STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting: TUESDAY, 17 MAY 2016 TIME 7.30 PM
PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC SUITE, LEWISHAM TOWN HALL, CATFORD, SE6 4RU
Members of the Committee are summoned to attend this meeting:
Membership Councillors:
Amanda De Ryk (Chair) John Paschoud (Vice-Chair) Abdeslam Amrani Paul Bell Kevin Bonavia John Coughlin Liam Curran Damien Egan Alan Hall Joan Reid
The public are welcome to attend our committee meetings, however, occasionally committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of reports can be made available in additional formats on request.
Barry Quirk For further information please contact: Chief Executive Renee Hayles Committee Co-ordinator Lewisham Town Hall 3rd Floor Laurence House London SE6 4RU Catford Road SE6 4RU Date: 5 May 2016 Telephone No: 0208 314 6078 Email: [email protected] RECORDING AND USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
You are welcome to record any part of any Council meeting that is open to the public.
The Council cannot guarantee that anyone present at a meeting will not be filmed or recorded by anyone who may then use your image or sound recording.
If you are intending to audio record or film this meeting, you must :
tell the clerk to the meeting before the meeting starts
only focus cameras / recordings on councillors, Council officers, and those members of the public who are participating in the conduct of the meeting and avoid other areas of the room, particularly where non-participating members of the public may be sitting.
ensure that you never leave your recording equipment unattended in the meeting room.
If recording causes a disturbance or undermines the proper conduct of the meeting, then the Chair of the meeting may decide to stop the recording. In such circumstances, the decision of the Chair shall be final. Order Of Business
Item Page Title of Report Ward No No.
1. Declarations of Interests 1 - 2
2. Minutes 3 - 4
3. Leegate Shopping Centre SE12 Lee Green 5 - 410
Committee STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report Title DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
Class PART 1 Date: 17 May 2016
Declaration of interests
Members are asked to declare any personal interest they have in any item on the agenda.
Personal interests
There are two types of personal interest :- (a) an interest which you must enter in the Register of Members’ Interests* (b) an interest where the wellbeing or financial position of you, (or a “relevant person”) is likely to be affected by a matter more than it would affect the majority of in habitants of the ward or electoral division affected by the decision.
*Full details of registerable interests appear on the Council’s website.
(“Relevant” person includes you, a member of your family, a close associate, and their employer, a firm in which they are a partner, a company where they are a director, any body in which they have securities with a nominal value of £25,000 and (i) any body of which they are a member, or in a position of general control or management to which they were appointed or nominated by the Council, and (ii) any body exercising functions of a public nature, or directed to charitable purposes or one of whose principal purpose includes the influence of public opinion or policy, including any trade union or political party) where they hold a position of general management or control
If you have a personal interest you must declare the nature and extent of it before the matter is discussed or as soon as it becomes apparent, except in limited circumstances. Even if the interest is in the Register of Interests, you must declare it in meetings where matters relating to it are under discussion, unless an exemption applies.
Exemptions to the need to declare personal interest to the meeting
You do not need to declare a personal interest where it arises solely from membership of, or position of control or management on:
(a) any other body to which your were appointed or nominated by the Council (b) any other body exercising functions of a public nature.
In these exceptional cases, unless your interest is also prejudicial, you only need to declare your interest if and when you speak on the matter .
Sensitive information
If the entry of a personal interest in the Register of Interests would lead to the disclosure of information whose availability for inspection creates or is likely to create a serious risk of violence to you or a person living with you, the interest need not be entered in the Register of Interests, provided the Monitoring Officer accepts that the information is sensitive. Where this is the case, if such an interest arises at a meeting, it must be declared but you need not disclose the sensitive information.
Prejudicial interests
Your personal interest will also be prejudicial if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) it does not fall into an exempt category (see below) (b) the matter affects either your financial interests or relates to regulatory matters - the determining of any consent, approval, licence, permission or registration (c) a member of the public who knows the relevant facts would reasonably think your personal interest so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.
