Badge spaces and 1 mini-bus space. This represents a reduction of existing on site church car parking provision and is consistent with the car parking provision for the now lapsed consented scheme. A significant amount of off-site car parking is expected on Sundays. Parking surveys of the two existing public car parks which offer free parking on a Sunday indicate that there is sufficient spare capacity to accommodate this demand. However, it would have been useful if the existing congregation who currently park off-site had been surveyed to ascertain which car
Page 68 of 122 park they currently use and whether any park on-street beyond the Controlled Parking Zone.
A car parking management plan would be required and should be secured by planning condition.
All future residents should be exempt from eligibility for car parking permits in the area.
Electric Vehicle Charing Points (EVCP) including passive provision for all uses will be provided in accordance with the London Plan.
One car club space is proposed adjacent to the site on Banstead Road. The actual location and 2 year car club membership for all new residents should form part of the travel planning measures to be secured in the S.106 Agreement.
Both the trip generation and mode share assessments for the residential and community uses are acceptable.
The number of additional trips generated by the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the strategic highway network. Furthermore, the church peaks are outside of the network peaks.
The increase in bus trips can be accommodated within the existing bus network capacity. However, there is no evidence within the TA to suggest that a bus stop assessment has been undertaken. TfL requires the details of this assessment. Should this identify any necessary improvements, these will need to be funded by the developer.
TfL supports the landscaping plans, subject to trees not obstructing sight of traffic lights, acceptable distance to parking bays and crown clearance. Requests that a planning condition be imposed to agree detailed designs of the tree planting.
396 long-stay cycle parking spaces and 24 short-stay cycle parking spaces are proposed and are acceptable. Requests that shower and locker facilities are also provided for those members of staff wishing to cycle to work. All cycle parking spaces should also be easily accessible from adjacent cycle routes and appropriate signage, should be provided.
Proposed development will see an increase in pedestrian and cycle trips to/from the site and the local area. A PERS type audit is required should this identify any necessary improvements, these will need to be funded by the developer.
No taxi provision has been identified, adequate provision should be considered with safe and legal drop off/pick up points.
Detailed Travel Plans should be secured, enforced, funded, and monitored as part of the S.106 Agreement.
A full Construction Logistics Plan and Delivery and Servicing Plan, should be produced and secured by condition.
(OFFICER COMMENT) In response to the above comments further studies and correspondence have been undertaken. In summary, TfL confirmed that they have
Page 69 of 122 no objections on highways grounds subject to appropriate planning conditions and the developer entering a S.106 Agreement. Officers are of the view the amended submission details satisfactorily address issues raised by TfL. The information will be formally considered at Stage 2 as part of the GLA response.
Environment Agency (Statutory Consultee)
The planning permission should only be granted subject to planning conditions. The conditions should cover: risks associated with contamination of the site; dealing with unexpected contamination that may be identified during development groundworks; a verification report in relation to a remediation strategy; restriction of infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground and on piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods.
(OFFICER COMMENT) Conditions suggested are recommended in the Planning Committee Report.
Lead Local Flood Authority (Statutory Consultee)
The Risk of Flooding from Surface Water mapping, available on the Environment Agency website, identifies the following risks to the proposal:
For Site 1, there is pathway of high risk of surface water flooding flowing along the northern and southern boundaries of the proposed development, encroaching into the site on the Brighton Road side. Most of the site has areas mapped at high, medium or low risk.
For Site 2, the risk of surface water flooding is mapped as very low, with high risk areas generally mapped within the road channels east of the site boundary.
Both sites are identified as having an increased risk of surface water ponding based on the topography within the Croydon Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA, 2015). The SFRA also identifies three mapped incidents within 100 metres of the proposed development. The LLFA are also aware there have been significantly more incidents; particularly along Brighton Road immediately adjacent to the eastern boundaries of the two development sites. Consequently, Purley Cross is known as one of Croydon’s most significant surface water flooding hotspots.
Both sites have potential for groundwater flooding to occur at surface. This is due to the high groundwater level within the chalk aquifer.
Both sites are immediately adjacent to Flood Zone 3, associated with the Caterham Bourne.
In response to an initial objection from the LLFA (dated 28th October 2016) which raised concern over the level of detail previously submitted, further supporting evidence, produced by Price and Myers (November 2016) was provided alongside a Geotechnical Assessment, produced by Geotechnical Consulting Group (November 2016). The documents have been reviewed in line with Croydon LLFA’s requirements at full planning stage and in accordance with NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, the London Plan (Policy 5.13) and its supporting document. The LLFA are now raising no objection to the proposals, but have strongly recommended a planning condition to capture various mitigation measures:
Page 70 of 122 Recommendation – condition
The condition would require a detailed drainage strategy to be submitted and approved in line with Flood Risk and SuDS Assessments, Geotechnical Assessment and the comments raised by the LLFA. This would include elements relating to: floatation calculations; confirmation of construction measures and raised thresholds above predicted flood levels; dimensions of proposed SuDS with buffer distances; a management and maintenance plan and provision of additional mitigation to ensure properties adjacent to Flood Zone 3 are not affected by watercourses.
(OFFICER COMMENT) This planning condition is recommended.
Historic England (Statutory Consultee)
Do not consider it necessary to be notified of such an application.
Historic England - Archaeology (Statutory Consultee)
Although there would be some harm to archaeological interest this would not be sufficient to justify refusal. Accordingly, Historic England have confirmed that archaeological interest can be secured by the imposition of a planning condition.
(OFFICER COMMENT): A planning condition is recommended.
Thames Water
Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. Should the local planning authority look to approve the application, Thames Water would like 'Grampian Style' conditions imposed requiring no development to be commenced until drainage strategy and impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted and approved. In addition, a planning condition is also recommended in relation to piling.
Thames Water also recommended an informative relating to building within 5 metres of water mains crossing the site along with highlighting that consent is required where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer.
(OFFICER COMMENT) Planning conditions are recommended.
Crime Prevention Design Advisor
No objections subject to conditions covering CCTV and suitable lighting.
(OFFICER COMMENT) Planning conditions are recommended.
Seeboard PLC
No comment received.
7 LOCAL REPRESENTATION
7.1 The application has been publicised by way of one or more site notices displayed near to the application site. The application has also been publicised in the local
Page 71 of 122 press. The number of representations received from neighbours, local groups etc in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual responses: 616 Objecting: 551 Supporting: 57 Comment: 7
No of petitions received: 1 objecting containing 4,117 signatories
7.2 The following local groups/societies made representations:
• Riddlesdown Residents Association [objecting] • Hartley & District Residents Association [objecting] • Kenley & District Residents Association [objecting] • Sanderstead Residents Association [objecting] • Old Coulsdon Residents Association [objecting] • Coulsdon West Residents Association [objecting] • East Coulsdon Residents Association [objecting] • Croham Valley Residents Association [objecting]
• Purley and Woodcote Residents Association [supporting] • Business Improvement District in Purley [supporting]
7.3 The following made representations:
• Councillor Margaret Bird [objecting] • Councillor Donald Speakman [objecting] • London Assembly Member Steve O'Connell [objecting] • Chris Philp MP [objecting]
7.4 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in substance in the next section of this report:
Objections
• Adverse impact on highways • Development more suited to Central Croydon • Out of character and ruin skyline • Out of scale and proportion • Dominate the area • Too tall • High density and overdevelopment • Detailing, materials and the trees on top fail to reflect the leafy nature of the town • Bulk, massing and layout not convincing • Ruin the "local" and "country" feel of the area • The ‘centre’ of Purley will be lost • Tunnel effect created • Unsuitable for this location • Poor architecture taste • Disparity in the design quality between sites • Not prestigious or of sufficient quality to be a landmark building
Page 72 of 122 • Does not reinforce the continuous building line • Will set a precedent • Purley should remain rural • Detrimental to local listed buildings, conservation area, area of special character and openness • Access and safety problems • Create traffic congestion • Insufficient parking provision, will spill onto local roads • Impact public transport • Increase in pedestrians • Road safety issues • No visitor car bays • Few spaces for deliveries • Error in TA relating to train services • Town does not need the community facilities • Restrict development on neighbouring site • Number of small units is of no benefit to families • Contribute to social problems • Should supply more affordable housing • Not a place to have children • Purley already has plenty of flats • Detrimental to peoples' health and mental wellbeing • Pressure on local infrastructure • Pressure on utilities • Will exacerbated flooding issues • Wind issues created • Increase noise/air pollution • Noise levels should be considered • Impact on TV signals • Increase the risk of criminal activity • Businesses would suffer • Purley already too busy • Loss of light • Loss of privacy • Overlooking • Overshadowing • Disruption from construction
Supporting comments
• Benefits of this proposal outweigh the concerns • Attract young urban professionals and will then prompt more improvements • Provides both facilities for all the community both young and old, low cost housing and flats incorporating open public and retail space • A 'Landmark' development • New facilities • Architects have taken a good account of previous community comments and come up with a sensitive design fit for purpose • Site has been derelict for decades • Development will move forward the regeneration of Purley.
Page 73 of 122 • Provides a focal point and facilities to bring together the community through social and volunteering activities. • Much needed trade to local shops and eateries. • The design with trees on top is unique and potentially award winning. • Any development has to be financially viable and therefore a large scale development is inevitable. • Concerns about parking in neighbouring roads can be met with residents parking bays and encouraging cycling, use of public transport, car share schemes and use of the multi-storey car park next to Purley station. • Excellent use of a 'brownfield site' that has many limitations • Provide desperately needed private and social housing • Tasteful building in keeping with the surrounding area • Offers facilities that don't exist anywhere else in Purley • Putting the heart back in Purley • Purley Baptist has a good history of working with local businesses and the social needs of area • One-way system will be straightened out which makes the junction safer (OFFICER COMMENT) The proposal does not alter the highway, but land for future highway works is safeguarded • Attraction for tourists • Will provide services for the community - Purley Cross Centre, helping homeless, groups for children and teens.
7.5 The following issues were raised in representations, but they are not material to the determination of the application:
• Right to light issue for neighbouring buildings (OFFICER COMMENT) This is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration • Impact on house prices (OFFICER COMMENT) This is not a material planning consideration • Loss of existing views (OFFICER COMMENT) This is not a material planning consideration • Cannot believe that Croydon Council is even considering this project (OFFICER COMMENT) The local planning authority is obliged to consider and determine all applications that are submitted to the Council. • Height and insufficient parking were included to accommodate the greed and dogma of Croydon Council (OFFICER COMMENT) The Council have not dictated the development, it has gone through rigorous pre-application discussions • Have fire risks been considered (OFFICER COMMENT) This is a matter dealt with by Building Regulations • Southern services from Purley Station already in a mess (OFFICER COMMENT) Performance of the railway operator is not a planning consideration • Alleged anti-social behaviour from future residents of social housing (OFFICER COMMENT) This is not a town planning matter – with no evidence to substantiate any of these claims • Croydon Council has made various demands, including a £2m cash payment to the Council and a significant social housing component (OFFICER COMMENT) During pre-application discussions the local planning authority sought to ensure that the scheme complied with planning policies, which included the provision of affordable housing.
Page 74 of 122 • The Baptist Church did not want a building this size on the plot (OFFICER COMMENT) Purley Baptist Church are joint applicants and therefore jointly proposing the scheme
7.6 The following procedural issues were raised in representations, and are addressed below:
• Community engagement results misleading (OFFICER COMMENT) This relates to information submitted with the application. The local planning authority has undertaken consultation for the application in accordance with legislation and have summarised the representation above
8 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:
1. The principle of the development 2. Housing 3. Townscape, design and heritage 4. Impact on adjoining occupiers 5. Quality of living environment provided for future residents 6. Impact on environmental conditions 7. Transport and highways considerations 8. The environmental performance of the proposed building 9. Other planning matters
8.2 As indicated above the “Island” and “South” sites are referred to as “Site 1” and “Site 2” respectively. Some sections will cover both sites collectively – but will be stated accordingly.
The principle of the development
Introduction of retail/community/residential uses
8.3 The NPPF supports the vitality and viability of town centres through ‘the town centres first approach’.
8.4 London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011) Policy 2.15 supports housing growth through intensification and selective expansion in appropriate locations. Policy 3.3 recognises the pressing need for more homes in London and Policy 3.8 states that Londoners should have a genuine choice of homes. London Plan Policy 4.7 states that the Mayor supports a strong, partnership approach to assessing need and bringing forward capacity for retail, commercial, culture and leisure development in town centres. Policy 4.8 states that the Mayor will support a successful competitive and diverse retail sector. Policies 3.16, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19 support social infrastructure particularly in places that are accessible. London Plan Social Infrastructure SPG 2015 is also relevant.
8.5 Croydon Local Plan 1 Strategic Policy SP1.1 states when considering development proposals, the Council will adopt a positive approach that reflects a presumption in favour of sustainable development. SP1.3 and SP1.4 encourage growth in homes, jobs and services in sustainable places. Policy SP2.1 states the Council will apply a
Page 75 of 122 presumption in favour of development of new homes provided applications meet the requirements of policy. Policy SP2.2 seeks to deliver a minimum of 13,300 homes between 2011 and 2021 in line with the London Plan target for new homes. Between 2021 and 2031 it will seek to deliver a further 6,900 homes. Therefore overall, the Council will seek to deliver 20,200 homes over the plan period (2011-2031).
8.6 CLP Policy SP3.1 states the Council will encourage innovation and investment into the Borough to support enterprise and increased employment for the benefit of all Croydon residents. SP3.6 states that the Council will apply the London Plan Town Centre hierarchy. SP3.11 states that the Council will support measures to improve the stock of retail premises. SP3.12 states that the Council will favourably consider new increases to the stock of premises ensuring the viability and vitality of Croydon centres.
