Thamesmead Industrial Estate/ Veridian Park, Erith

planning report PDU/0623a/02 7 March 2012 Thamesmead Industrial Estate/ Veridian Park, Erith

in the London Borough of Bexley planning application no. 10/00063/OUTEA

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 Application for an extension for implementation of the previously approved scheme 02/03373/OUTEA; an outline application for the construction of B1/B8 business park in three phases including landscape and ecological work and details of reserved matters of design, external appearance and siting for phase one.

The applicant The applicant is Tilfen Land Limited, and the architect is Blue Sky Planning Limited.

Strategic issues The Mayor previously raised issues relating climate change and transport. These matters have now been satisfactorily resolved and the proposed application is acceptable in strategic planning policy terms.

The Council’s decision

In this instance Bexley Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Bexley 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

page 1  “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 (c)outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

 “Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the provision of more than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use.

2 On 3 March 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0623a/02, and subsequently advised Bexley Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 48 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 49 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 23 February 2012 Bexley Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 27 February 2012 it advised the Mayor of this decision. 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 Bexley Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Bexley 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 11 March 2012 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 Bexley Council was advised that London Plan policies on the principle of the development, design, climate change, biodiversity and transport were relevant to the application and that the application complied with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Principle of the development: The proposed development is acceptable in principle and complies with London Plan Policy 3B.4 and draft replacement London Plan Policy 2.17.

 Design: There is insufficient information to determine whether the application fully complies with London Plan Policies 4B.1–4B.3 and 4B.5. This matter will be dealt with through approval of reserved matters.

 Climate change adaptation: There are a significant omission of information which is required to determine whether the proposal complies with London Plan Policy 4A.3 – 4A.7.

 Climate change mitigation: The proposal does not comply with London Plan Policy 4A.6 and 4A.10. The applicant has taken significant measures mitigate flooding and the proposal largely complies with largely complies with London Plan Policies 4A.12 and 4A.14. Further information is required to determine whether the proposal complies with London Plan Policy 4A.16.

 Biodiversity: The proposal largely complies with London Plan Policy 3D.14.

page 2  Transport: Additional information is required to ensure the proposal complies with the London Plan policies 3C.2, 3C.23 and 3C.25, and draft replacement London Plan polices 6.3, 6.13 and 6.14.

6 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan policy. The following changes, however, might remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Climate change adaptation: The applicant is required to provide an energy strategy which provides the information set out in paragraphs 25 to 28 of this report. In addition, when an energy strategy is produced it should be secured through the use of a section 106 condition.

 Climate change mitigation: The applicant should provide the information requested in paragraph 34 of this report. The applicant should consult with the Environment Agency to ensure that risk of flooding is mitigated in the most appropriate way at the detailed design stage.  Transport: The applicant should provide additional transport information as set out in paragraphs 37 to 44.

Climate change adaptation

7 At the consultation stage, the applicant failed to submit an energy strategy which is required by London Plan Policy. The applicant has now submitted the required strategy and energy officers have provided the comments on the proposed strategy.

Energy efficiency

8 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameter will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include low energy lighting and controls.

9 Building regulations modelling has been used to estimate the carbon savings that would be achieved with the measures above. The carbon savings have been estimated to be of 109 tonnes CO2 per annum which is equivalent to a reduction of 40% beyond 2006 building regulations (around 15% beyond 2010 building regulations minimum requirements).

District heating

10 There are no heat networks in the vicinity of the development to which the proposed scheme could connect to.

11 A site wide heat network has not been proposed for this development. Due to the nature of the heat load of the proposed development this is accepted.

Combined heat and power

12 The use of combined heat and power has been disregarded. Due to the nature of the development loads this is accepted.

page 3 Renewable energy

13 The applicant is proposing a combination of air source heat pumps and roof mounted photovoltaics and solar thermal for the office units and a combination of roof mounted solar thermal and photovoltaics for the warehouse units.

14 The combination of the above proposals would reduce carbon emissions by a further 20% beyond the energy efficient scenario.

