planning report PDU/2909/01 14 August 2012 300 Purley Way,Croydon in the London Borough of Croydon planning application no.12/01776/P
Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008
The proposal
Outline application for the redevelopment of the site for a 5,425 sq.m.(Class A1 retail) Tesco store with associated car parking, class A3 cafe (17 sq.m.) and 1,732 sq.m. of flexible B1 employment space. With matters relating to appearance, layout and scale to be determined at a later date. Details pertaining to access and landscaping are submitted for determination at stage 1 so are unreserved. The scheme is not proposed to be brought forward until 2020 when John Lewis vacates the site
Details facilitating the partial de-culverting of the River Wandle are submitted for determination at this stage. The applicant The applicant is Tesco Supermarkets Ltd and the agent is GL Hearn.
Strategic issues The principle of the proposed development and mix of uses; loss of Strategic Industrial Location land and out of centre retail provision.
Other issues that need to be addressed before the application is referred back to the mayor at stage two relate to urban design, inclusive access, climate change mitigation and transport.
Recommendation That Croydon Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 109 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 111 of this report could address these deficiencies.
Context
1 On 9 July 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Croydon Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 15 August 2012 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 1 he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.
2 The application is referable under Category 1B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:
Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings— outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres 3 Once Croydon Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.
4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.
5 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description
6 The site is located to the west of Purley Way (A23), to the south is the back of a residential terrace on Mill Lane and Waddon Ponds, to the north is Currys and Toys R Us store and to west is an industrial park. The site is presently occupied by a John Lewis at Home Store. The River Wandle flows in culvert to the north and west of the site.
7 The site is located approximately 1.2km south-west of Croydon Town Centre, and is bounded by the A23 Purley Way which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) to the east, and by Mill Lane, a borough controlled road, to the south. The site is directly served by two bus routes (289 and 455), with stops located outside the site along Purley Way. A further two bus routes (407 and 410) are also located within an acceptable walking distance on Waddon Road. The site is additionally located 550m east of Wandle Park Tramlink stop on the Wimbledon branch of the network, with Waddon railway station located 725m south of the development. As such it has been demonstrated that the site records a moderate to good Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3-4, on a scale of 1-6 where 6 is the highest.
Details of the proposal
8 Outline application for the redevelopment of the site for a 5,425 sq.m.(Class A1 retail) Tesco store with associated car parking, class A3 cafe (17 sq.m.) and 1,732 sq.m. of flexible B1 employment space. With matters relating to appearance, layout and scale to be determined at a later date. Details pertaining to access and landscaping are submitted for determination at stage 1 so are unreserved. The scheme is not proposed to be brought forward until 2020 when John Lewis vacates the site.
9 Details facilitating the partial de-culverting of the River Wandle are submitted for determination at this stage.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 2 Case history
10 Permission for the extant use relating to 300 Purley Way was first granted in 1986 (86/02159/P) for the construction of a retail premises for the sale of DIY home improvement, builder merchants’ garden and associated products.
11 In 1995 permission was granted (95/02282/P) for the retention of the retail premises for the sale of DIY home improvement, builder merchants’ garden and associated products (without compliance with condition 3 – use of premises – attached to planning permission 86/02159). As such a greater range of non-food goods, albeit still restricted, were permitted to be sold from the premises.
12 The use of the site has remained largely unchanged since this approval. However, several applications are of relevance including:
Environmental Impact Assessment not required for demolition of buildings and construction of mixed use development (03/04125/P) Permission granted for partial demolition and alterations to elevation, division of the building into two retail units (05/02681/P) Permission granted for the erection of a building for use for non-food sales (within Class A1). Erection of two buildings for use within Classes B1(b) and (c) or B2 or B8 and 17 residential units fronting Mill Lane (05/02683/P) Permission granted for the renewal of previous approval 05/02681 to be implemented within 8 years (11/00744/P) Permission granted for the renewal of previous approval 05/02683/P. Reserved matters to be submitted within 3 years and then implemented within a further 5 years (i.e. 8 year permission) (11/01351/P) 4.5
13 The above two planning permissions have not been implemented but remain extant.
14 Prior to submission the application has been subject to two pre-application meeting and a pre-application advice report was issued on 27 April 2012.
Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance
15 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:
Retail/town centre uses London Plan; Urban design London Plan; Blue Ribbon Network London Plan; Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM) Climate change London Plan; The Mayor’s Climate Change and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy;
16 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) is also a material consideration.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 3 17 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area are Croydon Replacement UDP adopted 13th July 2006 and the 2011 London Plan. The following are also relevant material considerations:
The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework Croydon Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) – Submission 2 April 2012. The draft Revised Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan The Croydon Opportunity Area Framework (Consultation Draft, July 2012)
Principle of development
Employment use/SIL designation
18 The development includes some 1,732 sq.m. Class B floorspace comprising two units at ground floor (122 sq.m. and 1,074 sq.m.) and one at first floor (536 sq.m). The extant permission includes 2,604 sq.m. and the proposal represents a reduction in approved floorspace
19 The site forms part of the Purley Way and Beddington Lane Industrial Estate Strategic Industrial location (SIL) under the Preferred Industrial Location (PIL) category identified in Annex 3 of the London Plan. London Plan Policy 2.17 Strategic Industrial Locations describes those locations as “London’s main reservoirs of industrial and related capacity, including logistics, waste management, utilities, wholesale markets and some transport functions”. Under section B planning decisions the policy states development proposals in SILs should be refused unless:
a. "They fall within the broad industrial type activities outlined in paragraph 2.79 which states in relation to PIL: which are particularly suitable for general industrial, light industrial, storage and distribution, waste management, recycling, some transport related functions, utilities, wholesale markets and other industrial related activities.
b. They are part of a strategically co-ordinated process of SIL consolidation through an OAPF or borough development plan document.
c. The proposal is for employment workspace to meet identified needs for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) or new emerging industrial sectors; or
d. The proposal is for small scale walk to services for industrial occupiers such as workplace creches or cafes.
20 Furthermore under section C the policy states “development proposals within or adjacent to SIL should not compromise the integrity or effectiveness of these locations in accommodating industrial type activities.”
21 The site is located in SIL and the retail use is potentially contrary to the London Plan. However, given the existing and established retail use of the John Lewis Store there is acceptance of a need for a degree of flexibility in assessing the scheme against policy 2.17. The applicant has included B class employment use within the scheme adjacent to existing B class units and the employment land report provides supportive evidence to support the level and quality of the proposed employment floorspace operating as start-up units.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 4 Employment floorspace
22 The extant permission is for 2,604 sq.m. of class B floorspace and the application is for 1,732 sq.m. which is a 35% reduction in class B employment floorspace.
23 The applicant has completed an employment land report to support the level and type of employment floorspace within the development proposals. This is based on the whole site being unsuitable for employment floorspace due to the housing adjacent to the site (particularly for B8 storage and distribution); the findings of Croydon Council’s employment land study and the existing UDP indicates a high level of supply; current market demand for B class units is weak and in the short-medium term this is likely to remain the situation; the level of existing supply provides a high quantum of available floorspace; and technically there are no class B uses on site as that which is currently defined as such floorspace only occupies a small part of the site area on a part time basis.
24 The applicant has based the provision of 1,732 sq.m. Class B floorspace as being of a level that is sustainable with delivery commencing after 2017/2018 when improvement to the current market demand is expected. It is noted the retail employment generating impacts of the proposals are potentially greater than potential class B employment space on the site and given the location adjacent to existing residential properties the type of employment floorspace that could be accommodated would be limited. On the basis of the information provided the reduction of potential floorspace is accepted. Retail use
25 The national planning policy guidance for retail, leisure and entertainment, offices, arts, culture and tourism and other main town centre uses is provided by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF in relation to out of centre retail proposals such as being proposed at Purley Way states:
(Paragraph 24) Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.
(Paragraph 25) This sequential approach should not be applied to applications for small scale rural offices or other small scale rural development.
(Paragraph 26) When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m).This should include assessment of:
the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 5 application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.
(Paragraph 27) Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.
26 The NPPF has replaced PPS4; however PPS 4 Practice Guidance remains a material planning consideration.
27 London Plan Policy 2.7 ‘Outer London: economy’ states that boroughs should be “f) identifying and bringing capacity in and around town centres with good public transport accessibility to accommodate leisure, retail and civic needs and higher density housing”. Whilst, London Plan policy 4.7 Retail and town centre development – impact assessment, sequential test and policy 4.8 supporting a successful and diverse retail sector are also relevant to this proposal.
28 The applicant’s planning statement states the proposal is led by 5,425 sq.m. Tesco supermarket (class A1) with ancillary space for a 17 sq.m. Cafe (Class A3). The proposed supermarket will also contain a pharmacy, opticians, phone shop and Tesco Direct. It highlights the site is occupied by a John Lewis at Home store with an extant A1 non-food consent. However, no detail is provided on the floorspace of the extant consent/John Lewis at Home Store and the applicant should set out what is the net increase of retail floorspace in sq.m. between the proposed supermarket and the extant consent.
Retail Impact Assessment
29 The applicant has completed a retail impact assessment (RIA) which puts forward the case for the proposals including impact on vitality and viability on identified retail centres and a sequential test of alternative sites within the borough. This assessment has been independently assessed by consultants for Croydon Council.
