planning report GLA/4662/01 8 April 2019 Southernwood Retail Park in the London Borough of Southwark
planning application no. 18/AP/3551
Strategic planning application stage 1 referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.
The proposal Hybrid planning application which will deliver the following across two phases with buildings up to 48 storeys: 725 residential units; Class C1 hotel; flexible Class A1/A2/A3 uses; D2 uses; and landscaping, public realm and highway works, car and cycle parking and servicing area, plant and associated works.
The applicant The applicant is Glasgow City Council (as Administering Authority for the Strathclyde Pension Fund) and the architect is Pilbrow and Partners.
Strategic issues summary Principle of development: The proposed land uses are supported. However, development must be designed to protect the delivery of the Bakerloo Line Extension and the applicant is required to work closely with TfL to ensure this. (paragraphs 18-26). Affordable housing: The scheme currently delivers 35% affordable housing. The delivery of the majority of the affordable housing within Phase 2 is not supported. The viability report is being scrutinised by the GLA. (paragraphs 27-40). Urban design: Some additional details should be submitted to support the design rational; it should be demonstrated that the protected views are not impacted. (paragraphs 41-58). Transport: The proposals could prejudice the delivery of the Bakerloo Line Extension and the site may also need to accommodate one of the Old Kent Road’s two BLE stations. Discussions between the developer, TfL and Southwark Council should therefore ascertain whether the proposal can accommodate anticipated BLE requirements or will need to be substantially revised in order to comply with policy. The scheme must also provide for necessary active travel and bus improvements pre-BLE. (paragraphs 67-84). Matters in relation to inclusive design (paragraph 59-60), climate change (paragraph 61-62), flood risk, drainage and water (paragraphs 63-66) and other transport issues (paragraphs 67- 84) should also be addressed.
Recommendation That Southwark Council be advised that, whilst the proposed land uses are supported, the application does not comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 88 of this report. However, the resolution of those issues could lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan and draft London Plan.
page 1 Context
1 On 11 February 2019 the Mayor of London received documents from Southwark Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.
2 The application is referable under the following Categories of the Schedule to the Order 2008:
• 1A ‘Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats or houses and flats’; • 1B ‘Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres’ • 1C ‘Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building that is more than 30 metres high and outside of the City of London’
3 Once Southwark has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.
4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description
5 The site is a block of land approximately 1 hectare in size located on the Old Kent Road in the London Borough of Southwark. The southern part of the site borders the Old Kent Road (A2), across which is Burgess Park. To the east is Rowcross Street and to the west is Humprey Street leading to Rolls Road to the north which form the B204. Humphrey Street and Old Kent Road are both part of the TLRN, whilst Rolls Road adjacent to the site and Rowcross Street are borough highway.
6 The existing site comprises 4 large out of town retail units which are currently occupied by DFS, Sports Direct and Argos Extra, and a surface car park containing 175 spaces.
7 Immediately to the south is 361-363 Old Kent Road, a three-storey retail unit with residential accommodation on the upper floors which is not included in the development proposals. The wider context is of a mixed character, with similar large-scale retail warehousing, medium density residential, the public open space of Burgess Park and smaller scale retail along Old Kent Road.
8 The site (including 361-363 Old Kent Road) is proposed for allocation in the emerging Old Kent Road Area Action Plan but is not subject to any current designation in Southwark’s Local Plan. The nearest heritage asset is the Trafalgar Avenue Conservation Area, to the south east of the site.
9 In the context of London, the site is located in the Old Kent Road Opportunity Area and Old Kent Road Housing Zone.
10 The site generally has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 4 arising from the nine bus services which stop close by. There are no rail stations within reasonable walking distance. TfL is developing proposals for a Bakerloo Line Extension (BLE) through this area to New Cross Gate and Lewisham and potentially beyond and this site is under consideration as a location for a station.
page 2 11 TfL is also developing a “Healthy Streets” scheme for Old Kent Road, the objective of which is to provide improvements to walking and the public realm, cycling and bus movement.
12 Southernwood Retail Park is managed by DTZ Investors for Strathclyde Pension Fund on behalf of Glasgow City Council. Strathclyde Regional Pension Fund is in the process of seeking to acquire 361- 363 Old Kent Road to allow comprehensive development of the whole block, but this does not currently form part of development proposals.
13 The applicant advises that the lease periods for Southernwood Retail Park mean that part of the site is capable of coming forward for development in 2020, with the remainder delivered afterwards as a second phase of development in 2025.