Summary

15 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 129 tonnes of CO2 per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy has been taken into account. This equates to a reduction of 142 tonnes per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2006 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 52% (around 27% beyond 2010 building regulations minimum requirements).

16 Given the outline nature of the proposal and the lack of certainty regarding the end occupier and its energy demands, it is accepted that some degree of flexibility has been built into the energy strategy to allow for different scenarios. This flexibility is reflected within the planning condition securing the implementation of the energy strategy, which provides a range of minimum carbon dioxide reduction for a number of model buildings and this is acceptable in this instance. Climate change mitigation

17 At the consultation stage, concerns were raised regarding the lack of information on the proposed heating and cooling system. Furthermore, the Council were asked to secure the inclusion and design of green/ brown roofs by condition and the applicant was required to consult with the Environment Agency to ensure that risk of flooding is mitigated in the most appropriate way at the detailed design stage.

18 The applicant has now provided additional information regarding the proposed heating and cooling systems within the energy strategy and this has been secured by condition. The Council have also include an appropriate condition regarding the details of the proposed green/brown roofs. The applicant has consulted the Environment Agency and Thames Water (responses summarised below) neither of which have raised any objection to the proposal.

19 The application now largely complies with London Plan climate change adaptation policy. Transport

20 At Stage 1, TfL was satisfied that the application renewal would be unlikely to have any negative impact on the operation of either the strategic highway or the public transport network. Given its strategic nature, the impact on the Eastern Way/ Yarnton Way roundabout needed to be considered, as not previously assessed as part of the submission. The applicant was required to provide a construction logistics plan, delivery and servicing plan and a travel plan, all be secured either by condition or through the s106 agreement. Finally, it was recommended that the car parking provision proposed should be reduced.

21 The applicant has provided traffic distribution diagrams to Bexley Council for the Eastern Way/ Yarnton Way roundabout as requested. Confirmation has subsequently been provided by the Council, in its function of highway authority, that the impact on the junction will be minimal and this is accepted.

page 4 22 The Council has secured by condition the requirement for details of the proposed cycling and pedestrian facilities; parking and loading facilities and a construction methodology statement, all to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority, prior to commencement on site and this is supported.

23 The transport related S106 Heads of Terms which secures the construction of a Toucan crossing; the operation of the development in accordance with the existing travel plan; the control of construction traffic and processes; a financial contribution for the provision of improvements to links to public transport modes, including to bus stops and Belvedere and Abbey Wood stations; the provision of a pedestrian/cycle route including public access, and a financial contribution towards a cycle route along Yarnton Way is also supported.

24 Given the above, TfL is satisfied that this application renewal generally complies with the transport policies of the London Plan. Response to consultation

25 The Council received two representations regarding the application which are summarised below:

26 The Thames Innovation Centre, which is based within Veridion Park and is a partnership between Bexley Council, the LDA, Woolwich and North Bexley partnerships, EU (ERDF), and national government (DCLG), provides workspaces and serviced offices for start-ups and SMEs, and supports the application. It supports the on-going development of Veridion Park for a range of B Class employment uses. However, it raises concerns regarding the lack of car parking and states that the Thames Innovation Centre is at 40% capacity but the car park is already full and that the lack of parking is a deterrent to its further occupation. It urges the Council to allow the maximum car parking provision permissible.

27 A local resident has submitted a detailed objection to the application and he has summarised his objection into the following points:

 “Legislation has now changed since planning permission was first granted, therefore I feel that a fresh application will need to be applied for to meet all new, revised and current legislation.  This planning application shows that it involves the draining of the proposed industrial site to stabilise the ground and in theory to reduce the risk of the development site flooding in the future.  I use the term ‘theory’ because the developer has no control of the water discharges into the ditches and dikes from the surrounding areas; which are approximately 8 times greater in area than the developers own site.  It is water from these areas that governs the water levels of all the ditches and dikes, as it awaits pumping or draining into the Thames i.e. using the developers own figures to base the calculation; some 60,000 tons of water will be discharged into the ditches during a very short period of heavy rain. This will take time to pump into the Thames. Therefore the water levels in the ditches will rise, when rain water entering the ditches exceeds the removal of water from the ditches.  The facts relating to the developers proposed lowering of the water level to –0.8m AOD across the development site can be found on the submission plans and drawings detailing proposed new ditch profiles and new bridges etc.