8.7 CLP SP5.3 encourages the creation of healthy and liveable neighbourhoods by ensuring the provision of a network of community facilities and protecting existing community facilities. SP5.6 supports the provision and improvement of places of worship.
8.8 CLP – Places of Croydon identifies the vision of Purley as a regenerated District Centre, retaining its historic character with a mixture of homes, community and cultural facilities and a range of retailing including independent shops. In providing homes, the focus of residential growth should be in the District Centre.
8.9 Site 1 is identified as Proposal Site H85 of the Saved UDP where the preferred uses are identified as Community Uses, Residential and Shopping.
Retail
8.10 Site 1 is located within the Purley District Centre and the proposed commercial unit would provide an active ground floor to Russell Hill Road close to the new area of public realm. The provision of a retail unit within this location is acceptable.
Community
8.11 The rationale for the proposed development relates to the need for a new church to accommodate a growing congregation of around 700 people and the many additional community orientated activities associated with the Church. The existing facilities are described as inadequate, not fit for purpose and costly to repair and maintain. Furthermore, access to rooms is poor and disabled users are only able to access the church and ground floor hall. The Church is seeking to consolidate the facilities in one secure centre; to accommodate all activity groups in one place instead of renting space in nearby properties which are not suitable for the activity.
8.12 The church and community facility requirements for the site equates to approximately 3,452 m² of floor space. This would represent an increase in community floor space of 1,932 m². The proposed housing element is to provide cross funding to deliver the new church and community facilities.
8.13 As well as a café and retail unit the proposed community facilities on the development include an indoor sports court, multipurpose hall, accommodation for the Purley Cross Centre, auditorium, prayer/meeting room and various multi-use rooms/classrooms. All the activities would be available for use by the wider community. Except for the prayer room, which would be predominantly for church Page 76 of 122 use, the applicant has advised that the anticipated user split of the facilities would be heavily weighted to the community (beyond the church congregation) at around 85- 100% of the time.
8.14 The centre would be open to the whole of the community, 7 days a week (with most activities taking place during the day or evenings) and community services covering all ages (from toddlers to the elderly). The main component of Church congregation usage would be in the auditorium on Sunday (although this would be open to non- congregation users also). The car parking for visitors to the centre would be split in accordance with the uses.
8.15 A draft Community Facilities Management Plan has been submitted with the planning application which sets out key points including the aims for the community facilities, management/operation, promotion/bookings, pricing (2 tier with a reduction for community groups or individuals who help to achieve the community uses identified in the report) and reporting. A legal agreement would be finalised - to make the community facilities at the development widely available for use by the local community in compliance with the terms of a finalised Community Facilities Management Plan. Fundamentally, there would be a commitment to provide facilities that are open and advertised to the community.
8.16 The draft Community Facilities Management Plan has been positively reviewed by the Council’s Community and Voluntary Sector Team. An annual report would provide details of usage, bookings, marketing and promotion activity relating to the community facilities, highlighting non-church groups, clubs and users to provide evidence that the wider community have the opportunity and are encouraged to use the facilities. This would be published on-line. The simple two tier, pricing structure with the flexibility of allowing space to be used free of charge at their discretion is welcomed. Annual reporting is a good way of ensuring transparency and sound take- up of the broad range of activities on offer.
8.17 The draft Community Facilities Management Plan demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that the Church’s enhanced facilities will be actively promoted to and used by the local community, including non-church goers which are an essential component of a true community facility. This would be secured by the S.106 Agreement.
8.18 The provision and efficient utilisation of high quality facilities for the community, which will improve the social infrastructure of the area, are supported and comply with policy.
Residential
8.19 There is no policy objection to the provision of residential accommodation on these sites as part of a mixed-use proposal.
8.20 Overall the proposed development would consist of church and community space, 220 residential units, commercial and café spaces. Located within and on the edge of the Purley District Centre with a good level of accessibility to public transport (PTAL rating of 5) the scheme and the range of uses proposed would be acceptable in principle. The re-development of the long term vacant, highly prominent “Island Site” within Purley District Centre is long overdue. In addition, the scheme has the potential to be a catalyst for the regeneration of the wider area.
Page 77 of 122 Loss of office and car parking uses
8.21 Policy SP3.2 of the Croydon Local Plan Strategic policies states that the Council will adopt a ‘4-Tier’ approach to the retention and redevelopment of land and premises relating to industrial/employment activity as set out in Table 4.3 of CLP1.
8.22 Located outside of a Strategic and Integrated Industrial location as well as a Town Centre Industrial Location, elements of Site 2 would fall within Tier 4 ‘Scattered Employment Sites’, which protect offices along with industrial and warehousing activity. Planning permission for limited residential development will be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is no demand for the existing premises or a scheme comprised solely of permitted uses and residential use does not harm the wider location’s business function.
8.23 Within Croydon there is a pressing need to maximise the supply of housing to satisfy meet local housing need, especially given the shortfall in housing supply. Notwithstanding the existing lawful office use of 1 Banstead Road, the property has been vacant over a considerable period and has limited value, in terms of the supply of viable office accommodation and providing employment opportunities in and around Purley District Centre. It is considered on balance that the delivery of housing accommodation in such a well-connected and sustainable location should take precedence, over the retention of somewhat disparate office uses.
8.24 The car park at 3-5 Banstead Road is a temporary use, with the permission having expired back in November 2015. Although the land is still used for parking, this is continuing unlawfully. Clearly, the most sustainable approach to the redevelopment of this land would be for residential purposes.
Housing
Housing mix
8.25 Chapter 6 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should deliver a wide choice of sustainable homes. They should plan for a mix of size, type and tenure of accommodation to meet the specific needs to the area.
8.26 The London Plan policy 3.8 states that new developments should offer a range of housing choices, in terms of mix of housing sizes and types. SP2.5 of CLP1 states that the Council will seek to ensure that a choice of homes in available in the borough that will address the borough’s need for homes of different sizes and sets a strategic target for 60% of all new homes outside the Croydon Opportunity Area up to 2031 to have three or more bedrooms. The proposed residential accommodation would consist of 220 units made up as follows:
Area of 1 bed (2 2 bed 2 bed 3 bed 3 bed Total scheme person) (3 person) (4 person) (5 person) (6 person)
Site 1 40 26 33 9 6 114
% 35% 23% 29% 8% 5%
Site 2 51 18 30 7 0 106
Page 78 of 122 % 48% 17% 28% 7%
Sites 1 & 91 44 63% 16 6 220 2 % 41% 20% 29% 7% 3%
8.27 In view of the sites’ central location adjacent to a complex and busy road network and with the limited opportunities to provide high levels of on-site communal amenity space and extensive areas for child play (especially in relation to the tower element), it is considered that this location and development is not suited to higher levels of 3 bed units. Moreover, the 60% requirement is not site specific and therefore overall, the proposed mix, including a higher level of 2 bed 4 person dwellings, is acceptable.
Affordable Housing
8.28 Chapter 6 of the NPPF relates to affordable housing which indicates that where local planning authorities have indicated that affordable housing is required they should:
“Set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified”
8.29 London Plan Policies 3.8 to 3.13 relate to affordable housing. Policy 3.11 states:
‘The Mayor will, and boroughs and other relevant agencies and partners should, seek to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in London over the term of this Plan. In order to give impetus to a strong and diverse intermediate housing sector, 60% of the affordable housing provision should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. Priority should be accorded to provision of affordable family housing’ .
8.30 London Plan policies 3.12 and 3.13 require that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought on schemes, taking into account viability and other issues.
8.31 Policy SP2.4 of CLP1 set out that up to SP2.4 the Council will negotiate to achieve up to 50% affordable housing provision on sites with ten or more units, with a minimum requirement that is based on a Dynamic Viability model. Following a review undertaken as part of the Croydon Monitoring Report 2013/14 and as of 1st April 2015, all developments of ten or more homes outside the Croydon Opportunity Area should provide a minimum of 50% affordable housing on site.
8.32 Policy SP2.4 also requires a 60:40 tenure split within the affordable housing provision (between affordable rent and intermediate housing - including shared ownership). There is a general presumption that all affordable housing should be provided on site.
8.33 In relation to affordable housing, the proposal would provide:
• A total of 39 units (equating to 18% of homes by unit/15% by habitable room) to be provided as affordable housing, all to be delivered on Site 2. • Tenure mix: 69% affordable rent and 31% intermediate housing.
Page 79 of 122 Area of Scheme 1 bed 2 bed 2 bed 3 bed 3 bed TOTAL (2 (3 (4 (5 (6 person) person) person) person) person) Site 2 19 6 2 0 0 27 (affordable rent) 8.34 A Site 2 10 2 0 0 0 12 s (intermediate housing) the scheme progressed through pre-application discussions, affordable housing rose from an initial 0% provision to an eventual 17% (36 out of 214 units). The current proposal has increased the provision by a further 1% by including a further 3 units as affordable, whilst the overall provision of units has risen to 220 units.
8.35 The applicants have submitted a financial appraisal of the development that has been independently assessed. This shows that the development is unable to support more than 18% affordable housing (without adversely impacting on the prospects of the scheme being delivered – including both the residential and enhanced community facilities).
8.36 The review does conclude that growth in values in excess of cost inflation could deliver an improved outcome against the present-day position. On this basis the applicant has agreed to a review mechanism, to establish whether any additional value may become available to fund a payment in lieu for provision of affordable housing, to be directed to the provision of affordable housing on other sites. This is to be welcomed and will be captured through the S.106 Agreement.
8.37 As requested by the GLA, the review also includes two further sensitivity tests; removing the Church and associated facilities from the development and removing a side element of the residential tower described as a ‘campanile’. In the first scenario, the removal of the Church (and replacement with residential) would have facilitated the conversion of 72 units from private to affordable, equating to 50% of total units. In the second scenario, 4 affordable units would have been lost, reducing the level of affordable housing provision from 18% to 16% (from 39 units in the application scheme to 35 units).
8.38 Although 50% of affordable housing could potentially be achieved if there were no community facilities, there is clearly an issue with this proposition, as the Church can only redevelop their premises if they are re-provided within the development. The delivery of replacement and enhanced community facilities is also a benefit of these proposals. The Church would not proceed with the scheme if it could not secure the facilities it requires, which will be partly paid for through the sale of the private residential units. Re-provision of community facilities is clearly a policy requirement.
8.39 If the church and community facilities is not re-provided on-site, an alternative site would need to be identified and purchased within the vicinity. It is difficult to establish the type of site that would need to be acquired along with a lack of obvious sites within the District Centre that could accommodate such facilities. The delivery of housing would cross fund the delivery of enhanced community facilities and these two benefits need to be considered and assessed collectively.
8.40 The affordable housing provision of 18% falls below the 50% affordable housing required by policy. However, it is considered that significant material weight should be given to the provision of extensive and high quality community uses on the site, as
Page 80 of 122 well as the positive regeneration impact that development of this site will have on Purley District Centre. On balance and considering that there is little appetite to provide alternative community facilities elsewhere, officers consider that the delivery of 18% affordable housing (by unit) alongside enhanced community facilities (which should benefit the whole of the local community) would be acceptable, especially as the level of affordable housing would be reviewed at a later stage, capturing any uplift in end values and the benefits of any enhanced residual value.
8.41 In terms of mix, the 39 affordable housing units would be split 27 affordable rented and 12 shared ownership, which equates to a ratio of 69:31. This slightly deviates from the policy requirement of a 60:40 ratio of affordable or social rent and intermediate low cost shared home ownership. The split is partly influenced by the affordable rented tenure being proposed on land owned by Eldon Housing who will ultimately be responsible for its management (7-9 Banstead Rd) while Amicus Horizon will own the shared ownership tenure units. Critically, Registered Providers are on board and the affordable offer is what they require and is based on their assessment of need and deliverability. The tenure split that slightly favours the affordable rented tenure is acceptable.
8.42 The accompanying design and access document states that all units, across both sites, will be designed to, or be capable of being adapted to wheelchair standards. The London Plan SPG states that 90 per cent of new build housing should meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ with the remaining 10 per cent meeting Building Regulation requirement M4(3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’, the scheme has been designed to meet these standards and can be secured by way of condition.
8.43 Whilst the Council has a five-year supply of housing land including an extra 5% required by the NPPF, it is appreciated that the London Plan requirement is expressed as a minimum to be exceeded where possible. This proposal would contribute to the annual average target being augmented and is given weight for the contribution it will make towards housing land supply.
Townscape, Design and Heritage
Density of Development
8.44 London Plan Policy 3.4 states that development should maximise housing output for its location in accordance with a density matrix. The site is within an urban location with very good public transport accessibility and should be able to accommodate between 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare (hrph) and up to 260 units per hectare. The guidance in the London Plan indicates that calculations should include internal roads and ancillary open spaces. However, it also states that it is not appropriate to apply the density matrix mechanistically.
Area of Hectares Number of Number of Number of Number of Scheme hab rooms habitable dwelling dwellings rooms per per hectare hectare Site 1 0.3013* 317 1052 114 379 Site 2 0.4224 274 649 106 251
Overall 0.7237* 519 717 220 304
Page 81 of 122 * (reduced proportionally to factor in non-residential floor space)
8.45 Whilst Site 1 and the two sites considered together exceed density ranges (in terms of habitable rooms) the overall density would be acceptable, having regard to the various elements that work together to help define the appropriateness of the proposed density of development. The development does not display symptoms of overdevelopment; offering a high quality design making the most of excellent public transport links and facilities on offer within the Purley District Centre. The proposed density is suitable for this location and would be acceptable.
