To: Councillor Paul Scott (Chairman); Councillor Humayun Kabir (Vice-Chairman); Councillors Hamida Ali, Jamie Audsley, Steve Hollands, Stephen Mann, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Sue Winborn and Chris Wright
Reserve Members: Simon Brew, Alison Butler, Sean Fitzsimons, Lynne Hale, Patricia Hay-Justice, Bernadette Khan, Wayne Lawlor, Maggie Mansell, Helen Pollard and Andy Stranack
A meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE which you are hereby summoned to attend, will be held on Wednesday 3rd September 2014 at 6:30pm, in Room F10, The Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX.
JULIE BELVIR MARGOT ROHAN Council Solicitor & Monitoring Officer, Senior Members Services Manager Director of Democratic & Legal Services, (020) 8726 6000 extn.62564 London Borough of Croydon [email protected] Bernard Weatherill House www.croydon.gov.uk/agenda 8 Mint Walk 22 August 2014 CR0 1EA
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
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 AGENDA - PART A
1. Minutes of the meetings held on Thursdays 10th and 24th July 2014 (Page 1)
To approve the minutes as true and correct records.
2. Apologies for absence
3. Disclosure of Interest
In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality in excess of £50. In addition, Members and co-opted 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 those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting. This should be done by completing the Disclosure of Interest form and handing it to the Business Manager at the start of the meeting. The Chairman will then invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3. Completed disclosure forms will be provided to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’ Interests.
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. Planning applications for decision
To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning:
There are none.
7. Items referred by Planning sub-Committee
To consider any item(s) referred by a meeting of the Planning Sub- Committee to this Committee, for consideration and determination. The papers for the referred item(s) will be the papers set out on that Planning- Sub Committee agenda:
There are none.
8. Development presentations (Page 13)
To receive the following presentations on proposed developments:
8.1 13/03771/PRE Network Rail Station Car Park, Station Approach Road, Coulsdon, CR5 2NS Alterations to car parking for Coulsdon station; erection of 3-5 storeys building comprising 6 one bedroom and 10 two bedroom flats Ward: Coulsdon West
8.2 14/03456/PRE Taberner House & Queens Gardens, Park Lane, Croydon, CR9 3JS Demolition of existing building; Erection of 4 buildings of 10, 15, 16 and 32 storeys in height; provision of commercial space at ground floor level and 420 dwellings; provision of new area of public park and associated landscaping and the provision of 3 disabled car parking spaces beneath the landscaped extension to Queens Gardens Ward: Fairfield
9. Other planning matters
There are none
10. Camera Resolution
To resolve 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 business on 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 10 July 2014 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 Hamida Ali, Jamie Audsley, Steve Hollands, Stephen Mann, Jason Perry, Helen Pollard, Joy Prince and Sue Winborn
Also present: Councillors Maria Gatland, Luke Clancy, Jason Cummings, Steve O'Connell and Donald Speakman
Absent: Councillor Chris Wright
Apologies: Councillor Chris Wright
MINUTES - PART A
A51/14 Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 12th June 2014
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 12 June 2014 be signed as a correct record.
A52/14 Disclosure of Interest
There were no disclosures of a pecuniary interest at this meeting. Councillor Jason Perry declared a blanket personal interest in item 6.10, on behalf of the minority group committee members, as they are all well acquainted with one of the objectors. Councillor Paul Scott declared a blanket personal interest in item 6.3, as Mr Poonosami, speaking on behalf of the applicant, is known to a number of the committee members
A53/14 Urgent Business (if any)
There was no urgent business.
A54/14 Exempt Items
RESOLVED to that allocation of business between Part A and Part B of the Agenda be confirmed.
Page 1 of 70 A55/14 Planning applications for decision
6.10 14/01835/P Railway Buildings & Land, R/o, 29-33 Station Road, South Norwood, SE25 Demolition of the existing buildings; erection of part single/two/three/four storey building, comprising two units on the ground floor for use within class A1 (retail) and class A1-A3 (retail, financial & professional services, restaurants and cafes) and 2 one bedroom, 8 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats with balconies/terraces; provision of cycle store (variation of condition 4 - submission of contamination report prior to commencement of work- attached to planning permission 10/00962/P) (N.B. Councillor Jason Perry declared a personal interest in this item, on behalf of minority group Members, as indicated in A52/14)
Mr Derek Bunning spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents Mr John Hickman spoke in objection, on behalf of North Croydon Conservation Area Advisory Panel
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Paul Scott moved and Councillor Humayun Kabir seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted 6 in favour and 4 against, to APPROVE planning permission for variation of condition 4 at Railway Buildings & Land, R/o, 29-33 Station Road, South Norwood, SE25.
A second motion for REFUSAL, proposed by Councillor Jason Perry and seconded by Councillor Susan Winborn thereby fell.
6.4 14/00790/P 80 Woodcote Valley Road, Purley, CR8 3BE Demolition of the existing building; erection of 2 two storey buildings comprising 5 two bedroom and 3 one bedroom flats; formation of vehicular accesses and provision of associated parking, cycle and refuse storage
Mr Marc Wood, a neighbour, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents Councillor Luke Clancy, ward member for Coulsdon West, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents.
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report and the additional addendum, Councillor Jason Perry moved and Councillor Helen Pollard seconded REFUSAL, on the grounds of overdevelopment and impact on adjoining occupiers and highway safety, and the Committee voted, 4 in favour and 6 against, so this motion fell.
The Committee then voted on a motion in favour of the officer's recommendation, proposed by Councillor Humayun Kabir and seconded by Councillor Paul Scott, voting 6 in favour and 4 against, to APPROVE planning permission for development at 80 Woodcote Valley Road, Purley, CR8 3BE.
Page 2 of 70 6.3 14/00612/P 29 Russell Hill, Purley, CR8 2JB Continued use of part of ground floor as medical treatment room (without compliance with condition 1 - restriction on the days and hours that it can be used - attached to planning permission 07/01955/P) (N.B. Councillor Paul Scott declared a personal interest in this item, on behalf of all Committee Members, as indicated in A52/14)
Mr D Poonosami spoke on behalf of the applicant, Dr Chadha Councillor Donald Speakman, ward member for Purley, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Paul Scott moved and Councillor Humayun Kabir seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted, 7 i8n favour and 3 against, to APPROVE planning permission for development at 29 Russell Hill, Purley, CR8 2JB.
6.1 14/00422/P 7 Beatrice Avenue, Norbury, SW16 4UW Alterations and retention of single storey outbuilding and use as a games room and gym
Mrs Brenda English (Pollards Bill Residents' Association) spoke in objection on behalf of local residents Mr P Noor spoke as the applicant
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report and the additional addendum, Councillor Humayun Kabir moved and Councillor Paul Scott seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted, 6 in favour, 3 against, with one abstention, to APPROVE planning permission for alterations at 7 Beatrice Avenue, Norbury, SW16 4UW.
6.2 14/00526/P 30 & 32 Lismore Road, South Croydon, CR2 7QA Erection of single storey rear extension to no 32; construction of first floor with accommodation in roofspace to no.30 with a single storey rear extension to form a 4 bedroom house
Ms Helen Ascott, a neighbour, spoke in objection Mr Alastair Tweedy spoke as one of the two applicants Councillor Maria Gatland, ward member for Croham, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report and the additional addendum, Councillor Paul Scott moved and Councillor Humayun Kabir seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted, 6 in favour and 4 against, to APPROVE planning permission for development at 30 & 32 Lismore Road, South Croydon, CR2 7QA.
A second motion for REFUSAL, on the grounds of overdevelopment, the side window of the neighbouring property failing a daylight test and the impact on parking, proposed by Councillor Jason Perry and Page 3 of 70 seconded by Councillor Susan Winborn, on thereby fell. 6.5 14/00809/P Land R/O 9 & 11 Elmfield Way, South Croydon, CR2 0EG Erection of a 2 bedroom detached bungalow; formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking
Mr Terry Fuller spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents Mr Alex Mosely (WS Planning), spoke as the agent of the applicant Councillor Maria Gatland, ward member for Croham, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report and the additional addendum, Councillor Paul Scott moved and Councillor Stephen Mann seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted, 6 in favour and 4 against, to APPROVE planning permission for development at Land R/O 9 & 11 Elmfield Way, South Croydon, CR2 0EG.
A second motion for REFUSAL on the grounds of being out of keeping for the area and detrimental to the amenities of adjoining properties, proposed by Councillor Jason Perry, was not seconded.
6.6 14/01160/P 60 Park Hill Road, Croydon, CR0 5ND Demolition of the existing house; Erection of 5 two storey three bedroom houses with accommodation in roofspace; formation of vehicular accesses and provision of associated parking (N.B. Councillor Jason Perry left the Chamber at 9:02pm, for the duration of this item. Councillor Helen Pollard also left the chamber but returned to speak in objection.)
Mr Andrew Gillam, a neighbour, spoke in objection Mr James Caldwell (Managing Director of Turnbull Land) spoke as the applicant Councillor Helen Pollard, ward member for Fairfield, spoke in objection, on behalf of Councillor Vidhi Mohan and local residents
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report and the additional addendum, Councillor Susan Winborn moved and Councillor Steve Hollands seconded REFUSAL, on the grounds of overdevelopment, and the Committee voted, 2 in favour and 6 against, so this motion fell.
The Committee then voted on a second motion. proposed by Councillor Paul Scott and seconded by Councillor Humayun Kabir, to DEFER planning permission for development at 60 Park Hill Road, Croydon, CR0 5ND, pending design developments to be brought back to committee. The voting was 6 in favour, with 2 abstentions, so this application was DEFERRED.
6.8 14/01472/P 149 Shirley Road, Croydon, CR0 7LR Demolition of existing building; erection of two storey building to provide dental practice surgery. (N.B. Councillors Helen Pollard and Jason Perry returned to the Chamber at 9:27pm). Page 4 of 70
Mr C Vassell (architect) spoke in objection, on behalf of Mr Ashwell, a neighbour to the application site (Mrs Hilary Chelminski (Addiscombe & Shirley Park Residents' Association) registered but did not speak) Dr Richard Mitzman (architect) spoke as agent of the applicant Councillor Jason Cummings, ward member for Heathfield, spoke in objection on behalf of Councillor Margaret Mead and local residents
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report and the additional addendum, Councillor Paul Scott moved and Councillor Jamie Audsley seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted, 5 in favour, 4 against, with 1 abstention, to APPROVE planning permission for development at 149 Shirley Road, Croydon, CR0 7LR.
A second motion to REFUSE, on the grounds of being out of character for the area, proposed by Councillor Helen Pollard and seconded by Councillor Steve Hollands, thereby fell.
At 10pm the Chair proposed suspending standing orders in order to complete the agenda (apart from adjourning item 8) and this was seconded by Councillor Hamida Ali. The Committee voted unamimously in favour.
6.9 14/01790/P 170A Oval Road, Croydon, CR0 6BS Demolition of existing buildings; erection of two/three storey building comprising 8 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats; provision of associated parking
Ms Jo Bland, a neighbour, spoke in objection Mr Martyn Avery (Chartwell Land & New Homes Ltd) spoke as the applicant
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Paul Scott moved and Councillor Stephen Mann seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted, 6 in favour and 4 against, to APPROVE planning permission for development at 170A Oval Road, Croydon, CR0 6BS.
A second motion to DEFER for more work on the design, proposed by Councillor Helen Pollard and seconded by Councillor Jason Perry, thereby fell.
6.7 14/01316/RES 70 Brighton Road, Purley, CR8 2LJ Demolition of existing buildings; erection of 3 storey building comprising 11 two bedroom and 5 one bedroom flats; formation of vehicular accesses and provision of associated parking (approval of reserved matters in respect of outline planning permission 13/02911/P)
There were no speakers on this application
Page 5 of 70 Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report and the additional addendum, Councillor Paul Scott moved and Councillor Humayun Kabir seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted unanimously in favour (10), to APPROVE reserved matters regarding development at 70 Brighton Road, Purley, CR8 2LJ.
A56/14 Other planning matters
There were no other planning matters.
A57/14 Development presentations
The meeting was adjourned at this point and was reconvened on Thursday 24 July at 6:30pm, taken prior to the items for the Planning Committee on that date.
8.1 13/02026/PRE Purley Baptist Church, Banstead Road, 1 Russell Hill Road, 1-4 Russell Hill Parade, 2-12 Brighton Road, Purley CR8 Demolition of existing buildings on site; erection of 3 to 15 storey development comprising 134 residential units, church, community space and retail units
Peter Nodding (Purley Baptist Church), Andrew Matthews (Proctor & Matthews) and Tony Pritchard (Thornsett) gave a presentation. Members then questioned the presenters and raised issues for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application.
The main issues raised at this meeting were:
● 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 andPage non-family 6 of 70 ● 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
A58/14 Future meeting dates
The next Planning committee meeting is on Thursday 24 July at 6.30pm.
MINUTES - PART B
None
The meeting ended at 10:35pm.
Page 7 of 70 This page is intentionally blank
Page 8 of 70 PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting held on Thursday 24th July 2014 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 Hamida Ali, Jamie Audsley, Steve Hollands, Stephen Mann, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Sue Winborn and Chris Wright
Also Councillor Margaret Mead present:
A59/14 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 10TH JULY 2014
As the meeting on 10 July was adjourned, with Item 8.1 being heard prior to items on this agenda, the minutes for 10 July meeting will be finalised and approved at the next Planning Committee.
A60/14 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest at this meeting.
Councillor Paul Scott declared a personal interest in Item 6.3, as he is a member of People for Portland Road and is well acquainted with both John Hickman and Ken Baker, but has no involvement with planning matters and will be considering all the evidence afresh and without predetermination. He also declared a personal interest in Item 6.2, knowing John Hickman.
A61/14 URGENT BUSINESS (IF ANY)
There was no urgent business.
A62/14 EXEMPT ITEMS
RESOLVED to that allocation of business between Part A and Part B of the Agenda be confirmed.
Page 9 of 70 A63/14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION
6.1 13/03820/P Shirley High School, Shirley Church Road, Croydon, CR0 5EF Retention of two storey sixth form building and associated air conditioning units Mr Mahoney spoke as the agent of the applicant, in support of the application. Councillor Margaret Mead, Member for Heathfield ward, spoke on behalf of local residents
Following Members’ consideration of the officer's report and the additional addendum, Councillor Jason Perry moved and Councillor Paul Scott seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted, 9 in favour, with 1 abstention, to APPROVE planning permission for development at Shirley High School, Shirley Church Road, Croydon, CR0 5EF.
6.2 14/00681/P 76-78 Westow Street, London, SE19 3AF Variation of Condition 10 (attached to planning approval 09/03609/P as amended by Non-Material Amendment approval 14/00706/DT) for demolition of existing buildings; erection of four storey building with basement comprising 2 units within class A1 (retail) on the ground and and 6 two bedroom and 1 one bedroom flats in remainder of building; provision of parking spaces at rear (N.B. Councillor Paul Scott declared a personal interest, as in A60/14)
Mr John Hickman spoke in objection on behalf of North Croydon Conservation Area Advisory Panel Mr Roger Sedgley (Alexander Sedgley) and Ms Jo Tasker (Robinson Escott Planning) spoke as agents of the applicant
After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Humayun Kabir moved and Councillor Paul Scott seconded the officer's recommendation, but with a further proviso that the scheme be further amended to re-introduce the previously approved recess adjacent to 74 Westow Street to allow a proper return of the previously existing cornice line to 74 Westow Street.
The Committee voted unanimously in favour (10), to APPROVE planning permission for variation of Condition 10 of the original planning permission at 76-78 Westow Street, London, SE19 3AF and gave officers delegated powers to issue the planning permission, once the further amendments had been incorporated into the scheme the subject of the planning application. It was also agreed that the application should be reported back to Planning Committee if the further amendment to the scheme is not suitably progressed as part of the on-going planning application process.
The Chair, Councillor Paul Scott wished to record that the Committee was very displeased Pagewith the 10 applicant'sof 70 behaviour in producing a building which did not comply with the original permitted scheme in a significant number of respects, resulting in the Council needing to use enforcement powers.
6.3 14/01789/P 120 Portland Road, London, SE25 4PL Alterations; Use as a 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation (N.B. Councillor Paul Scott declared a personal interest, as in A60/14.)
Mr John Hickman spoke in objection on behalf of Norwood Society Mr Ken Baker spoke in objection on behalf of People for Portland Road Ms Alison Broderick spoke in support on behalf of the applicant
The Committee considered the officer's report and additional addendum. Councillor Chris Wright moved and Councillor Jason Perry seconded REFUSAL on the grounds of loss of a family house, being out of character with the area and an inappropriate development, and the Committee voted,4 in favour, 5 against, with 1 abstention, so this motion fell.