page 5  This is below the Thames Water (Crossness Southern Marshes Nature Reserve) borehole average level + 1.36 AOD  The report states the ground consists of peat, sand, etc both of which are porous, therefore water will seep from the highest level to the lowest level. The outcome is that the developer will drain water from land it has no right to drain.  Observed facts: I have seen the Great Breach Dike fill with water above the 1 in 30 year scenario as stated within the developers advisor report. (- 0.25m AOD) See page 14 for further details of tide mark on ‘calvert’ wall.  Observed facts: The Great Breach Dike has previously filled with water above the 1 in 100 year scenario as stated within the developers advisors report (-0.05m AOD) see page 14 for further details of tide mark on ‘Calvert’ wall.  At the + 0.20m AOD water level serious flooding will occur of Woodland Way.  At the water level of + 0.60m AOD major flooding will occur, including as far reaching as the Saints Housing Estate in St Katherine’s Road.  The enclosed sketch plan (page 4) shows numerous spot heights, these document the ground heights above (shown as +) or below (shown as -) the mean tide water level of +/- 0.00m AOD (the point mid way between high and low tide)  The sketch plan also shows estimated water levels during the winter months. (See pages 4 & 17 for further information and photographs)  The water levels are calculated from a known spot height on the bridge as +0.20m AOD along Cross Dyke 2 which spans both the nature reserve and the development site stages 2 & 3. see page 17.  It is believed that such draining of water from the development site will have a totally unacceptable impact on adjacent areas of the marsh.  Finally, Woodland Way was designated by the GLC as public open space and Tilfen Land Ltd or any other owner of the land is bound to these conditions of inheritance. Therefore I object to Woodland Way having been closed to the public and to be developed in such a way it involves the loss of public open space.  My proof is: having been warned by both Tilfen’s representatives and the Dartford County Court Baliff that any person that enters upon the land will be arrested for trespass, this confirms without doubt that the open space has been closed to the public.  I now refer you to the details contained in the objection to the planning consent remaining in place. Without doubt this needs a public environmental enquiry as to the outcome of lowering the water levels in the ditches to suit proposed industrial development. This will be at the expense of existing Thames Waters crossness and southern marshes wild life and nature reserves. Finally, the new ditches and dikes will funnel flood water through Woodland Way towards a private housing estate, which will flood the area when water levels reach approximately +0.60m AOD. The current highest level is documented at + 0.10m AOD (see page 14) which is 0.5 of a metre below a major flood level.”

28 The applicant has produced a detailed response to these comments. The Council’s committee report also addresses the points raised regarding flooding/water levels. The Council states that the applicant has prepared a revised Flood Risk assessment, which demonstrates that the site is at a low risk of flooding. The applicant states that it has no intention of draining the marshes and its modelling demonstrates that the level of water retained by the EA at -0.80 metres will be retained in the system. Furthermore, the Council points out that neither the Environment

page 6 Agency or Thames Water have objected to the development and that the there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the was been a change in circumstance that would warrant a different decision to the original permission which the applicant is now seeking to renew.

29 In response to the issue raised regarding the site being a public open space, which has now been closed to the public, the applicant has states that there is no evidence that the site is or ever has been ‘public open space’ and that is not aware of any third party rights of way over the land with the exception of a public footpath at the eastern end of the site. Furthermore, it states that its ownership of the land has been tested on three previous occasions and all occasions Tilfen’s ownership position was fully endorsed.

Statutory consultees

30 English Heritage- English Heritage states that no further fieldwork was required as part of phases 1 and 2a of the development. It also supports the additional geotechnical analysis report (September 2010) which contains a composite map of field survey work and a commitment to produce and update a deposit model as information comes available. It states that this will be secured via condition 24 of the original permission.