14 The part of the site on which the housing led mixed use development would be located has been agreed between GLA, TfL and LBS officers as a phase 1 site for the revised OKR AAP. Thus, it can subject to other sustainable transport mitigation be brought forward before BLE is committed. The hotel would be on land which is in phase 2, where this agreement anticipated high trip generating development coming forward after there was certainty on BLE delivery (and subject to aforementioned BLE station safeguarding).
Details of the proposal
15 Hybrid planning application for detailed permission for Phase 1 and outline planning permission for Phase 2 comprising:
Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a part 9, part 14, part 16, part 48 storey development (plus basement) up to 161.25m AOD comprising:
• 542 (class C3) residential units (51,499 sq.m. GIA); • 844 sq.m. GIA of (Class A1) retail use; • 477 sq.m. GIA of flexible (Class A1/A2/A3) retail/financial and professional services/restaurant and café use; • 8,671 sq.m. GIA (Class C1) hotel; and • Landscaping, public realm and highway works, car and cycle parking and servicing area, plant and associated works.
Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a part 9, part 12, storey development (plus basement) up to 42.80m AOD comprising:
• 183 (Class C3) residential units (17,847 sq.m. GIA) • 1,049 sq.m. GIA of flexible (Class A1/A2/A3) retail/financial and professional services/restaurant and café use; • 856 sq.m. GIA (Class D2) cinema; • 461 sq.m. GIA (Class C1) hotel service area at basement level; and • Landscaping, public realm and highway works, car and cycle parking and servicing area, plant and associated works.
page 3 Case history
16 A pre-application meeting was held on 12 June 2018 to discuss a proposal for the redevelopment and a pre-application advice note was issued on 16 August 2018 which advised:
• That in order to deliver aspirations in the London Plan and draft London Plan, it is crucial that opportunities to accommodate London’s growth are fully explored.
• This site is likely to be one of a number of development sites around the Old Kent Road which have the potential to transform the area and contribute to growth.
• While it is acknowledged that this site could come forward at an early phase of the redevelopment of the Old Kent Road Opportunity Area, at this point in time as a phasing strategy for the OKR OA has yet to be agreed with the Council and given the uncertainty around the delivery of infrastructure, the scale of redevelopment proposed cannot be currently supported.
• Should it be agreed that the site could come forward in an early phase, it would set the benchmark for future development in terms of layout and quality.
• The land use, scale and density of the current proposal is broadly supported, officers would welcome further discussions on the proposal as the details develop.
• Issues with respect to housing; affordable housing; hotel; retail; urban design; inclusive design; climate change; transport; and flood risk, drainage and water should be addressed before an application is submitted to the local planning authority. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance
17 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area comprises London Borough of Southwark Local Plan (comprising its Core Strategy (2011) and saved Southwark Plan policies (2007)) and the 2016 London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011).
The following are relevant material considerations: • Revised National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019); • National Planning Policy Guidance; • Draft London Plan (consultation draft December 2017, incorporating early suggested changes published August 2018) which should be taken into account as explained in the NPPF; • Draft Area Visions and Site Allocations for the New Southwark Plan (February 2017); • New Southwark Plan: Proposed Submission Version (November 2017); • Draft Old Kent Road Area Action Plan (December 2017); • Southwark Borough Views Background Paper (2017); • Letter from the leader of Southwark Council to the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills dated 3 September 2018 • Letter from the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills to the leader of Southwark Council dated 18 September 2018
page 4 The relevant strategic issues and corresponding policies are as follows:
• Opportunity Areas London Plan; • Retail London Plan; • Housing London Plan; Affordable Housing and Viability SPG this must now be read subject to the decision in R (McCarthy & Stone) v. Mayor of London); Housing Strategy; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG. • Visitor infrastructure London Plan. • Employment London Plan. • Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG; Housing SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG. • Inclusive design London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG. • Climate change London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy. • Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; Land for Industry and Transport SPG; the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
Principle of development
18 The application site falls within the area covered by the Council’s draft Old Kent Road Area Action Plan (OKR AAP) in which the site (including 361-363 Old Kent Road) forms part of Site OKR4 (Dunton Road (Tesco) and Southernwood Retail Park) which envisages mixed use redevelopment, to include retail, office, residential, community uses and a new urban square.