Categories exempt from being prejudicial interest
(a) Housing – holding a tenancy or lease with the Council unless the matter relates to your particular tenancy or lease; (subject to arrears exception) (b) School meals, school transport and travelling expenses; if you are a parent or guardian of a child in full time education, or a school governor unless the matter relates particularly to the school your child attends or of which you are a governor; (c) Statutory sick pay; if you are in receipt (d) Allowances, payment or indemnity for members (e) Ceremonial honours for members (f) Setting Council Tax or precept (subject to arrears exception)
Effect of having a prejudicial interest
If your personal interest is also prejudicial, you must not speak on the matter. Subject to the exception below, you must leave the room when it is being discussed and not seek to influence the decision improperly in any way.
Exception
The exception to this general rule applies to allow a member to act as a community advocate notwithstanding the existence of a prejudicial interest. It only applies where members of the public also have a right to attend to make representation, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. Where this is the case, the member with a prejudicial interest may also attend the meeting for that purpose. However the member must still declare the prejudicial interest, and must leave the room once they have finished making representations, or when the meeting decides they have finished, if that is earlier. The member cannot vote on the matter, nor remain in the public gallery to observe the vote.
Prejudicial interests and overview and scrutiny
In addition, members also have a prejudicial interest in any matter before an Overview and Scrutiny body where the business relates to a decision by the Executive or by a committee or sub committee of the Council if at the time the decision was made the member was on the Executive/Council committee or sub- committee and was present when the decision was taken. In short, members are not allowed to scrutinise decisions to which they were party. Committee STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Report Title Leegate Shopping Centre, Lee, SE12 Ward Lee Green Contributors Monique Wallace Class PART 1 17 May 2016
Reg. Nos. DC/14/90032
Application dated 24.02.15 as revised 01.04.15, 13.05.15, and 13.11.15
Applicant Mr M Underwood of Deloitte Real Estate on behalf of St Modwen Development.
Proposal Proposed development at Leegate Shopping Centre, bounded by Burnt Ash Road, Eltham Road, Leyland Road and Carston Close, London, SE12 8SS for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a retail led mixed use development, including residential (Use Class C3), food store (Use Class A1), retail units (Use Class A1-A4), assembly and leisure (Use Class D2), non-residential institutions (Use Class D1), public realm, associated car parking, cycle parking, highways works, landscaping, access and all other associated work.
Applicant’s Plans and Documents. 344_P_0_900_000_Rev A, 344_P_0_900_100_Rev A, 344_P_0_900_200_Rev A, 344_P_0_900_001_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_700_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_701_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_702_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_703_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_704_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_706_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_707_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_708_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_799_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_801_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_803_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_806_Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1_07_Rev A, 344_P_A_000_402_Rev A, 344_P_A_000_403_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_102_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_103_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_104_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_202_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_203_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_204_Rev A, 344_P_B_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_B_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_B_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_B_20D_202_Rev A, 344_P_C_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_C_000_402_Rev A, 344_P_C_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_C_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_D_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_D_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_D_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_E_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_102_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_202_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_203_Rev A, 344_P_H_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_H_000_402_Rev A, 344_P_H_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_H_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_H_20D_202_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_001_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_002_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_003_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_004_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_005_Rev A, LGC 01.10, LgC 01.11 Rev A, LGC 01.20, 344_P_0_000_000_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_001_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_002_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_003_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_004_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_006_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_007_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_008_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_010_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_099_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_201_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_310_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_320_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_330_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_340_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_350_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_351_Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.15 