Townscape and Design
Policy Background
8.46 The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Paragraph 17 gives 12 core planning principles. One of these principles is to ‘always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings’
8.47 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 58 states that planning “policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:
● will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; ● establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; ● optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; ● respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; ● create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and ● are visually attractive”
8.48 NPPF paragraph 61 highlights the importance of visual appearance and architecture but also addresses the importance of connections between people and places and the natural, built and historic environment. Furthermore, NPPF paragraph 64 states that “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunity available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”
8.49 London Plan policies 7.1 to 7.6 set out criteria for requiring buildings to respond to their neighbourhood and communities to provide an inclusive environment which designs out crime, enhances the local character and provides a high quality of public realm and architecture.
8.50 London Plan policy 7.7 provides a framework for assessing applications for tall buildings requiring them to (amongst other things):
Page 82 of 122 • Be located in an area identified for tall buildings (such as town centres with good transport links); • Not adversely affect the character of the area they are set in through their scale, mass or bulk; • Relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of surrounding buildings, urban grain and public realm (including landscape features) particularly at street level; • Individually or as a group improve the legibility of an area, by emphasising a point of civic or visual significance where appropriate and enhance the skyline and image of London; • Incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials, including sustainable design and construction practices.
8.51 CLP1 policy SP4 sets out requirements for the design of developments to respond to their context, the local character and designated views and landmarks.
8.52 CLP1 policy SP4.5 encourages tall buildings in District Centres where it is in an area around well-connected public transport interchanges and where there are direct physical connections to District Centres. Policy SP4.5 states that tall buildings will be required to respect and enhance local character and heritage assets; minimise the environmental impacts and respond sensitively to topography; make a positive contribution to the skyline and image of Croydon; and include high quality public realm to provide a setting appropriate to the scale and significance of the building and the context of the surrounding area.
8.53 Croydon Plan 2006 (Saved Policies 2013) policies UD2 and UD3 relate to high quality sustainable design which reflects its setting and characteristics of the area.
Island Site (Site 1)
Layout
8.54 The scheme is a significant opportunity to improve the poor condition of the gyratory, which is dominated by Tesco superstore and surrounding road network and to create a prominent landmark development that would contribute to enhancing the character and functionality of Purley District Centre and to facilitate its overall regenerative potential. The arrangement on the site has been informed by a perimeter block which defines the main street frontages onto the gyratory and Banstead Road. This reinstates a strong building line along the edge of the gyratory, Banstead Road and turning the corner into Russell Hill Road. The layout also provides for an area of public realm at the junction of Russell Hill Road and Brighton Road which is welcomed, particularly given the tight space at this end of Site 1. In addition, the siting of the public space next to the base of the tower would provide balance and relief to the local townscape.
8.55 A widened public realm towards the library affords an opportunity for a new stepped access to the library forecourt. This aims to assist in reconnecting the library with the remainder of the District Centre.
8.56 At a finer grain, further advancements have been made to improve the relationship with the Brighton Road and along Banstead Road. The main residential entrance on Brighton Road at the corner with Banstead Road is well located, marking the corner of the residential side and stays separated from the public access for community
Page 83 of 122 uses. The principle community entrance faces towards the District Centre and onto public realm helping to distinguish the different pattern of movements.
8.57 The residential entrance is double height, both externally and internally making a statement and enabling the tower element to be clearly read in form from a distance. The recess also acts to provide a buffer zone and the entrance is also purposefully raised as a measured defence against flooding. Several access points are provided around the development, creating activity along both Banstead Road and around the Brighton Road junctions which is supported.
Bulk, Height and Mass
8.58 The London Plan encourages proposals for tall buildings in town centres which have good access to public transport; accordingly the principle of a tall building is acceptable. CLP1 policy SP4.5 also encourages tall buildings in District Centres where there is well-connected public transport. At 17 storeys, the tower would be distinctly taller than the surrounding built form and would make a significant change to the townscape, visible from many vantage points.
8.59 A Townscape and Visual Assessment indicates changes of mainly moderate and high magnitude to views of low and medium sensitivity. Through this, it has been assessed that the development, particularly due to the tower operating as a landmark and prominent focal point at the south of the parade of shops along Brighton Road, will have a general beneficial effect to the urban environment and will not negatively affect the perception of the existing townscape and views. Officers concur with this overall conclusion.
8.60 As with the scheme presented at the last Planning Committee (January 2016) the tower extends to 17 storey in height, with the top two storeys set in to reduce the bulk in the higher tower elements. A high level, stone clad open structure extends upwards (from the façade) for three storeys, and surrounds 20 Scots Pine trees which will be planted at the 15th floor level. The creation of this high level ‘forest’ draws on the verdant character of Purley, while the stone detailing of the façade and open stone structure are derived from the stone detailing (specifically stone window ‘tracery’) prevalent in the civic buildings of Purley. The footprint of the tower is reduced at 14th storey and above, to differentiate between the tower and a side element (referred to as the “campanile” element) abutting the tracery tower, which helps introduce a more slender and distinctive reading of the tower. The open, set back nature of the tower at its top, creates a visually interesting silhouette allowing glimpses of the sky through the stone structure and trees at the top and helps contribute to a more slender proportion. The tracery provides a vertical emphasis, a connection between the base and the crown and creates an elegant form, especially when viewed alongside the sky trees. The tower successfully balances the need to optimise the development potential of the site, whilst respecting and referencing characteristics of Purley District Centre.
8.61 The massing of the remaining elements of Site 1 ranges from between 3-7 storeys. The massing and shape of the development is articulated through a series of components, resulting in a well-arranged layout where the visual pre-eminence of the tower is well balanced by a descending articulation of volumes along Banstead Road, interspersed by in-between courtyards.
Page 84 of 122 8.62 The elevation along Banstead Road primarily consists of three residential blocks with distinct frontages which respond to the scale, proportions and rhythm of the houses on the opposite side of the road. The courtyards allow a sense of visual permeability that is characteristic of the dwellings lining the south side of Banstead Road and its surroundings. The ground floor is animated through the use of clearly articulated and well-spaced residential entrances at street level.
8.63 The overall form and massing is supported, with the majority of the scheme being consistent in scale with the neighbouring context. The tallest element is also located on the lowest part of the site, further mitigating the massing impact.
Appearance
8.64 As part of the application process, there have been some minor fenestration changes to the units facing the service road to improve light levels. The scheme has been developed in more detail, particularly in terms of materials and how the trees on top of the tower would be planted and maintained.
8.65 The different elevations have been examined according to the contexts to which they are related. Thus, the Russell Hill Road elevation allows a good mediation between the existing front properties and the new tower, while the gyratory elevation on Brighton Road clearly highlights the supremacy of the tower itself as a landmark. The Russell Hill Road and Banstead Road elevations are designed to provide two new streetscapes to the area. The articulation of the volumes and the alternation of solid/void are well proportioned. Some colours have been added to mark elements like the entrances and to differentiate the frame in some parts.
8.66 The streetscape along Banstead Road would be enlivened with active usage in the form of the community facilities and youth club rooms and the entry points to the residential units would be emphasised with the use of glazed tiles. In terms of materiality, the development mainly comprises a simple palette of robust materials which is supported. The brickwork has been chosen to match or complement the brick colours and types found in the high-quality buildings in and around Purley District Centre, which is supported. There would be frameless glass balustrades to balconies and winter gardens, aluminium window frames and spandrel panels and a deep reveal buff coloured tracery element to the tower. Behind the deep tracery layer constructed on reconstituted stone is an inner layer of a relatively simple glazed curtain wall with concealed frames and minimal articulation, which frees the tower from additional visual clutter providing for a more attractive appearance. Given the complex construction elements, a planning condition is recommended to secure relevant detailed drawings and further specifications on material samples.
8.67 The front entrance to the church/community facility will address a small plaza at the junction of Brighton Road and Russell Hill. This entrance is marked by a sculptural architectural element above it, which serves to differentiate the community/civic identity of the facility from that of the residential tower that sits to its side. This is supported.
8.68 The ‘stone tracery’ facade provides variation and visual interest, making the tower distinctive and not ‘uniform’ or corporate in character, which is generally welcomed and would be more appropriate for Purley. The tracery façade provides the opportunity for inset balconies and window boxes, which together with the trees at
Page 85 of 122 the top, give interest and animation to the façade and reveal the tower as having a residential rather than office feel.
South Site (Site 2)
8.69 The design of the building proposed for Site 2 has been developed in response to Planning Committee’s previous comments – raised at pre-application stage. An additional floor has been added to the corner fronting Banstead Road and Brighton Road, bringing the storey height to 8 (previously 7 storeys) along with additional massing along Banstead Road with the brick façade extending behind the central loggia (these elements enabled an increase in the percentage of affordable housing). In addition, the design of the corner facing the Gyratory has been refined at ground floor level to improve its proportions.
Layout
8.70 The arrangement of the site has been informed by a perimeter block which defines the main street frontages onto the Gyratory and Banstead Road. To the rear of the site is smaller scale development, creating a courtyard within the centre of the plot. The frontage position of the block respects the building lines along both Banstead and Brighton Road and allows for a good amount of landscaping to the front of the building which is in keeping with the more suburban feel close to this part of the scheme. With two pedestrian access points onto both roads the permeability of the layout works well.
8.71 The courtyard within this part of the scheme is fully enclosed and all the parking spaces are sited within or to the front of the undercroft which creates a better quality amenity space, sheltered from any traffic noise or car usage.
Bulk, Height and Mass
8.72 The frontage of the scheme onto the Gyratory is at its highest point eight storeys, which includes a lower ground to the front of the site. This part of the proposal addresses the open nature of the site whilst not competing with the tower proposed for Site 1. Similar to proposals for Site 1, the design optimises the sloping topography, with the tallest element on the lowest portion.
8.73 The frontage onto Banstead Road steps down in three clearly defined elements which positively responds to the rhythm of the frontages being created for Site 1 as well as reflecting the form and rhythm of the semi-detached dwellings further north along Banstead Road. The Brighton Road elevation is defined by five upper storeys set behind a perforated screen of off-white brick loggia amenity balconies and a setback sixth level of accommodation. The building provides a good transitional element that mediates the relationship between the scale of the Site 1 development and the existing local built environment. The development positively enhances and strengthens the character and urban grain of the local area.
Appearance
8.74 The elevations and materiality form an uncluttered backdrop of brickwork and the proportion of glazing to brickwork works well. The brickwork chosen will integrate with the red/brown brickwork which is prevalent within Purley and referenced by the proposals for Site 1. Whilst the lighter brick ’loggias’ do not hit the ground, their
Page 86 of 122 inclusion provides visual interest whilst also creating acoustically sheltered balcony spaces on the Brighton/Banstead Rd. The dark zinc standing seam upper floor also relates well with the remaining façade treatment. The inclusion of a horizontal cast ‘stone’ band makes reference to the surrounding heritage buildings and breaks up the massing of the building.
8.75 The location of refuse and sub-station had to factor in the restriction of vehicular access and it is acknowledged that this does have an impact on the ground floor elevation. However, the blank area of elevation is minimal in relation to the overall scheme and landscaping would soften the visual impact of this element.
8.76 The corner of the building provides for two clean finishes to the Banstead and Brighton Road elevations and the turning of the corner on this building is acceptable. Given the slope of the land and the need to optimise the use of the site, the inclusion of lower ground levels is acceptable.
8.77 There are a number of complex construction elements and further specifications on materials and details which would be secured by planning conditions for subsequent discharge.
Heritage
8.78 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is relevant to these proposals. Sections 16 and 66 impose a general duty as respects listed buildings in exercise of planning functions. It requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a general duty as regards conservation areas when exercising their planning functions; to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
8.79 Chapter 12 of the NPPF relates specifically to the historic environment. Paragraph 131 sets out factors that should be taken into account regarding planning decisions, including ‘the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’. Paragraph 132 attaches great weight to conserving the significance of designated heritage assets, which include conservation areas. Paragraph 134 states that ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’. In weighing applications that affect non designated heritage assets, paragraph 135 requires a balanced judgement.
8.80 London Plan policy 7.8 is concerned with heritage assets: part D states that ‘Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail’.
8.81 CLP1 Policy SP4.12 of the Croydon Local Plan – Strategic Policies states the Council and its partners will respect, and optimise opportunities to enhance Croydon’s heritage assets, their setting and the historic landscape, including through high quality new development and public realm that respects the local character and is well integrated. CLP1 Policy SP4.13 states that the Council and its partners will
Page 87 of 122 respect and optimise opportunities to enhance Croydon’s heritage assets, their setting and the historic landscape, including through high quality new development and public realm that respects the local character and is well integrated. CLP1 Strategic Policy SP4.14 states that the Council and its partners will strengthen the protection of and promote improvements to the heritage assets and their settings, which include Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Archaeological Priority Zones, Locally Listed Buildings and Local Areas of Special Character.
8.82 Croydon Plan 2006 (Saved Policies 2013) Policy UC3 of the Croydon Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies states that proposals in Conservation Areas should respect character and appearance of the area and that proposals must pay special attention to various aspects of the appearance of the area and design of specific buildings. Policy UC5 of the Croydon Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies states that proposals that harm Local Areas of Special Character will not be permitted. Policy UC9 of the Croydon Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies states that in considering schemes affecting buildings on the Local List with substantial weight given to the benefit of protecting and conserving the particular interest that accounts for their designation.
8.83 The site also sits in relatively close proximity to the Upper Woodcote Village and the Webb Estate Conservation Area, the impact on the settings of which need to be taken in to account.
Island Site (Site 1)
8.84 There are a number of designated heritage assets in the vicinity of Site 1, including the Purley Library (Grade II listed), the United Reformed Church (Grade II Listed) and the Upper Woodcote Village and Webb Estate Conservation Area. In addition, there are non-designated heritage assets of local significance nearby; locally listed buildings (960 Brighton Road and 1-11 Mafeking Terrace) and the Brighton Road, Foxley Lane and Smitham Bottom Lane Local Area of Special Characters.