Members requested that consideration be given to locating refuse storage arrangements within the rear garden with access onto Stanger Road when discharging the related planning condition.
The Committee then voted on a second motion, proposed by Councillor Paul Scott with Councillor Humayun Kabir seconding the officer's recommendation, and the Committee voted, 5 in favour, 4 against, with 1 abstention, to APPROVE planning permission for development at 120 Portland Road, London, SE25 4PL.
A64/14 OTHER PLANNING MATTERS
There were no other planning matters.
A65/14 DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATIONS
8.1 14/01953/PRE 409-411 Beulah Hill, London, SE19 3HD Redevelopment of the site comprising a Lidl food store ( 1,011m2 sales area) at ground floor level; Six residential units at first floor level and 40 associated car parking spaces
Chris Young-Wootton, Property Director of Lidl, and Roger Day, Architect of Calford Seaden, gave a presentation. Members then questioned the presenters and raised issues for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application.
The main issues raised at this meeting were:
● Massing, location and impact - no apparent fundamental review of design with only minor tweaks to a previously Page 11 of 70 unacceptable design solution; ● More work is required to define glazed areas fronting onto Beulah Hill; ● Whilst enhanced landscaping welcomed, Members felt that the planting of mature trees within the car park was a lost opportunity; ● Unattractive flat roof (of industrial proportions) and there was a need to explore a variety of more interesting roof forms, possibly including some areas of greater height and prominence (especially at the ends of the buildings); ● Need for good quality design – with a need to think “outside the box” with a greater degree of articulation; ● Adjacent buildings taller than two-storey which suggests that a building on this site could accommodate greater height; ● Respecting the conservation area – important to address and ideally infill the existing gap on Beulah Hill, between the current proposed store and the adjacent corner buildings; ● Need to reassessment of footprint in relation to adjacent buildings on Beulah Hill ● Consideration of community elements, such as a coffee shop ● Concern over how the proposed building related to 1-14 Beulah Hill, with a blank brick wall – need to provide greater visual interest to this design element – with a possible option to recess the front building line. ● Infill windows to the Beulah Hill frontage (bricked) incongruous. ● Should explore options and opportunities to increase the level of residential accommodation on site with associated car parking and cycle storage.
A66/14 FUTURE MEETING DATES
The next Planning committee meetings are on Thursdays at 6.30pm: 4 and 18 September 2014
MINUTES - PART B
None
The meeting ended at 9:21pm.
Page 12 of 70 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 3 September 2014
PART 8: Development Presentations
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This part of the agenda is for the committee to receive presentations on proposed developments, including when they are at the pre-application stage.
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 The following information and advice applies to all those reports.
2 ADVICE TO MEMBERS
2.1 These proposed developments are being reported to committee to enable members of the committee to view them at an early stage and to comment upon them. They do not constitute applications for planning permission at this stage and any comments made are provisional and subject to full consideration of any subsequent application and the comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification.
2.2 Members will need to pay careful attention to the probity rules around predisposition, predetermination and bias (set out in the Planning Code of Good Practice Part 5.G of the Council’s Constitution). Failure to do so may mean that the Councillor will need to withdraw from the meeting for any subsequent application when it is considered.
3 FURTHER INFORMATION
3.1 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.
4 PUBLIC SPEAKING
4.1 The Council’s constitution only provides for public speaking rights for those applications being reported to Committee in the “Planning Applications for Decision” part of the agenda. Therefore reports on this part of the agenda do not attract public speaking rights.
5 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
5.1 For further information about the background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 8 contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419).
6 RECOMMENDATION
6.1 The Committee is not required to make any decisions with respect to the reports on this part of the agenda. The attached reports are presented as background information.
Page 13 of 70 Page 14 of 70 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 3rd September 2014
PART 8: Development Presentations Item 8.1
1 APPLICATION DETAILS
Ref: 13/03771/PRE Location: Network Rail Car Park, Station Approach Road, CR5 2NS Ward: Coulsdon West Description: Alterations to car parking for Coulsdon station; erection of 3-5 storeys building comprising 6 one bedroom and 10 two bedroom flats Drawing Nos: 6368/PL01, 6386/PL02, 6368/PL03, 6368/PL04, and PL06/Rev. B. Applicant: The Oakwood Group Case Officer: John Asiamah
1.1 This proposed development is being reported to committee to enable members of the committee to view it at an early stage and to comment upon it. The development does not constitute an application for planning permission and any comments made upon it are provisional and subject to full consideration of any subsequent application and the comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The scheme was first presented to the committee on 19th December 2013.
2.2 The main issues raised were:
• Loss of parking places over the period of the development and in Coulsdon overall • Evidence of car parking usage • Number of parking spaces • Security of the car park • Mass of the building • Landscaping • Trees on site • Number of flats on each floor • View of the site from the bypass
3 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
3.1 The proposal is for:
• Erection of 3-5 storeys building comprising 6 one bedroom and 10 two bedroom flats; and • Provision of 6 associated parking spaces; • Alterations to car parking for Coulsdon Town station; • Re-location of electricity sub-station
Page 15 of 70 3.2 As part of the proposal, the existing site would be subdivided into two elements. The proposed building would be on the south-eastern part of the site, fronting Station Approach Road. The other element would accommodate 12 parking spaces for customers associated with Coulsdon Town station. There is an electricity sub- station on the north-western part of the site which would be relocated and incorporated into the proposed building.
3.3 Provision has been made for 6 car parking spaces, cycle store (14 spaces) and bin store. The existing vehicular access and pedestrian access via Station Approach Road would be utilised to provide vehicular and pedestrian access onto both sites.
Site and Surroundings
3.4 The site is situated within Coulsdon District Centre on the north-eastern side of Station Approach Road, but is not designated as part of a Primary Shopping Area or a retail frontage.
3.5 The site is bounded to the north-west by 127 Brighton Road (a mixed use development site) to the east by Farthing Way and to the north by Leaden Hill. It comprises a car park for Network Rail customers (21 parking spaces) and electricity sub-station. A telecommunication mast recently on the site has been removed.
3.6 To the north of the site is the railway and Coulsdon Town Station (formerly Smitham Station). To the south along Station Approach Road are commercial uses including a builder’s yard. Alexander Buildings comprises a row of four properties which have office uses on the ground floor and residential flats above, although permission has been granted for a change of use to residential. At the corner of Station Approach Road and Edward Road is a small block of flats (Edward House). The area further south-west is generally residential in character and is made up of predominately two storey Victorian and Edwardian properties. Gateway Business Park lies further south. The ground rises steeply from north-west to south-east.
Planning History
3.7 The following planning decisions are relevant to the development:
• 07/03434/P - 127 Brighton Road (including the application site) - Demolition of the existing building; erection of a six storey building with roof garden comprising a retail unit of 5,446m² (Gross Floor Area), 1 four bedroom, 7 three bedroom, 12 two bedroom and 6 one bedroom flats; formation of vehicular access onto Station Road and provision of 251 parking spaces. Approved and not implemented.
• 10/03058/P- renewal of the 07/03434/P planning application. Approved and not implemented. The permission expired in May 2014.
127 Brighton Road, Coulsdon • 12/00241/P - Demolition of the existing car showroom and other buildings; erection of a building ranging from two to seven storeys in height, comprising retail and commercial uses (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 or D2), 34 one bedroom, 50 two bedroom, 4 three bedroom flats and 6 three bedroom houses; formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking. Approved and implemented (not yet completed).
Page 16 of 70
4 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 The main planning issues raised by the development that the committee should be aware of are:
1. Principle of redevelopment 2. The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area 3. The impact of the development on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers 4. The standard of accommodation to be provided 5. Affordable housing provision 6. The impact of the development on parking demand and highway safety 7. Impact of the development on the existing trees 8. Sustainability 9. Other planning issues
The principle of development
4.2 Chapter 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) indicates that housing applications should be considered in the context of a 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. Policy 3.3 of the London Plan 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) recognises the pressing need for more homes in London and Policy 3.8 states that Londoners should have a genuine choice of homes. Policy H2 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 (the UDP) permits housing development within the existing built up area provided it does not conflict with the Council’s aim of respecting the character of the residential area and there is no loss of protected uses. Policy SP2.1 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) (CLP1) states that in order 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.
4.3 The proposal would provide additional homes in a sustainable location and would not lead to the loss of any protected use. The principle of residential development is therefore considered acceptable and is in line with the NPPF, Policies 3.3 and 3.8 of the London Plan 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) and Policy H2 of the UDP and Policy SP2.1 of CLP1.
The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area
4.4 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that: “the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people”. Paragraph 61 goes on to state that: “Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment”. Furthermore, Paragraph 64 states that:
Page 17 of 70 “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”. Policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) requires housing development to be of the highest quality. Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) state that development should make a positive contribution to the local character, public realm and streetscape. It should incorporate the highest quality materials and design appropriate to its context. Policies UD2 and UD3 of the UDP require the siting, layout and form of new development to respect the character and appearance of existing areas. Policies SP1.1, SP.1 & 4.2 of CLP1 indicate that the Council will require all new development to contribute to enhancing a sense of place, improving the character of the area and to be of a high quality design.
4.5 The site is in a prominent and elevated position and can be viewed over long distances, including from Farthing Way and Coulsdon Town station. Therefore, any redevelopment would need to be of a high standard and integrate with the existing townscape and the development commenced at 127 Brighton Road.
4.6 The layout of the scheme is such that the main elevations address Station Approach Road and face towards the underpass, serving to complete the streetscene to Station Approach Road and ensure that the development is in keeping with the pattern of the development in the area. The overall height of the proposed development reflects the on-going development at 127 Brighton Road and sufficient separation is proposed between the east elevation of the building and the adjacent elevation of 127 Brighton Road to provide a legible access to the car parking associated with the station and ensure a smooth transition in height from the adjacent scheme. The layout also allows for a pedestrian route from Edward Road to the station.
4.7 Policy UD13 of the UDP requires car parking and access arrangements to be safe, secure, efficient and well designed. The integration of the commercial parking with the residential elements of the scheme will need to be carefully considered and sympathetic boundary treatments and planting to provide screening are likely to be required to ensure that the objectives of this policy are met.
4.8 The design would be contemporary modular style. It would be similar to that approach used for 127 Brighton Road and as such is considered to reflect the appearance of the area.
4.9 In terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the scale, design and layout of the proposal is considered acceptable in the context of its location. The design of the proposed development would make a positive contribution to the street scene and the relationship of parking and residential will need to be carefully considered.
The impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers
4.10 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF indicates 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”. Policy 7.1 of the London Plan indicates that in their neighbourhoods, people should have a good quality environment. Policy UD8 of the UDP requires the Council to have regard to the privacy and amenity of adjoining occupiers. Policies SP4.1 and SP4.2 CLP1seek to respect and enhance character, to create sustainable communities and enhance social cohesion and well-being.
Page 18 of 70 4.11 Residential properties are located adjacent to the application site to the south- west (Edward House) and north-west (the new development at 127 Brighton Road).
4.12 The siting and layout of the proposed building would have some impact on the outlook and privacy of the adjoining occupiers, which is to be expected in a dense urban area and is characteristic of this area. However, consideration will need to be given to the impact of the development, primarily on Edward House. A preliminary desktop study has been undertaken which suggests that this impact could be acceptable but an application will need to be supported by a detailed Daylight and Sunlight Study to demonstrate no undue impact in terms of daylight and sunlight.
4.13 The building would generally be located sufficiently far enough from neighbouring residential properties to ensure that no significant overlooking would occur and the West elevation closest to 127 Brighton Road has been designed without habitable room windows to ensure this relationship is acceptable.
The standard of accommodation for future occupiers
4.14 Policy 3.5C of the London Plan 2011(with 2013 Alterations) states that: “LDFs should incorporate minimum space standards…..The Mayor will, and boroughs should, seek to ensure that new development reflects (mirror) these standards. The design of all new dwellings should also take account of factors relating to ‘arrival’ at the building and the ‘home as a place of retreat’, have adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts, meet the changing needs of Londoners over their lifetimes, address climate change adaptation and mitigation and social inclusion objectives and should be conceived and developed through an effective design process. The London Housing SPG also indicates the minimum floor area per room.
4.15 The floorspace of each flat would comply with the minimum floorspace requirement in the London Plan, as well as meeting the London Housing SPG individual room requirements. The layout, including the outlook from each flat, and stacking would largely be satisfactory. Also, adequate provision has been made for communal and private amenity space.
Affordable Housing provision
4.16 Policy 3.13A of the London Plan states that: “Boroughs should normally require affordable housing provision on a site which has capacity to provide 10 or more homes” Policy SP2.3 of CLP1 states that: “The Council will seek to ensure that a choice of homes is available in the borough that will contribute to addressing the borough’s need for affordable homes. This will be achieved by a strategic policy target of: (a) 25% of all new homes developed in the borough over the plan period to be either affordable rented homes (homes which are up to 80% market rent) or homes for social rent to meet the borough’s need; and (b) 10% of all new homes in the borough developed over the plan period to be intermediate affordable housing for low cost shared home ownership managed by a Registered Social Landlord.” Policy SP2.4 states that: “The Council will apply the following criteria on a site specific basis to deliver affordable housing in the borough: (a) 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; and (b) Require a commuted sum from developments of nine or fewer units to cover the cost of providing the equivalent percentage of affordable units.”
Page 19 of 70 4.17 Being a major development, provision for up to 50% affordable housing on site would be required. A viability assessment has been submitted which is being assessed by consultants to determine the level of affordable housing that the scheme can support, to ensure compliance with policies above. The initial advice from consultants is that the scheme may be able to support provision of 25% of accommodation as shared ownership units but further detailed discussions need to be undertaken with the developer.
4.18 In small schemes having a single tenure of affordable accommodation can often allow the provision of more units than if affordable rent and shared ownership units were both to be provided. In coming to a conclusion on a tenure mix, a number of factors will have to be carefully considered including provision of affordable housing in the local area to ensure that mixed and balanced communities are provided.
The impact on parking demand, pedestrian and highway safety
4.19 Chapter 4 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable transport. Policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2011(with 2013 Alterations) indicates that a balance should be struck between promoting development and preventing an excessive parking provision. Policies T8 and T2 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 respectively require development to make appropriate provision for car parking on site and to ensure that traffic generated does not adversely affect the efficiency of nearby roads. Policies SP8.1, SP8.3, SP8.4, SP8.6, SP8.12, SP8.13 and SP8.15 of the CLP1 seek to ensure that sustainable transport will be promoted, that traffic generated by new development can be safely accommodated on the road network and that there is an appropriate level of car parking.
4.20 The subject site is in an area with a PTAL accessibility rating of 3 (on a scale of 1a - 6b, where 6b is the most accessible), as indicated on maps produced by TfL. The site is therefore considered to have moderate level of accessibility to public transport links. Provision would be made for 6 parking spaces including 1 disabled parking space and cycle store (14 spaces). Given that the site is in a centre and close to Coulsdon Station, the quantity of residential parking provision is considered adequate, and in the spirit of the maximum car parking standards described in Appendix 2 of the Croydon UDP.
4.21 Consideration will also need to be given to the acceptability of the level of car parking spaces to be retained for Network Rail customers. The applicant has set out that the existing car park is under-used, is not attractive to customers due to its location and siting and that Network Rail are satisfied that 12 spaces in this location are adequate for their needs as justification for the reduction in parking spaces. This is a matter which will need to be fully assessed and a Transportation Statement would be expected to address the level of parking required for the station and Network Rail staff.
4.22 It will also have to be demonstrated that the development will not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding roads. Therefore, as part of a formal application, a full assessment of the highways and parking implications of the scheme will need to be submitted.
Page 20 of 70 Impact on existing trees
4.23 Chapter 11 of the NPPF seeks to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Policy 7.21 of the London Plan 2011(with 2013 Alterations) requires trees and woodlands to be protected, maintained and enhanced. Policy SP7.4 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) seeks to enhance biodiversity across the borough.
4.24 The existing trees fronting the site would be removed. However, there would be other vegetation around the site and new landscaping opportunities would be created.
Sustainability
4.25 Policy 5.2 of the London Plan 2011(with 2013 Alterations) requires carbon dioxide emissions to be minimised. Policy 5.7 of the London 2011(with 2013 Alterations) also requires major developments to provide a reduction in expected carbon dioxide emissions. Policy EP16 of The Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 states that the Council will require all developments to incorporate renewables. Policy SP6.3 (a) of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013) indicates that the Council will seek high standards of sustainable design and construction from new development, conversion and refurbishment to assist in meeting local and national CO2 reduction targets by requiring new-build residential development to achieve a minimum of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes or equivalent.
4.26 The proposed development would be required to achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable homes and a 40% reduction in Part L emissions above and beyond 2010 standards as set out in the London Plan.
