Excalibur Estate, Catford in the London Borough of Lewisham Planning Application No.DC/10/75973
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report PDU/2126/02 1 June 2011 Excalibur Estate, Catford in the London Borough of Lewisham planning application no.DC/10/75973 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 Hybrid planning application for the redevelopment of the existing prefabricated Excalibur Estate for 371 residential units ranging from 1-3 storeys in height, associated car and cycle parking, highway infrastructure, landscaping and open space. The applicant The applicant is London & Quadrant Housing Group, and the architect is Hunter & Partners. Strategic issues The strategic matters regarding design, access, children’s play space, energy and transport have been adequately addressed. The Council’s decision In this instance Lewisham Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Lewisham 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 13 January 2011, the Mayor of London received documents from Lewisham 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 comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats or houses and flats”. 2 On 8 February 2011, the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2126/01, and subsequently advised Lewisham Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 66 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 68 of that report could address these deficiencies. page 1 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 21 April 2011, Lewisham Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 19 May 2011, 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 Lewisham Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Lewisham 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 1 June 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 Lewisham Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 66 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 68 of that report could address these deficiencies: Urban Design: Further discussion on the design of the proposal is needed. The design code for the outline element of the application should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor. Access: The percentage blue badge parking should be submitted. Further information on the assessment of the proposal against the Lifetime Homes standards is required. Child play space: Details of the location, size and nature of the designated play spaces should be submitted. Details of existing surround play spaces should also be submitted. Climate change mitigation: The applicant should provide an estimate of the carbon savings, expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum and percentages, relative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. Further information on district heat networks should be provided. Transport: Electric car charging points should be provided and a contribution of £20,000 to upgrade the existing bus stop should be secured. Cycle parking provision should be increased. The travel plan should be secured and monitored by the section 106 agreement. A construction logistic plan should be secured by condition. 6 The following sections consider the extent to which the applicant has addressed the Mayor’s comments. Urban design and access 7 At the consultation stage the design approach was broadly supported subject to a detailed design code to allow the testing of detail for the outline application, including the heritage impacts, and further consideration regarding specific layouts, in particular details demonstrating wheelchair adaptable units and Lifetime homes standards. Following detailed discussion and consultation, the applicant has provided a detailed response in the form of an updated design code, layout plans and an assessment against the Lifetime Homes standards. page 2 8 In terms of the layouts, sufficient detail regarding communal space, Lifetime Homes and wheelchair units has been provided and officers are broadly satisfied. 9 In terms of the design code officers are broadly satisfied with the approach to different character areas and the level of detail provided to inform the reserved matters stage. Whilst the quality of the document is disappointing, the design principles enshrined in the document are broadly acceptable and the detail regarding materials and finish adequate. 10 In terms of the heritage impacts, the applicant has provided detail regarding scale and massing and the emerging architectural quality as set out in the design code. The Council has given careful consideration regarding the level of detail provided in order to make a judgment in the context of PPS5. As reported by the Council (paragraph 8.84 – 8.91 of the officer report): “It is important that the buildings remain in their current location and are widely visible, as this is how they were always viewed. Special regard was given to this and it was felt desirable to retain the immediate setting of the listed buildings. The applicant responded to the Council’s request to pull back the parking originally located to the front of 25 and 39 Persant Road. Concerns were also raised that the row of three storey buildings opposite created an overly urbanised setting for the listed buildings, which are single storey. The applicant accepted these comments and the height designation on these blocks has been removed from the outline planning application. In addition, maximum and minimum height parameters were provided in drawing APL004 Rev F which restricts the height of the relevant buildings to no more than two storeys The setting of 1 to 7 (odd) Persant Road is less affected by the proposals, being in the south eastern corner of the site. The proposed road layout will remain exactly as it is currently and the name, Persant Road, will be retained. In response to officers’ comments, 1 to 7 (odd) Persant Road will face new single storey bungalows to respect the scale and context of the historic prefabs. The road names are an important part of the setting and character of the listed building because these road names and the estate name follow the same theme of the adjacent Downham Estate; they are on the theme of the Knights of the Round Table. Re-numbering of the listed properties and changing the name of Persant Road would not be encouraged. The character assessment of the site carried out by the Council identifies the character of the estate. When assessing applications that affect the significance of a heritage asset PPS5 states that the Council should consider the particular nature of the significance and the value it holds for this and future generations (HE7.2) Proposals affecting designated heritage assets (listed buildings and conservation areas) that would substantially harm or result in a loss of significance would be acceptable if it were necessary to deliver substantial public benefits. (HE9.2) The potential harm to the setting of designated heritage assets of proposals should be weighed against the wider benefits of the application (HE10). Council planning policy URB18 Preserving Listed Buildings also requires that special regard be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of Listed Buildings. As a result of the amendments made to the original proposals (removing the car parking, reducing the height of the blocks opposite 25 and 39 Persant Road and by positioning single storey bungalows in front of 1 – 7 Persant Road) the setting of the Listed Building is considered not to be substantially harmed by the proposals. To this end, the wider public benefits of the redevelopment of this site outweigh what officers consider to be insubstantial harm to the setting of the listed buildings. page 3 English Heritage have expressed concerns about the impact of the new development on the setting of the listed buildings, particularly the proposed three storey buildings close to 25 – 39 Persant Road. In response, the three storey height designation on the blocks opposite 25 – 39 Persant Road have been removed from the application and a revised drawing submitted which limits the height of these units to two storeys.” 11 The prefabs on Persant Road are designated for listing for the following principal reasons: “special interest as part of the largest surviving post-war prefab estate in England, a unique example of prefab estate planning on a large scale; * their location in one of the most heavily- bombed boroughs in the capital compounds this historic significance; * the Uni-Seco prefabs are also of great architectural interest as structures built using the innovative system of prefabrication which display modernist influences in their wrap-around corner windows and appearance of flat roofs”1 12 GLA officers are satisfied that the design code and parameter plans provide sufficient detail in this instance to ensure the proposal will preserve the setting of the listed buildings.