31 English Heritage also looks forward to receiving details of the proposed piling plan for the current phase of the development which is required in line with Condition 50. It states that this document in conjunction with the buried deposit model plan and the proposed remediation levels across the site will enable judgement to be made as to whether archaeological fieldwork is necessary and if so, its nature, scale and location of the fieldwork under condition 51.

32 Environment Agency- The Environment Agency raises no objections to the application but has request a number of conditions regarding the following issues: flood risk; the surface water drainage system; management of the buffer zones alongside the drainage ditches; compensatory habitat creation; landscape management plan; protection and/or mitigation of damage to water voles; nature conservation value of wetlands; contamination investigation; remediation strategy; and piling. These conditions have been attached to the permission.

33 Greenwich Council- Greenwich Council raises no objection to the application.

34 Natural England- Natural England states that it has no objection to the or comments on the application and the proposed mitigation and enhancements provide the potential to increase the biodiversity and ecology of the area and these, which are secured through the Section 106 agreement.

35 Thames Water- Thames Water states that it is unable to determine the waste water infrastructure required for the application and therefore it has a ‘Grampian’ condition be attached to the permission which requires a drainage strategy which details on/off site drainage works prior to development commencing. It also requested a condition regarding water supply infrastructure and an informative preventing development within five metres of a large water mains, which is located near the site. These conditions have been attached to the permission by the Council. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

36 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application.

page 7 Legal considerations

37 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. The Mayor must also have regard to the guidance set out in GOL circular 1/2008 when deciding whether or not to issue a direction under Articles 6 or 7. Financial considerations

38 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

39 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

40 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion

41 At the consultation stage, outstanding issues were raised in relation to design, climate change and transport. As described in this report, these issues have now been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant. The application now complies with the London Plan.

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] Gemma Kendall, Case Officer 020 7983 6592 email [email protected]

page 8

planning report 0623a/01 03 March 2010 Thamesmead Industrial Estate/ Veridian Park, Erith

In the London Borough of Bexley Planning application no. 10/00063/OUTEA

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 applicant The applicant is Tilfen Land Limited, and the architect is Blue Sky Planning Limited.

Strategic issues The main issue is whether the planning permission that the applicant is seeking to renew is still acceptable in light of the significant policy changes that have occurred since the original permission was granted. The principle of development to provide a mixture of B1-B8 uses on the site is acceptable in strategic policy terms.

The proposal broadly complies with London Plan Policy regarding biodiversity. Further information is required, however, regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation and transport.

Recommendation That Bexley Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 48 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 49 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 25 January 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Bexley 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 05 March 2010 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for

page 1 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 and 3F 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… (c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres”,  “Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the provision of more than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use.

3 Once Bexley 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) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 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 27.9 hectare site is located on Waldrist Way, approximately 3.6 kilometres from Erith town centre. The site is an extension of the Beledere Industrial Area, which is identified as a preferred industrial location in the London Plan. Bexley’s Unitary Development Plan designates the site as a primary employment area and a development site within Thamesmead/Belvedere. The site is bound to the south by the Bexley Business Academy; a playground and playing fields to the west; Erith Marshes, an area of metropolitan open land and an area of metropolitan importance for nature conservation, to the north and the Horizon Business Centre to the east. To the north-east of the site is Londis distribution centre which is accessed via Waldrist Way. With the exception of the Horizon Business Centre which was completed in 2007, the surrounding context of the site has not changed since the original permission was approved in 2005.

7 The A2016, Easter Way, which forms part of the Strategic Road Network is located approximately one kilometre from the site. The site is in walking distance of three bus routes, with the nearest stops located outside the site on Yarnton Road. Belvedere station is the nearest rail station, although it is located over a kilometre from the site. The site records public transport accessibility level of 1, on a scale of 1-6, where 1 is the lowest.