Other Planning Issues
4.27 Policy 7.3 of the London Plan 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) and Policy UD6 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 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. The space around the building and the play area are overlooked by the proposed building and the development would be integrated into the existing pattern of pedestrian and vehicular movement. Consequently, design and layout of the proposed development could minimise and discourage crime.
4.28 The internal and external space of the proposed development would be accessible to all users in accordance with Policy 7.2 of the London Plan 2011 (with 2013 Alterations) and Policy UD7 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013.
Conclusions
4.29 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been taken into account.
Page 21 of 70 Page 22 of 70 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 3rd September 2014
PART 8: Development Presentations Item 8.2
1 DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Ref: 14/03456/PRE Location: Taberner House and Queens Gardens, Park Lane, Croydon, CR9 3JS Ward: Fairfield Description: Demolition of existing building; Erection of 4 buildings of 10, 15, 16 and 32 storeys in height; provision of commercial space at ground floor level and 420 dwellings; provision of new area of public park and associated landscaping and the provision of 3 disabled car parking spaces beneath the landscaped extension to Queens Gardens. Drawing Nos: ASK_287_140711 _ Ground _ New Layout ASK_288_140711 _ Typical _ New Layout ASK_289_140711_Public Realm Landscape Perspective A1# Approved Scheme Public Realm Calculations Accommodation Schedule Photographs of Model Applicant: CCURV Agent: G L Hearn Property Consultants Case Officer: Pete Smith/Kate Edwards
2 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
2.1 On 22nd May 2014, the Council granted planning permission for the redevelopment of Taberner House and alterations to Queens Gardens (LBC Ref 14/00196/P). The approved development was described as follows:
Demolition of existing building; erection of 5 buildings ranging from 6 to 32 storeys comprising 420 residential units and 2 retail units (within class A1-A3) ; provision of landscaping (new and re-landscaping of Queens Gardens), servicing, parking and new access.
2.2 This previous proposal was the subject of three separate pre-application presentations to the former Strategic Planning Committee (dated 25th April, 25th July and 24th October 2013). The planning application was submitted to the Council for determination in January 2014 and was granted planning permission by the former Strategic Planning Committee at its meeting of the 24th April 2014.
2.3 The demolition of the existing 19 storey office building that occupies the site (Taberner House) has already commenced following the grant of planning permission for the demolition (LBC Ref 13/04298/P).
2.4 Following the issuing of this planning permission, the applicant has been reviewing the redevelopment proposals; particularly the relationship of the approved scheme to Queens Gardens and the desire to maximise the delivery of on-site affordable housing.
2.5 Officers recently met with the applicant and their agents to discuss the main issues (as part of a new pre-application engagement process) and it is considered prudent,
Page 23 of 70 bearing in mind limited timeframes within which to amend the proposals and progress through to a subsequent planning application determination stage, that the Planning Committee receives an early introduction to the proposed amended approach (thereby allowing initial Member engagement as part of the pre-application process). It is clear that a further opportunity for the Planning Committee to further engage in the process will be necessary, once further analysis and consideration has taken place.
2.6 The purpose of this report is therefore to outline the proposed initial, high level amendments to the Taberner House scheme, giving Members an early opportunity to view the amended approach and to comment accordingly.
2.7 The proposed development does not constitute an application for planning permission and any comments made are provisional and subject to full consideration as part of the on-going pre-application process and any subsequent application process, as well as any comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification (at both pre application and post application stage).
2.8 A copy of the previous 24th April 2014 Strategic Planning Committee Report is attached as Appendix A for information. This provides a useful context to the on- going pre-application discussions; especially the relationship of any proposed development to the future use of Queens Gardens, the provision of disabled parking arrangements and the delivery of on-site affordable housing provision in accordance with policy. This appended report also provides Members with a suitable baseline within which to comment on the revised proposals. Members are specifically directed towards the sections of the report that deal with site and surroundings, the policy context and the various material planning considerations. For ease of reference and to focus Member’s questions and comments, the previous planning considerations were listed as follows:
• The acceptability of the development in land use terms; • The impact of the development on the character and appearance on the surrounding area and heritage assets: • The impact of the development on Queens Gardens: • The impact of the development on existing trees and ecology: • The acceptability of the proposed housing and living conditions provided: • Impacts on adjoining occupiers: • Environmental Impacts: • Parking and highway considerations: • The environmental performance of the proposed buildings.
3 AMENDED PROPOSALS
Elements Where Limited Amendments Apply
3.1 Comparing the previous planning permission to the current initial amended proposal, the following elements of the proposal are proposed to remain largely unaltered:
• The provision of 420 residential units as per the consented scheme (although it is unclear at this stage whether the amended scheme will provide the same mix of accommodation). The previous scheme provided 18 studios, 192 x 1 bedroom, 169 x 2 bedroom and 41 x 3 bedroom units.
Page 24 of 70 • The previously approved 32 storey tower (known as Block A) will remain at 32 storeys and unchanged in terms of use and approved materials palette. It is also proposed that the tower will remain dedicated as 100% Private Rented Sector (PRS) although the applicant has advised that they are negotiating with the intended provider, to deliver a proportion of the rented units as discount market rented units, potentially forming part of a future affordable housing offer.
• Block A will be brought forward as part of the existing planning permission and the applicant is keen to discuss, as part of the current pre application process, suitable mechanisms by which the current planning permission can be modified to allow for early delivery. For example, the applicant is keen to apply to vary the S.106 Agreement attached to the planning permission to modify affordable housing delivery triggers and to vary planning conditions that currently require details of the landscaping works to Queens Gardens to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to first occupation of the residential units.
• To provide a commercial unit towards the southern end of the site, adjacent to the existing Croydon Flyover, although its form is proposed to be modified as outlined below, along with changes to possible servicing arrangements. It is also still proposed to provide a café as part of the proposals, although it is currently proposed to be re-located elsewhere on the site, but still related to the use and function of Queens Gardens.
• To provide 3 disabled car parking spaces on site (similar to the consented scheme) although it is understood that the applicant is assessing whether the amended plans will be able to accommodate additional on-site car parking for residents with disabilities.
Elements Where Proposed Modifications Apply
3.2 The main areas where the plans are proposed to be modified are outlined below.
Variations in the Siting, Height and Mass of Buildings
3.3 The approved Taberner House scheme proposed five building elements (Blocks A, B, C, D, and E) which rose to 32 storeys, 9 storeys, 9 storeys, 6 storeys and 13 storeys respectively. The main change in relation to the current initial amended proposals is the removal of the previously approved Block D (6 storeys) which was the approved pavilion-type block that faced onto Queens Gardens and accommodated the previously approved café and double height colonnade. This colonnade was designed to link Queens Gardens to the residential public realm/courtyard space proposed to the south of Queens Gardens.
3.4 In order to replace residential units lost as a consequence of the removal of Block D, the applicants are proposing at this stage to increase the heights of Block B and Block C (the two residential blocks sited parallel with Bernard Weatherill House) by 6 storeys and 1 storey respectively; resulting in 15 and 10 storey elements. These modified building heights are intended to mirror the stepped down heights of Bernard Weatherill House. It is further proposed to increase the height of the previously approved Block E (sited parallel with Park Lane) by a further 3 storeys, resulting in a 16 storey block. The northern-most building line of this higher Block E is proposed to be no further forward than that of the consented Block E and it is likely that the
Page 25 of 70 adjacent memorial trees would continue to be retained. The proposed café is currently proposed to be relocated into a reconfigured Block C; at ground floor level and opening out onto Queens Gardens. The café was previously located within Block D which, as highlighted above, is now proposed to be removed from the scheme.
3.5 It is also currently proposed to reduce the degree of enclosure to the open space to the south of Queens Gardens, with a more open outlook from the south, with separation between the previously approved Block A and the reconfigured Block B. It is still proposed to locate a retail outlet alongside the southern boundary of the site (opening out onto the Croydon Flyover and providing an active frontage to Fell Road – adjacent to the flyover). The re-siting and reconfiguration of buildings on the site would also effect and modify the potential interface between the existing Queens Gardens and the use and function of open spaces proposed to be delivered elsewhere on the site.
Reconfiguring Queens Gardens and the Public Realm
3.6 Whilst the previous approved scheme proposed a lesser open setting to the retained and reconfigured Queens Gardens, the local planning authority was satisfied, when taking account of public realm provided as part of the proposed development and the degree of connectivity between the reconfigured Queens Gardens and the approved courtyard area (with the 10.5 metre wide colonnade provided within the previously approved Block D and the 24.5 metre separation between the previously approved Block D and E), that the proposal suitably complied with policy. Even with these changes, the previous April 2014 report identified an overall (albeit small) increase in the level of publicly accessible open space (292 square metres).
3.7 Notwithstanding the above, the current amendments, including the removal of the previously approved Block D, the reconfiguration of Block B and the changes in its relationship between Blocks B and Block A, has allowed the applicant to increase (potentially) the level of publically accessible open space as part of the amended proposals. The April 2014 Strategic Planning Committee Report advised that the existing level of publically accessible open space is 8,614 square metres. Early indicative plans submitted as part of the amended proposals suggest that the amended scheme could deliver up to 9,654 square metres of publically accessible open space (shown currently as an additional 1,045 square metres).The amendment also proposes a different relationship (both visually and in terms of connectivity) between Queens Gardens and the publically accessible open space now proposed towards the southern end of the development site.
3.8 It is understood that the public open space proposed to the south of Queens Gardens would be slightly inclined (rising gradually towards the southern boundary of the site) to allow for on-site servicing for the commercial units and residents beneath the open space structural deck (including refuse storage arrangements) as well as some minimal car parking for those residents with disabilities. The raised incline would also form the roof of the proposed retail store forming the southern boundary of the site. The vehicular access into this covered servicing area is currently proposed off Fell Road, opposite the corporate staff entrance to Bernard Weatherill House.
Affordable Housing
3.9 The previous approved scheme provided a total of 60 affordable housing units (which equated to 15% affordable housing by habitable room) with an agreed 61-39 tenure
Page 26 of 70 split in favour of affordable rent tenure. At the time, it was agreed that the affordable housing units would be accommodated within Blocks B to E with 10% of affordable housing units to be 3 bed units (suitable for families with children).
3.10 The current pre-application submission advises that the applicant is aiming to provide an affordable housing uplift (30% across the site as a whole) as part of the alternative development approach, albeit subject to financial viability testing. The applicant has also confirmed that affordable housing would be accommodated in Blocks B, C and E, but with the further possibility of discounted market rented accommodation within Block A.
4 Early Officer Pre Application Engagement
4.1 This pre-application submission was received formally by officers on 12th August 2014 and officer engagement as part of this process is at a very early stage. At the time of drafting this report, officers have met with the applicant on one single occasion (meeting dated 15th August 2014).
4.2 Many of the development principles have previously been accepted, pursuant to the recent grant of planning permission and it is reasonable for Members to focus specifically on the merits of the proposed amendments, rather than reviewing and commenting on the principle of development and returning to first principles.
4.3 Members also need to recognise and acknowledge that the current pre-application process is at a relatively early stage and whilst there is clear impetus to progress matters speedily and robustly towards an eventual planning application submission, there is also a need to properly assess the various effects and material planning considerations of an amended approach. There is also a need to ensure that any variations to the scheme previously granted planning permission, in order to facilitate early delivery of Block A through proposed variations to planning conditions and the S.106 Agreement, are dealt with properly and robustly.
4.4 The following high level issues have been raised by officers (based on the limited information submitted at this early stage in the pre application process)
Consideration of Heritage Assets
4.5 The previously approved scheme raised issues of heritage impact; especially the extent to which the scale, height mass and appearance of the individual buildings and as a group composition impacted on the setting of neighbouring listed buildings (the Grade II listed Town Hall and Clocktower, the Grade II listed Segas House and the Grade I listed Whitgift Almshouses) and the character and appearance of the Central Croydon Conservation Area and other nearby conservation areas. English Heritage raised concerns in relation to the previously consented scheme although it acknowledged, prior to the April 2014 Strategic Planning Committee, that the proposed development caused less than substantial harm and were prepared to accept the Council balancing the harm to heritage assets against the benefits of the proposed development.
4.6 It is clear that the heritage impacts and securing overall design quality will continue to be very important as the applicant progresses towards an eventual amended proposal and planning application submission. It is critical that the increases in height, variations in building composition and expression, the proposed distribution of
Page 27 of 70 buildings across the site and any changes in elevational treatment are properly modelled and assessed as part of this revised development approach, especially if it is the intention to implement Block A as previously approved. Officers have impressed on the applicant that this information needs to be forthcoming at an early stage.
Consideration of Environmental Effects
4.7 The previous scheme was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment which modelled the wind effects of the approved approach along with the noise and daylight and sunlight implications, which was very much influenced by the form, height, disposition and elevational treatment of the proposed buildings and their relationships to each other.
4.8 The proposed changes to the buildings, especially the introduction of a more ordered “Point Block” approach and the more open outlook to the south, might well significantly modify the wind, sunlight, daylight and noise effects within the public open space, within public routes (especially between the blocks) and at residential entrances.
4.9 It is clear that these initial amendments will need to be properly modelled and assessed as part of this on-going pre application engagement process. Officers have advised that a revised Environmental Impact Assessment will need to be included as part of a subsequent planning application submission.
Initial Open Space Considerations
4.10 The applicant has acknowledged that the detail of a revised landscaping approach for Queens Gardens and the proposed future gardens (towards the southern part of the site) has yet to be developed, although as raised above, it is presently expected that the future gardens would rise in level to the south with a retail unit below, fronting onto Fell Road.
4.11 The linkages between Queens Gardens and the future gardens to the south continue to be critical to the future success of these two spaces, especially if the intention to raise the land towards the south is progressed further. Issues associated with the relationship between a raised public open space and the likely residential entrances currently proposed at grade, would need to be carefully designed and considered to ensure that residential occupiers are able to conveniently and directly access well planned and designed communal open spaces. Furthermore, the performance of such spaces, when taking account of potential wind effects is crucial along with the detailed design of the spaces, closely linked to their function and purpose and how they might relate to a future form and function of Queens Gardens and the residential apartments which they are also expected to serve.
4.12 The remodelling of the scheme and the removal of Block D provides an opportunity to re-consider the status of existing protected trees within Queens Gardens (including the various memorial trees) and opportunities for their retention. However, as the pre- application process progresses, there needs to be proper consideration as to how the southern future gardens might be formed to accommodate tree planting as part of a landscaping strategy, bearing in mind that the proposed growing medium could well form part of the structural deck to the proposed car parking and servicing area beneath the proposed future southern gardens.
Page 28 of 70 Affordable Housing and Scheme Viability
4.13 Whilst the applicant is aiming to provide 30% affordable housing, it is crucial to recognise that this will be subject to proper consideration of scheme viability and scheme deliverability across the various development phases. It is anticipated that the applicant will be seeking to re-model cost, revenue and cash flow assumptions and officers have requested that scheme viability is reviewed further as part of the on-going pre application process. There will be greater clarity around the capacity of the scheme to deliver the intended 30% affordable housing when the scheme is next presented to the planning Committee.
4.14 Officers have impressed on the applicant that any scheme (in view of the sensitivities around heritage impacts) will need to continue to promote very high standards of design (especially in the form of architectural expression, elevational treatment and the use of robust and complementary materials). Construction cost assumptions will be integral to a robust scheme viability re-appraisal process.
5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
5.1 It is appreciated that this proposed amended approach is at a very early stage of evolution and much work is required to ensure that a revised scheme deals with the various issues. However, officers believe that the suggested approach deserves more detailed consideration as part of a proactive pre application process and has the potential to deliver a positive development outcome. Officers have agreed with the applicant that early scheme exposure to the Planning Committee will be very useful, if only to highlight issues and areas that deserve further attention as part of the on-going pre-application process.
5.2 It is the applicant’s intention to maintain close dialogue with officers over the next few months, to thoroughly test the amended approach and the associated assumptions. It is understood that further public consultation will take place as part of the process and it is officers’ intention to report back to Planning Committee once these further studies have been undertaken and the emerging scheme tested against the various parameters and considerations. This will take the form of a further Developer Presentation and associated officer report.
