planning report PDU/2321/01 9 December 2008 40 Common Road, in the planning application no.P/3206/08

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 An outline application for the replacement of nursing & care home with associated day centre. Access and layout to be assessed while other matters are reserved.

The applicant The applicant is Jewish Care, and the architect is Kenneth W. Reed & Associates.

Strategic issues The very special circumstances justify the scheme on Green Belt. The ecological assessment is acceptable in terms of biodiversity. Inclusive design is not fully demonstrated. Energy strategy should be submitted. Incorporation of water attenuation is required in relation to flooding. Commitment to the provision of 49 cycle parking spaces is required. Employment strategy should be submitted.

Recommendation

That Harrow Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 53 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 55 of this report could address these deficiencies and that the application does not need to be referred back to the Mayor if Harrow Council resolve to refuse permission, but it must be referred back if Harrow Council resolve to grant permission.

Context

1 On 5 November 2008 the Mayor of London received documents from Harrow 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 16 December 2008 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 3D 1(a) of the Schedule of the Order 2008: ”Development on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land in the development plan,

page 1 in proposals for such a plan, or in proposals for the alteration or replacement of such a plan; and (b) which would involve the construction of a building with a floorspace of more than 1,000 square metres or a material change of use of such a building.”

3 Once Harrow 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 or allow the Council to determine it itself.

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The site is located to the east of Common Road at Stanmore and is within the Green Belt; the Ridge Area of Special Character; and is adjacent to a Metropolitan Site of Nature Conservation Interest. The site extends to 6.7ha and contains densely wooded areas, a large pond and open garden land to the rear of the building.

6 The existing Princess Alexandra nursing/care home accommodation as shown in Figure 1, comprises an extensive and irregular shaped 2-storey building with a 3-storey section plus some single storey elements and outbuildings. It provides 72 bedrooms plus various communal and ancillary facilities for both residents and staff.

Figure 1 the existing nursing/care home (Source: applicant’s submitted doc).

7 The site has a public transport accessibility level ranging between 1a and 1b (on a scale where 1 is low and 6 is high). It is bounded to the north by the RAF which is expected to be developed for residential uses with the Grade II* mansion building being converted into a museum and flats. To the south by land belonging to The Old Barn and to the west by the A409 Common Road which also forms part of the Strategic Road Network. The nearest London Underground station is Stanmore (on the Jubilee line) located approximately 3.7km south east from the site. and Headstone Lane are located a short distance from the site providing National Rail and London Overground services. There is one main bus route 258 that runs along Common Road providing services between Harrow station and Junction. Two bus stops are located within walking distance from the site.

Details of the proposal

page 2 8 The application seeks outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the existing Princess Alexandra Home buildings to provide a replacement nursing and care home with day care centre. Means of access and layout are to be determined at the outline stage, with design, appearance, scale and landscaping to be dealt with the reserved matters stage.

9 The redevelopment proposals include the demolition of the existing building and outbuildings and the construction of a 3-storey building to provide a new nursing and residential care home with day care centre. The new accommodation will comprise 122 bedrooms on the ground, first and second floors. Ancillary facilities are to be located in a single aspect lower ground floor formed by cutting into the sloping topography of the site.

10 The existing access from Common Road and the 74 car parking spaces distributed around the site will be retained. Case history

11 The site has been subject to a number of planning permissions over the past 30 years however the majority relate to minor works and extensions. The most recent application was granted approval in January 2006 for outline permission for redevelopment to provide a replacement nursing and care home with day centre. The application was not referred to the Mayor, although it should have been. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

12 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

• Green Belt London Plan; PPG2 • Biodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; Improving Londoner’s Access to Nature: Implementation Report; PPS9 • Inclusive design London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM) • Sustainable development London Plan; PPS, PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG • Flooding London Plan; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; PPS25, RPG3B • Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13; Land for Transport Functions SPG

13 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2004 Harrow Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004). Green Belt

14 The application site is part of a larger area identified as Green Belt. Policy 3D.9 of the London Plan clearly indicates that Green Belt is to be protected from inappropriate development, and such inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The London Plan also makes clear that London’s growth should be sustainable and not encroach on London’s own precious green spaces (paragraph xi). The reference to “inappropriate development” flows directly from PPG2, which sets out the Government’s policy towards Green Belt. This policy is one of the most robust and enduring in the planning system.

page 3 15 PPG2 identifies the purposes of Green Belt, which are: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict land. Government guidance states that development is inappropriate unless it is for the following purposes:

 Agriculture and forestry

 Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation; for cemeteries; and for other uses of land, which preserve the openness of the Green Belt

 Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings

 Limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted development plans, which meet the criteria in Annex C of PPG2

16 The guidance also identifies positive objectives for the Green Belt:

 to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population;

 to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas;

 to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live;

 to improve damaged and derelict land around towns;

 to secure nature conservation interest; and

 to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.