30 An important factor in assessing the retail impact assessment is that the retail floorspace is proposed not to come forward until 2020, once the existing John Lewis Store vacates the site.
The study area and shopping patterns
31 The applicant has defined the study area for the RIA as including parts of the Boroughs of Croydon, Sutton and Merton. The main centres in Croydon Council area are Croydon Metropolitan Centre, Purley Town Centre and Thornton Heath Town Centre. The main centres in Sutton Council area are Wallington and Carshalton district centres. In addition to these main centres, impacts have also been assessed on the local centres of Beddington, South Beddington, Hackbridge and Fiveways and on two large free standing food superstores of Sainsbury and ASDA on Purley Way.
32 The applicant has set details of the current nature of each of these centres and the retail offer provided and completed a retail impact (trade diversion) analysis through a household survey. This has established the existing pattern of main food shopping and establishes that the main bulk food shopping takes place at larger foodstores within and outside the study area – Sainsbury (Purley Way); Asda (Purley Way); Sainsbury, Croydon town centre, The Whitgift Centre; Tesco, Purley and Tesco Thornton Heath.
33 The impact on impact on top-up shopping at smaller stores/ local facilities has been identified as: Local stores in Croydon; Sainsbury at Purely Way, Croydon; Asda on Purley Way, Beddington; Sainsbury at The Whitgift Centre in Croydon Town Centre; and local stores in Beddington.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 6 34 The definition of the likely location of impact on the hierarchy and the pattern of expenditure is accepted in terms of London Plan requirements. But it should be noted Table 2 (paragraph 3.18) indicates that Coulsdon, Norbury, Purley and Thornton Heath are town centres. In fact, these centres are classified as district centres in the adopted London Plan (July, 2011).
Sequential Test
35 The applicant has completed a sequential test as set out in the NPPF which requires that sites are suitable, available and viable and are assessed in the following order:
Locations in appropriate existing centres where sites or buildings for conversion are, or are likely to become, available within the plan period;
Edge-of-centre locations, with preference given to sites that are or will be well connected to the centre; and
Out-of-centre sites, with preference given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport and which are closest to the centre and have a higher likelihood of forming links with the centre.
36 The applicant has rightly assessed that the site is out of centre on the sequential test, situated approximately 1,000 metres from Croydon Metropolitan Centre’s primary shopping area and has considered alternative town centre and edge of centre sites. It has further presented a case for the approach adopted in relation to flexibility of format and that the splitting of convenience and comparison sales areas would be unreasonable. The sequential site search is based on looking for a minimum site area of 2.3 hectares to accommodate a superstore sales area of some 5,000 sq.m. In this instance the arguments put forward on flexibility and set parameters for the site search are accepted.
37 The sequential site search for alternative sites has rightly focused on alternative sites primarily in central Croydon. Focusing of existing vacant units the applicant using GOAD Centre Report for Croydon (August 2012) identifies a vacancy rate of 18.68% compared to a UK average of 12.92% - the gross available footprint area of 29,766 sq.m. The available vacant units are according to the sequential test “are all of relatively modest size and no single unit is capable of physically accommodating the proposed main food shopping component of the proposed development” (paragraph 5.25). The applicant concludes that they “do not consider there are any alternative existing premises in Croydon town centre which would accommodate the proposal” (paragraph 5.26). In analysing potential sites reference was made to Croydon Council emerging Core Strategy, Mid-Croydon masterplan, East Croydon masterplan; Croydon Metropolitan Centre Retail Strategy (December 2009) and the Ruskin Square Planning application (Stanhope PLC and Croydon Gateway Limited Partnership). The following potential sites and assessment was made:
Croydon Gateway: no reference is made for the provision of a large store and the retail assessment for the development focuses on non-food comparison goods shopping except for 697 sq.m. of convenience retail space.
Fairfield: previous masterplans involved enhancement of existing uses rather than provision of retail development with any potential convenience being ancillary to proposals.
Park Place: the site area is covered by West Croydon Masterplan which identifies a block on Fell Road/ Park Street as potentially suited for a 2,500 sq.m. gross (1,600 sq.m. net) convenience food store. Therefore the site could provide for a medium sized
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 7 convenience food store serving Central Croydon. The applicant’s view is the foodstore could proceed alongside the Purely Way proposals as there is sufficient capacity.
West Croydon: the site area is covered by West Croydon Masterplan comprising the area around the bus station and West Croydon railway station does not identify potential for a convenience foodstore with the main focus on residential development.
38 In addition to these sites the sequential test has looked at a further 12 sites in Purely and Wallington none of which were viewed as suitable.