Page 29 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 24 April 2014
PART 6: Planning Applications for Decision
1 APPLICATION DETAILS
Ref: 14/00196/P Location: Taberner House and Queens Gardens, Park Lane, Croydon, CR9 3JS Ward: Fairfield Description: Demolition of existing building; erection of 5 buildings ranging from 6 to 32 storeys comprising 420 residential units and 2 retail units (within class A1-A3); provision of landscaping (new and re-landscaping of Queens Gardens), servicing, parking and new access. Drawing Nos: 0669 P0001 Rev 00; 0002 Rev 00; 0003 Rev 00; 0004 Rev 00; 0700 Rev 03; 0701 Rev 03; 0702 Rev 02; 0703 Rev 02; 0704 Rev 02; 0705 Rev 01; 0706 Rev 01; 0707 Rev 01; 0708 Rev 01; 0709 Rev 01; 0710 Rev 01; 0711 Rev 01; 0712 Rev 01; 1001 Rev 01; 1002 Rev 01; 1008 Rev 00; 1009 Rev 00; 1010 Rev 00; 1011 Rev 00; 1012 Rev 01; 1013 Rev 01; 1014 Rev 01; 1015 Rev 00; 1016 Rev 01; 1017 Rev 01; 1018 Rev 01; 1019 Rev 00; 1020 Rev 00; 1021 Rev 00; 1022 Rev 00; 1023 Rev 00; 1024 Rev 01; 1025 Rev 00; 1025 Rev 00; 7000 Rev 01; 7001 Rev 01; 7002 Rev 01; 7003 Rev 01; 7004 Rev 01; 7005 Rev 01; 7006 Rev 01; 7007 Rev 01; 7008 Rev 01; 7009 Rev 01; 7010 Rev 01; 8000 Rev 01; 8001 Rev 01; 8002 Rev 01; 8003 Rev 00; 0500 Rev 00; 0501 Rev 02; 0502 Rev 02; 0503 Rev 02; 0504 Rev 02; 0505 Rev 02; 0506 Rev 02; 0507 Rev 03; 0508 Rev 02; 0509 Rev 02; 0511 Rev 02; 0512 Rev 02; 9000 Rev 00; 9001 Rev 00; 9002 Rev 00; 9003 Rev 00; 9004 Rev 00; 9005 Rev 00; 9006 Rev 00; 9007 Rev 00; 1100 Rev 03; 1101 Rev 03; 1102 Rev 03; 1103 Rev 03; 1104 Rev 03; 1105 Rev 02; 1106 Rev 02; 1107 Rev 01; 1108 Rev 02; 1109 Rev 02; 1110 Rev 01; 1111 Rev 02; 1112 Rev 02; 1114 Rev 01; 101 Rev 01; 102 Rev 02. OX5064-104 Rev 06; 103 Rev 04; 201 Rev 03; 202 Rev 03 Applicant: CCURV [A partnership between Croydon Council and John Laing] Agent: GLHearn Limited Case Officer: Kate Edwards
1.1 This application is being reported to committee because the development is a Large Major Development.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 This scheme was presented to this Committee during the pre-application process on 25 April 2013, 25 July 2013 and 24 October 2013. The following comments were raised by the committee during those presentations:
• The Impact of Block E on the memorial trees (addressed in paragraph 7.65) • Height of the colonnade (addressed in paragraph 7.50) • Changes to the historic gardens (addressed in paragraph 7.51) • Nature of the cafe - would it be triple-aspect? (addressed in paragraph 7.17) • Effect of shadowing on the gardens (addressed in paragraph 5.57) • Possibility of water feature in the gardens (addressed in paragraph 7.52) • Public access to the courtyard garden (addressed in paragraph 5.1)
Page 30 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
• Risk of retail - cafe/shops/gym - being left empty (addressed in paragraph 7.17) • Amenities space provision for residents - roof gardens, balconies etc (addressed in paragraph 7.82) • Arrangements for cyclists entering and leaving the traffic flow (addressed in paragraph 7.127) • Quality of the retail provision (addressed in paragraph 7.17) • Possible inclusion of a nursery (A nursery is not proposed as part of the development) • Confirmation that affordable housing would be policy compliant (addressed in paragraph 7.74) • Quantity and quality of open space (addressed in paragraph 7.46) • Loss of important trees (addressed in paragraph 7.63) • Merits of a U-shaped development and continuous open space (The applicant has explored the possibility of a u shaped development during pre-application idscussions, but this option would result in the loss of memorial trees and has not been progressed) • Location of affordable housing (addressed in paragraph 7.75)
• Proportion of 3-bed family accommodation (addressed in paragraph 7.71) • Parking provision on site and possible use of car clubs (addressed in paragraph 7.123) • Width of the gap leading into the courtyard and treatment of under-croft (addressed in paragraph 7.50) • Use of lower garden as an amphitheatre (This proposal has not been taken forward by the applicant) • Inclusion of community &/or commercial uses to ground floor uses and provision of active frontages (addressed in paragraph 7.17)
• Absence of on-site disabled parking provision (addressed in paragraph 7.123) • Feasibility of moving memorial trees (addressed in paragraph 2.65) • Treatment of the historic back wall on Katharine Street (addressed in paragraph 7.51) • Degree of unfettered access to Queen's Gardens (addressed in paragraph 5.1) • Connectivity between the gardens and the pedestrian crossing to Fairfield Halls (addressed in paragraph 7.26) • Degree to which the height of the tower and other buildings are driven by viability (addressed in paragraph 7.28) • Management of deliveries to non-residential service areas (addressed by recommended condition 34) • Loss of open space and the perception of loss in the gardens (addressed in paragraph 7.46) • Design of the tower in relation to its gateway role (addressed in paragraph 7.31) • Responses to public consultation (addressed in paragraph 6.3)
3 SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
3.1 The existing office use of the Taberner House site is not protected by policy and the residential redevelopment of the site is therefore acceptable in principle.
3.2 The building footprint incorporates land from the existing Queens Gardens which is designated as Local Open Space. As Policy RO8 indicates that such development is not permissible, the proposal is a departure from this policy. However, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) indicates that development of Local Open Land Page 31 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
is acceptable provided that it is re-provided in a suitable location in equivalent or greater quantity. The development of the Local Open Land is therefore acceptable in principle provided that the NPPF tests are met.
3.3 The proposed café (Use Class A3) unit is acceptable in land use terms and would help activate the space and strengthen the connection between the contemporary and future Queens Gardens. The location of the proposed shop (Use Class A1) is not a sequentially preferable site for retail and a sequential assessment has demonstrated that the use could be accommodated within the existing Primary Shopping Area. However, the retail facility is small and would fulfil a convenience function associated with the development. On this basis the proposed retail use is acceptable.
3.4 The arrangement of the buildings on the site would allow good connectivity between the contemporary and future sections of Queens Gardens, good pedestrian connectivity, good definition of the streets and the optimised retention of memorial trees. The building arrangement is therefore supported.
3.5 The Townscape impacts of the development in terms of its bulk, height and massing are acceptable.
3.6 The architectural expression of the building is based on an articulated structural grid. This is supported, as it is the use of brick as the main exterior facing material. Further design details are required to be secured by condition.
3.7 The site is in close proximity to a number of designated heritage assets, including the Croydon Town Hall and Clocktower and the Whitgift Almshouses. The impact of the proposed tower on the static view of the Clocktower from the corner of North End and Katharine Street is considered to be significant, but the impact of the scheme on heritage assets overall is considered to be acceptable weighed up against benefits delivered by the scheme.
3.8 The development would provide good connectivity from the public space at the centre of the development (the Future Gardens) and the contemporary part of the Queens Gardens. A separation distance between the buildings either side of the link of 24.5m would be provided and a further 10.5m of space would be provided within a two storey under-croft within Block A, which would aid the degree of connectivity.
3.9 The development proposes a significant improvement to Queens Gardens through the provision of new facilities, including the provision of stairs from Katharine Street to the sunken garden and the provision of play facilities. This is fully supported and a significant benefit of the scheme.
3.10 The wind conditions within the proposed Queens Gardens would be improved by the proposed scheme, which is supported.
3.11 The proposal would result in a minor (6-8%) increase in overshadowing of the new Queens Gardens (including the future and contemporary character areas). However, this would not be in excess of the tests indicated by the British Research Establishment and some areas of the gardens (particularly the historic gardens) would benefit from improved sunlight conditions. Given this and the other benefits of the scheme, the minor increase in overshadowing of the gardens is acceptable.
Page 32 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
3.12 The proposal would result in a loss of 10 trees within the area of the proposed building footprint, including two Category A trees. However, the memorial trees would be retained (with two small trees moved from their current location.) The impact on the trees of the highest amenity value has therefore been minimised and the development would therefore have an acceptable impact on trees.
3.13 Dependant on the site area measure used, the residential density of the proposed development would be high and (when not taking into account the land occupied by Queens Gardens) would exceed the density indicated in the London Plan. However, given that the development is acceptable in townscape, residential amenity and environmental terms, this is considered acceptable.
3.14 The development proposes a mix of studio, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom homes. 9.8% of units would have 3 or more bedrooms. This is below the 20% sought by relevant policies and the Opportunity Area Planning Framework, but this is considered acceptable given that the developer has indicated that market conditions could not support a higher proportion of 3 bedroom units and all of the two bedroom units would have 4 bed-spaces. The proposed mix of units is therefore acceptable.
3.15 The development would contain 15% affordable housing when measured by habitable rooms. 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 desired tenure mix within the affordable housing of 60% affordable rent to 40% intermediate housing would be provided. The development would therefore be acceptable in this regard and comply with affordable housing policy.
3.16 The development would comply with residential standards in terms of internal floor area. All units within the lower building would have balconies which would provide private amenity space in line with Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance standards, but approximately half of the units within the tower (Block A) would not. However, these units would have access to shared amenity space and be sited within the Gardens. On this basis the amenity provision would be acceptable. The limited distances between the buildings would mean that some windows would be required to be obscure glazed in order to maintain privacy. The impact of this on living conditions would however be acceptable and overall, the living conditions provided for future residents would be acceptable.
3.17 Given the significant separation distances between the site and the nearest residential accommodation, it is not considered that the development would result in an unacceptable impact on the outlook or privacy of residential neighbours.
3.18 The environmental impacts of the development, including in relation to light experienced by adjoining occupiers, are considered to be acceptable.
3.19 The development would provide 3 on site car parking spaces for use by future residents who are wheelchair users and would provide additional disabled persons’ car parking spaces offsite. The proposed parking and other transportation impacts of the development are considered acceptable.
3.20 The development would meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and would offset 40% of carbon emissions above a baseline of the 2010 Building Regulations. This complies with the relevant policy requirements and is supported.
Page 33 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
4 RECOMMENDATION
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 undertaking to secure the following planning obligations:
a) Retention of existing scheme architects b) Provision of affordable housing c) Provision of employment and training strategy d) Restrictions for future residents applying for on street parking permits e) Provision of parking spaces within Fairfield Halls (NCP) car park for use by residents who are wheelchair users if there is a demand f) TV signal mitigation g) Public art h) Provision of car club and membership funding i) Potentially, provision of contribution to bus/tram network for use by TfL j) Any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning
4.2 That the Director of Planning is delegated authority to negotiate the legal undertaking indicated above.
4.3 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. Materials samples for whole scheme, including further design development in relation to the proposed brick and built brick panel section 2. 24 hours public access maintained to all of Queens Gardens (including the future gardens) and public section of under-croft 3. Details of landscaping, including planting of trees required for wind mitigation (including evergreen tree to Fell Road) and detailed tree relocation statement. All landscaping, including works to Queens Gardens, to be provided prior to occupation. 4. Café (A3) unit for this purpose only (permitted development rights withdrawn) 5. Shop (A1) for use as convenience retail only and no other use within class A1 6. Details of balconies, including boundaries between the café balcony and the adjoining residential balcony, balustrade design and materials and details of screens needed for wind protection (which shall create low reflection levels in accordance with glare study) 7. Detailed design and materials of plant and lift overruns on Blocks B, C, D and E 8. Screening to be included to the tops of the plant enclosures to Blocks B, C, D and E, to consider the views from the tower and other tall buildings. 9. Detailed information on the fenestration of the ground floor, including shop fronts, optimisation of transparent glazing, signage zones and coordination and enhancement of the public realm. 10. Typical façade details at 1:1 11. Proposal for the treatment of the vehicle access gates to Fell Road.
Page 34 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
12. Detailed design information of the colonnade and soffit. 13. Window elevations to be obscure glazed as discussed in housing conditions considerations below 14. Details of window design and method of opening 15. Full details of proposed playspace 16. Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 17. Vibration risk assessment to be submitted and necessary mitigation carried out 18. Provision of cycle parking and parking prior to first occupation 19. Provision of details of cycle spaces allocated to the retail units 20. Provision of electric vehicle charging point to one parking space 21. 40% emission offset in accordance with Energy Assessment 22. Provision of dropped kerb to parking area prior to occupation 23. All units lifetime homes, 42 units wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable 24. Details of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to be submitted to demonstrate that the development is in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment, including the recommendation to limit surface water run-off and provide on-site water storage. 25. Pre-commencement intrusive site investigation to investigate potential contaminants. 26. Cease development should any previously unidentified contamination be found, and obtain written approval for a remediation strategy prior to recommencing works. 27. Provide verification of completion of remediation prior to occupation. 28. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground shall take place other than with the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. 29. No pilling or other foundation works without express consent 30. Archaeological investigation 31. Signage strategy for Queens Gardens identifying walking and cycling routes 32. Construction Logistics Plan (to include site waste management plan) and Construction Environment Management Plan 33. Delivery and Servicing Plan 34. Details of commercial unit staff cycle parking to be submitted, including location and design. 35. Submission of and compliance with detailed Travel Plan. 36. Car park oil interceptor 37. Scheme to mitigate potential for sewerage surcharge at time of storm (e.g. through provision of non-return valve. 38. Development to meet Secured by Design 2010 New Homes standard parts 1 and 2 39. Lighting strategy for both the buildings and the Queens Gardens to be submitted, provided and retained. Gardens lighting strategy to consider reuse of existing lamp standards. 40. Limitation to use of roof terraces to blocks C and E as discussed in paragraphs 7.85 and 7.86 41. The residential Management Policy to be submitted to allow consideration of security 42. Provision of CCTV to both the buildings and the Queens Gardens (including the sunken garden) 43. Detailed tree protection plan 44. Incorporate design features to make future connection to District Energy Network possible
Page 35 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
45. Plant within the buildings to be installed in accordance with recommendations of paragraph 7.3.105 of ES 46. Control of internal noise environment 47. Low emission strategy 48. Details of NOx/NO2 filters 49. Submission of Ecological Management Plan, to include details of peregrine friendly design features 50. Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning
Informatives
1) Information from Thames Water 2) Contact Croydon Cycling Champion 3) Any [other] informative(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning
That the Committee confirms that it has taken the environmental information that accompanied the application into account as required by Article 31(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 and 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.
4.4 That, if by 24 July 2014 the legal undertaking has not been completed, the Director of Planning is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
5 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
5.1 Full planning permission is sought for:
• Demolition of existing building
• The erection of five buildings –
- Block A – (south eastern location within the site) 32 storey building
- Block B – (south western location within the site) 9 storey building
- Block C – (western location within the site) 9 storey building
- Block D – (north western location within the site, adjacent to Queens Gardens) 6 storey building
- Block E – (north eastern location within the site adjacent to Queens Gardens) 13 storey building.
• The residential mix of the proposed units is expressed below:
Type of Number % of total unit
Studio 18 4.3
Page 36 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
1 bed 2 192 45.7 person
2 bed 4 169 40.2 person
3 bed 6 41 9.8 person
Total 420 100
• At ground floor level, alongside the residential entrances and residential living space, would be a café (in Block D, adjacent to the contemporary Queens Gardens) and a shop (in Block B, adjacent to the Flyover)
• The footprint of the proposed buildings would extend further northwards into the existing Queens Gardens area than that of the existing Taberner House. A new public space (‘Future Gardens’) would be provided within the centre of the development.
• The existing Queens Gardens would be refurbished, with new paths, planting and playspace provision.
Site and Surroundings
5.2 The application site, which includes Queens Gardens, is located on the western side of Park Lane and also has a substantial frontage onto the Croydon Flyover to the south. Fell Road bounds the site to the west and Katharine Street to the north. The part of the site on which the new built footprint will be formed includes an area of land within the existing Queens Gardens.
5.3 The site is partly currently occupied by Taberner House, a 19 storey building most recently used as Council Offices. The building has now been fully vacated following the relocation of staff to Bernard Weatherill House on the opposite side of Fell Road. The demolition of the building under consent (LBC Ref 13/04398/P) has commenced. The site is within Croydon Opportunity Area, a Designated Area considered Suitable for High Buildings, Archaeological Priority Zone and Area of High Density. The remainder of the site comprises Queens Gardens which is level and is designated as Local Open Land. The northern part, from the line of the existing fountain, is within the Central Croydon Conservation Area.
5.4 The surrounding area is predominantly commercial in character and is occupied by offices and civic buildings. To the north-west of the site is Croydon Town Hall, a Grade II listed building. The Clocktower of this building is a designated local landmark. To the north of the adjoining Queens Garden is Segas House, which is also Grade II listed. Chatsworth Conservation Area is located to the south of the site. The lower part of the garden, adjoining Katharine Street is also on the Local List of Parks and Gardens. There are a number of trees within the Queens Gardens, including some on the land which is proposed to be developed. There are also memorial trees throughout the Gardens.
