Land Adjoining Bastable Avenue, Renwick Road in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Planning Application No.11/00727/FUL
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report PDU/2824/02 19 December 2011 Land Adjoining Bastable Avenue, Renwick Road in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham planning application no.11/00727/FUL Strategic planning application stage II 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 Redevelopment of site to provide 276 affordable residential units involving a mix of houses and flats in buildings of three and four storeys together with 249 on-street and courtyard car parking spaces, related highways works, and revisions to the bus stand/turning area and the formation of a new public square. The applicant The applicants are Thames Partnerships for Learning Ltd & London Borough of Barking & Dagenham and the architect is Pollard Thomas Edwards Architects. Strategic issues Outstanding issues in relation to affordable housing/rent, urban design and landscaping, sustainable development, transport and parking are now resolved satisfactorily. The Council’s decision In this instance Barking & Dagenham Council has resolved to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified time. Recommendation That Barking & Dagenham Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 22 August 2011 the Mayor of London received documents from Barking & Dagenham Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1A of the Schedule to the Order 2008:”Development which compromises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats.” page 1 2 On 21 September 2011 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2824/01, and subsequently advised Barking & Dagenham Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 90 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 92 of that report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 16 November 2011 Barking & Dagenham Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date, and on 2 December 2011 it advised the Mayor of this decision. The Council temporarily withdrew it’s formal referral of the application on 13 December 2011 to allow additional time for discussion with the GLA, before re-referring the application again the same day. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Barking & Dagenham Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Barking & Dagenham Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 26 December 2011 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The decision on this case and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 5 At the consultation stage Barking & Dagenham Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 90 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 92 of that report could address these deficiencies: Urban design & landscaping: Consider amending the layout of the scheme. Sustainable development: Provide 2010 Building Regulations modelling, calculation of the carbon savings from the energy efficiency measures and from PV. Flood risk management: Agree to the conditions of submission of phase 2 report and on the mitigation measures. Transport & parking: Agree to further discussion in relation to the proposed relocation of the existing bus turnaround facility, and provide further information related to the level of cycle parking and electric vehicle charging points. Urban design & landscaping 6 At stage I the Mayor requested a reconsideration of the layout of the scheme to address a series of concerns. The applicant has given careful consideration to the suggested amendments to the layout but concluded that the proposed layout is equally as valid and that the scheme is able to address the principles of the GLA’s concerns within the currently submitted design. Whilst it is disappointing that no amendments have been made, the concerns are not sufficiently serious to warrant refusal of the scheme. Sustainable development page 2 7 At stage 1 further work and information was sought to address concerns with respect to energy efficiency and renewable energy. On 2 November 2011 the applicant submitted a revised energy strategy. An assessment of this is set out below. Energy efficiency 8 The revised energy strategy states that savings in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 33% (compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development) would be achieved through energy efficiency measures alone. Whist this would accord with the target within part B of London Plan Policy 5.2, savings of this level would be higher than expected, and the applicant was requested to check and confirm the level of savings that would be achieved through this first stage of the London Plan energy hierarchy. Whilst the applicant has since reaffirmed that these savings would be achieved, detailed modelling has not been provided, and the stated level of carbon dioxide savings cannot be verified. Nevertheless, based on the material submitted officers are broadly content that the response in terms of energy efficiency is acceptable in accordance with the principles of London Plan Policy 5.2. District heating 9 The revised energy strategy proposes a site-wide heat network, fed from a central energy centre, to supply heat for domestic hot water within the development. The applicant has agreed to ensure the site-wide domestic hot water network would be designed to allow connection to a district heating network in future, and officers note that the Council has included a planning condition within the draft decision notice to secure this. 10 However, the revised energy strategy proposes the use of electric heaters within dwellings to supply the required space heating. This raises significant concern with respect to London Plan policies 5.5 and 5.6, as it would not be possible for the electric heaters to be connected to a heating network. 11 In an attempt to resolve the above concern GLA officers have met with the Council and the planning consultant jointly, and have engaged in various discussions thereafter. The applicant stated at the meeting, and in subsequent correspondence, that the inclusion of electric space heating was driven by constraints of viability on this scheme for a 100% affordable dwellings. As part of joint discussions officers have sought to suggest possible alternatives to electric space heating which could offer a cost effective acceptable solution. However, having investigated various site-wide heating scenarios, the applicant has demonstrated that these could not be viably achieved. 12 Discussions with the Council have also established that fruition of this estate renewal scheme is entirely dependant on securing a grant from central Government, and that the window for obtaining this grant does not allow sufficient time for additional funding to be sourced and secured. It is disappointing that in this case the infrastructure requirements for providing a future proof decentralised energy network within this scheme have not been incorporated within the overall project budget. To avoid this situation arising in future, the Council has agreed to consult the GLA energy team when drafting procurement briefs for future projects to ensure all necessary provisions for compliance with London Plan energy policy have been made. 13 With respect to this particular scheme, the Council has agreed to include an additional planning condition within the draft decision notice which would require investigations into retrofitting a networked space heating solution for the estate when the district heating network in this area comes online. Furthermore, homes identified as being capable of being heated by the system shall be connected to it within one year of the investigation report being approved by the Council. page 3 14 In summary, whilst it is disappointing that space heating within the scheme would not be capable of connecting to a district heating network at the time of first occupation, the Council has agreed to secure a planning condition to require investigation and installation of a networkable space heating retrofit scheme, when a nearby district heat network becomes available. The Council has agreed that this situation will be avoided in future, through working with the GLA on this issue from an early stage. 15 Against this context officers have resolved to accept the proposed response to space heating, rather than jeopardise the delivery of 276 high quality affordable homes on this currently vacant plot. Therefore, on balance, whilst not in accordance with London Plan policies 5.5 and 5.6, the Council’s commitment to ensure policy compliance with future projects, combined with considerations in respect to the delivery of affordable housing, and the commitment to retrofit a networkable space heating solution in future, means in this particular instance officers would not recommend a refusal of the scheme.