8.85 As outlined above, the proposed height, massing and layout successfully integrates with the general townscape and although Historic England have raised no specific comment about the proposed scheme, the impact on heritage assets needs to be given particular consideration. From an assessment of the views submitted with the application, it is apparent that there are some areas where the proposed development would have an impact on the setting of surrounding heritage assets.
8.86 The Purley Library is the most affected designated heritage asset, as the proposed development is in close proximity and prominent in a number of the views of this litsted structure. The massing and consequent articulation of volumes (stepping up in height away from the library) have been designed to mediate the relationship between library and the height of the podium and tower beyond, which has helped to limit the harm being caused to the setting of the library. Nevertheless, the height of the development adjacent to the library rises to almost match the library’s ridge height in views from Banstead Road which does erode the simplicity of the existing hipped roof form. Whilst the 17 storey tower will inevitably rise significantly above the roofline of the library, it is set at a distance from the listed building and will be read as a distinct element.
8.87 Whilst this element of the development is considered to cause some harm to the building’s simple skyline, officers have concluded that the harm caused would be less than substantial, in terms of the setting of the designated heritage asset. Less than
Page 88 of 122 substantial harm can potentially be outweighed by the public benefits associated with the development. The scheme also proposes an extension of the garden wall to the grounds of Purley Library along Banstead Road to help integrate the public realm and the principle of this is supported with the setting of the listed building in this location opened and improved. The other Grade II listed building, United Reformed Church, is well removed for there to be no harm caused from the proposals.
8.88 The Upper Woodcote Village and Webb Estate Conservation Area is also an important heritage asset to consider. This conservation area is located to the west of the site, approximately 125 metres away. As part of the Townscape and Visual Assessment views from Furze Lane (looking south east) and Woodcote Village Green (looking east) were included. The tower element is visible in the former view, providing a marker for the town, but not from the latter. Given the distance and the limited impact, the character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved.
8.89 Whilst there would be some harm caused to the setting of non-designated assets by the tower element, particularly the locally listed building at 960 Brighton Road and the Brighton Road Local Area of Special Character, the lesser significance of these assets, the slender form of the tower element, the use of high quality materials and calm architectural expression are considered to help mitigate its impact. 1-11 Mafeking Terrace is removed from the site by approximately 42 metres whilst the Foxley Lane and Smithham Bottom Lane Local Areas of Special Character are separated by at least 65 metres. In addition, these heritage assets are separated by buildings and although the tower element would be visible, this would be to a lesser degree than the former designated assets. Moreover, the harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The public benefits of the scheme include the creation of improved community facilities, a new public space and wider regeneration and housing benefits created by the provision of 220 new homes including 39 affordable housing units.
8.90 The harm caused by the proposed scheme to the setting of heritage assets would be less than substantial. When these impacts are weighted alongside the public benefits of the proposed development, officers are satisfied that the proposed development would comply with paragraph 134 and 135 of the NPPF. Notwithstanding this, it is essential that the development provides an exceptionally high design quality in relation to materials and other detailed matters at planning conditions stage. This is to ensure that the building, which is visible in the setting of heritage assets, is one of which is perceived as being of excellent contemporary design which responds appropriately to its historic context.
South Site (Site 2)
8.91 The proposals for Site 2 would be sufficiently removed from nearby heritage assets for there to be adverse impact, so these would be preserved. The non-designated heritage assets are also well removed and the majority would also be screened by the development proposed for Site 1; accordingly, there would be no adverse impact.
Impact on adjoining occupiers
8.92 Chapter 7 of the NPPF, requiring good design, makes clear that the impact of development on adjoining land and occupiers is a key consideration of good design.
Page 89 of 122 8.93 Policies SP1.2, SP4.1 & SP4.2 of CLP1 set out the need for developments to respond to the local character and circumstances, which includes the need for ensuring there is no detrimental impact on neighbours. Croydon Plan 2006 (Saved Policies 2013) Policies UD2 and UD3, referring to the layout, siting and scale of new developments makes clear that developments should distinguish between public and private spaces and not have an impact on the future development of other land. Additionally, policy UD8 protects the amenity of adjoining residential properties from overlooking, overshadowing and loss of light and outlook.
Island Site (Site 1)
Overlooking and loss of privacy
8.94 No harmful overlooking or loss of privacy would occur in relation to residential properties located on the opposite side of Banstead Road, given that they are separated by a wide road and at least a distance of 26 metres.
8.95 Whilst there would be some overlooking towards the end of the gardens serving 1-9 Foxley Lane, there would be no direct overlooking of the houses given the orientation and acute angle of view. Furthermore, there are large outbuildings at the end of the rear gardens serving 7 and 9 Foxley Lane (the two closest houses) which further reduces overlooking of outdoor space. The arrangement in relation to these neighbouring properties would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.
8.96 The residential element of 1-4 Russell Hill Road is located above ground floor and of these 1 Russell Hill Road is the closest (at a distance of 17 metres). Given the built up urban environment, these properties are sufficiently removed for there to be no significant concerns regarding overlooking or a loss of privacy.
8.97 There are 4 bedroom windows (2 windows serving 2 different flats) at second floor level at the rear of 5 Russell Hill Road. The nearest and furthest of these windows from the development would be 6 metres and 14 metres respectively. The windows within the proposed scheme closest to 5 Rueel Hill Road would serve kitchens and bedrooms. Whilst there would be some oblique overlooking, the windows would not be in direct alignment with each other and although some loss of privacy is likely to be suffered by the neighbouring occupiers, this is not sufficient to warrant a refusal reason, particularly given that a small amount of overlooking is not uncommon in built up areas. One of these neighbouring properties (sited furthest east) also has a clear kitchen/living room window that faces towards the development, but given the distance and layout of the room is unlikely to suffer harmful overlooking. The reciprocal relationship is also acceptable in relation to the above buildings.
8.98 The remaining buildings on Russell Hill Road and those on Purley Road and Brighton Road (to the north) are sufficiently separated and orientated from Site 1 for there to be no loss of privacy.
Visual intrusion
8.99 The closest neighbouring properties to the Site 1 relate to the proposed podium element and as identified above there are some neighbouring windows facing this part of the scheme. However, these neighbouring properties benefit form dual aspect, with accommodation also facing away from the development, towards either Foxley Lane or Russell Hill Road. As such, existing accommodation would maintain
Page 90 of 122 an acceptable outlook overall. Whilst the tower would be visible from surrounding residential properties, the relationship and distance is such that it would not materially harm residential amenity.
8.100 Semi-detached houses on the opposite side of Banstead Road are well removed, set back from the road by 10m. 11-21 Banstead Road would be opposite the proposed residential courtyard element of the new development. However, the slightly raised position of Banstead Road properties would further assist in alleviating the impact of this part of the proposal.
Consented scheme at 5 Russell Hill Parade
8.101 Although not yet implemented, the approved scheme at 5 Russell Hill Parade (15/05286/P) has residential accommodation at first and second floor level within close proximity of Site 1. The approved scheme has been designed so that the living rooms, which are situated at the rear closest to the application site, would have dual aspect. The windows would face the proposed residential accommodation and the vehicle access area. There are also balconies that have been approved serving these rooms, which are to be screened by 1.7m high obscure glazing. Given the presence of the rear screening and the dual aspect arrangement of these flats, there should be no concerns regarding outlook, light and privacy.
South Site (Site 2)
Overlooking and loss of privacy
8.102 There are 3 clear glazed bedroom windows (one at ground, first and second floor level) proposed along the north-western elevation (relatively close to the boundary with 11 Banstead Road. These would be set back 30 metres from the building frontage and would not result in direct overlooking of habitable windows to 11 Banstead Road, especially in view of the acute angle of sight. Whilst these windows would overlook the rear garden to a certain extent, this element would cause sufficient harm to warrant a refusal of planning permission. The remaining windows on the north-western elevation of the proposed building are to be obscure glazed and as such there would be no harmful overlooking of this neighbouring property.
8.103 1-14 Brighton Road has obscure and clear glazed windows on the flank and rear elevations respectively and a car park to the rear of the building. The proposed elevation facing this neighbouring property has both windows and recessed balconies. Given the orientation of the buildings, there would be no direct overlooking of the neighbouring rear habitable room windows, which are also screened by boundary trees, precluding any harmful overlooking or loss of privacy. Furthermore, given that the proposed building is 8.5m off the southern boundary, the proposal should not prejudice any future development potential for the rear car park. The houses on Purley Knoll are removed by at least 20 metres and 28 metres from the application site and building respectively and therefore sufficiently removed for there to be no harmful loss of privacy. The reciprocal relationship is also acceptable in relation to the above buildings.
Visual intrusion
8.104 The buildings proposed for Site 2 extend deep into the plot compared to the existing; 53 metres and 63 metres from Banstead Road and Brighton Road
Page 91 of 122 respectively. Occupiers of 11 Banstead Road and 1-14 Brighton Road, to the north- west and south west respectively, would be most affected.
8.105 There are a number of windows on the flank elevation of 1-14 Brighton Road, all of which are obscure glazed and therefore no harmful visual intrusion is envisaged. There are also flank windows on 11 Banstead Road facing Site 2. With the exception of a window serving a breakfast room on the ground floor, the remaining windows on the flank elevations either serve non-habitable rooms or a room that has dual aspect. Therefore, the outlook from these rooms would not be adversely impacted. Whilst there would be some impact on outlook from the breakfast room, given the number of rooms unaffected, the relationship is on balance acceptable. The building footprint would be sufficiently removed and orientated to provide an acceptable outlook for the neighbouring buildings from their respective rear windows.
Both Sites (Sites 1 and 2)
Daylight
8.106 A daylight and sunlight report has been submitted with the application which clearly demonstrates the impact of the development on the nearest residential properties to the site, which lie above the retail units fronting Russell Hill Road and Brighton Road as well as residential properties on Brighton Road, Banstead Road, Foxley Lane and Purley Knoll. These have been assessed in accordance with the 2011 BRE Guidelines.
8.107 The Vertical Sky Component assessment of daylight to existing nearby residential properties highlighted that of the 120 windows tested 48 would receive reductions greater than 20% of sunlight. Of these 48 windows, 32 rooms were assessed using a No Sky Line Assessment, of which 5 rooms received a material reduction in daylight. These properties were at 1 (first floor bedroom), 2 (first floor bedroom) and 5 (2 second floor bedrooms) Russell Hill Parade and 960 Brighton Road (first floor bedroom). Average Daylight Factor (ADF) assessments (including site visits) were undertaken for each one of these rooms. Due to the small size of the rooms and multiple windows serving some rooms the residual levels of daylight in each of the tested rooms would meet the BRE criteria for daylight ADF. Accordingly, although there would be some loss of daylight to surrounding residential properties they would all still meet the BRE criteria for daylight.
8.108 There are habitable room windows on the flank elevation of 11 Banstead Road. The results of the daylight VSC assessments demonstrate that windows to the kitchen and living room windows would receive reductions in direct daylight. However, when assessing the room as a whole, with the No Sky Line Assessment, the rooms would satisfy the BRE criteria.
Sunlight
8.109 The results of the sunlight assessments demonstrate that of the 120 windows tested, 20 windows that would fall below the recommended number of sunlight hours in winter. The windows that are impacted in relation to the loss of winter sunlight are at 1 (7 bedroom windows located at first and second floor level) 2 (2 bedroom windows located at first and second floor) 3 (3 bedroom windows located at first floor level) 4 (1 bedroom window located at first floor level) and 5 (4 bedroom windows located at second floor level) Russell Hill Parade, 7-9 Foxley Lane (1 bedroom and 1
Page 92 of 122 living room window) and 11 Banstead Road (1 living room window). 6 of these windows would receive reductions in sunlight that would not comply with the BRE recommended criteria annually; namely 1 (1 bedroom windows located at first floor level), 3 (2 bedroom windows located at first floor level), 5 (2 bedroom windows located at second floor level) Russell Hill Parade, 11 Banstead Road (1 living room window). 13 Banstead Road (1 living room window) would receive a reduction in sunlight beyond the BRE recommended criteria annually, but not for hours in winter.
8.110 The windows on the flank elevation of 11 Banstead Road would not be adversely impacted as the results show that the sunlight levels received would exceed the minimum BRE recommended levels.
8.111 Whilst the loss of sunlight to the above properties is regrettable, the overall impact on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties would be relatively small, given the scale of development and that the site is within and next to a District Centre. Furthermore, BRE guidelines are not incorporated into planning policy and modest divergence from the guidance does not make a scheme unacceptable. The proposed development offers material benefits by providing additional housing stock, improving the immediate townscape and providing new public realm. On balance, this is considered to outweigh the impact on neighbouring properties. Notwithstanding this the owners of the impacted properties may still address the issue under private rights to light, but this is not a planning matter.
8.112 In terms of outdoor amenity areas for neighbours, the results of a shadow path analysis conclude that that no significant adverse overshadowing would occur.
8.113 Daylight and sunlight testing has not been carried out in relation to existing non- residential buildings. Although there would likely be some impact, given the nature of the use of such buildings testing is not required.
Noise and disturbance
8.114 London Plan Policy 7.15 states that development proposals should seek to minimise the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on neighbouring properties and occupiers. Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2014) to the London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction is also relevant. CLP1 Policy SP6.3 states that development should positively contribute to improving noise environments. Croydon UDP Policy EP1 states that development which would result in pollution, including noise pollution, will only be permitted if their impact on health and safety is acceptable.