Page 37 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
Planning History
5.5 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:
A number of applications for modifications of the existing building have been received.
11/02201/PRE A request for pre-application advice - for a new build residential scheme on the Taberner House site. The pre-application was presented to the Strategic Planning Committee on 3 occasions and the matters raised are noted in paragraph 2.1 above.
13/02049/PRE Pre-application advice given in relation to the demolition of the existing building.
13/02148/DT EIA screening opinion in relation to the demolition of the building. The LPA returned a decision that an Environmental Statement (ES) was required.
13/02803/DT EIA scoping report for the proposed demolition. Advice was issued regarding the requirements of an ES for the proposal.
13/03125/DT EIA scoping report for the proposed new build residential redevelopment scheme. Advice was issued regarding the requirements of the ES for the proposal.
13/04398/P Demolition and clearance of building above ground floor slab and associated works (Approved). Implementation of this consent has now commenced. The demolition is currently programmed to be completed by December 2014.
14/01215/A Concurrent advertisement consent application 5 x 8.4m x 2.4m hoarding graphics on pre-existing hoarding at the Taberner House Demolition Site; with 1 x graphic on the Flyover, Fell Road, and Park Lane elevation and 2 x graphics on the Queens Garden elevation.
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 proposal is referable to the London Mayor. The GLA’s Stage 1 report states that Croydon Council should be advised that the on-going regeneration of Croydon Town Centre is strongly supported and whilst the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, it currently does not fully comply with the London Plan
The comments made on each policy theme are below:
Page 38 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
• Principle of development: The proposed demolition of the existing Council offices and redevelopment of the site for a residential led mixed use scheme is supported. • Housing: The Council should also ensure that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is achieved in accordance with strategic and local policy and incorporate a review mechanism should it decide to approve the application. Further efforts should be made to increase the level of family housing. • Urban design: The overall design approach is supported but concerns are raised regarding access and public realm, the number of single aspect units (some of which are north facing) and the very small distances between some of the proposed blocks. • Inclusive access: The applicant has not demonstrated how the proposed wheelchair accessible homes would meet the standards set out in Annex 2 (Best Practice Guidance for Wheelchair Accessible Housing) of the GLA’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. Typical flat layouts and plans of the wheelchair accessible homes have not been provided to illustrate the relevant features, or plans provided showing where the wheelchair accessible homes would be located. The substantial shortfall in on-site wheelchair parking spaces is contrary to the London Plan. Appropriate plans should therefore be provided to remedy these matters and it is strongly suggested that the applicant provide a car lift to its proposed basement to very significantly increase the number of onsite disabled car parking spaces the scheme would provide. • Energy: Additional information required. • Transport: Additional information required.
Transport for London (TfL) (Statutory Consultees)
TfL have stated that:
• They support the provision of no parking spaces on the site for non-wheelchair users. • They have expressed concern about the provision of wheelchair user parking spaces off site, as users would be required to cross a busy road and the provision may not be secure. • The residential cycling stand provision is in line with the London Plan. • Allocated cycle spaces should also be provided for the staff of the commercial units. • The trip generation and mode split methodology outlined in the Environmental Statement is acceptable, but it should be noted that the development will create additional demand, as the demand associated with the previous office use remains (in its new adjoining location). • The development creates an additional public transport demand, particularly in relation to the bus and tram network. Though the impact of this one development is not very large, the cumulative impact across the Opportunity Area is significant, and therefore money is needed for future capacity enhancement. [Officer Comment – No figure has yet been identified] • The increase in cycling and walking permeability is welcomed. Signage within and around the site should be secured by S.106 contribution. • A Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) and Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) should be secured by condition. • The framework travel plan should be developed further into a detailed Travel Plan which should be secured, monitored and enforced via the S.106 Agreement.
Page 39 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
• The proposal is in general conformity with the London Plan.
Natural England (Statutory Consultee)
Natural England’s formal response referred the Council to its standing advice. Further advice was sought in relation to the evidence that Peregrine Falcons have used the existing building for perching and cache (storing/plucking prey). Natural England advised that new perching opportunities should be provided in the new build scheme and if the Local Planning Authority considers it suitable to reserve a strategy for the provision of such details by condition, then this would be acceptable.
The Environment Agency (Statutory Consultee)
The Environment Agency has stated that without conditions, the scheme would propose an unacceptable risk to the environment, due to the proximity to sensitive groundwater areas. However, with the recommended conditions, they hold no objection to the proposal. The conditions are:
1. Development in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment, including the recommendation to limit surface water run-off and provide on-site water storage. 2. Pre-commencement intrusive site investigation to investigate potential contaminants. 3. Cease development should any previously unidentified contamination be found, and obtain written approval for a remediation strategy prior to recommencing works. 4. Provide verification of completion of remediation prior to occupation. 5. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground shall take place other than with the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. 6. No pilling or other foundation works without express consent
English Heritage – Listed buildings team (Statutory Consultee)
English Heritage has made the following comments:
• There is no objection to the demolition of the existing building, but there is a concern that the proposal would detract from the setting of a range of heritage assets. • The general design approach is appropriate, but the 32 storey tower would be overly dominant. • The proposal would cause significant harm to the Municipal Building’s Clock- tower and the roofline of the Grade I listed Hospital of the Holy Trinity (Whitgift Hospital or ‘The Alms-houses’) • The Council is urged to seek a reduction in height of the tower. [Officer Comment – amended plans have been submitted since the receipt of these comments, which show the tower reduced in height by 6m. English Heritage have commented on the amended proposals indicating that while it is a positive step, they do not feel that the reduction in height fully addresses the concerns that they previously expressed and their view is that the tower would still cause significant harm to the setting of the Municipal Building’s Clocktower]. • The Environmental Statement provides an accurate and comprehensive set of views. There is concern that the views of North End South and the backdrop to the Clock-tower indicate that the proposal will not preserve or enhance the setting of these assets.
Page 40 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
English Heritage – Archaeology (Statutory Consultee)
English Heritage has stated that the Desk Based Assessment submitted with the application is acceptable and recommended a condition requiring the approval, implementation and verification of a programme of archaeological investigation. A trial trench evaluation is recommended.
Ministry of Defence
6.3 The Ministry of Defence commented that the site is outside of their safeguarding areas and they therefore hold no objection to the proposal.
Gatwick Airport
The airport’s safeguarding team commented that the site is outside of their safeguarding zone and they therefore have no aerodrome safeguarding objections.
Heathrow Airport
No objection.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
The CAA have stated that if the tallest part of the development is not more than 120m tall, the organisation does not hold any objections to the proposal. [Officer Comment: The tower is 114m tall].
Thames Water
Thames Water has made the following comments:
• Storm water should be attenuated via on or off site storage. • Consent is required from Thames Water to discharge surface water into a public sewer. • There is no objection to the proposal in sewerage infrastructure capacity terms. • The catering establishment should be fitted with a fat trap • Pilling should not take place unless express consent has been obtained, as water and sewerage infrastructure both cross the site and could be damaged. • The scheme must mitigate against the potential risk of sewerage surcharge to ground level in storm conditions, for example by the provision of a non-return valve. • An oil interceptor should be provided to the car parking area.
Metropolitan Police – Designing Out Crime Officer
The Police have made the following comments:
• There is no objection to the proposal, but it should be ensured that the detailed design meets Secured by Design New Homes 2010 Standards (specifically parts 1 and 2). • A condition is required to ensure the provision of CCTV around the development and in the gardens. The submitted scheme should include details of monitoring and management. Page 41 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
• The development should seek to reduce the likelihood of crime and antisocial behaviour. • The provision of a play space within Queens Gardens is positive and will create some overlooking of the sunken garden. • A lighting strategy is needed. • The management strategy for the development, including in relation to refuse disposal and access control, should be submitted for consideration.
LOCAL REPRESENTATION
6.3 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: 13 Objecting: 11 Supporting: 2
No of petitions received: 0
6.4 The following local groups/societies made representations:
• The Mid Croydon Conservation Area Advisory Panel [objecting]
6.5 The following Councillor made representations:
• Councillor Vidhi Mohan [supporting]
6.6 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
• The tower is too high and domineering. The design is inappropriate and will create a windy environment and cast a long shadow. • The massing and height of the proposed blocks is inappropriate and other options have not been sufficiently considered. A “U” shaped development is preferred as block D creates a barrier to openness • Part of Queens Gardens will be lost, creating a loss of amenity value, nature value and character. • The development will leave less green area • Loss of the central Queens Gardens steps • The design of the playspaces may lead to health and safety issues • The public space at the centre of the development would be claustrophobic, overshadowed and too overlooked. • There should not be flats above the link through to the public garden area at the centre of the development • The balconies will create visual clutter. • The proposal is an overdevelopment with too many flats that would damage an iconic place. • No consideration has been given to parking.
Page 42 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
• Only 6 units would provide affordable housing (OFFICER COMMENT – This is not the correct affordable housing offer. The details of the offer are discussed in part 7 below) • There would not be enough 3 bed affordable units • The centre of Croydon already has a large number of flats and a very high population density. • There are other sites which are more suitable for development • The development would not have a community feel • Small gaps between buildings inappropriate for future residents – insufficient light and privacy. • The tower may not be properly maintained if it is used as rental accommodation • The development will impact on services such as GP surgeries and schools • The proposal impact on the view adjoining the Town Hall. • The building should be dismantled rather than demolished and the material re- used. • The 13 storey block will obscure views of Bernard Weatherill House and Fairfield Halls. • The development would exceed the housing density stipulated in the London Plan. • The development does not comply with the Masterplan • The Queens Gardens is a garden not a park and does not need a café and play facilities. • The green space within the Gardens will be reduced by play facilities and hard- standing within the future gardens. • The development has not considered the re-use of the existing ornamental lamp posts. • Why has solar water heating been discounted as a renewable energy source? • Children playing may disturb stag beetle larvae. • Most of the properties will be used as second homes or convenience pads for the rich (OFFICER COMMENT: Although the tenure of the proposed units is a material consideration (e.g. affordable or private), the type of occupier is not.)
Supporting comments
• The proposal will contribute to the much needed regeneration of the area • The proposal will provide housing in the town centre • The provision of private rental stock is supported and will attract a vibrant, young community to Croydon. • The redevelopment of the Gardens and provision of retail will make the space more enjoyable and help to alleviate existing anti-social behaviour problems. • The buildings are well designed • The tower will have a positive impact on the Croydon skyline and a landmark quality
6.7 The following procedural issues were raised in representations, and are addressed below:
• The developer and the Council have failed to consider the environmental impacts of other alternatives for the development of the site (including in relation to daylight, sunlight and wind). In particular, locating the tower within the south western corner rather than the south eastern corner has not been considered,
Page 43 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
and this scenario would be likely to result in reduced environmental impacts (OFFICER COMMENT: The Council is required to determine the application which the developer has submitted, evaluating all of the impacts of the proposed development. The developer has arrived at the proposed scheme through a process of design evolution, which is described in the Design and Access Statement. They have indicated that the proposal represents the optimum solution for the site and that there are no acceptable alternative schemes. There is no requirement for the developer or the Local Planning Authority to undertake detailed assessment of every aspect of every possible alternative option for the site.) • The arboricultural report was produced in 2011 and is therefore likely to be out of date given recent bad weather (OFFICER COMMENT – As noted below, one of the trees referred to in the arboricultural report has been removed very recently due to disease and damage in the high winds experienced at the start of the year. In all other respects, the arboricultural report is considered to be sufficiently up to date.) • The documents submitted with the application contain incorrect and incomplete assertions (OFFICER COMMENT – The evaluation of the scheme contained within the submitted documents (including Environmental Statement) in some cases expresses the applicant’s opinion. Officers have assessed the factual information and reached the conclusions which are discussed in part 7 below) • No information has been provided to the public regarding the viability of the scheme (OFFICER COMMENT – The submitted viability assessment contains detailed information regarding the development finances which is commercially sensitive and is therefore treated as confidential. The viability report has been assessed by an independent specialist working on behalf of the Council and the conclusions drawn have been found to be satisfactory and suitably robust.) • The CABE pre-application comments should be made publically available (OFFICER COMMENT – The CABE comments are the property of the applicant and where obtained as part of the pre-application process. The Council does not publish pre-application material other than the comments made in Strategic Planning Committee reports at pre-application stage. No CABE comments have been submitted in relation to the application itself.) • The daylighting report is inaccurate (OFFICER COMMENT – The daylighting report has been produced in accordance with British Research Establishment guidelines. It is considered to be an accurate account upon which consideration of the daylight impacts of the development can be undertaken.) • The proposal has not been correctly publicised and further consideration should be delayed pending a proper public consultation (OFFICER COMMENT: The application has been advertised in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements and the Council’s Site Notification Procedure. Amended information which forms part of the ES has also been advertised in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011) • The Council should carry out consultation on the wider plans for Central Croydon before determining this application. (OFFICER COMMENT: The wider aspirations for the Central Croydon area are outlined in the Opportunity Area Planning Framework and the Mid Croydon Masterplan. Both documents have been adopted following public consultation.) • Various objections raised in relation to the consultation, option consideration and response process undertaken for the Mid Croydon Masterplan and the developers pre-application consultation (OFFICER COMMENT – Normal consultation was carried out on relation to the Masterplan and it is now an
Page 44 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
adopted Interim Planning Guidance document. The developers pre-application consultation was sufficient to seek the views of the public) • The images in the Design and Access Statement are misleading (OFFICER COMMENT: Plans, rather than photographic images, confirm the appearance of the development and the developer is required to build to those plans. The images contained within the Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Chapter of the Environmental Statement are verified images, which accurately portray the scheme as proposed) • The decision should not be made until after the local elections on 22 May (OFFICER COMMENT: The application has been received and validated and the Local Planning Authority is required to determine it in a timely manner)
7 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:
1. The acceptability of the development in land use terms 2. Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and upon heritage assets 3. Impact of the proposal on Queens Gardens 4. Impact on trees and ecology 5. Acceptability of proposed housing and living conditions provided 6. Impacts on adjoining occupiers 7. Environmental impacts 8. Parking and Highways considerations 9. The environmental performance of the proposed buildings
The acceptability of the development in land use terms
Demolition of the Building and Loss of Potential Office Use
7.2 At the heart of the National Planning Framework 2012 (NPPF) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which meets social, economic and environmental needs.
7.3 Policy 2.13 of the London Plan 2011 (as amended by Early Revisions 2013) identifies the centre of Croydon and its immediate surroundings as an Opportunity Area; an area which is capable of accommodating large scale development including significant amounts of employment and new housing. This is reiterated by Policy 4.1 and 4.5 which states that boroughs should promote and encourage the provision of a strong and diverse economy.
7.4 Croydon Local Plan Strategic Policies (CLP1) Policy SP1.3 states that the Council will seek to encourage growth and sustainable development, whilst Policy SP1.2 states that the Croydon Opportunity Area will be the primary location for growth.
7.5 The Croydon Opportunity Area Framework (OAPF) defines the site as being within the Mid-Croydon and Fairfield character area, which is identified as suitable for civic, community, residential and leisure uses, as well as small scale commercial uses. Figure 4.11 identifies Taberner House as a building that could be converted to other uses.
Page 45 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
7.6 Paragraph 3.43 of the Mid Croydon Masterplan (The Masterplan) deals with the Queens Gardens Neighbourhood and refers to Taberner House, stating it will be replaced by a six to nine storey courtyard development with potential for a slender residential tower up to 20 storeys. The table on Page 32 states that the base case development scenario could include retail and residential. This document and all of the other adopted Croydon Masterplans provide Interim Planning Guidance and do not represent a Development Plan Documents or Supplementary Planning Documents, nor are they referred to as such.
7.7 Taberner House is a large, vacant 1960’s office building that has never been updated to current standards. There is a surplus of such space in Central Croydon and sufficient new office floorspace already has planning permission to cover longer term needs as set out in Policy SP3.13 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies. In addition, the OAPF states a preference for the location of new office accommodation in the north-eastern part of the town centre to the east of Wellesley Road (the New Town Character Area). Furthermore, Policy SP3.2 and Table 4.3 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies do not protect Use Class B1a in the Croydon Opportunity Area. Accordingly and following the relocation of Croydon Council community functions into Bernard Wetherill House, there are no in principle land use objections to the demolition of Taberner House, in terms of the removal of existing office accommodation within this part of the town centre. Indeed, planning permission for the demolition of the existing structure has already been granted.
7.8 A representation has questioned why the building will be demolished rather than dismantled. A condition is recommended to require the submission and approval of a Construction Logistics Plan, which would include a site waste management plan. This would ensure that the developer maximises opportunities to reuse and recycle the existing building fabric. Notwithstanding this, implementation of consent 13/04398/P has already commenced, and the information submitted for that application indicated that 98% of the existing building fabric would be recycled.