39 Overall the sequential has explored the alternative site options for the store and has looked at the wider strategic options testing and this is welcome. The applicant should provide confirmation that Croydon Council is supportive of their assessment of alternative sites in the sequential test and accounted for potential sites up to 2020 especially in relation to sites within the Croydon Opportunity Area Framework (Consultation Draft, July 2012).
Retail Impact: public/ private sector investment
40 The applicant has set out to assess the retail impact of the Purely Way store proposal in response to the NPPF and using PPS4 practice guidance which requires an assessment of:
The level of commitment, e.g. contractually committed. Policy ‘weight’ attached to them. Is there significant need for both. Competing for the same market opportunities/occupiers. Evidence of concern by those promoting the planned investment. Cumulative impact.
41 The applicant has reviewed both private and public sector investment planned (and existing) in central Croydon and has concluded it is considered unlikely that Tesco’s proposals would significantly adversely impact upon any of this coming forward. This is based on the following summary assessment:
The two main covered shopping centres (Whitgift and Centrale) being predominantly occupied by national multiple comparison goods retailers, that generally trade very well with limited vacant premises
In the latter case The Centrale Shopping Centre freehold was recently bought by Hammerson and the proposals so far evolved do not include a major convenience foodstore.
It is accepted that food retailing could form part of a future Park Place redevelopment, but it is anticipated that the level of convenience shopping provision would be orientated towards either a ‘food hall’ department store style offer or a town centre supermarket size store.
The Council has been preparing a masterplan for Central Croydon. The main focus of this is Park Place which is to be allocated for comprehensive mixed use development including a major shopping mall with department store. It is thought that this development has the potential to accommodate John Lewis when it relocates from the proposed Tesco site at Purley Way.
The applicant cannot identify any other public or private sector investment planned or committed in Purley, Wallington or Thornton Heath which would be affected by Tesco’s Purley Way proposals.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 8 42 The applicant’s RIA reasons that the expansion of retailing (and other uses) in Croydon town centre will be undertaken to improve upon the town’s overall attraction and allow it to compete even more effectively with central London, Bluewater, Kingston, Bromley and other higher order centres. This will primarily be achieved by enhanced comparison goods shopping, leisure, entertainment and civic uses rather than any bulk main food or convenience shopping.
Retail health check: vitality and viability
43 The applicant’s RIA has undertaken a health check of the main town centres in the identified study area and this concludes the following:
Croydon metropolitan centre – vital and viable
Purley – vacancies above national average, but performs at a reasonable level
Thornton Heath – vacancy rates around national average/ vital and viable
Wallington – low vacancy rate, vital and viable
Carshalton - low vacancy rate, strong footfall, vital and viable
44 The assessment has been appraised by the independent consultants report as providing a clear indication of current centre health and is therefore compliant with London Plan.
Retail impact: trade turnover
45 Trade diversion and turnover impact is the identification of retail turnover capacity to accommodate new floorspace, this assessment of capacity for additional floorspace can be demonstrated by both the growth in available consumer spending and overtrading of existing floorspace/stores at a baseline date.
46 The applicant has estimated convenience goods expenditure potential within the Study Area as:
2011 to 2016 +£27.93m 2011 to 2020 +£53.05m
47 This level of expenditure growth would support the turnover of additional convenience goods floorspace. For example the growth from 2011 to 2020 is close to supporting almost one and half times the benchmark turnover of the proposed Tesco store at Purley Way.
48 The applicant has estimated comparison goods potential spending growth across the study area as being:
2011 to 2016 +£134.47m 2011 to 2020 +£271.14m
49 This level of expenditure growth would support the turnover and would be able to absorb the estimated comparison goods turnover of the proposed Tesco Purley Way store at £23.03m (accounting for c8.5% of this spending growth).
50 The impact assessment of convenience trade diversion concludes that the majority will be from an existing Sainsbury store (£14.86 million or 38.4% of the proposed store turnover) and Asda store (£10.86 million or 26.9% of the proposed store turnover) on Purley Way, both of which
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 9 are identified as trading above their company average store turnover. As the overall retail convenience market operates on the basis of large food stores drawing trade off each other in the local area, the forecast pattern appears fair and acceptable.
51 The assessment of trade diversion for convenience goods is forecast to have the largest impact on Croydon town centre (£8.26 million or 38.7% of the proposed store turnover) and would result in an assessed impact of just over 1% on the town centre. This figure appears low but is acceptable.
Action and further information
52 Whilst the modelling approach is largely accepted the GLA would like clarification over the potential joint impact of both the 300 Purely Way and the Morrison’s supermarket applications at Fiveways (currently awaiting decision on an appeal in respect of non-determination). This is because the retail assessment report does not assess the cumulative impact of all proposed developments in the pipeline on food trade diversion and non-food trade diversion. For example, Annex 3, Table 17, it should include a column assessing the 2020 Post Diversion Turnover caused by both the Tesco proposal at Purley way and the Morrison proposal at Fiveways. Furthermore, information on details of non-food comparison goods trade diversion and impact are missing. (Table 26 and Table 27, Appendix 3 are missing in the report), in addition Appendix 4 should be resubmitted as the unreadable small font size makes it difficult to follow.