8 The site is predominately grassland with an area of woodland, Woodland Way, on the southern boundary of the site. Two drainage dykes, Allders Dyke and Cross Dyke 2, traverse the site. Cross Dyke 2 is designated an area of metropolitan importance for nature conservation and Woodland Way is designated an area of metropolitan open land and a site of borough importance for nature conservation. The applicant has begun to implement phase one of the original planning permission and has constructed the Thames innovation Centre, a three-storey office building with a floorspace of 4,930 sq.m., and a second office building with a floor space of 2,795 sq.m.

page 2 Figure 1: Aerial photograph of the site

Erith Marshes

Londis

(Scott Wilson Ltd.)

Details of the proposal

9 The applicant is seeking to renew planning permission for a previously approved scheme (02/03373/OUTEA) using new planning rules introduced in October 2009 and extend the time limit for the submission of the reserved matters and the implementation of the permission. The original proposal was for a B1/B8 business park in three phases including landscape and ecological work and details of reserved matters of design, external appearance and siting for phase one. Phase one was subject to a revised ‘reserved matters’ planning permission which was granted in December 2008. The 2005 outline permission requires the ‘reserved matters’ application for phases two and three to be submitted not later than the expiry of five years from the grant of permission, otherwise this permission would lapse. Reserved matters applications have not be been submitted and no construction has commenced.

10 The original permission for which the applicant is seeking renewal was for a development of 63,200 sq.m., of which 10,718 sq.m. would be delivered in phase one, 21,192 sq.m. in phase two and 30,590 sq.m. in phase three. Phase one would be used for B1(a,b and c) only and includes the Thames Innovation Centre for small and medium businesses. Phases two and three would be used for B1- B8 with a 50% cap on the proportion of storage and distribution uses (B8). There would be 14 units in total, all between one and three storeys in height. The permission included a new road ‘Veridian Way’ which would separate the woodland along the southern boundary of the site from the business park to the north. Veridian Way would connect via Waldrist Way to the road network.

The existing permission also includes:

 Footpaths and cycleway.

page 3  664 parking space, including 31 disabled parking spaces. 77 parking spaces have been implemented as part of phase one.  An additional 196 lorry parking spaces.  New tree planting and management of the woodland along the southern boundary.  Realignment of Allders Dyke and provision of a 30 metre ecological ‘buffer zone’ around the dyke. This has been implemented as part of phase one.  The creation of a wetland, new ditch and pond to act as a surface water drain for the development.  Associated landscaping and the creation of landscape buffer zones to protect views into the site.

Figure 2: Illustrative masterplan of the proposed development

(Scott Wilson Ltd.) Case history

11 In 1987, planning permission was granted for construction of a storage depot (now occupied by Londis). The building is on the eastern edge of the application site accessed via Waldrist Way.

12 In 2001 planning permission was granted for the erection of a new 29,350 sq.m. regional distribution warehouse on the western side of the site for Lidl, the food retailer. This permission has never been implemented.

13 On 25 January 2005 the original outline planning permission was granted for a 3-phased development of the East Thamesmead Business Park (02/03373/OUTEA). Phase 1 comprised three units of 9917 sq.m. of B1 office space. Two of the units have been completed and are in use whilst the construction of the third unit is yet to commence. Phases 2 and 3 comprise 52,482sq.m. with a mixture of B1 (office and light industry) and B8 (storage and distribution) uses with no more than 50% for B8 use.

page 4 Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

14 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Employment London Plan; PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Biodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; PPS9  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; draft replacement Transport Strategy; PPG13; Land for Transport Functions SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

15 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 Bexley Unitary Development Plan (2004) and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

16 The draft replacement London Plan, (October 2009), the Sub-regional development framework for East London (2006) and Bexley Council’s emerging Core Strategy (preferred approach paper) are also material considerations. Principle of development

17 On 1 October 2009 a new temporary procedure was introduced to allow applicants to apply to extend a planning permission by seeking a new planning permission to replace an existing one which is in danger of lapsing. The Department of communities and local government published ‘Greater flexibility for planning permission: guidance’ in November 2009 to help planning authorities and developers use this new procedure. It states that development proposed in an application for extension will by definition have been judged to be acceptable in principle at an earlier date and planning authorities should, in making their decision, focus their attention on policy and other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original permission was granted. The original application was prior to the adoption of the London Plan and therefore should be assessed against this new policy backdrop.