8.115 Whilst population density would increase, the development is not considered to result in a harmful increase in noise and disturbance. On Site 1 the proposed scheme would result in residential units close to the rear of buildings fronting Russell Parade. Given the existing context there would be an increase in general noise and disturbance. However, this part of the site is within a built up urban area where there is an existing service road separating the site from the neighbouring buildings. Accordingly, a degree of noise and disturbance is not uncommon and not a sufficient reason to warrant a refusal in this instance. Furthermore, appropriate sound insulation can be controlled by condition. The outdoor areas face onto main roads are well removed from nearest residential buildings.
Page 93 of 122 8.116 In terms of the community use, the Council’s Environmental Health officers have raised no objection to the community uses in terms of noise disturbance subject to the imposition of several planning conditions. These would restrict the hours of use to no later than 23:00 and 20:00 on Mon-Sat and Sun/Bank Holidays respectively for any area where there is amplified speech or music, or any sporting activity. In addition when amplified music or speech is to be played conditions are proposed covering; noise limiting device, cut-out device and control of exit doors and windows. Strict management of the premises will also be necessary to minimise noise from persons entering and leaving, which can be controlled via a Visitor Management Strategy that could be secured by condition.
8.117 Site 2 is within less of a built-up environment, but flanked on two sides by a busy main road. The design of this site focuses most of the outdoor space within an internal courtyard, which limits any impact to the neighbouring occupier. The play space alongside the southern boundary of the site is relatively small, screened by trees and primarily adjacent to a neighbouring car park area and therefore not considered to result in any harmful impact.
8.118 During construction there would undoubtedly be an impact on neighbouring occupiers. However, a construction methodology and construction logistics plan would ensure the build-phase is managed appropriately, minimising disturbance towards neighbouring properties. Furthermore, disruption due to construction is only temporary and limited to the site and immediate surrounds.
8.119 Impacts from light pollution can be controlled by planning condition and would secured by details avoiding any adverse impacts on neighbouring occupiers.
Quality of living environment provided for future residents
Residential Standards
8.120 Chapter 6 of the NPPF relates to delivering a wide choice of high quality homes. It states that: ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and that it is the role of local planning authorities ‘to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities’.
8.121 In March 2015 the Government published new National Technical Housing Standards, which include national space standards.
8.122 London Plan Policy 3.5 states that housing developments should be of a high quality and exemplary design. The London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance provides guidance on the design of residential units and provides a breakdown of minimum floor areas by unit type and requirements for individual room dimensions to ensure adequate amenity.
8.123 Policy SP2.6 indicates that housing should cater for residents’ changing needs over their lifetime and contribute to creating sustainable communities. Individual units will be expected to meet the standards set out in the London Housing SPG. Croydon Plan Saved Policy UD8 sets requirements for the provision of amenity space and provision of adequate amenity for new residents.
Page 94 of 122 8.124 The London Housing SPG seeks to minimise the number of single-aspect units in schemes and indicates that north-facing single aspect units would not be acceptable. It also seeks a maximum of 8 units being served by one residential core on a floor to facilitate sustainable and safe communities.
Island Site (Site 1)
8.125 Residential accommodation on Site 1 starts at first and second floors in the courtyard and tower respectively. There is associated vehicle parking in the basement. An accommodation schedule demonstrates compliance with the minimum space standards and each flat has a private amenity space, generally in the form of recessed balconies or terraces.
8.126 The arrangement and layout of Site 1 results in 112 out of 114 units being dual aspect, with many benefitting from long views in various directions across Purley or into courtyard gardens. There are two north east facing single aspect units at the third (C.042) and fourth (C.050) floors where the development faces the vehicular entrance onto Russell Hill Road. Given that these units are raised, have good outlook and not solely north facing the accommodation is acceptable.
8.127 Other than the third floor and focussed on Core C (which serves 9 units) all the other cores and floors have acceptable unit ratios. Given the complexity of the layout the overall arrangement of units is acceptable. In general, across the whole of this site the accommodation would be well positioned and have good outlook and light, primarily due to the open and elevated nature of the scheme.
8.128 Given the layout of the building, the first to third floor level along the north-eastern flank of the blocks raised potential concern regarding light levels for future occupiers. Following revisions to fenestration within this area 97% of habitable rooms in this area meet recommended BRE guidance levels. Overall the lighting for future occupiers would be acceptable.
8.129 As highlighted within the GLA comments, the level access to Core C would be somewhat convoluted (via the ramps between Cores A and B). However, the alternative of an additional ramped entrance between Cores B and C would have resulted in the main play space area being substantially reduced. The alternative of other new entrances direct off Banstead Road would have eliminated the courtyard landscape entry sequence which plays an important role in providing a welcoming and calm threshold sequence from the busy Banstead Road. On balance the pedestrian residential access is considered acceptable.
South Site (Site 2)
8.130 Site 2 is wholly residential and all the units meet the relevant space standard and have sufficient outdoor space. Less than half of the units are dual aspect (44 units at 41%). However, there are only 13 units (12%) that are single aspect and face in a northwards direction (all located on the Banstead Road elevation). Although not ideal this is borne out of the quad building layout which provides other benefits, including a protected central courtyard and safe play spaces. Overall the accommodation would have good levels of outlook.
8.131 The GLA also raised the issue of core to unit ratio in relation to Cores E and F. The separation of private and affordable cores was driven by the Registered Providers
Page 95 of 122 due to potential service charge related difficulties. Given the mitigating circumstances the unit to core ratio and layout is acceptable. The main access to Cores F and G would be through the courtyard via Core H which would be acceptable bearing in mind that mail boxes and refuse storage would be concentrated in Core H. There is a secondary access to the rear of Brighton Road which might also be an optional alternative access route for occupiers of the development (which would be closely liked to Cores E and F). The ‘Secure by Design’ officer has not raised any objection to the proposed layout and arrangement.
8.132 The quad layout does result in units that would not have the optimum lighting conditions, mainly along the western and Banstead Road edges of the block. Following revisions to window positions, 77% of habitable rooms in these locations would meet recommended BRE guidance levels. The whole south site has not been tested, but given the proposed layout, lighting conditions should be sufficient to the other units. Whilst not all units meet the recommended daylight levels, this is mainly due to a high number of inset balconies which have been included to prevent overlooking and to reduce noise and heat levels. Whilst ideally all rooms should meet the standards, BRE Guidance is advisory and is not a strict policy requirement. Overall, officers are satisfied that the site would have sufficient levels of light for future occupiers, particularly given the urban environment and design constraints.
8.133 Ideally all ground floor units would have their own street facing entrances. However, due to the slope of the land it is not possible to provide street facing entrances to all ground floor units from the surrounding routes. Nonetheless, all cores would have clear access from the street or from the courtyard, creating distinct and welcoming entrances.
Both Sites (Sites 1 and 2)
Noise and disturbance
8.134 Traffic is the main influence on background noise and is of a level that would require a sound insulation scheme that could be achieved through prescriptive glazing and ventilation specifications. This would be secured by planning condition.
8.135 In addition, detailed noise calculations are recommended to be carried out at the post-planning detailed design stage to ensure that the required internal noise criteria levels, as requested by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, are achieved for living areas in the daytime and bedrooms during night-time periods. Furthermore, all proposed fixed-plant should be designed to comply with the rating level criteria specified in the submitted Noise Impact Assessment.
Play (Sites 1 and 2)
8.136 The expected child yield is 31, requiring 310 sqm of play space, with 20 under-fives, requiring 200 sq metres of play space as a minimum. The proposals include 107 sq metres of under-five play space on the Island site (Site 1) in podium gardens and 141 sq metres of under-five play space on the South Site (Site 2) in the amenity space to the south-west of the building.
8.137 The provision of public leisure facilities is funded by the Community Infrastructure Levy and therefore the play space for older children which is proposed off-site at Rotary Fields (500 metres from the site) is acceptable. The proposed community
Page 96 of 122 facilities will provide sporting opportunities which might well be available for use by local residents pursuant to the community use agreements proposed as part of this development. A planning condition is recommended that would secure detailed designs to ensure that the on-site play space is fully useable.
8.138 Overall the proposed development would provide satisfactory accommodation for future occupiers.
Transport and highways considerations
8.139 Chapter 4 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable transport. It indicates that a modal change towards public transport should be encouraged and that the pattern of development should be managed to encourage developments to the most suitable locations. London Plan Policy 6.13 indicates that the Mayor wishes to see an appropriate balance being struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use.
8.140 Developments in areas of good public transport accessibility should aim for significantly less than 1 space per unit. Policy 6.3 states development proposals should ensure that impacts on transport capacity and the transport network, at both a corridor and local level, are fully assessed. The cumulative impacts of development on transport requirements must be taken into account. Walking and cycling is also strongly endorsed in Policies 6.9 and 6.10 and there is a need for cycle parking to be provided in accordance with the standards set out in Table 6.3.
8.141 Policy SP8 of CLP1 sets out local requirements to promote sustainable travel and levels of parking. Croydon Plan Saved Policy UD12 demands the safety of all users to be maintained and UD13 requires car and cycle parking to be designed as an integral part of the scheme and to minimise their visual impact.
8.142 Both sites are located in an area with a PTAL rating of 5 indicating a very good level of access to public transport.
Access / Highway Layout
8.143 Vehicular access to Site 1 will be from Russell Hill Road where vehicles will be able to make a right turn onto the site and drive into the car park. Car parking spaces for visitors of the proposed Purley Baptist Centre are proposed to be located on the ground floor, while the residential car park is proposed to be located at basement level. Vehicular parking for Site 2 would be accessed from Banstead Road. Vehicles would be required to turn left into the site, beyond the pedestrian crossing. Both these access points would be in acceptable locations.
8.144 The building line of both sites has been set back to accommodate sufficient footway widths behind the proposed inset bays. The footway land that encroaches onto the site would need to be adopted by TfL. Along with the proposed site access arrangements and associated off-site highway works (including but are not limited to the provision of new accesses, removal of redundant crossovers, the proposed loading and drop off bays, cycle parking and tree planting) will be secured by planning condition and the provisions of relevant highway agreements (S.38 and S.278) between the applicant and TfL.
Page 97 of 122 8.145 Both development access points have been subject to a safety audit. In terms of Site 1, a kerb build out would be required to improve pedestrian visibility from the site access onto Russell Hill Road. The audit recommends bollards to be erected on either side of the tactile paving to the Site 2 entrance to prevent residential vehicles entering the refuse loading bay when exiting the site. The implementation falls within the control of the Highway Authority TfL for agreement and implementation. TfL raise no objection and the changes can be secured and agreed at detailed design stage as part of a S.278 Agreement. The safest location for the pedestrian crossing is the current location so it is proposed as being retained.
Parking
8.146 The proposal would result in the loss of a car park on Banstead Road. However, this is not protected and given the intentions of the proposal – to accommodate on- site church related parking as part of the “Island Site proposals, the loss of existing parking on the south side of Banstead Road would be acceptable.
8.147 The total residential parking spaces for the two sites would be 37 (0.17 per dwelling) with 28 spaces for Site 1 (0.24 per dwelling) including 11 disabled bays. 9 disabled parking spaces would be available for use as part of the Site 2 proposals (0.08 per dwelling). In line with the low parking provision requirement and high PTAL rating, it is recommended that future residents are excluded from applying for parking permits in the Controlled Parking Zone and that this is secured through the S.106 Agreement.
8.148 The provision of 9 Blue Badge spaces on Site 2 is two spaces below the disabled car parking standard. However, to keep the residential courtyard free of traffic, the car parking spaces have been kept to a minimum on this site. Furthermore, the unit count has increased to allow for more affordable provision, which has pushed up the Blue Badge space requirement. Given the constraints of the site posed by limitations of the perimeter design and the desire to keep the frontage as free from all vehicles as possible, the provision is considered acceptable. Swept path analysis demonstrate suitable manoeuvrability is available for these spaces.
8.149 The Transport Assessment (TA) confirmed that using the generated ward average ownership rate (220 new households) would amount to 165 cars; although it is unlikely that all residents would own a vehicle, given the very good PTAL rating and presence of the CPZ which would require them to find alternative parking during the day. The TA analysed alternative parking available in the area around the development and considered overall car parking impact. The applicants have gone beyond the Lambeth Parking Methodology (200m parking area) and for robustness, surveyed a wider area of 500 metre. A 200 metre radius is entirely within the Purley CPZ area and there are very few parking bays even within the 500m radius (the majority of these bays are restricted to prevent all day parking, which again would make it difficult for future residents to park on the street).
8.150 Using the higher average number of car/van 2011 car ownership of 0.75 rate for the area, the TA advises that under standard circumstances, this development would be expected to provide 165 residential car parking spaces on site (across Sites 1 and 2). 37 residential car parking spaces have been proposed (a number of which are proposed to be dedicated to Blue Badge Holders) and whilst this is significantly less that the wider car ownership found within the immediate, officers are satisfied with this level of on-site residential car parking, since residents will be expected to comply with sustainable travel practices, making use of a car club, limited by parking controls
Page 98 of 122 in the CPZ and parking permit restrictions. Nonetheless an evening parking survey has demonstrated that there would be sufficient capacity for overnight spill over parking.
8.151 For the Baptist Centre, 50 parking spaces including 3 disabled parking spaces and 1 minibus space would be provided on site, which is less than the existing provision of 81 which includes 74 on the current Island Site (including the use of the sports court) and 7 on the opposing side of the road) for the church. A key consideration is the traffic generation from the church use with its 500 seat auditorium. The TA calculates that an additional 207 off site spaces will be required for the Sunday period of activities. This additional parking demand would be addressed by the Russell Hill Place surface car park (60 car parking spaces) and Purley Multi-Storey Car Park, Whytecliffe Road South (412 spaces), both accessible within a five minute walking distance of the site. The combined car parks currently reach occupancy of approximately 19% of car parking spaces during the 11:15 service, which is also considered the likely demand peak caused by visitors to the new facilities. The additional parking arrangements together with the objectives of the Travel Plan for the promotion of sustainable travel makes the overspill parking strategy acceptable. A Car Park Management Plan for the effective operation of the on-site car parks would be secured by condition.