53 Given the expected delay in the implementation of this scheme until 2020 based on the John Lewis Store relocating to Croydon town centre. There should be a clause in the s106 agreement requiring retail impact assessment to be revisited if the store is developed sooner.
54 The percentage of comparison floorsp ace and range of goods should be secured in the s106 agreement. Urban design
55 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan, in particular the objective to create a city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods to which Londoners feel attached whatever their origin, background, age or status. Policies contained within chapter seven specifically look to promote development that reinforces or enhances the character, legibility, permeability and accessibility of neighbourhoods by setting out a series of overarching principles and specific design policies related to site layout, scale, height and massing, internal layout and visual impact.
56 Significant concerns with regards to the design of the scheme were raised at pre- application stage. Whilst officers understand the constraints and limitations when designing a large car-based retail shed and commend the provision of a ‘green link’ through the site, concern was expressed about the use and quality of this space as created by the development linking it. There is also concern with regards to how the design of the scheme is secured through an outline planning application, and further information on this is required.
57 The site sits adjacent to an industrial and retail park and is bound by Mill Lane and Purley Way. Two small rows of terraced housing sit perpendicular to each other at the junction of the two roads which are not within the site. The proposed building is located to the north-west corner of the site against the industrial park allowing for a ‘green link’ to be created along the southern and eastern boundary of the site. This creates a public space, linking into Waddon Ponds Park, which is visible from Mill Lane and Purley Way, and separates the development from the residential neighbours to the south which is all welcomed.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 10 58 The strategy of stacking the store and car park is also welcomed as this make a more efficient use of the site. However, this results on the ground level lacking pedestrian activity and overlooking, undermining the quality of the spaces surrounding the building and in particular the quality of the proposed ‘green link’. This is particularly a concern along the southern edge of the building facing on to the new public space, undermining the potential for activity and overlooking generated by the development. Whilst a small unit has since been added to this elevation which is welcomed, not enough information on how this will interface with the space is provided or how this will be secured through the outline application which is a concern. Consideration also needs to be given to extend the amount of frontage taken up by these uses to further bring activity and overlooking to this space.
59 The proposed building line to the east follows that of the neighbouring retail shed to the north. Whilst this does allow for a continuous route from one store to the other which is welcomed, it also results on a large space between the building and the new ‘green link’. This is currently proposed to be used as a car park which is detrimental to the quality of the ‘green link’ for the same reasons outlined above. Consideration needs to be given to using this space as amenity space related to the ‘green link’. This issue was raised at the pre-application stage and needs to be addressed by the applicant with amendments made to the application before the scheme referred back to the Mayor – the comments in the transport section are also relevant in relation to the parking levels as suggested by TfL would allow these spaces to be integrated into the green link. Blue ribbon network
De-culverting of the River Wandle
60 The proposals for the de-culverting of the River Wandle are supported by London Plan policy 7.27 Blue ribbon network: supporting infrastructure and recreational use and policy 7.28 Restoration of the blue ribbon network; supported by policy part A.
61 It is understood the proposed landscaped area will not be connected to the River Wandle as part of this application, as the connection points at either end are outside Tesco’s control and this is accepted as the design appears to allow for this to be achieved. The applicant has provided sufficient information to explain the landscape quality of the design solution and this aspect of the development is supported.
Inclusive Access
62 London Plan policy 7.2 ‘An inclusive environment’ seeks to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum). This and all developments should seek to exceed minimum access requirements in all elements of the proposal, but particularly relating to the residential component and the public realm. Design and access statements should explain the design thinking behind the application and demonstrate how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific access needs of disabled and older people, have been integrated into the proposed development and how inclusion will be maintained and managed. The development should aim to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion.
63 Unfortunately the Design and Access Statement provided does not present much information on access for disabled people, or inclusive access.
Disabled person parking
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 11 64 The number of disabled persons parking bays is 23 out of the total of 383 bays. Table 2 of the London Plan states that for shopping, recreation and leisure facilities, one space for each employee who is a disabled motorist should be provided, along with 6% of the total capacity as designated disabled persons parking bays, and a further 4% of the total capacity should be enlarged standard spaces which measure 3.6m x 6m and can be converted into disabled persons parking bays if required in the future i.e. if the existing provision proves insufficient.