Socio-economic Effects
7.9 Though it is noted that the office building will be lost, this will not result in job losses as the Council officers who previously occupied the site have been relocated to the immediately adjoining site. Jobs will be created on the site for the construction and demolition phases, in a direct, indirect and induced means. This would be a short term minor beneficial impact. The completed development would also produce a moderate beneficial long term impact on new homes provision, employment, open space and local spending. The predicted child population of the development could be accommodated in local schools and the impact on educational provision will therefore be negligible. The socio-economic impacts of the development would therefore be acceptable.
Principle of Development on Local Open Land
7.10 The principle of developing part of Queens Gardens (which is designated as Local Open Land) represents an important consideration. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF states that existing open space should not be built on unless the land is replaced by open space of equivalent or better quality and quantity elsewhere. This is reiterated by Policy 7.18 of the London Plan. Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 (CLP1) Policy SP7.2 states that the Council will protect and safeguard the borough’s local green spaces. The Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon
Page 46 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
Plan) Saved Policies 2013 Policy RO8 states that development on Local Open Land will not be permitted unless it is for outdoor activity or limited extension to existing facilities.
7.11 In addition, the Croydon Local Plan: Detailed Policies (Preferred and Alternative Options) 2013 consulted on Queens Garden being designated as a Local Green Space as defined by NPPF paragraph 77. NPPF paragraph 76 then states ‘By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances’. This proposed designation was not objected to during the consultation. However, due to the early stage of the plan in accordance with NPPF (paragraph 216) the proposed designation is awarded very limited weight.
7.12 The adopted Mid Croydon Masterplan identifies the existing Taberner House curtilage as suitable for development, plus potentially part of the Queens Gardens subject to a number of criteria being met. This is on the basis that any scheme should provide a high quality and well managed public courtyard which is open to the public for use at all times. The Masterplan also states that the site should provide a “public courtyard based residential led development to replace Taberner House”. It also states that “The development should provide a lower ‘pavilion’ building or arm of development to address Queens Gardens from the south.”
7.13 Croydon Unitary Development Plan Policy Plan Saved Policies Policy RO8 indicates that largescale residential development as proposed will not be permitted on Local Open Land if it is neither a limited extension or to provide an outdoor activity. Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 (CLP1) Policy SP7.2 states that the Council will protect and safeguard the borough’s local green spaces. The proposed scheme therefore represents a departure from these adopted policies and has been advertised as such. However, the more up to date NPPF paragraph 74 and London Plan Policy 7.18 both state that development on Local Open Land may be acceptable in other circumstances, specifically when the lost land is replaced by open space of equivalent or better quality and quantity, in a suitable location. The new land which will be provided will be immediately adjoining the existing gardens and therefore its location is deemed to be suitable. Whether the proposed new gardens overall, including the new public open space, provides an equivalent or better quality and quantity is considered below. The principle of development on Local Open Land is considered to be acceptable in these circumstances due to the material considerations and NPPF paragraph 74 and London Plan Policy 7.18 being satisfied. The advice contained within the Masterplan has been afforded only limited weight in reaching this decision.
Principle of Commercial Uses
7.14 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF states that a sequential test should be applied to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre, and not in accordance with an up to date local plan. London Plan Policy 4.7 states that retail development should be focused on sites within town centre or edge of centre locations capable of easy integration with the centre, if no town centre sites are available. CLP1 Policy SP3.9 states that the Croydon Metropolitan Centre (which the site is within) will remain the principal location for retail development. Policy SH3 of the Croydon Replacement UDP Saved Policies 2013 states that if convenience retail development is permitted outside of the Primary Shopping Area it will be
Page 47 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
controlled by the imposition of planning conditions, and that the sequential approach will be applicable for developments over 200m2.
7.15 The CLP1 Proposals Map identifies the site as being outside of the Primary Shopping Area (the boundary of which is located to the northern side of Katharine Street). Therefore, in accordance with the NPPF glossary this is an ‘edge of centre’ location for the purposes of A1 retail, which is sequentially less preferable as a site for A1 retail. The Planning Statement submitted with the application contains a sequential assessment, which indicates that 13 units within the primary shopping area provide suitable, available and viable alternatives for the retail provision. In accordance with the NPPF paragraph 24 and London Plan Policy 4.7 each of these sites are sequentially preferred locations for the retail development (A1). Therefore, the sequential test has been failed and the proposal represents a departure from the development plan. However, a departure from policy may be acceptable in some circumstances when material considerations indicate otherwise.
7.16 The proposed retail unit would be convenience retail that would be small in scale, at 242m2, and would provide an active frontage to the Flyover and the southern corner with Fell Road, which is desirable in urban design and master-planning terms. It would also fulfil a convenience function which is considered to be commensurate to the scale of the development itself, which would bring 420 additional households to the immediate vicinity. A condition would be required to ensure that the A1 unit is used for convenience only alongside the restriction of floorspace. This is essential to not undermine the comparison retail function for the retail core as defined by the OAPF and Primary Shopping Area. In light of these circumstances, material considerations and the proposed condition, the A1 unit would be acceptable and the departure from Policy justified.
7.17 The proposed A3/café unit is fully supported and is in accordance with the NPPF and the development plan as a main town centre use within a town centre. It would provide an important new facility to serve the Queens Gardens, would make a significant contribution to the activation of the space and (given its triple aspect nature), would unify the future and contemporary parts of the gardens.
Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and upon heritage assets
7.18 The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Paragraph 17 gives 17 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’. Paragraph 56 states that ‘The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people’.
7.19 Paragraph 58 identifies 6 points that decisions should aim to ensure in all development. These include adding to the overall quality of the area, establishing a strong sense of place, responding to local character and being visually attractive. Paragraph 59 states that local planning authorities should consider using design codes where they could help deliver high quality outcomes. Paragraph 61 highlights the importance of the visual appearance and architecture but also addresses the importance of connections between people and places and the natural, built and
Page 48 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
historic environment. Paragraph 63 places weight on outstanding or innovative design. Paragraph 69 seeks to promote 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.
7.20 The NPPF also refers to heritage assets in paragraph 133 which states that where a development will lead to substantial harm of a heritage asset it should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits which outweigh that harm or loss. Paragraph 134 states that a less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
7.21 London Plan 2011 (Policies 7.4 and 7.6) state that new development should be complementary to the established local character and that architecture should make a positive contribution and have a design which is appropriate to its context. CLP1 Policy SP4.1 states that developments should be of a high quality which respects and enhances local character. Policies UD2 and UD3 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan) 2006 Saved Policies require development to be of a high quality and visually appropriate design which respects the existing development pattern.
7.22 The Masterplan states that the site should provide a “public courtyard based residential led development to replace Taberner House, with a block of up to 6 storeys addressing Fell Road, The Croydon Flyover and Park Lane and the potential for a slender tower of up to 20 storeys addressing Park Lane on the south eastern corner; and a slender tower of 12 to 14 storeys on the south western corner, adjacent to the new Council Offices.” It also states that “The development should provide a lower ‘pavilion’ building or arm of development to address Queens Gardens from the south.”
7.23 Each of the design and heritage considerations in relation to the scheme is now discussed below.
Arrangement on the Site
7.24 In line with the principles of the Mid Croydon Masterplan, the development consists of a cluster of five buildings arranged as a perimeter block with a public courtyard at the centre. This would provide definition to the street edges to Fell Road, Park Lane and The Croydon Flyover. The northern edge would align with Mint Walk and Barclay Road and reinforce the civic character of Queen’s Gardens. Each of the buildings would have a physical separation from one another, optimising the pedestrian connections through the development.
7.25 The arrangement of the buildings on the site would allow for distinct character areas to be developed within the Queen’s Gardens responding to their historical evolution; the sunken gardens to the north, a contemporary park space in the centre and a new open courtyard within the residential development. The siting of the buildings would also optimise the retention of the memorial trees within the Queen’s Gardens.
7.26 On the northern edge of the development, the opening between Blocks D and E would be maximised through the addition of a generous colonnade at the eastern end of Block D. This would allow a physical and visual connection between the new courtyard area and the gardens to the north. A new route between Blocks A and B at
Page 49 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
the south of the site would improve connections with the surrounding area and new pedestrian crossing on Park Lane.
7.27 The proposed arrangement of buildings within the site would also allow a line of view from the centre of the front elevation of Fairfield Halls to the ‘Access Croydon’ area of Bernard Weatherill House which should be welcomed.
Bulk, Height and Mass
7.28 Each of the five buildings would vary in height responding to the different character areas around the site. Block D is proposed to be a six storey building and would define the southern edge of Queens Gardens and the height of this element would respond to the height of the other buildings fronting on to the Queen’s Gardens. The sixth floor would be set back to create a pavilion feature which would relate to the height of the roof of the Town Hall to the north west of the site. Blocks B and C at the south west corner of the site would be nine storeys in height and would relate to the height established by Bernard Wetherill House to the west. They would follow a similar language to Block D with the top floor being set back to create a pavilion building on top. Block E would be 13 storeys in height and would face onto Park Lane and The Queen’s Gardens. The increased height would address the wide nature of the road and open space of the park to the north. Block A would be located towards the south east comer of the site and would be a slender 32 storey tower which would act as a gateway from the south into the Croydon Metropolitan Centre.
7.29 The overall heights of the development at 6, 9,13 and 32 storeys would exceed the heights identified in the Mid Croydon Masterplan (which outlines potential for a predominantly 6 storeys with an opportunity for 12 to14 storeys on the south west corner and up to 20 storeys on the south east).
7.30 The increased height of the development is generally considered acceptable for Blocks B, C, D and E, following detailed assessment of the various views, the scale of impact on heritage assets and environmental aspects. The increased height of Block A needs to be considered in relation to its impact on the surrounding heritage assets, which are discussed in more detail below. The applicant has reduced the height of the tower through the course of the application process which has led to an improvement in various heritage asset relationships. The scheme also features lift overruns and plant rooms to the lower buildings, some of which will be particularly visible. The applicant has reduced the height of this element on Blocks B, C & D and which helps to reduce the visual impact, however the distinction between the lift over run and the roof top pavilions needs to better articulated through a change in material or line of the façade on all blocks. This element requires further design development and would be required through the imposition of a planning condition.
Appearance
7.31 Given the prominent location of the site, the proposed tall building and the impact on heritage assets, it is essential that excellent design quality is delivered. The principle of the architectural expression is based upon the articulation of the structural grid and developed through contextual analysis, which is supported.
7.32 The predominant material across the development would be brick, which is considered appropriate given the residential nature of the development, the
Page 50 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
surrounding context and the long term durability. The applicant team have been encouraged to consider a brick of a cool tone which will better compliment the surrounding palette. Further details, including samples would be required at the time when planning conditions are discharged.
7.33 A limited palette of materials is proposed in order to create a coherent language across the development, with variation introduced through the subtle manipulation of the treatment of the brick bonds and introduction of off white pre-cast concrete horizontal elements.
7.34 The design approach taken has been to create two distinct façade types; the outward and the inward facing elevations. The outward facing facades of the lower buildings propose a formal composition, achieved through vertically orientated double height openings. Linear balconies occupy the space behind creating depth and interest. The inner courtyard facades would have slender vertical piers projecting from the face of the building with horizontal off-white precast concrete bands articulated at each floor which become projecting balconies where required. The vertical piers are accentuated by arranging the brick infill panels in a herringbone bond, creating a distinct character to the new courtyard.
7.35 The roof top pavilion buildings on the lower buildings have been conceived as light weight structures, clad in dark grey anodised aluminium panels which would contrast with the lower brick buildings and relate to the slate roofs of the Municipal Buildings.
7.36 The tower façade design is a development of the inward facing elevations of the courtyard. The vertical piers would create a formal frame which would sit in the central portion of each façade, creating a cruciform shape in plan. This would increase the perceived slenderness of the tower, with the corners beyond the frame clad in glass. The detailing of the façade to the corners is of great importance to secure the quality of the design required and further information would be required through the imposition of planning conditions. The horizontal bands of off-white pre- cast concrete at every other storey would continue the language from the courtyard facing elevations of the lower buildings.
7.37 A different treatment of brick is proposed for the infill brick components which sit behind the frame to help articulate the formality of this feature. Further design development of the material would be required through the imposition of planning conditions.
7.38 The design of the top of the tower has been formed by the frame rising up beyond the main body of the building to create an elegant crown with glimpses of sky between the vertical supports. This gives the tower a distinct identity and will make a positive contribution to the Croydon skyline.
7.39 The balconies of the tower are generally projecting from the façade. In order for them not to compete with the frame as the primary façade feature, they would sit between the vertical elements. The architectural language of the balconies extends from the pre-cast horizontal bands with glass balustrades. Given the large number of balustrades on the tower the specification of the glazing should be low iron to be as transparent as possible and not detract from the overall façade composition. Throughout the application process the applicant has discussed that the underside of the balconies will be clad in off-white precast concrete to reinforce the concept of the
Page 51 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
horizontal bands, however this is not identified on the tower planning application drawings. It is important that the balconies are read as subservient to the main formal frame feature and further information on the proposed materials and details would be required through the imposition of planning conditions. It should also be noted that some balconies will be required to be fitted with glazed screens behind the railings in order to provide suitable wind conditions for their future users. The introduction of glazing to the metal balustrades should be minimised and the proposals should enhance the original design concept of the façade.
Impacts on Heritage Assets
7.40 The impact of the proposal upon surrounding designated heritage assets needs to be considered carefully. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act requires considerable weight to be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings.
7.41 There are several designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the application site, including the Town Hall (Grade II listed), Segas House (Grade II listed), Adult School Hall (Grade II listed), the Whitgift Almhouses (Grade I listed) and the Central Croydon and Chatsworth Road Conservation Areas. In addition there are several non- designated heritage assets of local significance in the vicinity of the application site including the Fairfield Halls (locally listed), Croydon College (locally listed), Friends Meeting House (locally listed) and the Queens Gardens (locally listed park).
7.42 As outlined above, the proposed height and massing of the development would differ significantly from that outlined in the Masterplan, which consisted of a public courtyard based residential led development of 6 storeys with the potential for a slender tower of up to 20 storeys on the south eastern corner and a slender tower of 12 to 14 storeys on the south western corner. In relation to impacts on surrounding heritage assets, this increase in height and massing is most pertinent, especially in respect of the tower to the south eastern corner (proposed to be 32 rather than 20 storeys). The Masterplan process included the production of a Heritage Assessment to consider the potential impacts on surrounding heritage assets as a result of proposals put forward.
7.43 The Heritage Assessment produced as part of the Masterplanning process did not identify any harmful impacts to the setting of heritage assets as a result of the proposed redevelopment of the Taberner House site. From an assessment of the views submitted with the application it is apparent however that there are some areas where the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the setting of surrounding heritage assets. This includes impacts on : i) The setting of the Croydon Town Hall. The massing of the proposed development is considered to be dominant when viewed alongside the Croydon Town Hall Clock-tower - from the junction of High Street and Katharine Street, which would disrupt the appreciation of the Clock-tower as a designated landmark. The proposed tower would also be partly visible as part of the dynamic view experienced when walking along Katharine Street.
ii) The immediate setting of the Central Croydon Conservation Area as well as long views through and beyond the Conservation Area down North End;
Page 52 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
iii) The setting of the Whitgift Almhouses when viewed from North End and from within the courtyard;
iv) Linear views from the Chatsworth Road Conservation Area along Friends Road.
English Heritage has commented on the application (including post the reduction in the height of the tower) stating that the scheme is likely to result in a significant adverse impact on the setting of the Town Hall Clock-tower and a less than substantial harm to other surrounding heritage assets including the Whitgift Alms- houses. The Environmental Statement submitted with the application indicates that the applicant considers that the proposal would have a neutral impact on the Alms- houses and a minor beneficial impact on the Town Hall Clock-tower.
7.44 The Clock-tower is likely to be the most affected heritage asset, as the proposed tower would be clearly visible within its setting. It is considered that the proposal, which has been reduced in height 6m since the submission of the application, will have a significant impact on the setting of this heritage asset when viewed from the junction between the High Street and Katharine Street. However, it is important to note that the proposed building would be viewed in a dynamic fashion rather than a static fashion from a fixed point as represented in the Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The applicant has submitted a dynamic view model to allow further consideration of this impact. When experienced as part of a dynamic view, the harmful impacts of the proposed development on the setting of the Town Hall overall are decreased by the 6m reduction in height of the tower, as the development is only glimpsed above the roofline of the building to the east of the Clocktower and would no longer visible above the apex of the projecting gables.