8.152 An agreement with Tesco to share their car park is not required as there is already free parking available for 3 hours without any obligation to purchase from Tesco. The existence of this parking is included within the parking analysis. However, the car park is generally quite full during peak church periods so is given limited weight.
8.153 The parking matrix associated with London Plan Policy 6.13 indicates that developments should provide 20% of spaces with electric vehicle charging points and a further 20% with passive provision for charging points. This provision is proposed, acceptable and would be secured by planning condition.
8.154 The applicant has submitted framework travel plans with the application and compliance with a detailed version can be secured by condition. One Car Club space would be provided on Banstead Road, this is acceptable and along with the exact location would be secured by way of a legal agreement.
8.155 The lay-bys on Banstead Road and vehicular access to the Island Site from Russell Hill Road would provide sufficient space for a taxi drop off/pick up.
8.156 A Pedestrian Environment Review System show no issues with the pedestrian environment.
Trip Generation
8.157 The residential trip generation forecasts have been developed using the TRICS Database and the mode share has been derived using Travel to Work 2011 Census. The approach and methodology utilised in estimating the multimodal trip generation for the development is acceptable.
8.158 The total anticipated vehicle trips generated for the am and pm peak for Site 1 and Site 2 are 17 and 24 and 15 and 22 trips respectively. Given the reduced number of parking spaces within the development and local parking restrictions the residential
Page 99 of 122 element of the proposed scheme is not likely to have a detrimental impact on the local highway network.
8.159 First principles were used to estimate the trip generation associated with the Baptist Church’s activities and services using surveys from the existing congregation. The estimated generated trips were 275 vehicle trips on a Sunday, which would be at its highest (117 vehicles) between 10:15-11:15. Regardless of overlap between services the additional trips generated by the development, is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the strategic highway network. Furthermore, the church peaks are outside of the network peaks.
8.160 The forecasted impacts from the above trips are acceptable and a Travel Plan would further mitigate the forecasted impacts of the composite development.
8.161 In terms of public transport and bus trips there are currently 10 bus routes (407,412, 127, 289, 434, 405, 455, 166, 466 and 60) within an acceptable walking distance of the site. TfL have confirmed that the additional trips expected can be accommodated within the existing bus network capacity. TfL have confirmed that the development can be accommodated with respect to bus network capacity. In addition, a bus stop assessment has been undertaken which demonstrates that nearby bus stops on Banstead Road and Russell Hill Road comply with current TfL guidance and would not therefore require improvement.
8.162 Given the frequent number of trains serving Purley Rail Station, the number of additional passengers per carriage during am and pm peak times would be less than 1. Accordingly, there would be a negligible impact on the existing rail services operating from Purley Station.
8.163 A Pedestrian Environment Review System show no issues with the pedestrian environment.
Cycle provision
8.164 The development on Site 1 proposes 228 residential cycle spaces in a double height raking system and 4 secure staff cycles spaces. A further 24 visitor Sheffield cycle hoops are proposed externally at ground level, distributed around the Purley Baptist Centre. On Site 2, a total of 160 cycle spaces are proposed within 3 locations in the building. Overall 396 long stay and 24 short stay cycle parking spaces are provided, which exceed the London Plan requirements of 352 and 14 for long and short stay respectively.
Safeguarding
8.165 A small area of land in the north eastern corner of Site 1 will be safeguarded for future highway improvements, made available for adoption by TfL and secured through the S.106 Agreement. This has been requested by TfL and would accommodate any future junction improvements coming forward, which would assist in a realignment of the Russell Hill Road junction towards the Purley Gyratory.
Servicing and Waste Management
8.166 Servicing of Site 1 would occur within the site via the Russell Hill Road access. The proposed Banstead Road layby will be used for refuse collection and bringing in
Page 100 of 122 goods to Site 2. A Delivery Service Management Plan to include concierge activities would be secured by a planning condition.
8.167 The refuse collection facilities have been viewed by the Council’s waste and recycling team who raise no objection. They did confirm that refuse storage would need to be within 20m of the highway, which is the case. In addition the team have confirm that the vehicle tracking map shows acceptable access, provided there are no gates, which there are not.
Impact on environmental conditions
Wind conditions
8.168 London Plan Policy 7.7 states that tall buildings should not have an unacceptable harmful impact on their surroundings and should not adversely affect micro climate or wind turbulence. CLP1 Policy SP4.6 states that tall buildings will be required to minimise their environmental impacts. Paragraph 6.71 states that tall buildings will need to demonstrate how their designs do not have a negative impact on environmental conditions, including wind.
8.169 A wind assessment for the development and the adjacent public areas was submitted alongside the planning application. This shows that beyond the existing situation the proposal would improve the wind environment for pedestrian safety, particularly along Brighton Road. In terms of comfort, there are no concerns with the wind environment in terms of standing.
8.170 All areas outside the site where sitting and walking is expected fall within the requisite comfort criteria, with the exception of some scattered areas to the north east of the south site and around the corner of the 957-959 Brighton Road for sitting and walking respectively. In terms of the area related to sitting there is dense vegetation and mature trees in this area which are likely to mitigate the effect. Furthermore, the area is located at the end of neighbouring back gardens reducing the impact further. The area where comfort levels are exceeded, beyond the existing situation, is on the road away from pedestrian crossing points and therefore no major concern is raised. Although there are two areas where comfort thresholds are likely to be exceeded, overall the scheme is acceptable in relation to wind comfort and improves the local wind environment in terms of safety.
8.171 The areas within the development have been tested and would be suitable for the intended use, which includes the courtyards and roof gardens.
Ground Conditions and Contamination
8.172 London Plan Policy 5.21 states that it should be ensured that the development of brownfield land does not result in significant harm to humans or the environment. Policy EP1 of the Croydon UDP states that development which could cause soil or water pollution will only be permitted if the health and safety of site users and those in the surrounding area is not put at risk.
8.173 A Land Quality/Contamination Desktop Assessment identifies that there may be some contaminants, but that the nature of ground conditions are currently not known. Further site investigations would be required to establish the position and any appropriate mitigation. This can be secured by condition along with the Environment
Page 101 of 122 Agency requirements, and accordingly the development would not have an unacceptable impact in this regard.
Surface Water, Drainage and Flooding
8.174 The site is largely located within Flood Zone 1 with a narrow strip of the Island site within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Flood Zone 1 is defined as having a low probability of flooding and Zone 3 as having a high risk.
8.175 London Plan Policy 5.3 states that development proposals should demonstrate that sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal and that major developments meet the minimum standards within the Mayor’s SPG. Policy 5.12 states that development proposals must meet flood risk assessment and management requirements. The London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance (2014) supports that developers will be expected to clearly demonstrate how all opportunities to minimise final site runoff, as close to greenfield rate as practical, have been taken. The minimum expectation for development proposals is to achieve at least 50% attenuation of the site’s (prior to re- development) surface water runoff at peak times. CLP1 Policy SP6.4 states that the Council will seek to reduce flood risk and protect groundwater and aquifers.
8.176 Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS Assessments have been submitted for both sites, which are within the vicinity of the Caterham Bourne, a culverted watercourse.
Island site (Site 1)
8.177 In view of floodwater being held within the channel of Brighton Road flooding of Site 1 from watercourses is likely to be low. The proposed building is located 1.3m from the back of the footpath at its lowest point, meaning that the building footprint would fall within Flood Zone 1 and all thresholds along the Brighton Road frontage would be at a higher level than floodwater level (the height at which flood levels are contained) ensuring flood water will flow down Brighton Road and not into the development.
8.178 Nonetheless, the site is within a critical drainage area, which has a high chance of surface water flooding in parts of the site. Surface water flooding within proximity of the site drains down Foxley Lane to the north and flows down Banstead Road, as well as a flow path that is diverted towards Russell Hill Road. The flow path only passes through the site in the proposed service yard area and then discharges onto the junction at Russell Hill Parade and Brighton Road. To mitigate against the reduced land level that is created to form the service yard area to the basement, a further drainage system is proposed to divert water away from the basement threshold to Brighton Road.
8.179 In terms of groundwater flooding, a hydrological and hydrogeological assessment has been undertaken which concludes that the aquifer lays significantly below the planned depth of the basement, so sub surface flow would not be impacted by the development or increase groundwater flood risk elsewhere. Notwithstanding this, the below ground structure would be waterproofed and therefore the risk to the development would be low from ground water flooding.
8.180 As part of the SUDs assessment, forms of sustainable drainage in accordance with the London Plan were considered in relation to the development. In terms of SUDs attenuation tanks are best suited, restricting the surface water discharge rate to 5l/s
Page 102 of 122 via attenuation tanks, which has been agreed by the LLFA. Other SUDs elements such as gravel trenches and bio-retention systems will be provided.
South site (Site 2)
8.181 Site 2 is located in Flood Zone 1 and is at a low risk from watercourse flooding, although it is within an area with increased risk of surface water ponding based on the topography the site, with the high risk areas limited to the road channels. The existing levels across the site will not be reduced around the perimeter and therefore will not create any flow paths into the site. Due to the site levels there is a lower ground floor running along Brighton Road consisting of residential units at a proposed level of 63.05m AOD. However, land to the front of defensible space, at a higher level of 64.5m AOD, will prevent any flow of flood water into the site at this area.
8.182 The site is underlain by chalk; borehole records show that water is struck at approximately 20m below ground level. Given that these ground water levels are monitored and controlled by the Environment Agency it is unlikely to affect the development. In addition, there is a clay layer approximately 1.5m below ground level which would act as an impermeable barrier preventing groundwater from rising near the ground level, but this could create pressure from ground water above the clay. Flood risk would be mitigated by waterproofing to the lower structures.
8.183 In addition the proposed lower ground floor will not increase the risk of flooding to existing developments due to displacement of ground water as the controlled ground water level in the aquifer is below this level.
8.184 As with the Site 1, attenuation tanks are proposed with a restricted surface water discharge. In addition, green roofs and permeable pavements in the car parking area and proposed, which will also promote ecological and pollution prevention benefits.
8.185 In addition to the above, a further review of groundwater displacement at the two sites was conducted assuming a worst case scenario of groundwater emerging at surface. The LLFA were satisfied that the proposed basement will have minimal impact on the groundwater and will not significantly alter groundwater flood risk.
8.186 Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water and water supply infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development and seek conditions to mitigate this. Although the Water Industry Act (1991) places a duty on sewerage undertakers to provide the additional capacity that may be required to accommodate additional flows and loads arising from new domestic development, making this a matter between the relevant parties, it is prudent to attach a planning condition in this instance. Planning conditions required to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water infrastructure and secure a suitable piling method statement are recommended.
Air Quality
8.187 London Plan Policy 7.14 states that developments should look to minimise increased exposure to existing poor air quality and seek to contribute to addressing local air quality problems. London Plan SPG - The control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition 2014 is also relevant. CLP1 Policy SP6.3 states that development should positively contribute to improving air quality. Croydon UDP
Page 103 of 122 Policy EP1 states that development which would result in pollution, including to the air, will only be permitted if their impact on health and safety is acceptable.
8.188 There is a medium to low risk of adverse air quality impacts if no measures are put in place to mitigate the impacts of the construction phase. However, the air quality impact of construction phase would be acceptable subject to adherence to the mitigation measures indicated within the submitted air quality assessment report.
8.189 In addition to construction phase impacts the assessment compares the predicted concentrations of air quality exposure ‘with development’ and ‘without development’ scenarios. The impact at six nearby buildings shows a moderate or slight increase in concentrations of NO2 (nitrogen oxide) whilst all the others show a negligible increase. The increase in NO2 is not ideal, but on balance, given that the overall impact on local air quality is predominantly negligible a refusal reason on this would not be warranted. It is important to note that the Council’s Environmental Health officers have raised no objections in relation to the air quality assessment.
8.190 The development has been designed to provide dwellings on the lower floors with appropriate ventilation equipped to ensure that the new dwellings have a source of air with NO2 concentrations below the annual mean air quality objectives.
Nature Conservation and Trees
8.191 Chapter 11 of the NPPF, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, seeks to protect and enhance valued landscapes.
8.192 London Plan Policy 7.19 states that development proposals should, where possible, make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity. London Plan Policy 7.21 states that existing trees of value should be retained and any loss as the result of development should be replaced following the principle of ‘right place, right tree’. Wherever appropriate, the planting of additional trees should be included in new developments, particularly large-canopied species.
8.193 CLP1 Policy SP7.4 states that the Council will seek to enhance biodiversity across the borough. Croydon UDP Policies NC2 and NC3 state that permission will not be granted when a development will cause demonstrable harm to a protected species or harm features of nature conservation interest. Policy NC4 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 seeks to protect valued trees. Saved Policy UD14 requires development to retain the most important trees and for landscaping proposals to be considered as an intrinsic part of the design concept.
8.194 Neither site is within or adjacent to a site of nature conservation importance. The development would result in the loss of trees and vegetation, mainly on Site 2, which provide habitat opportunities. However, a comprehensive and significant landscaping scheme is proposed which provides adequate replacement and new planting across and between sites. There would be a temporary impact whilst the landscaping matures, but overall the landscaping is acceptable.