65 Looking at the proposed numbers of parking bays 6% of the parking bays are stated to be designated disabled persons parking bays, which is supported. However in addition to these, the applicants should show how many bays are to be provided for employees who are disabled motorists (or bays which could be used for this purpose in the future if this figure is not known), and an additional 15 enlarged bays which measure 3.6m x 6m and can be used converted into disabled persons parking bays if required in the future.
66 The applicant should confirm that the disabled persons parking bays will be designed in accordance with the guidance found in BS8300:2009 +A1 2010, and will be located as close as possible to the principal entrance.
67 The information provided so far states that the 23 disabled persons parking bays will be provided to the front of the store, whereas all other parking bays will be provided in the covered under store car parking area. The applicant should provide further information on the exact location of the disabled persons parking bays. There are concerns that the bays to the front of the store are not covered, and will not provide any protection against inclement weather conditions, whereas those under the store are covered. It can take some disabled people a significantly longer time to transfer out of their car when compared with someone who is not disabled, and if this has to take place in poor weather conditions with no protection from the weather, this could be quite an unpleasant experience.
68 The applicant should look into this issue and consider positioning some, if not all of the disabled persons parking bays, and larger parking bays in the parking area under the store. It is however very difficult to provide accurate comments on this issue without having seen parking layouts. Further information on this, and the approach taken to disabled persons parking should be submitted.
69 One of the statements provided also explains that 8 parking bays will be provided to the ‘employment unit parking’ area. The location of this parking and the availability of disabled persons parking to ‘employment unit’ users should be provided.
Pedestrian routes
70 Further information on the pedestrian routes to the employment units should also be provided.
71 The pedestrian routes in appear to have suitable widths to them, details of their gradients and cross fall gradients should however be submitted. There are 2 pedestrian bridges/ footways proposed, which are stated to have handrails, details of the design of these features should be supplied, as it may be necessary to incorporate a lower ‘tapping rail’ for blind and partially sighted people to use (for example with a white cane) when navigating these features.
72 Significant road junctions are proposed. It should be ensured that the pedestrian crossing points are suitably positioned, minimise crossing distance (i.e. are not unnecessarily long) and are deigned in accordance with the DfT’s “Guidance on the use of tactile paving”.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 12 73 Crossing points for pedestrians within the site should also be designed in accordance with this guidance.
74 One of the plans illustrates outside seating, further details on any proposed external seating should be provided.
75 These comments are still far from comprehensive, due to the lack of information on inclusive design provided in the Design and Access Statement. There is a questionnaire on the GLA’s web site which the applicant should be asked to address in their Design and Access Statement: http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/docs/access-guidance.pdf
Action or further information required
76 The above issues should be resolved, and further information on the above issues should be provided. Climate change mitigation and energy
77 Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the London Plan seek to achieve an overall reduction in London’s carbon dioxide emissions through a range of measures including using less energy, supplying energy efficiently and using renewable energy, improving on Building Regulations targets by 25% in the period 2010-2013.
Overview of proposals
78 The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy and sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole.
Be lean: energy efficiency standards
79 The applicant has listed a range of generic passive design features and demand reduction measures that are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include mixed mode wind-driven ventilation, energy efficient lighting and variable speed drives/regenerative braking in the lifts. The demand for cooling will be minimised through efficient use of thermal mass and solar glazing.
80 The development is projected to achieve a reduction of 29 tonnes per annum (8%) in regulated carbon dioxide emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.
Be clean: district heating
81 The applicant has carried out an investigation and there are no existing or planned district heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development. The applicant has, however, provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available.
82 The applicant is proposing to install a site heat network. However, the applicant should confirm that all non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. [A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided.]
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 13 83 The site heat network will be supplied from a single energy centre located in the basement of the store.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
84 The applicant if proposing to install a 120 kWe gas fired CHP unit in the energy centre as the lead heat source for the site heat network. The CHP is sized to provide the domestic hot water load, as well as a proportion of the space heating. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 9 tonnes per annum (2%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.
Be green: renewable energy technologies
85 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies but is not proposing to install any renewable energy technology for the development.
Overall carbon savings
86 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 347 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures and CHP has been taken into account.
87 This equates to a reduction of 38 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 10%.
88 The carbon dioxide savings fall short of the targets within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. The applicant should consider the scope for additional measures aimed at achieving further carbon reductions or consider payment in lieu of missing targets.
Payment in lieu of missing targets
89 In the event that the overall percentage savings in regulated carbon dioxide emissions fall short of the target in Policy 5.2 of the London Plan, the applicant, in liaison with the Borough, will need to arrange for cash in lieu contribution to be paid towards off-site carbon dioxide reduction projects in the borough.
