Canada Water Site C in the London Borough of Southwark Planning Application No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report PDU/2240a/02 10 February 2010 Canada Water Site C in the London Borough of Southwark planning application no. 09-AP-1783 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 existing retail warehouses and erection of six buildings varying in height from four to ten storeys, comprising 430 residential units, a 9,104 sq.m retail store, 1,287 sq.m of other retail/restaurant space, 644 sq.m of office space, 528 sq.m of community space and a basement car park for 340 cars. The applicant The applicant is Conrad Phoenix (Canada Water), and the architects are Michael Aukett Associates for phase 1, and Wilkinson Eyre for phase 2. Strategic issues The principle of this mixed-use development on previously developed and currently underutilised site is supported. The design and energy strategies proposed are broadly acceptable. There are outstanding issues relating to housing mix, affordable housing, transport, access and climate change mitigation. Recommendation That Southwark 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 27 August 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Southwark 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 Categories 1A and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”, and “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions – (c) the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”. 2 On 6 October 2009 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2240a/01, and subsequently advised Southwark Council that the application did not comply with the London page 1 Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 100 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 102 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. On 19 January 2010, Southwark Council agreed a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed before 19 April 2010, and on 21 January 2010 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 Southwark Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Southwark Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application. The Mayor has until 10 February 2010 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, Southwark Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 100 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 102 of that report could address these deficiencies: • Housing and affordable housing: The viability of affordable housing should be assessed as each development phases is brought forward. The applicant should enter into discussions with the GLA and Southwark Council to discuss on how this can be achieved. An increase in family housing provision should also be investigated. • Transport: Further work and/or information is required on trip generation, modal split, and transport impact; car and cycle parking levels and management; improvements to the travel plan; and transport impact mitigation. Contributions of £90,000 per year for 3 years towards Improvements to bus capacity in the vicinity of the site (total of £270,000); £27,000 towards improvements at Canada Water bus station; and £7,000 towards improvements to TfL’s strategic walk network are sought. • Access: Access ramps should have a minimum gradient of 1 in 20 to facilitate easier wheelchair access. • Climate change mitigation: The applicant should provide information regarding the proposed energy centre, such as number of energy centres, location and that sufficient space has been allocated for the proposed equipment. The applicant should also investigate linking the cooling networks. Housing and affordable housing Level of affordable housing 6 The level of affordable housing to be provided within the scheme at consultation stage was 26%. The applicant and Southwark Council have agreed an amended strategy to provide 27% affordable housing, with the provision to review the provided level should phase 1 of the development not be implemented within two years. An additional financial appraisal will be undertaken by the Council prior to phase 2 of the development. Both phases would be subject to a maximum provision of 35%, which is in line with Southwark Council policy. This programme will allow for a reconsideration of the scheme in light of changing economic conditions, and aligns with the approach suggested to the Council at consultation stage. As such, it is acceptable to officers. page 2 Provision of additional family units 7 The applicant has stated that any increase in the number of family units would result in a decrease in overall unit numbers, including affordable housing. Additionally, it states that the London Plan and Housing SPG targets are London-wide rather than scheme specific, and that Southwark Council’s standards make it difficult to provide higher volumes of family accommodation within higher density schemes. 8 While the latter argument is partially accepted, much of the new development within this area is higher density, and family-orientated higher density schemes have been provided elsewhere. Additionally this is the second application on this site that the Mayor has considered, and that the reassessment of the original scheme could have provided for additional family units. Nonetheless the proposal as it stands will make a valuable contribution to local housing and the proposal complies with Southwark Council’s standards on the mix of units. On balance, while the level of family housing to be provided is disappointing, the scheme will provide other benefits to the area in terms of housing provision and regeneration, and as such this issue alone is not sufficient to justify a refusal of the scheme. Transport 9 At consultation stage, Transport for London (TfL) highlighted a number of concerns regarding trip generation, car parking levels and management, cycle parking, transport impacts, the travel plan, and pedestrian and highway proposals. A contribution of £304,000 towards improvements to bus services/facilities and the Strategic Walk Network was also requested to help mitigate the impacts of this development. 10 In order to mitigate the transport impacts of this development, TfL requested a contribution of £270,000 towards the provision of additional bus services, £27,000 towards necessary improvements to Canada Water bus station, and £7,000 for improvements to TfL’s Strategic Walk Network. These contributions have been fully agreed by the applicant, which is welcomed. 11 Additional information has been provided regarding the other outstanding concerns and some changes made to the proposal. In conjunction with the proposed planning conditions and Section 106 requirements, TfL is satisfied that most of the outstanding issues have now been resolved, with the exception of several unresolved issues relating to car parking. Car parking 12 Residential car parking is currently proposed at a level of 0.34, which is significantly higher than the level of provision (ranging from car-free to 0.28 spaces per unit) associated with other recent developments in the area and is in excess of the maximum level set out in the draft Canada Water Area Action Plan (AAP), which recommends a level of 0.3. TfL advised that a maximum level of car parking in line with the emerging Canada Water AAP and which TfL fully supports, could be accepted. Despite protracted negotiations, the applicant has refused to reduce the residential car parking, and no justification has been provided for the higher level proposed. 13 Although the residential parking proposals are within the maximum levels set out in Annex 4 of the London Plan and the over-provision of residential parking from this site is not expected to result in a significantly detrimental impact on the highway network, TfL considers the proposals to represent a collective over-provision of car parking which could undermine the use of more sustainable modes, given the site’s excellent access to public transport. In addition, this and other developments in the area could cumulatively give rise to increases in car traffic, which would contribute towards the overall traffic congestion in the wider Rotherhithe area and impact bus journey times. page 3 14 TfL therefore considers that the strategic transport concerns raised at consultation stage have not been satisfactorily addressed and that the application does not fully comply with London Plan policies 3C.1 Integrating transport and development, 3C.19 Local transport and public realm enhancements, 3C.20 Improving conditions for buses, 3C.23 Parking strategy, and 3C.24 Parking in town centres, as well as draft consultation replacement London Plan policies 6.1 Strategic approach, 6.7 Buses, bus transits, trams, and 6.13 Parking.