8.195 A Tree Survey Report has been undertaken of the site which surveyed 13 individual trees and 6 groups of trees. 21 trees (5 individual and 2 groups) are to be removed and are as follows;
Area of Scheme No. Tree Grade Page 104 of 122 Island Site Tree T1 2 Horse chestnut B
Group G5 2 Hazel and 1 Sycamore C G6 2 Hazel and 1 Privet C
South Site Tree T2 Goat willow U T3 Robinia A T9 Hornbeam C T10 Yew C
Group G1 6 Sycamore B G2 3 Sycamore &1 Box B
8.196 The proposed landscaping plans show 18 new trees on Site 1 (this does include 4 trees within the courtyard, but not the 20 trees at the top of the tower) and 23 new trees on Site 2.
Island site (Site 1)
8.197 There is a Horse Chestnut outside the front of the existing Purley Baptist Church entrance on Banstead Road. This tree is a mature specimen of moderate quality but high prominence. The tree is not subject to a preservation order and it is considered that the planting of a single replacement tree in a similar position and a row of new street trees will mitigate its loss.
South site (Site 2)
8.198 The site is subject to Tree Preservation Order 23, 2006. This order relates only to trees on the boundary of 1 Banstead Road. Of the preserved trees, Lime T2 is dead. The remaining preserved Robinia is in a prominent position on the boundary of the site and is proposed to be removed. The loss of this tree is regrettable, but officers consider that the merits of the proposed scheme outweigh the harm caused by the loss of this tree. Replanting will help mitigate the loss.
8.199 The Tree Preservation Order includes one other tree, Horse Chestnut T1 on the western boundary. This tree is a mature specimen which offers a good degree of prominence. The footprint for the proposed development is only marginally within the root protection area of the horse chestnut and officers are satisfied that this tree can be successfully protected during development and retained following completion of the proposed works.
8.200 The existing trees on the boundary between 9 and 11 Banstead Road provide a good screen for the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings. The footprint of the building in this location has been designed so the trees would not be felled. Some works to reduce the crown by 2 metres on the south side are proposed, which is acceptable provided there is infill planting along this boundary to bolster the existing screening. This is not shown on the landscape plans, but can be secured by planning condition.
Page 105 of 122 8.201 Of the remaining trees on this site, the row in the centre is not subject to a tree preservation order and is to be removed to accommodate the development. It is considered unlikely that the site could be successfully developed were these trees to remain.
8.202 The proposed strategy to mitigate the effect of the removal of trees is to employ an extensive soft landscaping along the street frontages and at the top of the tower, which ensure that the sylvan character is interwoven back into the streetscape. The cost of the street tree planting would be captured within the wider S.278 highway works. In addition a financial contribution for future maintenance would also be secured.
8.203 The appeal decision in relation to application 06/04916/P (1-5 Banstead Road and 14 Brighton Road) upheld concerns relating to the effect on the development on both the preserved trees and the others within the site which made a useful contribution to the character of the area. However, this decision was reached 8 years ago (with one of the trees since having been removed, whilst one other has since died). Furthermore, the policy position has further evolved since that time with targets and requirements for new housing having increased significantly. Consequently, the loss would not outweigh the benefit of development of the site as proposed.
8.204 The loss of a tree subject to a preservation order is regrettable. However, taking into account the context, merits of the trees to be lost, the extent of new planting to be secured by condition and the imposition of a planning condition requiring the submission of a Tree Management Strategy for the site following development, it is considered that the loss of the trees in this instance is justified.
Electronic Interference
8.205 Analogue television services were switched off throughout London and the London TV region during 2012, so no impacts can now occur to the reception of analogue services.
8.206 An assessment has been undertaken which concludes that no interference has been identified for the reception of terrestrial digital television services (Freeview) or digital satellite television. There are no viewers located in any areas where signal interference could occur and there are no satellite signal receive antennas (satellite dishes) in any theoretical digital satellite television signal shadow areas respectively. Overall the scheme is likely to have a neutral effect on the reception of television broadcast services for local residents and is therefore acceptable.
The environmental performance of the proposed building
8.207 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states:
‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure’ .
8.208 Policies 5.1-5.15 of the London Plan relate to sustainability, seeking to achieve an overall reduction in London’s carbon dioxide emissions of 60 per cent (below 1990 Page 106 of 122 levels) by 2025 and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) levels by 40%. However, as outlined in the Sustainable, Design and Construction SPG, since 6 April 2014 the Mayor has applied a 35 per cent carbon reduction target beyond Part L 2013 of the Building Regulations - this is deemed to be broadly equivalent to the 40 per cent target beyond Part L 2010 of the Building Regulations, as specified in Policy 5.2 of the London Plan for 2013-2016.
8.209 Proposals should seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through the energy efficient design of the site, buildings and services. District heating and cooling and combined heat and power should be adopted. The highest standards of sustainable design and construction should be achieved in London to improve the environmental performance of new development.
8.210 Policies SP6.2 – SP6.6 of CLP1 provide a local interpretation of the above policies. They require development to minimise CO2 emissions through application of the energy hierarchy, require high density schemes to incorporate site wide communal heating and require developments to be constructed to BREEAM “Excellent” standards and achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 (now withdrawn). Furthermore developments should minimise pollution and improve air, land, noise and water quality as well as managing waste sustainably. London Plan SPG sustainable design and construction 2014 is also relevant.
8.211 An Energy and Sustainability Statement have been received identifying that the scheme would achieve a 35% reduction against Building Regulations 2013 through the use of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) led communal heating network, installation of solar PV and with the Church facilities cooled via localised Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP). In addition, the Church space was designed to achieve a rating of BREEAM ‘Excellent’.
8.212 The nearest heat network is located in Sutton over 2km from the site. Given the separation distance the Energy statement deems connection between the two parts of the application to be unviable, primarily due to the underground infrastructure within the road network. However, the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) would allow the development to connect to a wider communal heating system should one become available in the area (and space allowance has been made for this). A condition can secure this future proofing of the development.
8.213 The units are not at risk of overheating during a moderately warm summer, with a return period of 7 years. However, there is a risk of overheating for hot summers, those with a 16 and 25 return period. Given that these intervals are infrequent, that the ‘worst case’ units were selected (those being on the south west facing Banstead Road) and that smaller windows would have a detrimental impact on light levels and appearance the quality of accommodation in terms of overheating is acceptable.
8.214 The Councils Sustainable Development & Energy officer has reviewed the scheme and finds the overall energy strategy and BREEAM pre-assessment acceptable. In addition to this the domestic water consumption target of 110 litre/person/day can be secured by condition.
Other planning issues
8.215 Part of the application site is located within an Archaeological Priority Zone. London Plan Policy 7.8 requires the protection of heritage assets and archaeology. Croydon
Page 107 of 122 Plan 2006 (Saved Policies 2013) UC11 concerns development proposals on Archaeological Sites. An archaeological desk-based assessment has been submitted. Historic England have confirmed acceptance of the report and recommend a condition.
8.216 The NPPF (paragraph 69) states that planning policies and decisions, in turn, should aim to achieve places which promote: ‘…safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas’.
8.217 London Plan Policy 7.3 and Croydon Plan 2006 Saved Policies Policy UD6 state that the Council will require that issues of safety and security are intrinsic considerations in the detailed design and layout of buildings and spaces around them, helping to deter crime and reduce the fear of crime. CLP1 SP4.1 seeks to enhance social cohesion and well-being.
8.218 The crime prevention design officer has raised no objections subject to conditions covering CCTV and lighting to an acceptable standard, in the event of an approval conditions can secure the appropriate details.
Conclusions
8.219 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out above. The details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION.
Page 108 of 122 This page is intentionally blank
Page 109 of 122 138 140
44.3m
El Sub 13 MP 11.5 Sta
EPSOM ROAD
Bank
Trough 19to21 1 to 5
154 23
The 1 to 5 156 Waddon
(PH) 29to31
Posts Waddon 45.0m
FB Station
37 39
Stafford Court
1 to 9
43 to 45 to 43 1 to 9 to 1
Meridian Court
10
11 to 16 to 11
9to10 47 5 to 8 to 5 Ordnance Survey, (c) Crown Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432
Site Location Plan
Project Title Land on the North West of Epsom Road Waddon Croydon
Scale Date 1 : 1250 @ A4 September 2015 Page 110 of 122 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 15 December 2016
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision Item 7.4
1 APPLICATION DETAILS
Ref: 16/03965/P (Link to related documents on the Planning Register) Location: Electricity Substation and Land Adjoining 154 Epsom Road, Croydon, CR0 4UP Ward: Waddon Description: Demolition of electricity substation; erection of three storey building with accommodation in roofspace comprising 5 one bedroom flats Drawing Nos: Site Location Plan, Drawing Numbers 15/371/04 Rev D and 15/371/05 Rev C. Applicant: Mr Robinson Agent: Mr Robinson Case Officer: Samantha Dixon
1.1 This application is being reported to committee because the ward councillor (Cllr Andrew Pelling) made representations in accordance with the Committee Consideration Criteria and requested committee consideration.
2 SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
2.1 The principle of the development is acceptable
2.2 The application has been amended to ensure the development would not significantly impact on the highway network, safety, traffic generation or parking
2.3 The proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area.
2.4 The development would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents
2.5 The development would provide an acceptable standard of living for future occupants
3 RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission.
3.2 That the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the following matters:
Conditions
1) In accordance with submitted drawings 2) Details of materials to be submitted and approved 3) Landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved 4) Development should be carried out in accordance with Tree Protection Plan 5) No obstruction of highway 6) Cycle storage as shown on plans and retained
Page 111 of 122 7) Approval of Demolition/Construction Logistic Plan 8) Water efficiency 9) 19% CO2 reduction 10) Accordance with mitigation outlined in Noise Assessment 11) Contaminated land assessment to be submitted and approved 12) Future maintenance strategy to be submitted to and approved 13) Development to commence within 3 years 14) Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport
Informatives
1) Removal of site notices 2) Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – Granted 3) Code of Practice on Construction Sites – ‘Control of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites’ and ‘The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition’. 4) Consultation with Network Rail 5) Requirement for Highway Licence 6) Any other informatives considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport
4 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 As originally submitted, planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing substation and the erection of a two-storey building with accommodation in the roof space to provide 6 x one bedroom flats. The building had a mostly rectangular form with an appearance to mirror those to the south west.
4.2 Transport for London (TfL) objected to the originally submitted scheme as it would conflict with plans for future road widening and improvement works at the fiveways junction. The applicant has therefore amended the scheme to set the development further back within the site.
4.3 The proposal has been increased in height to three-storeys with accommodation in the roofspace. Five x 1 bedroom units are now proposed, one of the units comprising accommodation over two levels. The building would have maximum dimensions of 15.5m in width, 8.5m in depth with an eaves height of 8m and ridge height of 12m. Dormer windows would be inserted in the front and rear roof slopes. A bin store and cycle store would be located at ground floor level within the envelope of the building.
Site and Surroundings
4.4 The application relates to a disused electricity substation located to the north west side of Epsom Road. The building is rectangular in shape with a wholly utilitarian appearance. It sits on an almost rectangular block with an area of 230sqm which is bound by metal security fencing.
4.5 The site backs onto a railway line and Waddon Station is located approximately 100 metres to the south west. Immediately to the south west of the site are two blocks of flats which are two-storey with accommodation in the roof space. The Waddon public
Page 112 of 122 house is located opposite the site and there are three storey buildings on Stafford Road to the east which comprise commercial uses at ground floor level with residential units above.
4.6 The site is located in an Archaeological Priority Zone. There are no land use designations for the site identified on the Croydon Local Plan Policies Map. Epsom Road is a one-way street which leads to Purley Way. This area forms part of the wider fiveways junction.
Planning History
4.7 None relevant
5 CONSULTATION RESPONSE
5.1 Historic England: No archaeological requirement. Having considered the proposals with reference to information held in the Greater London Historic Environment Record and/or made available in connection with this application, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest. The application site is located within an archaeological priority area, however the development poses a limited archaeological risk. No further assessment or conditions are therefore necessary.
5.2 Transport for London (TfL): As originally submitted, given that the proposal would impact on the delivery of the TfL / London Borough of Croydon Fiveways Scheme, TfL would need to object if the application is not amended. There would be no footway available on the northern side of Epsom Road if the proposal goes through. TfL therefore requires at least 1.6m of the land within the substation boundary to facilitate the delivery of the Fiveways Scheme.
In response to the amended scheme: TfL is satisfied with the plans provided. The latest plans (15-371-04 rev. Proposed Site Plan and 15-371-05 rev. Proposed plans and Elevations) show that TfL would be able to accommodate a 1.6m footpath from the building line, which is acceptable. TfL requests conditions to ensure no part of the works impinge on or obstruct the public highway.
5.3 Network Rail: Has provided comment with regard to requirements concerning future maintenance, drainage and construction. A condition should be added to any permission to encourage the development to contact Network Rail to secure protection measures prior to development.
5.4 The views of the Planning Service are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
6 LOCAL REPRESENTATION
6.1 The application has been publicised by way of one or more site notices displayed in the vicinity of the application site. The number of representations received from neighbours, local groups etc in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual responses: 0 Objecting: 0 Supporting: 0 Comment: 0
6.2 The following Councillor made representations:
Page 113 of 122 • Councillor Andrew Pelling [objecting]
6.3 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in substance in the next section of this report:
Objections
• With a further public consultation due on TfL proposals it would be unwise not to reserve the land at this site for road widening.
7 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:
1. The principle of development 2. Impact on highway network 3. Impact on the character of the area 4. Impact on trees 5. Impact on the residential amenities of the adjacent occupiers 6. Living conditions of future occupiers 7. Other matters
Principle of development
7.2 Croydon Local Plan Strategic Policy SP2.1 applies a presumption in favour of development of new homes. The Croydon Plan (UDP) Saved Policy H2 states that housing development will be permitted within the existing built-up area provided it does not conflict with the Council’s aim of respecting the character of residential areas and there is no loss of other protected uses. The site is located within an established residential area and the substation is not in use. There is no objection to the principle of the development subject to consideration of all other material planning matters as discussed below.