90 This would typically be based on the working assumption of £46/tonne of carbon dioxide over 30 years applied to the shortfall expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum. Transport
Car Parking
91 At the pre-application stage, car parking was proposed at a ratio of 1 space per 21 sq.m. Given the congested nature of the surrounding highway network and in recognition of site’s access to public transport services, TfL advised that it would expect this provision to be reduced, and made towards the lower end of the permitted scale contained within the London Plan. Parking levels are now been proposed at a ratio of 1 space per 25 sq.m, which equates to a total of 383 spaces for the Tesco’s store, including 25 spaces (6%) for blue badge holders. A further 8 spaces are being proposed for the employment land use, and TfL would expect these to be located and managed separately from those proposed for the supermarket.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 14 92 While this reduction in provision is supported in principle, no parking accumulation exercise has been submitted, and it appears that the forecast number of vehicle trips to the site exceeds the number of parking spaces available for both the PM and Saturday periods. While this could potentially help to limit the trip generation of the site, TfL would request that additional information is submitted in the form of a parking accumulation study, to demonstrate how this will be managed, as TfL would want to ensure that vehicles wanting to access or egress the site do not block the TLRN, or require longer green times.
93 The provision of electric vehicle charging points (EVCP) are being proposed in accordance with London Plan standards. This equates to 10% of all spaces being fitted with charging points from the outset, with a further 10% having passive provision so that they can be easily activated in the future. TfL would recommend that this requirement is secured by condition, in accordance with London Plan policy 6.3. TfL would additionally request that a car parking management plan is secured by condition in consultation with TfL, and this should set out how parking will be controlled on site to ensure that it is used for short-stay parking only.
Trip Generation
94 The trip generation assessment has been based on the methodology previously agreed with TfL at the pre-application stage and is therefore considered acceptable. As requested by TfL, a Sunday sensitivity test has also been undertaken, which includes a 30% uplift on trips to reflect observed data from the Sainsbury’s store on Purley Way. The trip distribution and mode split is based on questionnaire surveys of householders within the local catchment area and this approach is also considered acceptable. The number of trips expected to be made by tram should however be provided separately to allow TfL to assess whether or not a contribution will be required to mitigate the impact on the network.
Modelling
95 As requested at the pre-application stage, the traffic models supplied to the applicant have been updated using up to date traffic data and new signal timing information provided by TfL. No evidence of model validation has been provided however, and this information should therefore be submitted for review, including a comparison of observed and modelled queue lengths and degrees of saturation.
96 A sensitivity test has been conducted to take into account traffic from the proposed Morrisons Fiveways development. However, it is unclear whether the additional Morrison vehicles relate to the full development quantum and whether the reduction applied to reflect linked/pass-by and diverted trips has been removed. Clarification on these points should therefore be provided. While TfL has provided some initial thoughts on the highway impact in its comments to the Council dated 3rd August 2012, these are made in the context of further information still being required. Further comments on the modelling, highway impact and proposed junction layout will be provided once the model validation information has been submitted and the TRANSYT modelling files, which have recently been received from SKM, have been fully reviewed by TfL.
97 Subject to the outcome of further comments from TfL in relation to the site access arrangements, TfL requests that land is safeguarded for future highways use through the Section 106 agreement (subject to land ownership), alongside any monitoring that needs to be carried out to analyse the impacts of the development.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 15 Buses
98 Bus capacity issues are expected on the Purley Way corridor. In order to mitigate this impact, TfL would request the provision of bus capacity enhancements to increase frequencies on Route 289 services from 4 to 5 buses per hour Monday to Friday. This would require an additional 3 vehicles, which would also provide sufficient capacity to cover the necessary increase in frequency on Sundays. The cost associated with the provision of these additional buses is estimated at £660k per year, which over five years, would necessitate a total contribution of £3.3m, to be secured through the Section 106 agreement in accordance with London Plan policy 6.4. TfL would welcome further discussions with the applicant on this point. As previously secured as part of the consented scheme for the site, TfL would also expect contributions to be secured towards bus stop upgrades.
Pedestrian environment
99 While it is acknowledged that the site is proposing some improvements to the pedestrian and cyclist environment, including the de-culverting of the River Wandle, with a pedestrian and cycle link running along the western bank, a PERS audit has not been submitted as requested at the pre-application stage. TfL would therefore request that this is undertaken to see if any other improvements to the local walking environment are required, particularly along key local desire lines, such as towards Wandle Park Tramlink stop and Waddon Railway Station, and any resulting improvements should be secured through the Section 106 agreement, in accordance with London Plan policy 6.10.