19 The Old Kent Road Opportunity Area is also identified in the London Plan and draft London Plan which identifies the Opportunity Area as having capacity to accommodate a minimum of 2,500 new homes and 1,000 additional jobs while the draft London Plan identifies the Opportunity Area as capable of providing a minimum of 12,000 new homes and 5,000 new jobs. The draft London Plan and Southwark’s draft OKR AAP both envisage the Bakerloo Line Extension (BLE) being the catalyst to significant residential and employment growth, which could potentially lead to 20,000 new homes and 10,000 new jobs on top of the 10,000 jobs the area currently provides. Conversely, without the BLE, the area could only acceptably accommodate a significantly lower level of growth.
20 GLA officers have worked closely with Southwark Council officers to agree the broad geography and phasing of development in the area covered by the OKR AAP to help provide certainty to communities, local businesses and developers in advance of a Government commitment to the BLE and a clear timetable for its delivery. This has resulted in broad agreement between the GLA, TfL and Southwark Council on the location of new BLE stations, the scale and geography of the area’s new town centres, where industrial uses will be retained, replaced and intensified, and how housing delivery will be phased in advance of the BLE.
21 The application site falls within a potential new district town centre focused on one of the proposed BLE stations, and as depicted below, includes an area where the three authorities have agreed new residential development could come forward in advance of the BLE (phase 1 – light blue), and where new residential development would be expected to come forward after a BLE construction contract has been signed (phase 2 – dark blue). The proposed hotel would be on Phase 2 land.
page 5
Image 1: Old Kent Road AAP phasing – Southernwood Retail Park
22 Development in either phase must however be designed to accommodate BLE station and tunnel requirements. Part of the application site along with the Tesco land opposite has been identified as being required for a new BLE station. The applicant must therefore work very closely with TfL to ensure its scheme would not compromise BLE delivery in order to comply with London Plan Policy 6.4 and draft London Plan Policy T3 that set out the Mayor’s policies to enhance London’s transport connectivity and capacity, with draft London Plan Policy T3D specifically referencing the BLE.
Hotel use
23 It is proposed to create a hotel on the portion of the site closest to Old Kent Road and Burgess Park. London Plan Policy 4.5 identifies a need for 40,000 net additional hotel rooms across London by 2036 and seeks to ensure that new visitor accommodation is located in appropriate locations.
24 The site falls within an area agreed by the GLA and Southwark Council as a potential district town centre focussed on a new BLE station and London Plan Policy 4.5 confirms that beyond the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) visitor infrastructure should be focussed in town centres and opportunity and intensification areas, where there is good public transport access to central London. Policy SD6 of the draft London Plan similarly confirms the suitability of town centres for hotels and visitor infrastructure. As such a hotel use in this location, subject to it being demonstrated that it would have no adverse impact on the delivery of the BLE and that good public transport access to central London is secured, would make a welcome contribution towards the requirements of London Plan Policy 4.5.
25 The applicant should demonstrate how the hotel will operate effectively if constructed in the first phase of development without the service area and dedicated Blue Badge parking, which is proposed for the development’s second phase.
page 6 Retail
26 The scheme proposes the loss of the existing large scale out of town retail units and their replacement with flexible ‘high street’ style retail uses across the ground floor of the site and there will be no net loss in retail floorspace, albeit the nature of the retail offer would differ. The OKR AAP aspires to create a new urban high street in this location across this and neighbouring sites. The placement of these uses to create an active ground floor is therefore welcomed, as is the principle of re-providing the existing retail uses in a different form. The scheme’s detailed design must however reflect and accommodate the locational and physical requirements of BLE station entrances and tunnels, bus stops and stands and TfL’s Healthy Streets objectives. Housing and affordable housing 27 London Plan Policy 3.3 and draft London Plan Policy H1 seek to increase the supply of housing in the capital. The proposals would provide 725 homes, which equates to 28% of the annual monitoring target for LB Southwark of 2,556 set out in the London Plan (and 26% of the annual monitoring target for LB Southwark of 2,736 set out in the draft London Plan). The increase in the housing targets identified in the London Plan and draft London Plan evidences the continued need for housing in the Southwark area. The principle of the residential use on the site as part of exemplar mixed is scheme is therefore supported, subject to addressing the issues raised within this report.
28 London Plan Policies 3.11 and 3.12 and draft London Plan Policy H5 and Policy H6 seek to maximise the delivery of affordable housing, setting a strategic target of 50% across London. Draft Policy H7 provides a flexibly prescribed tenure mix of: 30% social rent / London Affordable Rent; 30% intermediate products; and, 40% to be determined by the relevant local authority based on identified need.