18 The site is confirmed as a preferred industrial location in the Sub-regional Development Framework for East London and this designation remains unchanged in the draft replacement London Plan. Paragraph 2.71 of the draft replacement London Plan states that preferred industrial locations are particularly suitable for industrial, light industrial, storage and distribution and other industrial related activities. Furthermore, draft replacement London Plan Policy 2.17 ‘stategic industrial locations’ indicates that development of employment workspace for small and medium sized enterprise or new emerging industrial sectors should be allowed if there is identifiable need. The principle of commercial development on the site is established by its designation as a primary employment site in Bexley Council’s UDP (2004) and the continuing importance of Veridian Park to Bexley’s employment strategy in the Belvedere area is highlighted in Policy CS16 of Bexley’s emerging Core Strategy (preferred approach paper).

19 The proposed development providing 63,200 sq.m. of B1- B8 uses, including the Thames Innovation Centre for small and medium sized enterprise, is acceptable in principle and complies with London Plan Policy 3B.4 ‘Industrial locations’ and draft replacement London Plan Policy 2.17.

page 5 Design

20 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, and tall and large-scale buildings. The draft replacement London Plan reinforces these principles, with new development required to have regard to its context, and reinforce or enhance the character, legibility and permeability of the neighbourhood (policy 7.1).

21 The design of phase one was dealt with in a revised ‘reserved matters’ planning permission which was granted in December 2008 and therefore will not be discussed. Very little information regarding the design of phase two and three has been submitted by the applicant as original permission was for outline consent, with detailed design, external appearance and siting as reserved matters. Furthermore, the Department of communities and local government guidance ‘Greater flexibility for planning permission’ regarding the new procedure under which the applicant is seeking renewal of the existing permission states that the applicant is not required to provide a design and access statement. However, the applicant has submitted an indicative masterplan which provides some information with regards to the design and layout of the scheme.

22 The building configurations have generally been designed to a satisfactory standard: the building line is sufficiently set back from Woodland Way and the wetland, respecting the different landscape characters in the east Thamesmead area. Materials proposed for Tilflex 1 and Tilflex 2 include glass, wood panel and steel panel modules. The completed Tilflex 1 building demonstrates that these materials support a well-composed structure, and it is anticipated that this will be carried over to the rest of the phases to ensure a consistent design approach throughout the development.

23 The landscape buffer zone with planted earth mound on the western boundary of the site is welcome, as it helps to define and soften the impact of the development on the residential units at St. Katherines Road. Similarly, the landscape buffer zone with structural planting on the northern edge of the site would help to provide a comfortable transition between the site and the Erith Marshes, which abuts the site’s northern boundary. The introduction of green roofed buildings to the western and northern boundary of the site makes a positive contribution towards the quality of the surrounding landscape and is welcome. The tree planting to the southern edge of the site enhances the overall design quality of the scheme. This tree line also creates a reference to Woodland Way, the mature tree belt located at the southern boundary of the site.

24 The proposed building heights, materials and landscape buffer zones are of good standards. Elevations, built form, parking and landscape layout will require careful treatment at the detailed matters stage to ensure that they respond appropriately to the surrounding context. There is, however, insufficient information to determine whether the application fully complies with London Plan Policies 4B.1–4B.3 and 4B.5. This matter will be dealt with through approval of reserved matters. Climate Change

Climate change adaptation

25 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

page 6 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 developers must address mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of climate change. This is a policy requirement postdates the original permission and the applicant must demonstrate compliance with it.

26 Whilst it is noted that this is an outline application, the applicant has not submitted the required energy strategy. The applicant has estimated baseline carbon dioxide emissions for the development using benchmark figures of 3,202 tonnes per annum but this figure does not relate to building regulations 2006 part L modelling. Although full modelling is not required, the benchmarks should at least be based on similar office/light industry building modelling results so it can be compared to 2006 building regulations.