7.45 The relationship between the proposed tower and the Clock-tower is therefore considered to be acceptable. The impacts of the proposed scheme on all other heritage assets, including the Alms-houses, are also considered not be to substantial and when the heritage asset impacts are weighed alongside the benefits of the proposed development (especially the regenerative benefits of the development) your officers are satisfied that the proposed development would comply with policy in this regard. Notwithstanding this, it is essential that the development provides a very high design quality in relation to materials and other detailed matters at planning conditions stage, 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. In relation to the heritage impact assessment detailed in the NPPF, the perceived impacts of the development on the setting of heritage assets are considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, in relation to improvements to the Queens Gardens and the regenerative and housing benefits created by the provision of 420 new homes.
Impact of the Proposal on Queens Gardens
7.46 The policy position in relation to the impact on Local Open Land is outlined in the land use principles section above. The key test identified from the NPPF (paragraph 74) is whether the quality and quantity of Local Open Land provision remains the same or becomes better than the existing situation.
7.47 The quantity of the overall Local Open Land offer which would be publically accessible, including the links between the blocks, would be increased by the
Page 53 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
proposed scheme (from 8614 sq metres to 8906 sq metres – a difference of 292 sq metres). There would therefore be a small improvement in the quantity of local open land and this requirement of the NPPF test has been met.
7.48 A representation has commented that the overall access to "green” space would be reduced as a result of the proposal. Whilst this comment is factually correct, such a reduction is supported as the new play space and hard-standing within the courtyard would be appropriate within the context of the new gardens, which would directly adjoin residential accommodation and would need to withstand increasing demand from a growing population within Central Croydon. The policy requirement relates to Local Open Land, rather than “green land”.
7.49 A number of factors are relevant to the assessment of whether the quality of the gardens is equal to or better than that of the existing gardens. These are the connectivity between the linked spaces which are now proposed, the provision of facilities, suitable layout and landscaping, the wind impacts and the sunlight impacts. Each of these factors are discussed below
The connectivity between the spaces
7.50 The development has sought to maximise the connectivity between the three spaces within the gardens (historic, contemporary and future). On the northern edge of the residential building development the opening between Blocks D and E has been maximised through the addition of a generous colonnade at the eastern end of Block D. The building to building separation distance would be substantial at 24.5m, plus 10.5m within the colonnade, creating total separation of 35m. This allows a physical and visual connection between the new courtyard area and the gardens to the north. This connectivity is increased by the siting of the triple aspect café, as discussed in above. The new development proposes trees, planting and a large grassed ‘green wedge’ that will integrate the future gardens at the centre of the proposed development into the existing character and setting of Queens Gardens. This is fully supported.
The Provision of Facilities, Suitable Layout and Landscaping
7.51 The landscape proposals for the future gardens area and the wider proposals to improve Queens Gardens are supported and represent one of the most significant public benefits provided by the scheme overall. The proposals for Queens Gardens are a positive step to ensuring that this important green space in the centre of Croydon is used to its full potential now and in the future and build on the existing quality and character of the space. Small changes are proposed within the historic sunken area, but the historical integrity of the space and adjoining wall would be retained.
7.52 The introduction of a new set of stairs at the corner of Katherine Street and Fell Road will encourage people to access the lower parts of the gardens where new planting will complement the existing. A new local play space incorporated into the existing slope of the Gardens will bring a new facility to the Gardens which will cater for increasing demand. The play facilities would meet the needs of both the new development and support the growing local community. A new level access to the sunken gardens area which would meet contemporary accessibility standards and would be suitable for wheelchair users should also be welcomed. The inclusion of
Page 54 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
informal play facilities and water features within the future gardens should further improve the quality and usability of this space and the provision of a café will also make a significant new contribution to the quality of the amenity offer of the Gardens, allowing refreshment to be obtained easily by future users, as well as increasing overlooking of the space. Whilst the proposed development will lead to the loss of trees, replacement tree planting is proposed that will complement the existing setting. This is discussed in more detail in relation to the overall impacts on trees which are described below.
7.53 A representation has questioned the provision of play facilities and a café within the Queens Gardens and has questioned the overall level of green space, as opposed to hard-standing. However, the provision of playspace is considered to be of central importance given that the child population of the Borough is predicated to increase significantly. The Gardens are considered to be an appropriate space for such a provision. A representation has also questioned why the existing ornamental lamp standards would not be reused. The details of the proposed lighting within the Gardens have been reserved by condition. A planning condition is recommended which requires the developer to consider whether the existing lighting columns can be retained.
Impact on Wind Conditions
7.54 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.
7.55 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application indicates that there would be an improvement in wind conditions for the Gardens. The Lawson Comfort Categories mapping (the industry standard for assessing wind impacts) indicates that currently the majority of the Gardens and particularly those parts further from the building which receive the most sunlight, are considered suitable for pedestrian walk through only and do not meet the more comfortable conditions required for pedestrian standing. Within the proposed scheme however, almost all of the sunken and contemporary gardens area would obtain wind conditions suitable for pedestrian standing or sitting. This represents a material improvement in the usability of the space.
7.56 The wind conditions within the proposed courtyard would be mixed and an area to the south-east of this area would be unsuitable for pedestrian standing in accordance with the Lawson Comfort Criteria. Pedestrian movements would therefore be higher in this area, but it is noted that the wind conditions would be similar to those provided throughout much of the green-space within Queens Gardens currently. Small sections near to Block A (the tower) would be unsuitable for pedestrian walkthrough, but it is considered that the proposed planting in the surrounding area would be sufficient to mitigate these impacts. The wind conditions throughout the new Queens Gardens would therefore be acceptable.
Impact on Sunlight
Page 55 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
7.57 The British Research Establishment (BRE) publication ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight 2011’ states that 21 March should be used as an assessment point for overshadowing impacts, given that it provides an average as it is mid-year in sun-lighting terms. The standard requires that over 50% of parks and open spaces should receive sunlight for at least 2 hours on this day and where a change is proposed, new development must not result in a reduction in the area with 2 or more hours of sunlight of more than 20%. This is on the basis that a reduction of 20% is considered less likely to be significant or perceived by users.
7.58 The Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF, paragraphs 6.21-6.24) states, in relation to determining sunlight and daylight impacts, that regard should be had to the above document and that new development will inevitably result in some level of overshadowing and overlooking of neighbouring properties and amenity spaces. It also states that it should be ensured that the use of existing open areas such as parks and open spaces should not be prejudiced from an inappropriate loss of sunlight from new developments. New development should seek to ensure that such spaces receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21 March at their centre or over the majority of their area.
7.59 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application considers the impact of overshadowing in relation to the gardens. It concludes that there would be a minor reduction in the total area of the proposed gardens which would receive 2 hours or more sunlight on March 21st. This reduction in sunlight access is stated to be from 6- 8% and the impact is defined as minor adverse.
7.60 This reduction would be significantly below the 20% level which the BRE publication indicates is acceptable as good practice and therefore would be unlikely to be perceived by users of the space.
7.61 The proportion of the new proposed gardens (including the historic gardens, the contemporary gardens and the future gardens) which would not receive sunlight for 2 hours or more on 21st March would be 29.7%, which is significantly below the 50% indicated as a general minimum acceptable level in both the BRE publication and the OAPF. The proposed courtyard form of development, which is the preferred form in townscape terms, would inevitably result in shaded areas. Conversely, it is noted that there will be some localised increases in hours of sunlight, particularly in the historic sunken gardens area.
7.62 Although the proposal would result in a minor net loss of sunlight hours to the gardens, this would be comfortably within good practice assessment standards for overshadowing. When all of the factors relevant to the quality of the gardens are taken into consideration (including the minor loss of sunlight, the material improvement in wind conditions, the provision of new facilities such as play space and a café and the significant improvements in terms of soft landscaping and altered path layout) the overall impact of the proposed development on the Queens Gardens is considered to be positive and acceptable.
Impact on Trees and Ecology
7.63 London Plan Policy 7.21 states that trees of value should be retained and where loss is unavoidable, they should be replaced with high quality trees in the correct location.
Page 56 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
Croydon UDP Policy NC4 states that the loss of trees of value should only be accepted where a development will bring significant regenerative benefits.
7.64 The proposed new building would result in some loss of trees. A total of 10 would need to be removed as a result of the proposed buildings, excluding a 11th tree which is currently shown on the plans (a Horse Chestnut) which was recently removed from the site due to a widespread fungal infection and damage during the strong winds experienced earlier in the year. Of the trees lost, 5 would be Category B trees and 2 Category A trees. Some trees within the contemporary and sunken gardens area would be relocated and some would be removed to reduce overcrowding and thin poor specimens.
7.65 The five memorial trees, which are of high importance, are shown as being retained, although two of the smaller trees (a Beech immediately adjacent to the existing eastern wing of Taberner House, and a Maidenhair tree near to the existing fountain) would be relocated to a less crowded position. The arboricultural assessment indicates that the root protection zones of these trees of high civic value would be unaffected by the development.
7.66 The arboricultural report and tree survey is a fair assessment of the current tree stock and its condition. It is considered to be an accurate assessment which is sufficiently up to date. The trees have been categorised in accordance with BS5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction.
7.67 One of the Category A trees (a large Horse Chestnut) is not in an area covered by proposed building footprint, However it is felt that its loss is necessary as it enables an acceptable link between the existing and future Queens Gardens to be achieved.
7.68 When considering the scheme overall, the loss of trees is considered to be acceptable. The vast majority of trees within the Gardens would remain, as would the trees of highest amenity value (the memorial trees). The section of Queens Gardens within which the 10 trees would be lost has been identified in the Mid Croydon Masterplan as potentially suitable for development. Pre-application efforts to retain both of the Category A trees have resulted in problematic layouts, which would have led to pressure from future residents for felling to improve outlook and residential internal light levels. The scheme would re-provide a number of trees within the site, including within the courtyard area. It should also be noted that the scheme would bring other significant public benefits, including improvement to the facilities in the Gardens and a contribution of 420 residential units towards the Council’s housing targets.
Acceptability of Proposed Housing and Living Conditions for Future Occupiers
Density of Development
7.69 London Plan Policy 3.4 states that development should maximise housing output for its location in accordance with a density matrix. The site is considered to be within a Central Location with excellent public transport accessibility and it is therefore suitable for 650-1100 habitable rooms per hectare (hrh). The guidance in the London Plan does not indicate clearly whether existing public open spaces included within a site should be included within the density calculations, but does indicate that calculations should include internal roads and ancillary open spaces. It does however state that it is not appropriate to apply the density matrix mechanistically.
Page 57 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
7.70 The site, which includes Queens Gardens, has an area of 1.279ha, indicating a density of 894hrh. This is within the range that is considered suitable in the London Plan. The density of the ‘developed area’ including the buildings and future gardens is 0.586 ha, indicating a density of 1944hrh, which would exceed the range indicated as generally suitable in the London Plan. Therefore, if the Queens Gardens is not considered to be ancillary to the development, the density range would be exceeded. Notwithstanding this, your officers are satisfied that the proposed density would be acceptable, with the scheme being acceptable on the basis of local impacts in relation to other factors such as townscape and environmental conditions.
Unit Mix
7.71 CLP1 Policy SP2.5 seeks to secure the provision of family housing and states that the Council aspiration for 20% of all new homes within the Croydon Opportunity Area having three or more bedrooms and 35% of all two bedroom homes having four bedspaces. The Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) indicates that developments within the Mid-Croydon zone should aim to provide 20% of units with 3 bedrooms or more. The Masterplan also identifies the site as suitable for a mix of new homes, including family homes.
7.72 The unit mix of the development is reproduced below for ease of reference:
Type of unit Number % of total
Studio 18 4.3
1 bed 2 person 192 45.7
2 bed 4 person 169 40.2
3 bed 6 person 41 9.8
Total 420 100
7.73 The unit mix indicates that the 20% target for 3 bedroom plus size units would not be met and the GLA has raised concern regarding this provision. However, the applicant has indicated that current market demand is unlikely to enable them to provide more than the currently proposed level of three bedroom units and the proposed development is viability driven to a certain extent. On the basis that all of the 2 bedroom units would be suitable for 4 persons (thus significantly exceeding the 35% CLP1 target) the proposed proportion of family housing is considered acceptable. The mix overall is also considered acceptable and the proportion of studio units at 4.3% would not be disproportionate.
Affordable Housing Provision
7.74 London Plan Policies 3.10-3.13 require boroughs to seek to maximise affordable housing provision. Policy SP2.4 of the Croydon Local Plan Strategic Policies (CLP1) 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
Page 58 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
fully verified in order to justify any reduced provision. A minimum of 10% of the units provided on a site in the Croydon Opportunity Area should be in the form of affordable housing. An offsite provision or a commuted sum equivalent to the provision of a further 5% should also be provided where this is not possible on-site, bringing the total provision to a minimum of 15%. Policy SP2.4 also indicates a 60:40 tenure split within the affordable housing provision (between affordable rent and intermediate housing - including shared ownership).
7.75 In relation to affordable housing, the proposal would provide:
• a total of 60 units. 15% of homes (by habitable room) to be provided as affordable housing, all to be delivered on site • Tenure mix: 61% affordable rent and 39% intermediate housing (by habitable room) • The affordable housing is proposed to be spread throughout the mid-rise blocks (blocks B-E). • 10% of affordable units to be provided as 3 bed units (in line with the proportion of 3 bed units across the scheme as a whole) • All 2 bed units to be provided as 4 person units
7.76 A viability report has been submitted with the application and indicates that the above affordable housing offer would exceed the development viability and therefore the level of affordable housing would be clearly maximised. This report is a confidential document as it is commercially sensitive, but it has been interrogated by an independent expert commissioned by the Council and the conclusions drawn have been agreed.
7.77 At this stage there is uncertainty as to whether a Community Infrastructure Levi (CIL) discount will be applicable (should consent be granted) in relation to the existing floorspace of Taberner House. This is because this matter would be dependent upon the level of progression of the demolition at the time the final decision notice is released. As a CIL figure is presumed within the viability assessment, there is potential for a lower figure to have a positive impact on viability. Therefore, the minimum possible CIL requirement, based on a full discount for all existing floorspace in accordance with the applicant’s figures, has been calculated. Although this potential lower CIL requirement would have a positive impact on viability, the proposed 15% affordable housing offer would continue to exceed the scheme viability. The maximum viable level of affordable housing would therefore be provided in all CIL scenarios. This has been confirmed by the Council’s independent assessor.
7.78 The independent assessor has also commented that the demolition costs which are presumed in the viability assessment are comparable to similar developments and do not appear unreasonable.
7.79 The proposed affordable housing provision is therefore acceptable and in accordance with policy requirements.
Residential Standards
7.80 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
Page 59 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
level which is commensurate with that provided in the surrounding area. 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 5m2 of private amenity space should be provided for each one bedroom unit, with a further 1m2 provided for each additional occupant. Standard 4.10.3 states that the minimum length and depth of areas of private amenity space should be 1.5m, 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.
7.81 Standard 5.1.1 states that habitable rooms should be provided with suitable privacy. 18-21m is indicated as a suitable minimum distance between facing habitable rooms, although the standard notes that “adhering rigidly to these measures can limit the variety of urban spaces and housing types in the city, and can sometimes unnecessarily restrict density.” According to Housing SPG standard 1.2.2, the development is required to make appropriate play provisions in accordance with a GLA formula and calculation tool.
7.82 All of the proposed units 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 of the units within the lower blocks would also meet the requirements outlined in the Housing SPG in relation to amenity space quantum and minimum dimensions. 118 of the units within the tower would have private amenity space which would meet the standards outlined in the Housing SPG. However, the remaining 112 units would not provide the required private amenity space. However, this is considered acceptable as the proposed development would provide an amenity floor (which would contain study space, fitness facilities, a resident’s lounge and meeting rooms). This could be successfully operated to provide a suitable alternative, given that the tower is proposed to be used to provide private rental accommodation and would therefore be a managed environment.
7.83 The Environmental Statement wind assessment notes that a number of the balconies, particularly on the tower, would not obtain suitable wind conditions for the proposed amenity use without mitigation. It is therefore recommended that a condition is attached requiring the submission for approval and provision of wind mitigation measures (including raised balustrade height, or the provision of acoustic screening.
7.84 The spaces between the north and south elevations of Block C and the adjoining blocks would have a separation of only 4.5m and that between Block A (32 storeys) and E (13 storeys) would be 7.5m. These distances are not normally considered sufficient to maintain privacy with unobscured windows. However, this matter could be addressed by limiting outlook to some elevations especially a number of the rooms/units would have dual aspect.
7.85 Therefore, a planning condition is recommended to require all windows within the north and south elevation of Block C to be obscure glazed. All of the windows affected would be secondary windows to living rooms and therefore outlook to these rooms would not be unacceptably impacted by the imposition of such a condition. The exception to the condition above would be that the level 1 bedrooms to both flanks (3 bedrooms in total) which would not be required to be obscure glazed as
Page 60 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
they would face onto stairways rather than other habitable rooms. The 9th floor (level 8) set back to Block C (facing onto Blocks B and D) would also be excluded from use as a roof terrace through the imposition of a planning condition.