29 The draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance seek to increase the provision of affordable housing in London and embed affordable housing into land prices. The SPG introduced a threshold approach to viability, which is incorporated within draft London Plan Policy H6; and schemes that provide 35% affordable housing by habitable room (or 50% on industrial or public land) without public subsidy, and that meet other criteria, including tenure, are not required to submit viability information to the GLA. Such applications are also exempted from a late stage review mechanism; this is known as the Fast Track route.
30 The site is currently in retail use and owned by Glasgow City Council as administering authority for a pension fund which includes predominantly public sector members including 12 Scottish local authorities. Further advice is being sought on whether it falls within the Mayor’s definition of public sector land as set out in the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance, the draft London Plan and the ‘Threshold Approach to Affordable Housing on Public Land’ Practice Guidance Note July 2018. If this was the case the scheme would only qualify for the Fast Track Route if it proposed 50% policy compliant affordable housing.
31 Notwithstanding this, the applicant has submitted a Financial Viability Assessment as part of the application and this undergoing robust assessment by officers with the applicant, the Council and its independent assessors, to ensure that the maximum contribution is secured in accordance with Policies 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan, and Policies H5 and H6 of the draft London Plan.
32 The applicant proposes 35% affordable housing by habitable room across two phases, as illustrated by the tables below. The affordable housing is weighted towards the second phase of development with only 24% in Phase 1. The reduced level of affordable housing in the first phase is not supported. There is a significant gap between the planned delivery of the two phases and it is not clear how the higher percentage of affordable housing in Phase 2 could be secured.
page 7 Phase 1 Unit Type Market Intermediate Social Rent Total Total units 438 10 94 542 % by HR 76% 2% 22% % affordable 24% affordable housing by HR housing by HR Tenure split by 10% of affordable 90% of affordable HR Phase 2 Unit Type Market Intermediate Social Rent Total Total units 68 62 53 183 % by HR 32% 35% 33% % affordable 68% affordable housing by HR housing by HR Tenure split by 54% of affordable 46% of HR affordable.
33 Across both the full and outline elements of the scheme, the proposals would deliver 2,119 habitable rooms across 725 units in total of which 752 would be affordable, 70% (524) of the affordable habitable rooms, equating to 147 units will be offered as Social Rent and 30% (228) of the affordable habitable rooms will be offered as Intermediate, equating to 72 units.
34 The affordability of the units must also fully accord with the requirements of Policy H7 of the draft London Plan, the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report. Details of the proposed social and intermediate rents must therefore be submitted, and the applicant should note that London Affordable Rent and London Living Rent are the Mayor’s preferred affordable housing tenures.
35 The applicant should investigate Mayoral grant funding opportunities as part of this process and demonstrate this has been fully explored by providing evidence of this.
36 In accordance with Policy H6 of the draft London Plan, the S106 agreement must include an early stage viability review mechanism to be triggered if an agreed level of progress on implementation has not been made within two years of any planning permission. Given this scheme is currently not Fast Track Route compliant and following the viability tested route, a late stage review will also be required and secured within the S106 to optimise affordable housing delivery in accordance with strategic policy objectives. A draft of the S106 agreement must be provided to GLA officers during the course of the application and agreed in advance of the Stage II referral.
Housing mix
37 London Plan Policy 3.8 and draft London Plan Policy H12 encourage a full range of housing choice. Draft London Plan Policy H12 recognises that central or urban sites may be most appropriate for schemes with a significant number of one and two bedrooms, whilst draft London Plan Policy H12 recognises that the number of family sized affordable homes should be driven by local and strategic need and should recognise that some families live in units smaller than three bedrooms.
38 Southwark’s Local Plan requires at least 60% of units be two bedroom or more, and at least 20% of units be three, four or five bedrooms.
39 The proposals comply with policy requirements with the exception of the intermediate units which has an oversupply of one-bedroom units which should be addressed in discussions with Southwark Council.
page 8 Children’s play space
40 Policy 3.6 of the London Plan and Policy S4 of the draft London Plan, seeks to ensure that development proposals include suitable provision for play and recreation. Further detail is provided in the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance (SPG) ‘Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation’, which sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child play space per child, with under-fives play space provided on-site as a minimum. The scheme incorporates doorstep play for under-5s, but overall falls short of the playspace requirement for this quantum of development. This should be addressed, and mitigation identified if it can be demonstrated that space cannot be provided on site. Urban design
41 Polices D1 and D2 of the draft London Plan promote the efficient use of land by optimising density through the delivery of high quality design, that responds appropriately to its local context by delivering buildings and spaces that are positioned and of a scale, appearance and shape that responds successfully to the identity and character of the locality, including the existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions. Policy D2 sets out the principles for delivering good design and the process of evaluation and analysis that should underpin the design process.