27 The applicant is required to provide information regarding the energy requirements and how it intends to reduce the energy demand, supply energy efficiently and use renewable energy. The applicant should demonstrate that they have fully consider how other energy efficiency measure could be incorporated into the development, such as the use of ground source heating/cooling and waste heat opportunities that could potentially provide energy to site.

28 There is a significant omission of information which is required to determine whether the proposal complies with London Plan Policy 4A.3 – 4A.7. In addition, when an energy strategy is produced, its implementation should be secured through the use of a section 106 agreement or condition.

Climate change mitigation

29 The London Plan promotes five principles in policy 4A.9 to promote and support the most effective adaptation to climate change. These are to minimise overheating and contribution to heat island effects, minimise solar gain in summer, contribute to flood risk reductions, including applying sustainable drainage principles, minimise water use and protect and enhance green infrastructure. Specific policies cover overheating, living roofs and walls and water. Chapter 5 of the draft replacement London Plan considers climate change adaptation, specifically policies 5.9 through to policy 5.15.

Heating and cooling (London Plan Policies 4A.6 and 4A.10)

30 The applicant has not provided any information regarding the heating and cooling system of the development. Furthermore, it has not indicated what measures will be put in place to avoid internal overheating. The applicant is required to provide this information.

Living roofs and walls (London Plan Policy 4A.11)

31 London Plan Policy 4A.11 states that major developments should incorporate living roofs and walls where feasible. The illustrative drawing submitted by the applicant indicates that several green roofs have been included the indicative design of phases two and three of the development. Given that the applicant is seeking outline permission for phases two and three of the development, they have not included any detailed design information. To ensure the development complies with Policy 4A.11 the inclusion of green roofs, if feasible, should be secured by a section 106 agreement or condition.

Flooding and Water use (London Plan Policies 4A.13- 4A.16)

32 The Environment Agency’s flood maps indicate that the site lies within flood zone three. The applicant has undertaken a flood risk assessment which indicates that the ‘hard defences’

page 7 sufficiently protect the site from tidal flooding and, therefore, the flood risk from tidal, fluvial and a groundwater sources is low and there is negligible risk from surface water. However, the applicant recognises that the development will lead to a significant increase in impermeable area across the site and included storage lakes and channels to the south of the site in the original permission, to store and attenuate surface water to reduce run off rates. This has now been implemented. The applicant intends to incorporate flood resilience into the design of the development to take account of the predicted increase in flooding due to climate change.

33 The applicant states that the water requirements of the development cannot be determined at this stage as they are dependent on the types of industries that occupy the development when it is completed. However, it is committed to installing water efficient fixtures and fittings and minimising water use during the construction stage.

34 The proposal does not comply with London Plan Policy 4A.6 and 4A.10 and the applicant is required to indicate what heating and cooling system will be installed and what measures will be taken to avoid overheating. The applicant has taken significant measures mitigate flooding and the proposal largely complies with largely complies with London Plan Policies 4A.12 and 4A.14. The applicant should, however, consult with the Environment Agency to ensure that risk of flooding is mitigated in the most appropriate way at the detailed design stage. Further information is required to determine whether the proposal complies with London Plan Policy 4A.16 ‘Water supplies and resources.’ Biodiversity

35 London Plan Policy 3D.14 ‘Biodiversity and nature conservation’ promotes a proactive approach to the protection, promotion and management of biodiversity in support of the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy. It states that where development would affect a site of importance for nature conservation or important species, adverse impact on the species or nature conservation value of the site should be avoided.

36 Populations of bats, smooth newts and water voles exist on the site. Due to the sensitive ecological nature of the site and the surrounding area, as part of the original permission, a programme of habitat creation enhancement and management works were agreed to minimise adverse impacts on local wildlife during construction and afterwards. Some of these measures have already been implemented as part of phase one of the development. These measures, such as the removal of Japanese knotweed and the replanting of native species in Woodland way and the creation of storage lakes and channels are welcomed. Whilst the loss of grassland and the disturbance of wildlife during the construction stage is likely to have a negative impact on biodiversity, significant measures have been put in place to mitigate such impacts on local habitats and the proposal largely complies with London Plan Policy 3D.14.