17 The proposal is not for one of the uses identified in paragraph 15 above and is therefore inappropriate. The applicant is therefore required to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify the proposal.

18 The applicant has stated, “the existing 2006 permission does not expire until January 2009 and can therefore still be implemented. It therefore provides the fallback position against which the current proposals must be assessed not purely the existing building on site. The current application seeks to effectively renew this application for a further period and as there has been no material change in circumstances since the existing permission was granted we do not believe additional Very Special Circumstance need to be justified. However without prejudice to this, justification for the proposed development in the Green Belt is set out below.” The main points the applicant has presented are:

- The building is existing and has been in use as a care home for some time the use has clearly been established on the site.

- Currently the Princess Alexandra Home does not meet national and Jewish care operational standards required of care home buildings. Redevelopment is the only option to fully address these issues.

- Whilst the application proposes an increase in floor area this is considered to be acceptable on the basis that the site is large (6.75ha) and would remain substantially open and undeveloped in accordance with policy and that the proposal provides the opportunity for a

page 4 well designed building of architectural merit which would enhance the character of the Green Belt.

- Although an increase in floorspace is proposed, the new building will replace the existing irregular shaped building on site and will retain a similar footprint. The footprint achieved by the improved building layout and design compared to the existing will not have a significant impact on the openness of the site.

- The proposed new building will be designed as one unit and will represent a significant improvement in the appearance of the building in this important location. In terms of the detailed design of the building the current building is considered unattractive and this application will allow for a much improved visual appearance although full details are not available at this stage.

- Currently around 85% of the staff travel to the site by public transport with the remaining 15% by private car and the increase in staff numbers is not expected that this will have a significant impact on vehicle movements around the site, particularly as staff will be working shifts, therefore staggering the times of movement on and off the site.

- The woodland and open areas within the site are currently relatively unmanaged. The proposal will include the implementation of an appropriate landscape scheme, which will enhance the visual appearance of the site and increase biodiversity both within the site and the wider open area.

- The application provides an offer to the Council of a lease to enable the provision of public access over the part of the site bounded by Bentley Priory Open Space, to include a timescale and specification of works to be carried out to the land and a sum to be donated to the Council for subsequent maintenance. This will allow increased public access to the designated open space and Green Belt, which will benefit all members of the local and wider community.

19 In summary the very special circumstances are:

a) The upgrading of the home to reach the required standards is only achievable by redevelopment of the site;

b) The replacement of the current unattractive and sprawling building with an attractive and visually improved block;

c) The application allows improved transport arrangements;

d) The woodland and open areas of the site will be enhanced through the implementation of a landscape scheme appropriate to the site;

e) Improved public access to Bentley Priory Open Space, which will benefit the local community.

20 The applicants concluded that “it is not considered that the proposed development conflicts with any of the purposes of land being included within the Green Belt as set out in PPG2 and will in fact result in a significantly improved building form in the Green Belt compared to the existing building which will not lead to any harm to the character of the Green Belt. The offer of a lease on land adjacent to Bentley Priory Open Space will also increase the public access to the Green belt area around the site, which is a significant benefit of the scheme”.

page 5 21 The applicant has stated that the footprint and floorspace of the existing building are 2,156sq.m. and 3,512sq.m. respectively. This compared with a proposed footprint and floorspace of 2,842sq.m. and 11,728sq.m., representing an increase of 32% and 234% respectively.

22 The increase in footprint is largely a result of replacing an irregular linear building (developed over many years, as shown in figure 2 below) with a single linear block and therefore results in infilling small spaces. This would have an imperceptible impact on openness. Reducing the current uncoordinated set of the building with a single linear block is likely to improve the visual impact, as previously accepted by Harrow Council.