Site layout
42 The broad layout and massing principles form a simple sequence of urban blocks, providing new pedestrian links across the site and connections with the established street network. This is welcomed.
43 The site is located at a strategically important point within the wider AAP area and includes the location for a future BLE station as well as new connections between Burgess Park to the south and Bermondsey to the north.
44 The proposals indicate the potential to create new pedestrian crossings to Old Kent Road and Humphrey Street, to link the park and Tesco site and form a continuous sequence of public realm. The applicant was advised at pre-application stage to engage with neighbouring landowners, the Council and TfL to ensure that these objectives are fully realised and to ensure the proposes included details of how a consistent and legible sequence of public realm is secured to link the site together with the park and a potential tube station square. Further clarity is needed on this point as the proposed sequence of public realm fails to align with the existing pedestrian crossing point on Humphrey Street. The applicant should demonstrate how the sizing and alignment of public realm will respond to projected pedestrian flow and desire lines, particularly at the base of the tower’s Humphrey Street frontage. Furthermore, it should be demonstrated how pre BLE and/or any changes as a result of the Heathy Streets scheme the development would respond to the existing gyratory and to the bus stops and standing on OKR and Humphrey Street
45 The applicant should also confirm how the submitted layout and block alignment has addresses the issues the proposed positioning of the proposed hotel and standalone residential block fronting onto Humphrey Street risks creating in the form of pinch-points/restrictions to pedestrian movement, particularly at the junction of Old Kent Road/Humphrey Street and further along the Humphrey Street frontage towards the crossing towards the Tesco site.
page 9 46 Further consideration to how the positioning of these two blocks can be sized and positioned to define a clear hierarchy of public realm, ranging from the primary desire lines between Old Kent Road/Humphrey Street/Tesco Site/future BLE station to the more intimate/quieter spaces within the interior of the site. As part of this work, the applicant should explore how the Humphrey Street frontage of the site is designed in conjunction with the Tesco site frontage. This should include creating sufficient set-back distances from the back of pavement to create a defined and generous zone of civic-scaled public realm, to be consistent with the strategic importance of OKR4 within the wider AAP area. A similar point applies to the OKR frontage.
Residential quality
47 In terms of the Rowcross Street and Rolls Road frontages, the arrangement of residential blocks creates consistent levels of residential frontage onto the street and this responds positively to the established character to the east and north of the site. As far as is feasible, all ground floor residential units should be designed as duplex units with individual entrances to promote good levels of street- based activity and provide residents with sufficient privacy, quality of outlook and access to courtyard amenity space.
48 As requested at the pre-application stage, further detail is needed on the Rolls Road frontage to demonstrate how vehicular/servicing access to the basement can be successfully incorporated into the scheme while providing sufficient space for the safe movement of pedestrians and cyclists. An additional entrance/egress to an internal loading area has been added which is likely to impact on the safety and flow of pedestrians along Rolls Road and Rowcross Street. The applicant should consider consolidating servicing access within the basement to allow the Rolls Road/Rowcross Street active building frontages to be extended.
49 The proposed podium block at the northern end of the site creates a clear distinction between public and private realm, with the podium level courtyard providing usable and secure amenity space while potentially receiving good levels of sunlight penetration (subject to daylight/sunlight analysis). The size of the courtyard space appears limited in width and the depth of footprint to the two residential blocks in the north east corner of the site should be revisited and reduced in width to allow the courtyard’s size to be maximised. This is particularly important given the potentially overbearing and overshadowing effects of the adjacent tower.
50 The simple arrangement of blocks and distribution of cores creates efficient residential floorplans and core to unit ratios, which is welcomed. Linked with the concern raised above on the sizing of the podium courtyard, there are a number of inward facing single aspect units with limited outlook and these units should be designed out.
51 The applicant is also encouraged to explore a deck access arrangement that links the two blocks in the north east corner together. This would improve the proportion of dual aspect and allow their footprints to be slimmed down. As part of this work, there may be potential to redistribute massing to the two southern pavilion blocks, subject to daylight/sunlight and townscape/views testing.
