planning report PDU/2535/01 15 January 2010 325 Lordship Road in the Borough of planning application no: 2009/2093

Strategic planning application combined state 1 and stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal The scheme proposes a ten storey building to contain 22 residential flats

The applicant The applicant is Mr N Daggers, and the architect is DGA Architects

Strategic issues

The land use principle to develop the site to provide 22 residential units is acceptable in strategic planning policy terms The proposed design is appropriate to its context, and the scheme is also acceptable in terms of its offer with respect to affordable housing, the measures proposed to incorporate inclusive design, climate change mitigation and adaptation. There are no strategic transport issues.

Recommendation That Hackney 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 12 November 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Hackney 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 had until 23 December to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considered that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. However, Hackney Council considered the application at its planning sub- committee of 2 December 2009, prior to the expiration of the GLA’s statutory consultation period. A subsequent referral was received by the GLA on 4 January 2010, advising that Hackney Council

page 1 were minded to approve the application. The subsequent referral of 4 January 2010 is the one being considered, and this report therefore considers both stage I and stage II issues.

2 The application is referable under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “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.”

3 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 in this report. On 2 December 2009, Hackney Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the application, and on 4 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 Hackney Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Hackney 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 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

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 on the western side of Lordship Road adjacent to West Reservoir, which forms the site’s north west boundary. The reservoir is designated as Metropolitan Open Land and a Site of Nature Conservation Importance.

6 The surrounding area is largely characterised by residential buildings of varying style and scale. Most notable is the adjoining 7 storey block of flats. The site is currently in use as a scaffolding yard.

7 The nearest Road Network (TLRN) is the A503 Seven Sisters Road located 500m north of the site. Manor Park Underground station on the Piccadilly Line is within walking distance of the site. The site is within an accessible location with a public transport accessibility level of 4 which equates to a ‘good’ level of accessibility, where 1 represents the lowest accessibility level and 6b the highest.

Figure 1 and 2: Photographs of site (Source: application documents)

page 2 Details of the proposal

8 The proposal comprises erection of a part eight, part nine, part ten storey building to contain 22 residential flats, together with ten on-site parking spaces, landscaping and cycle parking.

9 The scheme would contain 4 one-bed, 15 two-bed, and 3 four-bed units, of which 50% (11 units) would be provided as social rented. Case history

10 There is no relevant strategic planning history relating to this site. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

11 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

• Urban design London Plan; PPS1 • Tall buildings/views London Plan; View Management Framework SPG, draft Revised View Management Framework SPG • Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG; draft interim Housing SPG • Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13 • Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13 • Climate change London Plan; PPS1, PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG • Inclusive Design and Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM) • Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24 • Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG

12 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is theHackney Unitary Development Plan (1995) and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

The Hackney Core Strategy (submission stage) is a relevant material consideration that can be afforded substantial weight, as it is due for examination in public in early 2010. The draft replacement London Plan (2009) is also a material planning consideration. Housing

Density

13 In terms of density, table 3A.2 of the London Plan and table 3.2 of the draft replacement London Plan provide guidelines on density in support of the aforementioned policies. The area is within inner London, is characterised by a mix of different uses, medium building footprints and typically low to medium height buildings and has a good public transport

page 3 accessibility level. The density is approximately 800 habitable rooms per hectare, which sits comfortably within the range for central areas (650-1100 hr/ha) but is slightly higher than the range for urban areas (200-700 hr/ha). Given the area’s inner London status, with a range of building sizes, including the adjoining seven storey blocks, the density is appropriate for this site.

Affordable housing

14 London Plan Policy 3A.10 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mix-use schemes. In doing so, each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. Policy 3A.9 states that such targets should be based on an assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply, and should take account of the London Plan strategic target that 70% of housing should be social and 30% intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. 60% social housing and 40% intermediate housing. In addition, Policy 3A.10 encourages councils to have regard to the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development, and to the individual circumstances of the site. Targets should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements. These policies are reinforced under policies 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14 of the draft replacement London Plan, however there is now a shift towards achieving a 60:40 split in relation to tenure. Both documents state that affordable housing provision on smaller developments such as this are also important in achieving boroughs affordable housing targets.