New link road aspiration
100 It is noted that there is an aspiration to provide a new link road parallel to the A23, plus pedestrian links to adjacent retail units, to remove the need for vehicles driving to other retail units north of the site from having to use Purley Way. While this is strongly supported by TfL, it is understood that such a link does not form part of this current planning application. It is however unclear if this relates to the road link only, or the proposed pedestrian links. While this should be clarified, TfL would suggest that the land required to implement such a road link in the future is secured through the Section 106 agreement (subject to land ownership), with any improvements required to the internal pedestrian environment to facilitate walking to adjacent retail units also being secured.
Cycling
101 Cycle parking is being proposed in accordance with London Plan standards which is supported by TfL. Visitor cycle parking is however shown in two locations, one to the northeast of the site and one to the south. Whilst the northeast location is close to the main store entrance, the site to the south is some distance away and should be located closer to the entrance to make cycling to the store as attractive and convenient as possible. All parking should additionally be positioned in a secure and covered location, with shower and locker facilities being provided on site for those members of staff wishing to cycle to work. A further discussion about inclusion of a cycle hub as discussed during the pre-application stage is also required along with a strategy for delivery and safeguarding of land.
Travel plan
102 The submitted travel plan is generally considered to be of a good standard, and should be secured, managed, monitored and enforced through the Section 106 agreement, including specific measures where funding is required.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 16 Servicing and construction
103 No reference is made as to the number of service vehicles which are expected to access the site, and this should therefore be clarified and assessed. Similarly, no mention has been provided within the TA of whether a home delivery service will operate from this store, and this should therefore be confirmed and assessed, as this likely to have a significant impact on the number of servicing trips expected on site. Following on from this, TfL would expect both a construction logistics plan (CLP) and a delivery and servicing plan (DSP) to be secured for the site by condition.
Action or further information required
104 In summary, the submission of additional information is required in relation to car parking, trip generation assessment, traffic modelling, buses, the pedestrian environment, the aspiration for a new link road, cycle parking, servicing and construction, is required before the application can be considered to be in accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan. Community Infrastructure Levy
105 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and it will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater London that was granted planning permission on or after that date. The Mayor's CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail
106 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands. The rate for Croydon Council is £20/sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised. See the 2010 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents as amended by the 2011 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/987/made
107 London borough councils are also able to introduce CIL charges which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Croydon Council has yet to adopt a scheme, but has submitted their charging schedule for examination. See the council’s website for more details. Legal considerations
108 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 17 Conclusion
109 London Plan policies on retail/town centre, urban design, blue ribbon network, inclusive access, climate change, transport and parking are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:
Principle of land use (employment/ SIL): The site forms part of the Purley Way and Beddington Lane Industrial Estate Strategic Industrial location (SIL) under the Preferred Industrial Location designation. However, given the existing and established retail use of the John Lewis Store there is acceptance of a need for a degree of flexibility in assessing the scheme against policy 2.17. The reduction in class B employment floorspace from the extant consent is accepted. Retail: The applicant has completed both a retail impact assessment and sequential test which have been subject to independent assessment. Further clarification over the sequential test and impact assessment are required and deficiencies of submitted data should be resolved. Urban Design: issues concerning the securing of the ground floor retail unit in the layout; the southern elevation and relationship to the public realm; the continued retention of the overflow car parking area at the front of the store; the need for design quality to be secured before consent and not through reserved matters. Inclusive access: Further work is required in relation to various aspects of the development design to be compliant with London Plan. Climate change mitigation: Further revisions and information is required before the proposals can be considered acceptable and the carbon dioxide savings verified. Transport The applicant must provide further information on a range of matters, before it can be confirm if the development is in accord with transport aspects of the London Plan. 110 Whilst the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms, on balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.
111 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:
Retail: Clarification over net increase in retail floorspace; the applicant should agree that should the development of the supermarket commence prior to 2020 that the retail impact assessment and sequential test will be revisited and this should be secured in the s106 agreement; clarification required in relation to retail impact in context of both Tesco and Morrison’s supermarket’s at Fiveways coming forward and the overall accumulative impact of both stores; provision of missing information and larger format appendix tables. Urban Design: further modification to southern elevation; removal of overflow car park at front of store and creation of public green space; additional detail in the design and access statement on design layout and built form quality. Inclusive access: the design and access statement requires further detail and response is required in relation to the issues raised. Climate change mitigation: The carbon dioxide savings fall short of the targets within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. The applicant should consider the scope for additional measures aimed at achieving further carbon reductions or consider payment in lieu of missing targets. A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 18 Transport: The applicant should fully address all concerns raised by TfL in relation to trip generation assessment, traffic modelling, car parking, buses, pedestrian movement, cycle parking, servicing and construction and the feasibility of the aspiration for a new link road.
for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Jonathan Aubrey, Case Officer 020 7983 5823 email [email protected]
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\2909\Stage 1 Report page 19