52 A minimum 2.6 metre floor to ceiling height is proposed for each unit and each unit benefits from private amenity space provision. This is welcomed.
page 10 Height/massing
53 As with all sites currently coming forwards in the AAP area involving high density residential proposals and tall buildings, the principle of including a tall building on this site is supported subject to a plan led approach, based on capacity studies, projected uplifts in pedestrian footfall and sound placemaking principles. At this point in time, the final location of BRE station(s) are yet to be confirmed and so all comments relating to density and scale of development are caveated on the understanding that the inclusion of a tall building is only justified in the context of other schemes of this scale in the AAP area.
54 Subject to the above comments relating to public realm and residential quality being addressed, the broad massing arrangement is supported and introduces a consistent shoulder height to the perimeter of the site. This responds successfully to the predominant lower rise residential character to the east and north of the site.
55 The form and scale of the hotel building has potential to create a positive backdrop in views from Burgess Park, however, its ground floor should be designed to allow views through the building into the public square beyond. The full perimeter of the site (all four street facing edges) should be designed to create a consistent double height frontage so as to positively address the public realm. As noted above these frontages should also be designed and laid out to ensure appropriate and comfortable space for pedestrians and to enhance the public realm.
56 The principle of including a refined and elegantly proportioned tall building is supported subject to townscape views testing with surrounding sites in the AAP area to ensure that its height relates successfully to the AAP’s tall buildings hierarchy. Details of micro-climatic analysis including daylight/sunlight and wind studies should be provided to ensure there are no negative impacts on the pedestrian or residential environment and revisions made where necessary.
57 It is noted that the tall building is shown as sitting outside of the LVMF corridors from the Serpentine and Kenwood House, as well as the locally protected views from Nunhead Cemetery. Verified views of protected vista extensions for LVMF 3A.1 and 23A.1 should however be submitted to confirm this and allow officers to assess any visual impact.
Fire safety
58 In the interests of fire safety and to ensure the safety of all building users, Policy D11 of the draft London Plan seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the highest standards of fire safety. The applicant has provided a statement to demonstrates that all features and materials would comply with Part B of the Building Regulations. Such measures should be assessed and secured by Southwark Council. Inclusive design
59 London Plan Policy 3.8 and Policy D5 of the draft London Plan require that ninety percent of new housing meets Building Regulation requirement M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ and ten per cent of new housing meets Building Regulation requirement M4(3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’, that is, designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. Any application must provide full details of the accessibility and how any level changes are managed. The applicant has illustrated typical wheelchair accessible units, which is welcomed. They should also confirm the location of wheelchair units, provided across tenures and unit sizes.
page 11 60 Similarly, London Plan Policy 4.5 requires that hotel developments should ensure that at least 10% of bedrooms are wheelchair accessible. Draft London Plan Policy E10 requires that 10% of new bedrooms are wheelchair accessible or 15% of new bedrooms are accessible rooms in accordance with the requirements set out. The applicant should set out a commitment to this requirement. Climate change
61 The Energy Hierarchy has been followed; the proposed strategy is generally supported; however, the applicant should submit additional information to ensure compliance with the London Plan policies.
62 A detailed report on energy has been issued under separate cover to Southwark Council and the applicant. The key points requiring action are outlined below:
• Additional information should be provided on the site wide energy centre and network; and
• Further information is required on the use of Photovoltaics (PVs) and the applicant should demonstrate these have been maximised. Flood risk, drainage and water
63 A detailed report on flood risk, drainage and water has been issued under separate cover to Southwark Council and the applicant. The key points requiring action are outlined below.
64 The approach to flood risk management for the proposed development complies with London Plan Policy 5.12 and draft London Plan Policy SI.12.
65 The surface water drainage strategy for the proposed development does not comply with London Plan Policy 5.13 and draft Policy SI13. More information should be provided to confirm the viability of disposal of all or part of the site runoff using infiltration, and the strategy amended where infiltration is found to be feasible. A more accurate estimate of attenuation tank volumes should also be provided.
66 The proposed development generally meets the requirements of London Plan Policy 5.15 and draft London Plan Policy SI5.
Transport
Transport capacity, connectivity and safeguarding
67 The proposals as currently presented could prejudice the delivery of the Bakerloo Line Extension as the southern part of the site on which the hotel would be located may be required as a construction worksite. The site may also need to accommodate one of the BLE’s new stations, and in all foreseeable circumstance the scheme’s foundations and below ground works will need to provide adequate safeguarding for BLE tunnels in accordance with London Plan Policies 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4, Proposal 85 of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and Policies GG2, GG5, SD1, T1 and T3 of the draft London Plan.