15 Policy 3A.10 of the London Plan is supported by paragraph 3.52, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified. Policy 3.13 of the draft replacement London Plan reiterates this procedure. Both policies suggest that there are exceptional circumstances where off-site provision or cash in lieu contribution may be appropriate.

16 Hackney Council seeks the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on applications for ten or more units having regard to its 50% borough target, as set out in its Affordable Housing SPD. The scheme proposes that eleven of the flats be secured as affordable accommodation, which would accord with this policy. In regard to the tenure mix, whilst the scheme does propose that 100% of the affordable units comprise social rented units, given that this is a small scale development in one building that includes private units, it would create an acceptable housing mix. Hackney Council proposes that the affordable housing be secured by s106 agreement and as such, the proposal accords with London Plan policy 3A.10 and draft replacement London Plan policy 3.13.

Mix of units

17 London Plan Policy 3A.5 requires new development to offer a range of housing choices in terms of the mix of housing sizes and types, taking account of the housing requirements of different groups. The Mayor’s Housing SPG provides a London wide target for the mix of unit sizes within developments.

18 The mix would include 4 one-bed flats, 15 two-bed flats, and 3 four-bed flats. Larger family units would comprise 14% of the total number of units. Whilst the scheme is skewed towards two bedroom flats, given the size and shape of the site, and floor plates that are possible, it is acknowledged that it is more difficult to achieve larger family sized units on schemes such as this. Given the small scale nature of this scheme, the mix of units is acceptable in this instance.

page 4 19 All units conform to Hackney Council’s minimum room size standards, which whilst for the most part, are less generous than the Housing Design Guide standards, are not significantly below these standards. As such, it is concluded that the proposal would provide a suitable standard of accommodation in this instance, noting the amenity space and layouts, and the open aspect of the site.

Children’s playspace

20 Policy 3D .13 of the London Plan sets out that “the Mayor will and the boroughs should ensure developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ the number of children expected to be residing in the development is in the vicinity of twelve. As twelve children is only marginally above the SPG’s requirement of ten children minimum for such play space provision, the lack of dedicated play space on site is acceptable in this instance. This is keeping in mind the proximity to nearby open space, the financial contribution that has been secured towards nearby open space improvements, and the fact that all units benefit from a balcony, terrace or access to the ground floor landscaped garden. Urban design / tall buildings

21 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, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage, views, and the Blue Ribbon Network. 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).

22 London Plan policies 4B.8 and 4B.9, which relate to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings, are of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. These policies set out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor.

Views

23 The building would have a height of ten storeys and would benefit from extensive local views across the reservoir and Lordship Road approaching from the north. Noting that the site level is almost two storeys below the reservoir edge, the development is unlikely to detrimentally affect strategic views. It is also noted that the site is not within any of the viewing corridors identified within the London Views Management Framework. Although the building is likely to be visible within the panorama from Alexandra Palace, it will be set against the seven storey existing building to the immediate south of the site, and the proposed tall buildings (up to 25 storeys) to the north of the reservoir, within the Woodberry Down estate.

24 The open and unrestricted views across the reservoir to the site requires the adoption of a high-quality design response. The three-dimensional views of the building concentrate on views from the nearby surroundings, such as Lordship Lane. The inclusion of a view from across the

page 5 reservoir – from a point to the west or north-west of the site – would have been useful, as this aspect will reveal the longest elevation of the building against the context of the existing abutting residential development, but on balance this aspect is acceptable.

Urban design

25 The development adopts a the shape of a three-pointed star that makes the most of the site’s triangular shape and reservoir frontage. The geometric interest would provide an interesting contrast to the exiting surrounding buildings, especially when approaching from across the reservoir to the north. This provides and appropriate response – a more organic approach addressing the existing context and man-made lake might have been less appropriate.

Figure 3 and 4: view across Lordship Road looking south west; aerial view looking north-west (Source: Submitted Design and Access Statement)

26 The building would be located against the reservoir boundary, leaving a wide street frontage that responds to the setback of the existing buildings to the south. This would leave the space in front of the building as communal space, although the intended use of the space is unclear. The development may have benefited more from the provision of open space against the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), allowing enough space between the MOL and the building for more sheltered private or communal open space, and an effective transition between the MOL and the building. While the proposed 1.8m screen wall provides a response that is similar to the existing development to the south, Hackney Council is urged to secure a ‘softer’ response by way of submission of details in relation to the proposed landscaping condition.