Transport

37 In accordance with the previously consented scheme 548 car parking spaces are being proposed for phases 2 and 3 of the development, with an additional 196 parking spaces for HGV’s. While this level of car parking provision might have been previously accepted as part of the original permission, it exceeds the London Plan’s maximum standards for this particular land use, when taking the disabled facilities into account. This provision should be reviewed to comply with London Plan policy 3C.23, ‘Parking Strategy’ and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13 ‘Parking’.

38 While the trip generation methodology is acceptable, information on the sites used should be provided, to enable TfL to confirm that they are representative of the site under review. As part

page 8 of the modelling work presented in the Transport Assessment, it is also recommended that an assessment of the impact of the development on the strategic road network is undertaken, particularly for the Yarnton Way/ Eastern Way roundabout.

39 While it is unlikely that there will be any significant impacts on the public transport network as a result of this planning permission renewal, the applicant should submit multi modal trip rate information, in line with TfL’s ‘transport assessment best practice guidance’, so this can be verified.

40 The contribution secured as part of the original application towards the improvement of the walking infrastructure in the area and the applicant’s commitment to honour these measures is welcomed. To comply with current standards, however, any segregated shared use cycle/footway should be a minimum of 4 metres wide with colour differentiation, and have a painted and raised strip to ensure the route is properly segregated. The provision of a new pedestrian/cycle bridge on Waldrist Way was agreed as part of the original application and is supported. However, if the bridge is over a road rather than a railway line, the provision of an at-grade crossing is recommended instead to aid permeability.

41 Belvedere and Abbey Wood rail stations are located within cycling distance of the site and therefore appropriate cycle parking facilities should be provide at the stations to encourage sustainable journeys to the site. The applicant should confirm the number of cycle parking spaces being proposed and ensure that it complies with TfL’s cycle parking standards. The proposed cycle hoops are not considered adequate and secure and sheltered cycle stores should be provided instead.

42 Although the applicant has referenced its travel plan, no plan was submitted as part of this application. A framework travel plan should therefore be submitted, in accordance with the London Plan policy 3C.2 ‘Matching development to transport capacity’, and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.3 ‘Assessing transport capacity’. This should be secured, managed, monitored and enforced through the section 106 agreement.

43 In accordance with the London Plan policy 3C.25 ‘Freight strategy’, and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.14 ‘Freight’, both a delivery and servicing plan and a construction logistics plan should be secured for the site by condition.

44 In conclusion, whilst the development is unlikely to have a negative impact on the strategic highway or public transport network, additional information is required to ensure the proposal complies with the London Plan policies 3C.2, 3C.23 and 3C.25, and draft replacement London Plan polices 6.3, 6.13 and 6.14. Local planning authority’s position

45 As yet unknown. Legal considerations

46 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

page 9 direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

47 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion

48 London Plan policies on employment, design, climate change, biodiversity and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Principle of the development: The proposed development is acceptable in principle and complies with London Plan Policy 3B.4 and draft replacement London Plan Policy 2.17.

 Climate change adaptation: There are a significant omission of information which is required to determine whether the proposal complies with London Plan Policy 4A.3 – 4A.7.

 Biodiversity: The proposal largely complies with London Plan Policy 3D.14.

 Transport: Additional information is required to ensure the proposal complies with the London Plan policies 3C.2, 3C.23 and 3C.25, and draft replacement London Plan polices 6.3, 6.13 and 6.14.

49 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan policy. The following changes, however, might remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Climate change mitigation: The applicant should provide the information requested in paragraph 34 of this report. The applicant should consult with the Environment Agency to ensure that risk of flooding is mitigated in the most appropriate way at the detailed design stage. Transport: The applicant should provide additional transport information as set out in paragraphs 37 to 44.

page 10

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] Gemma Kendall, Case Officer 020 7983 6592 email [email protected]

page 11