Figure 2 the existing irregular linear building (Source: applicant’s submitted doc)

23 The significant increase in floorspace is due to the provision of two additional storeys. However, the visual impact of this is reduced by the fact that the lower ground floor is cut into the sloping topography and that the existing building includes some three-storey elements. Illustrative elevations have not been provided, but it is likely that the new building will have lower floor to ceiling heights and possibly a reduced roof pitch, which again will reduce the overall bulk of the proposed building and its visual impact.

24 In conclusion, given the need to replace the existing outdated building, the improved appearance of a new single block, the fact that the building is set within a large site and the limited visual impact of the new building the very special circumstances have been justified and therefore the proposed scheme complies with policy 3D.9 of the London Plan. Biodiversity

25 The redevelopment site is adjacent to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), as identified through the adopted procedures for London. This is the Bentley Priory Open Space Metropolitan SINC.

26 The applicant has submitted an ecological impact assessment of the development in support of the application, which has been evaluated against requirements of London Plan policy 3D.14.

page 6 27 The redevelopment will not extend into the adjacent Metropolitan SINC and there are no impacts predicted for the biodiversity interests of the site. The existing Princess Alexandra care home building has been surveyed for legally protected species, and there are several bat roosts present. All species of bat and their roosts are protected in the UK as ‘European protected species’ on Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations, (as amended). The relevant authority involved for regulation is Natural England.

28 The bat roosts belong to a widespread and relatively abundant species (common pipistrelle), and indicate the seasonal presence of an important breeding colony here. These roosts would be destroyed in the proposed demolition of the existing care home building. On consultation, Natural England has approved a mitigation strategy proposed to allow a derogation license to be issued permitting this destruction. In brief, the strategy requires provision of an alternative temporary roost facility during the construction phase and a permanent replacement roost designed into the roof of the new care home.

29 London Plan policy 3D.14 clearly requires boroughs to resist development that would have a significant adverse impact on the population or conservation status of protected species. The approval of Natural England in this case effectively removes any need for further consideration of the relevance of this requirement, however.

30 The recommendations for ecological mitigation and enhancements contained in the submitted ecological impact assessment should be made fully enforceable as conditions. Inclusive design

31 The aim of London Plan policy 4B.5 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum), and this and all developments should seek to better minimum access requirements.

32 The design and access statement does not specifically refer to the inclusive design or the need for the building and grounds to meet the highest standards of accessibility, which is disappointing, particularly given the use. However, it is clear from what is included in the statement that the layout, in terms of accessibility, will be a vast improved compared to the existing. In addition, the illustrative plans indicate step free access throughout.

33 Given the nature of the use the applicant should commit to ensuring that both the building and the landscaping meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, having regard to current best practice and guidance (of which there is a substantial amount). Currently, the proposal does not fully comply with policy 4B.5 of the London Plan. Sustainable development

34 The applicant has not submitted an energy strategy as required by the London Plan and it must be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

35 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 4A collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures, prioritising decentralised energy supply, and incorporating renewable energy technologies with a target of 20% carbon reductions from on-site renewable energy. The policies set out ways in which applicant must address mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of climate change.

36 Policies 4A.2 to 4A.8 of the London Plan focus on how to mitigate climate change, and the carbon dioxide reduction targets that are necessary across London to achieve this.

page 7 Flooding

37 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 designated as low risk for flooding, however the local river is prone to flash flooding, indeed flooding of the local streams in this area is severe and therefore water attenuation is considered essential with any redevelopment of this site.

38 Paragraph 4.10 of the flood risk assessment states that the application is at outline stage with design to be dealt with at reserved matters stage. The proposal must incorporate water attenuation following the sustainable drainage hierarchy in policy 4A.14 of the London Plan in order to mitigate the potential for increased flooding of local rivers and streams. London Development Agency’s comments

39 In accordance with London Plan policies 3A.17 (Addressing the Needs of London's Diverse Population) and 3A.18 (Protection & Enhancement of Social Infrastructure & Community Facilities) the LDA is satisfied with the principle of this proposal as it will replace a currently inefficient nursing and care home with an associated day centre, subject to the resolution of other strategic planning matters raised in this report.

40 The Council should ensure that the operator makes responsible efforts to help existing staff find suitable alternative employment (should it be necessary) whilst the demolition and construction works are taking place. With regards to the construction phase, the applicant should work with the Council to agree on a suitable employment and training strategy. In particular, the applicant should promote the creation of local employment opportunities during the construction phase of the development through site jobs for individuals and as goods suppliers for local businesses. This will ensure the proposal is in line with London Plan policy 3B.11 (Improving Employment Opportunities for Londoners).