27 The building would have a small footprint, with a central core, minimising the need for corridors in the floors above. The provision of two lifts is supported, and will serve a maximum of three flats per floor. While the internal layout is generally appropriate with acceptable flat sizes, there are some instances where bathrooms share dividing walls with bedrooms of adjoining flats, and bathrooms above bedrooms, underlining the need for appropriate noise insulation between flats, which would ideally be secured through the building regulations. Most flats will have access to reasonably sized balconies, and a 74 sq.m communal roof terrace will be provided for residents.

28 Limited landscaping information has been submitted. Landscaping on the street frontage and the areas alongside the reservoir should be of a sufficient quality to provide an appropriate setting to the building, and ensure that the interface between the metropolitan open land and the site is handled in a sensitive manner. Additionally, Hackney Council officers are requested to give careful consideration to the choice and selection of materials at condition stage. The use dark grey

page 6 metal anchors the development, especially at ground level, where a large area of non-active frontage (housing the garbage collection point and car entrance) will be visible from the street. The consideration of materials should be undertaken in conjunction with the landscaping scheme , by way of condition, so as to promote a high quality finish.

Inclusive design

29 Inclusive design principles, if embedded into the development and design process from the outset, help to ensure that all individuals, including older people, people with disabilities, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity. The aim of London Plan policy 4B.5 (‘Creating an inclusive environment’) and draft replacement London Plan policy 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, not just the minimum as required by building regulations. London Plan policy 3A.5 expects that all new housing be designed to meet Lifetime Home standards and that 10% of units be wheelchair accessible. These policies are carried over into the draft replacement London Plan, specifically policy 3.8 (housing choice) and 7.2 (inclusive environment).

30 The applicant has stated that all of the units in the scheme would be designed to be fully compliant in terms of Lifetime Homes, however it is noted that plans and a schedule demonstrating how the relevant standards have been met has not been provided. Hackney Council has confirmed that they would secure details of this commitment by way of a condition, which would ensure that this matter is addressed through submission of details and plans showing how the Lifetime Home standards would be achieved.

31 In terms of wheelchair accessible/adaptable housing, two of the residential units would be designed for such purpose. These units have been clearly marked out on floor plans. This level of provision is just below the 10% requirement under policy 3A.5 of the London Plan (draft replacement policy 3.8), but given the number of units, this is acceptable. Hackney Council has confirmed that they would secure these units as such by way of condition, which is appropriate. Transport and parking

32 Due to the nature of the proposals, the development is highly unlikely to have a significant impact on the surrounding transport network and as such it is accepted that a trip generation assessment was not necessary.

33 The provision of ten car parking spaces including two disabled spaces is compliant with car parking standards in London Plan policy 3C.23 and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13. Hackney Council has recommended that a clause be included in the s106 agreement which restricts the occupants right to on-street parking permits, and this is supported.

34 In TfL’s initial response, it was requested that footways around the site be upgraded in line with London Plan policy 3C.21 and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.10. The commitment contained within the committee report to implement a s278 agreement with the developer to reinstate and improve the footway adjacent to the site is therefore welcomed.

35 The provision of 31 secure and covered cycle parking spaces is compliant with London Plan policy 3C.22 and TfL’s Cycle Parking Standards and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.9. Clarification on the access arrangements for the cycle parking was initially sought, so to prevent a conflict of use for the car lifts and Hackney Council has confirmed that they would secure a condition in this respect.

36 In line with consultation draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13, TfL has encouraged the developer to provide electric car charging points for 20% of residential spaces (or 1 point/ 5

page 7 car parking spaces) with an additional 20% passive provision. It is unfortunate that this has not been secured in this instance, but given that this is a draft policy, it is not considered that this alone would warrant directing Hackney Council to refuse the application.