7.86 With Blocks A and E, the proposed overlooking relationship would be most appropriately managed through the use of a planning condition, requiring the lower part of the window to be obscure glazed. This would retain a level of outlook but also increase privacy for the occupiers of the rooms. In both blocks, the central windows are to bedrooms and as 4 bedrooms are affected in Block A and 2 bedrooms in Block E, it is recommended that the required obscuring should be to the southern flank of Block E (which would include single and dual aspect bedrooms at first floor level and single aspect bedrooms and dual aspect living rooms within the upper levels. The 13th floor (level 12) set back to Block E (facing onto Block A) would also be excluded from use as a roof terrace through the imposition of a planning condition.
7.87 With the above recommended conditions, the mutual overlooking relationship would be acceptable.
7.88 Daylighting conditions within the proposed units also need to be considered. The OAPF notes that “It is recognised that in heavily built up areas such as the Croydon Opportunity Area, new development will inevitably result in some level of overshadowing and overlooking of neighbouring properties and amenity spaces. It should be noted that the existing pattern of development in the central part of the COA is not conducive to the application of normal planning guidelines for sunlight and daylight. As such, as part of new development proposals, there will need to be a flexible approach to the protection of natural light for existing properties.” This approach applies equally to light levels within a development as it does to existing properties.
7.89 As discussed above, the windows to Block C which would look out over the 4.5m link would be secondary windows to living spaces, with main windows to the east and west elevations. Those opposite within Blocks B and D would be bedrooms and would be located near to the outer edge of Block C where daylight would not be reduced as significantly as it would in the centre of the elevation. All central windows within the facing elevations of Blocks A and E which adjoin the 8.5m link would be to bedrooms and all affected units in these blocks would have dual aspect. On this basis and given the flexible approach in relation to daylight within the Opportunity Area, the daylighting conditions to the proposed units are considered to be acceptable.
7.90 The required play space provision for this development is approximately 598m2, which should be split between a 341m2 ‘doorstep’ provision for children of 0 to 5 years in age and a 257m2 provision for older children. The doorstep provision would be met within a play area with seating for younger children of 341m2 in the future gardens. A minimum of 257m2 of playspace for older children would be provided within the contemporary gardens. Both areas would also be fully accessible to members of public who do not live within the development. The playspace requirements for the scheme would therefore comply with policy with sufficient playspace to meet the needs of both younger and older children.
Impacts on Adjoining Occupiers
Page 61 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
7.91 One of the core planning principles (paragraph 17) in the NPPF 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 seeks to respect and enhance character to create sustainable communities and enhance social cohesion and wellbeing. Croydon Plan Policy UD8 states that the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers should be protected.
7.92 The majority of the buildings which surround the site are civic, commercial or religious premises. The nearest residential accommodation to the proposed building are to the opposite side of the Park Lane Gyratory within the upper floors of 69 Park Lane, which is 80m from the eastern boundary of the site. Given these large separation distances it is not anticipated that the outlook of these residencies would be adversely affect by the proposal and there would not be significant potential for overlooking. Other matters in relation to adjoining occupier amenity (noise and light) are considered as environmental impacts and are discussed below.
Environmental impacts
7.93 The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which has been assessed and found to be acceptable in its scope and analysis.
7.94 Each of the environmental impacts of the development, which are described in the Environmental Statement, are each considered in detail below. However, specific environmental impacts are discussed elsewhere is this report, including wind and sun-lighting impacts on Queens Gardens, socio economic effects, wind conditions on the balconies, impact on cultural heritage (in heritage assets section), trees and transportation impacts and are not repeated here.
Noise and Vibration
7.95 London Plan Policy 7.15 states that development proposals should seek to minimise the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within or in the vicinity of development proposals. 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.
7.96 With mitigation there is potential that the construction phase of the development could result in minor to moderate adverse noise and vibration impacts. However, the imposition of planning conditions requiring a vibration survey and adherence to a Construction Logistics Plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan would ensure that these effects are suitably mitigate, thereby rendering the effects minor adverse or negligible. Given that they would be temporary in duration this is acceptable.
7.97 Once constructed (in what is referred to as the operational phase) the development would be unlikely to result in any significant noise or vibration impacts that would affect adjoining occupiers, particularly if plant is installed in accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental Statement. This is acceptable.
Page 62 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
7.98 Suitable noise conditions for future occupants could be ensured through the imposition of a suitable condition.
Air Quality
7.99 London Plan Policy 7.14 states that developments should look to minimised increased exposure to existing poor air quality and seek to contribute to addressing local air quality problems. CLP1 Policy SP6.3 states that development should positively contribute to improving air quality. Croydon UDP 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.
7.100 The centre of Croydon is within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).
7.101 There is a high risk of adverse air quality impacts if no measures were put in place to mitigate the impacts of the construction phase. However, with the submission of and adherence to a suitable Construction Logistics Plan, the air quality impact of construction would be acceptable. Air quality impacts on all receptors (including residencies both within and around the site) during the operational phase are acceptable if the submission of a Low Emission Strategy and details of NOx and NO2 filters is secured by condition.
Wind Microclimate in relation to Pedestrian Footways
7.102 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.
7.103 The development would result in a section of Fell Road to the south western corner of the site where there would be an inappropriate wind environment, which would also be the case for very small areas within the pedestrian links to either side of the tower. The Environmental Statement recommends that an evergreen tree or other suitable structure is provided to Fell Road in order to mitigate the wind conditions, and indicates that existing and proposed planting will be sufficient to improve wind climate in the links within the site. With the imposition of a condition for details of the Fell Road evergreen tree, the wind impact of the development in the Highway will be acceptable.
Daylight and Sunlight
7.104 One of the core planning principles (paragraph 17) in the NPPF 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.
Page 63 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
7.105 The OAPF (paragraphs 6.21-6.25) states that it is important to ensure that any adverse effects from loss of sunlight and daylight to residential occupiers is minimised. The document goes on to state that: “It is recognised that in heavily built up areas such as the Croydon Opportunity Area, new development will inevitably result in some level of overshadowing and overlooking of neighbouring properties and amenity spaces. It should be noted that the existing pattern of development in the central part of the COA is not conducive to the application of normal planning guidelines for sunlight and daylight. As such, as part of new development proposals, there will need to be a flexible approach to the protection of natural light for existing properties.”
7.106 The Environmental Statement considers both the daylighting and sunlighting impacts of the development upon the surrounding buildings. The surrounding buildings are predominantly commercial, civic or religious institutions, but there are some residential buildings at 69 Park Lane (which is a mixed use building that also contains offices) and Skyline Court to the south west of the site on Park Lane. The studies performed in the ES indicate that there would be a low to negligible daylight reduction and a low overshadowing increase to both 69 Park Lane and Skyline Court, indicating that the impacts would be minor adverse, or negligible. Given that these impacts would be minor, and given the need for some flexibility in relation to lighting conditions for existing properties described in the NPPF, these impacts are acceptable.
7.107 Bernard Weatherill House would experience a moderate loss of daylight, but given that this is a commercial building it is not subject to the same protection as residential premises.
Ground Conditions and Contamination
7.108 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.
7.109 The Environmental Statement identifies potential contamination risks. In order to ensure that further investigation is undertaken to determine the nature of potential risks an intrusive site investigation must be undertaken and any necessary mitigation/remediation carried out. The Environment Agency has indicated several conditions which would be necessary to ensure that this matter is fully controlled post determination, and these conditions are recommended. As such, the development would not have an unacceptable impact in this regard.
Surface Water Drainage and Flooding
7.110 London Plan Policy 5.12 states that development proposals must meet flood risk assessment and management requirements. CLP1 Policy SP6.4 states that the Council will seek to reduce flood risk and protect groundwater and aquifers.
7.111 The Environmental Statement considers the impact of the development upon flood risk, surface water drainage and groundwater. It concludes that the completion of a detailed contaminated land assessment following intrusive investigation and the
Page 64 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
provision of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems to reduce surface water run-off, the development would have an acceptable impact. This conclusion is supported by the Environment Agency and conditions are recommended to ensure that the proposed mitigation is secured.
Nature Conservation
7.112 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. 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.
7.113 The development would result in the loss of the existing building, which has some habitat value for birds and some loss of trees and vegetation which provides habitat for a number of different species. The Environmental Statement indicates that the development has the potential to have a significant adverse impact upon ecology during the construction phase, including through the loss of breeding bird habitat due to the removal of some trees and the existing building, the loss of invertebrate habitat within the historic garden and the loss of bat foraging habitat. However, a suitable Ecological Management Plan could be secured by condition in order to minimise these impacts as much as possible. This should contain measures as recommended in the statement, including adherence to tree protection requirements and clearance of trees and shrubs outside of the bird nesting season (March to August). With the submission of such a plan secured, given that the construction phase would not be permanent in nature, and that new trees and habitats would be provided upon completion, the impact on ecology during construction is considered acceptable.
7.114 It is of note that there is some evidence that peregrine falcons, a schedule 1 protected species, have been using the existing building as a feeding perch. As the existing building would be demolished, this perching place would be lost. It is therefore recommended that suitable opportunities for peregrine perching, and potentially nesting and roosting, are included in the detailed design of the proposed 32 storey building. It is recommended that this is secured by condition.
7.115 The Environmental Statement also indicates that the development could have an adverse impact on ecology after completion, as increased use of the gardens for amenity could result in indirect deterioration of habitats. This could however be controlled by the Ecological Management Plan, which may incorporate features such as signage ensuring users are aware of the ecological value of particular places. As such, the ecological impacts of the proposed development are acceptable.
7.116 A representation has commented that children playing may disturb stag beetle larvae. This impact is not considered to be a material risk to the overall ecological value of the site.
Electronic Interference
Page 65 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
7.117 The Environmental Statement indicates that the development may result in a reduction in terrestrial television signals to properties to the south west of the site. Mitigation of this affect is recommended to be secured via the legal undertaking, and on this basis the development will have no negative impact upon electronic signals.
Aviation
7.118 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application indicates that there is no significant likelihood that the development will lead to an aviation risk. The Civil Aviation Authority has also commented that buildings below 120m are unlikely to result in objection, and the proposed tallest building is 114m. On this basis the impact on aviation is acceptable.
Glare
7.119 An addendum to the submitted Environmental Statement considers the potential impacts of the development on glare (reflected light, which may be hazardous to vehicles). In relation to the construction phase, it concludes that there is some potential for random placement of plant with reflective qualities to result in a level of glare which is minor or negligible. Given that the construction phase is temporary and impacts are likely to be transitory, this is acceptable. In relation to the completed development (the operational phase) it concludes that there is a potential for reflected solar glare for limited periods only.
7.120 There is more potential for ‘disability glare’ in the view of motorists, particularly those travelling north on Park Lane. However, this is a similar level of glare to that which is present with the existing building and would be limited in duration (typically, to less than an hour). This impact is considered minor to moderate adverse. Glare to some locations could also be mitigated against by the use of low reflectivity materials on the balconies within the proposed scheme. With the necessary mitigation, the impact of the proposal on glare conditions will be acceptable.
Parking and Highways Considerations
7.121 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. The site is in close proximity to East Croydon Rail, Bus and Tram Stations and within an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 6B, indicating excellent accessibility. Disabled parking spaces are required by Policy 6.13 of the London Plan and the accompanying Housing SPG.
7.122 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.
7.123 The subject site is in an area with a PTAL accessibility rating of 6b (on a scale of 1a - 6b, where 6b is the most accessible) as indicated on maps produced by TfL. The site is therefore considered to have an excellent level of accessibility to public transport links. The development proposes the provision of 3 spaces on site, which Page 66 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
would all be marked out with a layout which is suitable for blue badge users and would be allocated to the wheelchair adapted flats. Due to the excellent PTAL the proposal to make no parking provision for occupiers without a mobility limiting disability is supported. The Housing SPG indicates that a space should be provided for each wheelchair accessible or adaptable unit (10% of units) which equates to 42 spaces for this development. The provision of 3 on site spaces is clearly below the disabled car parking standard. However, given the constraints of the site posed by limitations to new access opportunities and the desire to maintain the courtyard space as free from all vehicles, the provision is considered acceptable.
7.124 Should there be a demand from wheelchair users who live within the development for additional spaces, the developer is prepared to accept a requirement to provide up to an additional 20 spaces off site within the Fairfield Halls Car Park, which is accessed from the historic sunken section of the garden. This provision would be secured through the legal undertaking. This would be an acceptable alternative to the provision of further on-site spaces given that a new level path would be provided to the existing subway entrance through Queens Gardens. Wheelchair users would need to travel 160m from the northernmost part of the development to these off-site spaces along the new path which, although not ideal, would be a reasonable travel distance and would not require delay through crossing major roads. The proposed level of parking is therefore acceptable under the circumstances.
7.125 It is noted that the siting of the proposed 3 on site spaces would require users to reverse out onto Fell Road. Given the spacing of the pillars proposed to frame the parking space access, the spaces would fail to provide visibility splays measuring 1.5m with no obstruction above the height of 0.6m. However, a sufficient level of pedestrian visibility would remain around the pillars and any potential minor harm to safety and efficiency of the highway is outweighed by a number of other factors. In particular, the provision of these spaces on site for wheelchair users is very important and opportunities for on-site parking elsewhere within the site are very limited. In addition, the desire to maintain the pillars in order to maintain the visual integrity of the design with the remainder of the buildings is also an important factor. When the scheme overall is considered, the proposed parking layout would therefore be acceptable.
7.126 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application provides a Transport Assessment and considers the trip generation impacts of the development. It concludes that the development is not likely to result in a level of additional trips, either through private vehicle or public transport that would have a significant detrimental impact on highways efficiency. TfL have commented that the additional trip demand in relation to the bus and tram network is likely to be such that a financial contribution is required to offset the development. Confirmation of the amount required and how it is related to the development has not yet been received. If this is received prior to the determination of the application, the Council will seek to secure the required amount through the legal undertaking. However, the scheme is already being challenged in terms of viability and this will need to be taken into account as part on on-going negotiations.
7.127 In accordance with the minimum parking standards, the development is required to provide 461 cycle spaces to service the residents of the flats. This provision would be met in a secure form that would be integrated into the building, which is supported. An additional 30 spaces would be provided within the public realm for
Page 67 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
use by visitors to the gardens and users of the café and shop. The details of spaces to be provided for the staff of the commercial units have not been submitted, and a planning condition to secure this is therefore recommended. The cycle parking provision is therefore acceptable. The provision of cycle routes across the site is also supported.
7.128 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. As three spaces would be provided, one should be fitted with an electric vehicle charging point. It should be noted that this space would not however be publically accessible, as the parking would be enclosed for reasons of safety and security.
7.129 The applicant has submitted a framework travel plan with the application, and compliance with this plan can be secured by condition. The applicant will also seek to make a car club provision.
The environmental performance of the proposed buildings
7.130 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 shaping places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impact of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure’.
7.131 Policies 5.2 and 5.3 of the London Plan 2011 state that development proposals should minimise carbon dioxide emissions and exhibit the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, whilst policy 5.7 states that they should provide on-site renewable energy generation. Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 is sought for residential buildings. A reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 25% over the Target Emission Rate (as outlined in the Building Regulations 2010) is sought for the 2010 to 2013 period. CLP1 Policy SP6.2 requires developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide in line with the London Plan Policy.
7.132 London Plan policy 5.5 states that boroughs should seek to create decentralised energy networks, whilst Policy 5.6 requires development proposals to connect to an existing heating network as a first preference if one is available.
7.133 It is proposed that the development would be gas fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system which would provide site wide communal heating. This is supported, and would allow the development to connect to a wider communal heating system should one become available in the area.
7.134 The Sustainability Statement and Energy Statement submitted with the application indicate that the scheme should be able to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 across the residential development. The scheme is anticipated to result in a reduction of 40% of carbon dioxide emissions relative to the baseline provided by the 2010 Building Regulations. The development would therefore comply with the policy sustainability requirements and would have an acceptable impact in this regard.
Page 68 of 70 APPENDIX A – Item 8.2 – Planning Committee 3 September 2014
7.135 A representation has questioned why the provision of solar water heating has been discounted. This provision has been discounted by the applicant as it is not cost efficient and may interact poorly with the proposed CHP. The development meets the full policy requirements in terms of energy and sustainability and is not required to exceed this requirement on site by the provision of multiple energy generation/saving technologies.
Other Planning Issues
7.135 All planning matters raised are discussed in the considerations outlined above.
Conclusions
7.136 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 69 of 70 This page is intentionally blank
Page 70 of 70