68 Accordingly, discussions between the developer, TfL and Southwark Council should continue to ascertain whether the proposed development can accommodate anticipated BLE requirements, which would then need to be secured through a S106 with TfL as a signatory. Alternatively, the scheme may need substantial revision to comply with London Plan and draft London Plan policies and not prejudice BLE delivery.
page 12 Transport assessment
69 In accordance with Policy T4, further work is required to rectify issues with the submitted trip generation and modal split. However, TfL has been able to make some assessment of the transport impact of the development and thus necessary mitigation by reference to data supplied in support of other applications on the OKR and its own strategic modelling. Further work will be required to demonstrate that all elements of the development trip generation and mode split are robust and that the public transport network will be able to cope with their demands. Work on the hotel is particularly important given its on phase 2 post BLE commitment land and thus where additional high peak time trip generating uses would not be accepted ahead of this.
Cycle parking
70 Cycle parking for the housing is significantly below the minimum standards required by the draft London Plan (38% less) and the adopted London Plan (33% less), despite the area already having a high cycle mode share and London Plan and local policies supporting active travel. The justification given for this low provision is that the arrangements have been agreed with Southwark Council, although no further details have been provided as to why the Council would seek cycle parking levels significantly below its own minimum and London Plan standards.
71 Furthermore, the cycle parking arrangements do not comply with the London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) contrary to Policy T5 of the draft London Plan. These deficiencies must be addressed prior to determination and clarity provided as to where the cycle parking in the public realm would be located.
Car parking
72 The car free scheme is in principle welcomed subject to sufficient mitigation of the demand for travel it will generate. This should be through improvements to active travel and to bus services on which residents, visitors, and hotel guests and staff will rely on unless or until the BLE opens.
73 Residents except Blue Badge holders should be exempt from being able to apply for a controlled parking zone (CPZ) permit and this should be secured in the S106 agreement. Consideration should also be given to the hours of operation and extent of the existing CPZ to ensure it would operate effectively in discouraging residents’ car parking and if necessary, a S106 contribution secured for additional controls.
74 Despite previous advice, a Car Parking Design and Management Plan has not been provided as part of the application, contrary to draft London Plan Policy T6G. The applicant should therefore indicate how the proposed Blue Badge parking will be allocated, managed and enforced - which should be on the basis of need and not tied to particular flats. It should also consider how Blue Badge spaces up to the equivalent of 10% of homes would be provided if required unless or until phase 2 of the development is built when the shortfall would be made up.
75 The proposed Blue Badge space for the hotel at phase 1 is remote from its front entrance and disabled people will have to negotiate servicing activity in the existing retail car park which is not an acceptable approach. Furthermore, no Blue Badge parking is proposed for disabled hotel guests during phase 2 construction.
76 As also previously advised the proposed use of the TLRN for hotel pick-up and set down is not acceptable for highway safety and operational reasons. The alternative use of Rowcross Street is unlikely given it is inconvenient to access and distant from the entrance to the hotel and cannot be used by coaches and other large vehicles. Furthermore, it would impact on use by existing residents and the adjacent mosque which is contrary to Policies T6.4 and T6.5 of the draft London Plan.
page 13 77 The electric vehicle charging points are proposed to comply with the draft London Plan and should be secured by condition along with the disabled parking and car club spaces and the Car Parking Design and Management Plan.
Healthy Streets
78 TfL’s detailed land requirements for its Healthy Streets requirements will be separately provided to Southwark, but will include need to provide additional space on the corner of Humphrey Street and the Old Kent Road along with the public realm and pedestrian environment issues referred to above being addressed.
Deliveries, servicing and construction
79 Upon completion of the whole development the hotel would be serviced from a dedicated basement area accessed from the borough highway (Rolls Road). Until then, an interim arrangement involving the use of the existing retail car park is proposed. This access will however be closed once phase 2 construction commences and the land excavated to create an underground cinema. To date no alternative proposals have been submitted to cover this construction period and this lack of continuous servicing is unacceptable and contrary to draft London Plan Policy T7.
80 Robust assessment of the nature and extent of all service trips is required to enable assessment of the adequacy of the proposed servicing arrangements and the management thereof for phase 1 and phase 2 of the development. When using the basement for access the DSP should explain how the restriction to smaller vehicles is going to be manged and enforced to prevent HGVs being displaced offsite and onto the TLRN and adjacent road networks.
81 The draft Construction Traffic/Logistics management Plan is also considered inadequate and needs further work. In particular it should cover all of the development at each stage of construction. Traffic should be routed away from Rowcross Street, a residential road which is unsuitable for HGV traffic. Both the DSP and CLP need to be enhanced, expanded and completed to provide enough information to enable an understanding of how deliveries and construction are to be managed in order to comply with draft London Plan Policy T7.