37 Such schemes would be expected to be supported by a construction logistics plan (CLP) and a delivery and servicing plan (DSP) and Hackney Council has confirmed that these documents would be secured by way of a planning condition.

38 As the development proposes 22 units, under TfL’s Guidance for Residential Travel Planning, the applicant is not obliged to submit a travel plan; nevertheless TfL highlights their value and encourages the developer to prepare a travel plan as part of this development.

39 In conclusion and despite the above outstanding issues, TfL has however no strategic objections to this application. Sustainable development

40 The London Plan requires developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to climate change, and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions (Policy 4A.1).

41 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. Developments are required to be adaptable to the climate they will face over their lifetime and address the five principles set out in policy 4A.9 of the London Plan. .

Baseline

42 Suitable modelling has been undertaken and the non-regulated energy use has been included. Overall carbon dioxide emissions in tonnes per annum have been included within the statement.

Be Lean

43 A range of energy efficiency measures are proposed for the development, including; higher performance glazing, improved U-values for building envelope compared to building regulations 2006 requirements, improved air tightness and energy efficient lighting and lighting controls.

44 These measures would enable the development to exceed the requirements of building regulation 2006 Part L by 17%. The reductions have been compared to the baseline carbon dioxide emissions including non-regulated energy use.

Be Clean

45 The applicant has advised that communal heating has been investigated and is proposed. CHP is not considered feasible, and this is acknowledged.

Be Green

46 The applicant is proposing a biomass boiler, which would reduce emissions by a further 20%. There is a concern that given that the area is within an air quality management area, that it may have a local impact upon air quality, however the applicant has confirmed that the flue would be positioned accordingly. Hackney Council has agreed to imposing a condition so as to ensure the dispersion from the boiler does not detrimentally affect local air quality. A condition regarding the

page 8 heat network, which shall be sized to the space heating and hot water requirements would also be appropriate, and Hackney Council has agreed to this being included in the final decision.

Sustainable Design and Construction

47 Policy 4A.3 of the London Plan requires all development proposals to include a sustainability statement. Further guidance on this policy is given in the London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. In addition, London Plan policies 4A.3, 4A.11, 4A.14 and 4A.16 require the inclusion of sustainability measures within developments. The corresponding policies within the draft London Plan also include specific requirements in terms of sustainable design and construction, green roofs and sustainable drainage, as well as overheating and cooling (policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.7, 5.9, 5.13).

48 The applicant is proposing a series of measures including a green roof together with greywater recycling and rainwater collection. As noted, all units would achieve minimum BRE Code Level 3. Surface water run-off would be minimised through porous paving where possible. Given the scale of the scheme, the measures proposed are appropriate and acceptable in this instance, and all would be secured by way of condition. Response to consultation

49 Four letters were received from local residents in response to Hackney Council’s consultation, including one from the Lordship Road North Leaseholders Association. All of the responses raised objections to the scheme and no letters of support were received. The objections included issues relating to the scale and height of development, loss of privacy, outlook/view and sunlight and daylight, impact upon the reservoir and wildlife from additional residents, congestion, strain on community facilites.

50 Other responses received from statutory and non-statutory consultees are listed below:

• Invest in Hackney: No response received.

• Hackney Society: No response received.

• London Fire and Civil Defence Authority: No response received.

• Authority: No response received.

• Primary Care Trust (NHS): No response received.

• Thames Water: No response received.

51 No in-principle objections were made by statutory consultees. Matters raised by objectors in relation to the design, density, impact on views and transport have been dealt with in this report. Matters relating to loss of sunlight, daylight, privacy, local infrastructure and wildlife are not in this instance strategic planning matters and have been assessed by Hackney Council, who has imposed mitigation, where appropriate, through conditions and the section 106 agreement. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

52 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

page 9 with conditions and a planning obligation which satisfactorily addresses that matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

53 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. 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

54 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.

55 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.

56 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

57 Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the committee report and the Council’s draft decision notice, the proposed residential scheme is acceptable in strategic planning terms. Together with amendments to include further conditions, this will ensure the scheme complies with the London Plan and draft replacement 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] Samantha Wells, Case Officer 020 7983 4266 email [email protected]

page 10