Impact on the Highway network
7.3 The site of the proposed development is on A232 Epsom Road, which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). TfL is the highway authority for the TLRN. TfL is working with the Greater London Authority and Croydon Council to develop a scheme that aims to improve journey times along the A23 corridor by improving facilities and capacity at Fiveways and on the A232. The preferred option includes widening Epsom Road to allow two-way traffic and improve cycling facilities and the pedestrian environment.
7.4 As originally submitted the proposed development would impact on the road improvement scheme as there would be no footway available on the northern side of Epsom Road. In a wider context, TfL also raised concern about the degradation of footway width in the vicinity considering other potential development sites coming forward to the north of the junction. It is estimated that footfall in the area will increase, particularly to and from Waddon Station which would put more pressure on these sections of footway. This would ultimately conflict with the objectives of the
Page 114 of 122 Fiveways Scheme to improve the public realm and pedestrian environment in the area.
7.5 The applicant has subsequently amended the scheme to show the development set back 1.6m so that the front element is given over to become part of the public footpath. TfL have fully reviewed the amended plans and have withdrawn their objection to the proposal. They require conditions to be imposed on any permission to ensure that no part of the development obstructs the highway.
7.6 The site is located within an area with a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating level of 3 which is considered to have moderate access to local transport links. The site is located approximately 100m from Waddon train station, there are a number of bus stops in close proximity and there is a large supermarket and a number of public services and facilities within easy walking distance.
7.7 Policy SP8.17 seeks to ensure that there is an appropriate level of car parking and the London Plan Policy 6.13 sets out maximum parking standards for new residential development, requiring developments with 1-2 bedrooms to have less than 1 space per unit. All development in areas of good public transport accessibility should aim for significantly less than 1 space per unit. This is proposed to be a car free scheme as per the residential units immediately to the south west. Given the accessibility of the site to public transport and the proximity to public facilities, a car-free scheme is appropriate in this location.
7.8 A cycle storage area is shown to be located within the ground floor of the development, accessed through the building.
7.9 Refuse storage would also be located within the building with access to the frontage whereby refuse could easily be collected from the highway.
Impact on the character of the area
7.10 The London Plan 2015 (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011) Policy 3.5 requires the design of all new housing developments to enhance the quality of local places, taking into account physical context; local character; density; tenure and land use mix. Policies 7.4 and 7.6 indicate that development should make a positive contribution to local character and should incorporate high quality materials that are appropriate to its context. Policies SP1.2, SP4.1 and SP4.2 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) require all new development to be of a high quality that contributes to enhancing a sense of place and improving the character of the area. Policies UD2 and UD3 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 state that development proposals should reinforce and respect existing development patterns, plots and building frontage widths, heights and proportions of surrounding buildings.
7.11 There is no objection to the demolition of the existing utilitarian structure which does not enhance the appearance of the street scene.
7.12 The proposed building is one storey higher than the residential blocks to the south west. The Waddon public house is three-storey in part and the properties to the south east side of Stafford Road comprise three-storeys with pitched roofs over. Given the varied scales and appearances of the adjacent buildings, a development of the proposed height is appropriate in this location.
Page 115 of 122 7.13 Given the constraints of the site, the proposed building has a simplistic rectangular form with a narrow depth. Its vertical appearance is broken up by alteration in the material of the third floor and individually placed rendered elements. The main materials of brick and hanging tile to the elevations under a concrete tiled roof is reflective of development in the area. The roof dormers are subservient within the roof slopes and reflect the dormers in the adjacent buildings.
7.14 Overall, the proposal would cause no harm to the character or appearance of the area.
Impact on trees
7.15 There are a group of mature sycamore trees to the north east of the site which as a group are prominent and enhance the appearance of the street scene. A Phase II Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been undertaken which show that limited pruning would be required and with protection measures, the development would not harm the health of the trees. Any permission would be conditioned to ensure the protection measures outlined in the report are adhered to. The Council’s Tree Officer has no arboricultural objection.
Impact on the residential amenities of the adjacent properties
7.16 London Plan Policy 7.6 states that buildings and structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. Croydon Plan Saved Policy UD8 states that development proposals should not harm the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers.
7.17 The proposed building would be located 5.7m from the residential building to the south west. This building contains five flats over three-storeys. There are no windows in its side elevation facing the site. Given the orientation of the buildings and the positioning of the new building, the proposal would cause no loss of light or outlook to the adjacent block. There are no windows proposed in the side elevation and the balconies in the rear are located so that they would cause no loss of privacy.
7.18 To the rear of the site is a railway line which commercial uses beyond. To the north east of the site there is a gap of 30m from the nearest property. Opposite the site is a public house and roadway junction.
7.19 The proposal will have no harmful impact on the amenities of any adjacent residential properties.
Living conditions of future occupiers
7.20 Policy SP2.6 requires that all new homes meet the needs of the residents over a lifetime by achieving the minimum standards set out in the Mayor of London’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) provide minimum technical space standards for new dwellings in terms of the internal amenity space. All of the proposed units meet the minimum required internal space standard.
7.21 With regard to external amenity space, the London Housing SPG states that a minimum of 5sqm of private outdoor space should be provided for 1-2 person Page 116 of 122 dwellings. UDP Policy UD8 requires development proposals to provide residential amenity space to be considered as an integral part of the design of the overall development concept. Each unit has a separate balcony/amenity space which accord with the required space standard.
7.22 The site is located adjacent to a busy road junction and backs onto a railway line. A Noise Impact Assessment has been undertaken which concludes that acceptable internal noise standards can be achieved provided mitigation is implemented in the form of acoustic double glazing and trickle or through-wall vents. The Council’s Pollution Team recommends that these recommendations are adhered to and this can be secured by condition.
Other Planning Issues
7.23 The applicant has submitted an Energy and Sustainability Statement which outlines that sustainable design and energy management measures have been incorporated to meet the requirements of Policy SP6 and better the current (2013) Part L Building Regulations standard by 19%. The proposed energy strategy is based on utilising passive design measures, super insulated and air tight building fabric, and a high efficiency gas fuelled boiler heating system with flue gas heat recovery. In addition, the development will include the installation of Photovoltaic Panels for the provision of supplementary renewable energy generation such that a significant reduction in CO2 emissions is achieved through renewable technology.
7.24 Having looked closely at the building, there are no visible roof features that would allow bats to access or inhabit the building. The entire site is covered in hardstanding and the only vegetation is scrub and weeds. The site has no obvious ecological presence and as such in this instance is it not considered that there is need for an ecological survey.
7.25 Network Rail have provided advice to the applicant with regard to construction, drainage and future maintenance of the building given the close proximity to Network Rail land. The applicant has confirmed that any future maintenance works could be carried out within the application site and have incorporated scaffold anchor points into the face of the rear elevation to ensure this. Network Rail has requested an informative be placed on any permission to ensure the developer agree an Asset Protection Agreement with Network Rail prior to the commencement of any development on site.
7.26 Community Infrastructure Levy – The development would be CIL liable.
Conclusions
7.27 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out above. The details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION.
Page 117 of 122 Page 118 of 122 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 15 December 2016
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision Item 7.5
1 APPLICATION DETAILS
Ref: 16/04561/RSM (Link to related documents on the Planning Register) Location: 24 Onslow Gardens, South Croydon,CR2 9AB Ward: Sanderstead Description: Erection of 2 detached houses at rear (approval of reserved matters in respect of outline planning permission 16/00455/P). Drawing Nos.: 2016-659-002, 2016-659-010 rev B, 2016-659-011 Applicant: Mr Justin Pitman Agent: Mr Jon Bell Case Officer: Mrs H Crabb
1.1 This application is being reported to committee at the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport’s discretion.
2 SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
• This is a reserved matters application following a grant of outline planning permission in July 2016. The matters currently for consideration are scale, appearance and landscaping; all other issues were considered under the outline planning application.
• The scale of the two buildings is broadly similar to that shown at the outline stage, being two storey and of a modern style. The massing has been altered with the addition of a hip to the westerly unit which reduces the bulk of the roof, making the scale of the proposals acceptable.
• The appearance of the buildings follows a similar spirit to the indicative drawings at outline stage, but has been provided in more detail. The buildings are of a modern style, with references to the character of existing buildings and is acceptable.
• Details of the landscaping have been provided. The landscaping layout and hard materials are acceptable, a condition is recommended to require full details and maintenance of the tree planting.
3 RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolve to APPROVE the reserved matters application.
3.2 That the Director of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the following matters:
Conditions
1) Full details of tree planting specification to be provided. Trees to be maintained and replaced for five years following implementation. 2) any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport. Page 119 of 122
4 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 The application is for reserved matters pursuant to the grant of outline planning permission on 28 July 2016 (16/00455/P) for:
• the erection of 2 detached houses to the rear of the existing buildings and,
• formation of an access to the new development from Onslow Gardens.
4.2 The outline permission related to access and layout.
4.3 The current application seeks approval of the reserved matters, namely scale, appearance and landscaping.
Site and Surroundings
4.4 The application site is occupied by a large two storey detached house situated on an “L” shaped plot.
4.5 The surrounding area is residential in character comprising a mix of detached/semi- detached houses of varying sizes and styles, set within a variety of plot shapes and sizes.
4.6 The site falls within an Archaeological Priority Zone and has a PTAL rating of 1b.
4.7 There is a Tree Preservation Order 71, 2009 in relation to trees to the rear of the site. Land to the rear is part of the amenity areas to Sanderstead Court/Cedar Court and Selsdon Park Hotel and Golf Course, which is a locally listed park and garden. The site does not abut the Metropolitan Green Belt but is in close proximity to the rear boundary.
Planning History
4.8 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:
16/00455/P – Erection of two detached houses at rear APPROVED subject to conditions including the submission of reserved matters.
5 CONSULTATION RESPONSE
5.1 The views of the Planning Service are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
6 LOCAL REPRESENTATION
6.1 The application has been publicised by way of site notices in the local area. The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to publicity of the application were as follows:
No. of individual responses: 4 Objecting: 3 Commenting: 1 Page 120 of 122 6.2 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in substance in the next section of this report:
• The design is obtrusive resulting in overlooking to neighbouring properties. • The design appears basic and ugly • The overall height of the buildings is too high
6.3 The following issues were raised which are not material to the determination of the application:
• The access road is unacceptable and could not be used by emergency vehicles [This has already been approved under the outline application] • Impact on wildlife [This has already been assessed under the outline application] • Impact on protected trees [This has already been approved under the outline application]
7 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Planning permission was granted by the outline permission (for layout and access); the principle of the development is therefore not a matter for consideration. This application seeks consent for the scale of the development, external appearance of the dwellings and landscaping.
7.2 Therefore the main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:
1. The scale of the proposed dwellings 2. The appearance of the proposed dwellings 3. Landscaping
The Scale of the Proposed Dwellings
7.3 Policy UD3 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan) 2006 Saved Policies 2013 (UDP) relates to the height and scale of proposed buildings.
7.4 The scale of the proposed buildings is similar to the indicative drawings that formed part of the outline application. The proposals are both two storey and sit at a significant distance from neighbouring properties, and each other. As such, their overall height and scale is not considered to give rise to any detrimental impacts or appear out of keeping with the character of the area.
7.5 The roofline of Plot 2 has been amended with a hipped roof towards the south, so as to break up the mass of the building and to reduce the massing close to the boundary, this is considered to result in a scale of development which is appropriate for the site and area.
7.6 The outline consent was for 2 detached houses with four bedrooms each; internal arrangements now shown confirm this. The provision of 4 bedrooms within the dwellings is acceptable bearing in mind the need for family accommodation within the borough.
Page 121 of 122 7.7 The overall scale of the proposed buildings is acceptable in relation to the surrounding context and sympathetic to scale of the buildings previously indicated as part of the original outline application.
The Appearance of the Proposed Dwellings
7.8 Policy UD2 and UD3 of the UDP states that development proposals will be permitted providing they respect the existing development. Policy UD3 also relates to the use of appropriate materials.
7.9 The appearance of the proposed dwellings would be modern and different from other buildings in the area. Given the siting of the buildings to the rear, in an area where they would not be easily seen as part of an existing streetscene, it is considered appropriate to have a modern design.
7.10 As set out above the scale of the building is appropriate in the area thus not leading to a development which is out of keeping with the area.
7.11 The two buildings are considered to be appropriately designed and reference features found in the local area such as the hipped roof and forward facing gable feature to plot 2. The detailed design, with recessed elements and sufficient fenestration to the main elevations would result in an appropriate and interesting appearance.
7.12 Whilst a matter considered under the siting of the buildings at outline stage, the external appearance of the buildings confirms the location of windows. They are not considered to be located in a manner which would be prejudicial to privacy of neighbouring properties due to their distance from boundaries or existing buildings.
7.13 Some details of the proposed materials have been submitted at this stage but not the full specification. The approach of render and timber is supported but the exact details of the treatment of the timber and the colour of the render should be considered under a discharge of condition application. This was imposed on the outline consent so is already secured.
Landscaping
7.14 Policy UD14 of the UDP states that landscaping schemes should include sufficient detail to enable the scheme to be considered in context.
7.15 A landscaping scheme has been submitted illustrating landscaping proposed. The hard materials are considered to be appropriate, with a hard, bound surface for the area of the access route which would be used the most and gravel to the area associated with plot 02 to demarcate the different spaces.
7.16 Adequate tree planting is included in the soft landscaping scheme, but no details have been provided of the species or size. A condition is therefore recommended to secure the detailed specification of the tree planting and soft landscaping.
Conclusions
7.17 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been taken into account. The reserved matters should be approved for the reasons set out above. The details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION.
Page 122 of 122