Agent of change
82 Noise mitigation and associated mechanical ventilation will be required to protect residents and guests occupying flats/rooms frontages on or close to the TLRN, bus operations and passengers and residents from noise, vibration and other adverse impacts, including from 24/7 bus operations. In addition, noise and vibration impacts from BLE operations and during construction of the station in particular must also be addressed.
Funding transport infrastructure through planning (DLP Policy T9)
83 In line with draft London Plan Policy T9 to mitigate the transport impacts of the development, necessary and proportionate obligations are required towards sustainable travel including:
• Delivery of the Healthy Streets scheme which TfL is developing for the TLRN which will improve bus priority and promote walking and cycling. This will be expected to be secured in the s106; for delivery through a s278 agreement with TfL.
• Improvements may also be required to borough highway including cycle routes linking across the Old Kent Road and walking connections to local facilities and services;
page 14 • Bus service enhancements as buses are already overcrowded, particularly at peak times. Based upon assessment work undertaken by TfL and what has been secured for other developments in the area, a ‘tariff’ of £2700 per unit is expected and justified, to be included in the s106. A further s106 contribution is likely to be justified for the hotel and potentially the other non- residential uses to be confirmed once the applicant has undertaken further work on trip generation;
• Cycle networks, infrastructure and incentives;
• Free car club membership and appropriate management of the spaces; and
• Mayoral CIL payable at a rate of £60 per sqm.
84 Furthermore, given the nature and extent of the strategic transport obligations TfL should be a signatory to any S106 in order to be able to directly enforce these obligations and those relating to BLE safeguarding. Local planning authority’s position
85 The Council is currently considering the case and planning to take the application to its planning committee on 1 May 2019 subject to the issues raised in this report. Legal considerations
86 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application (the next bit is optional) and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations
87 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion
88 London Plan policies on land use, housing and affordable housing, urban design, heritage, inclusive design, climate change, flood risk, drainage and water and transport are relevant to this application. The following issues should be considered:
• Principle of development: The proposed land uses are supported. Development must be designed to protect the delivery of the Bakerloo Line Extension and the applicant is required to work closely with TfL to ensure this. Demonstration of how the hotel will operate without the servicing area proposed in a later phase is required.
page 15 • Affordable housing: This publicly owned site should deliver 50% to follow the Fast Track Route. The scheme currently delivers 35%. The delivery of the majority of the affordable housing on Phase 2 is not supported. The viability report is being scrutinised by the GLA.
• Urban design: Some additional details should be submitted to support the design rational; it should be demonstrated that the protected views are not impacted.
• Inclusive design: The applicant should also confirm the location of wheelchair units, provided across tenures and unit sizes and commit to 10% of new bedrooms are wheelchair accessible or 15% of new bedrooms are accessible rooms.
• Flood risk, drainage, and water: More information should be provided to confirm the viability of disposal of all or part of the site runoff using infiltration, and the strategy amended where infiltration is found to be feasible. A more accurate estimate of attenuation tank volumes should also be provided.
• Climate change: Additional information should be provided on the site wide energy centre and network; further information is required on the use of Photovoltaics (PVs) and the applicant should demonstrate these have been maximised.
• Transport: The proposals could prejudice the delivery of the Bakerloo Line Extension and the site may also need to accommodate one of the Old Kent Road’s two BLE stations. Discussions between the developer, TfL and Southwark Council should therefore ascertain whether the proposal can accommodate anticipated BLE requirements or will need to be substantially revised in order to comply with relevant London Plan and draft London Plan policies that safeguard and provide for new public transport infrastructure. The following transport matters also need satisfactory clarification and resolution:
o Further work is required to rectify issues with the submitted trip generation and modal split; o Cycle parking issues require resolution; o Car parking issues require resolution; o Servicing proposals are contrary to policy and require resolution; o Draft Construction Traffic/Logistics management Plan currently inadequate; o DSP and CLP need to be enhanced; o Contributions towards active travel and bus services and priority are required; and o Pedestrian and public realm improvements and revisions are necessary to provide a safe and comfortable environment.
for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development Management): Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 0207 983 4271 email [email protected] John Finlayson, Head of Development Management 0207 084 2632 email [email protected] Lyndon Fothergill, Team Leader 020 7983 4512 email [email protected] Luke Butler, Senior Strategic Planner, case officer 020 7084 2562 email [email protected]
page 16