41 The applicant should consider initiatives to allow for the recruitment of apprentices from local schools, as well as encouraging the recruitment of new employees from school leavers, older people and those that have been out of work for the long-term.

42 The Agency understands that there may be an increase in employment opportunities within the care home once construction is complete. Should this be the case, jobs should be advertised appropriately (advertisements in the local paper, the local Job Centre Plus, and leaflet drops for example) to ensure that local residents have the opportunity to apply. Again, this will ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3B.11.

Transport for London’s comments

43 The site has an existing provision of 74 car parking spaces, which is proposed to remain the same; this includes 2 disabled parking spaces. This level of car parking is in accordance with London Plan policy 3C.23 Parking Strategy (including annex 4).

44 TfL welcomes the commitment by the applicant in the travel plan to provide secure cycle parking on site together with shower and changing facilities. However TfL will require confirmation of the number and location of the cycle parking. Cycle parking should be provided in accordance with TfL’s cycle parking standards of 1 per 3 staff. The Transport Statement proposes that there will be a total of 148 members of staff. At least 49 cycle parking spaces will need to be provided to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling. This level of cycle parking should be secured by planning condition.

page 8 45 Should the application be granted planning permission, the applicant and their representatives are reminded that this does not discharge the requirements under the Traffic Management Act 2004. Formal notifications and approval may be needed for both the permanent highway scheme and any temporary highway works required during the construction phase of this development.

46 It is welcomed that the Jewish Care will operate a mini bus service to the site for members and that it is expected 3 buses will be used per day. It is also noted that the existing access to the site is retained and that the Council previously acknowledged the expected increase in traffic “still represents low levels of vehicle activity which can be accommodated by the existing access.”

47 TfL recognise that there will be no increase in servicing and refuse vehicle trips. However, TfL will require a Construction Logistics Plan. This should aim to consolidate load and vehicle trips avoiding peak rush hour to work periods. TfL would welcome a commitment by the applicant to use environmentally sustainable firms who are members of TfL’s Freight Operator Recognition Scheme. This will ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3C.25 Freight Strategy.

48 TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to prepare a travel plan and requests that a draft version be submitted to TfL for review prior to its completion. TfL advises the applicant to refer to TfL Guidance for workplace travel planning. The travel plan should be secured by use of planning condition.

49 In summary, TfL supports this development in principle provided the issues raised above are satisfactorily addressed. Local planning authority’s position

50 Harrow planning officers supported the previous (2003) scheme, but have yet to confirm their position on the current application. Legal considerations

51 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. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

52 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion

53 London Plan policies on Green Belt, biodiversity, inclusive design, sustainable development, flooding, employment and training, and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

page 9 • Green Belt: The proposed scheme on the site designated, as Green Belt is inappropriate. However, the very special circumstances presented have justified the proposal. The scheme complies with policy 3D.9 of the London Plan and PPG2. • Biodiversity: The ecological assessment demonstrates that there are no biodiversity impacts (subject to appropriate mitigation) apart from the loss of bat roots, which the mitigation strategy has satisfactorily addressed the loss. Securing mitigation is required to ensure compliance with policy 3D.14 of the London Plan. • Inclusive design: The applicant’s design and access statement does not fully comply with policy 4B.5 of the London Plan.

• Flooding: The proposal must incorporate water attenuation following the sustainable drainage hierarchy in policy 4A.14 of the London Plan in order to mitigate the potential for increased flooding of local rivers and streams.

• Transport: The commitment by the applicant in the travel plan to provide secure cycle parking on site together with shower and changing facilities is welcomed. However, confirmation is required on the provision of at least 49 cycle parking spaces.

54 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

55 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

• Securing the biodiversity mitigation measures. • Commitment to meeting the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion. • Incorporation of water attenuation following the sustainable drainage hierarchy in policy 4A.14 of the London Plan. • Submission of energy strategy. • Commitment to the provision of at least 49 cycle parking spaces. • Production of employment strategy in compliance with policy 3B.11of the London Plan.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Frameworks) 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Tefera Tibebe, Case Officer 020 7983 4312 email [email protected]

page 10