Rev B, 344_P_0_00A_3.19 Rev B, 344_P_A_000_401_Rev A, 4009_SS01(a), 4009_SS01(b), 4009_SS01(c), 4009_SS01(d), 4009_SS01(e), 4009_SS01(f), 4009_SS01(g), 4009_SS02(a), 4009_SS02(b), 4009_SS02(c), 4009_SS02(d), 4009_SS02(e), 4009_SS02(f), 4009_SS02(g), LgC 01.10, Rev A, LgC 01.20 Rev A, LGC 02.20, LGC 03.11, LgC 04.12 Rev A, LgC 04.13 Rev A, LGC 04.14 Rev A, LgC 04.20 Rev A, LGC 04.22, LgC 04.23 Rev A, tf 980/TS/100, 11-062/110 Rev P1, 11-062/112 Rev P1, 11-062/113 Rev P1, 11-062/114 Rev P1, 11-062/115 Rev P1, 11-062/116 Rev P1, 11- 062/117 Rev P1, 11-062/118 Rev P1, 11- 062/119 Rev P1, 11-062/120 Rev P1, 11- 062/121 Rev P1, 11-062/122 Rev P1, 11- 062/125 Rev P1, 344_P_0_00A_1.03 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.02 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.16 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.05 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.06 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.07 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.12 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.13 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.14 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.16 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.16a Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.16b Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.22 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.02 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.03 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.05 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.07 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.08 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.09 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.17 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.17a Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.25_00 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.25_01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.34 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.39 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_00 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_02 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_03 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_09 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.12_00 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.12_01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.12_02 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.12_03 Rev A, Affordable Housing Statement, Arboricultural Survey February 2015, Certificate C - Schedule of Ownership, Design & Access Statement, Development Delivery Strategy, Energy Statement, Framework Travel Plan, Transport Assessment, Transport Assessment Appendices, Planning Statement, Retail Statement, Stage 1 Road Safety Audit - Designer's Response, Sustainability Statement, Treefabrik Utilities Statement, Development Delivery Strategy Final, Energy Statement, Affordable Housing Statement, Schedule Of Ownership Table, Structural Statement, Utilities Statement, Existing BT Services, Statement of Community Engagement, Errata Statement, Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary, Environmental Statement Volume 1, Environmental Statement Volume 2 Part 1, Environmental Statement Volume 2 Part 2 received 24/2/15; Townscape Visual & Heritage Assessment: Technical Appendix 10-3 Townscape & Visual Assessment received 1/4/15; Responses to Comments Received on ES Submission – Lee Green Regeneration, Lewisham, Technical Note: Leegate Shopping Centre TN02 - Committed Developments received 13/5/15; Figure 8.1: Location of off-Site receptors and modelled road links, Lee Green Regeneration - Map of Committed Developments, received 7/9/15; Errata Statement in relation to the Environmental Statement dated February 2016 (dated 16/11/15), Updated Appendices 11.1-11.3 and Updated Figures 11.1-11.50 received 17/11/12.
Background Papers Case File LE/995/A/TP Local Development Framework Documents, SPG The London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011) (2015), and Mayors’ SPG/SPDs, Best Practice Guidance
Designation SA23 Leegate Centre, Lee Green, SE12 8SS (Site Allocations Local Plan, June 2013), Core Strategy - District Centre
EIA Screening/Scoping The Local Planning Authority (LPA) advised that an Environmental Statement would need to accompany a planning application in response to a Screening and Scoping Opinion request submitted under Regulations 5 & 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Decision dated 14 August 2014, application reference DC/14/88269. Section Topic Page 1.0 Introduction 9 2.0 Property/Site Description 11 3.0 Planning History 12 4.0 Current Planning Application 13 5.0 Environmental Impact Assessment 24 6.0 Consultation 25 7.0 Policy Context 44 8.0 Planning Considerations 50 Principle of development Site allocation SA23 Loss of existing uses Loss of existing A4 pub Loss of existing use: D1 (Church) Land use: Retail (Use Class A1-A3) Permitted development Land use: Non-residential institutions (Use Class D1) Land use: Assembly and leisure (Gym) (Use Class D2) Land use: Housing Neighbour Amenity Layout, Scale and Design Public realm, Landscaping and Private amenity space Conservation, heritage assets and archaeology Highways and Traffic Crime and safety Energy & Sustainability 9.0 Environmental Impact Assessment 107 Alternatives to the current proposals Construction Programme and Methodology Socio-Economic Issues Traffic and Transportation Air Quality Noise and Vibration Townscape, Heritage and visual Impact Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing, Light Pollution and Solar Glare Water Environment Ground Conditions & Contamination Risk Wind Microclimate Cumulative Effects Conclusion 10.0 Planning Obligations 123 11.0 Local Finance Considerations 126 12.0 Community Infrastructure Levy 127 13.0 Equalities Considerations 127 14.0 Summary of representations 128 Design scale and mass of development Highways and parking implications Environmental Impact Quantum of public realm Housing Pre-application consultation 15.0 Conclusion 136 16.0 Recommendations 138
Figures Figure 1: Proposal outline plan Figure 2: Existing and proposed public space Figure 3: Existing and proposed western (Burnt Ash Road) public space Figure 4: Queue lengths - Leegate existing capacity and Leegate proposals
Tables Table [ 1 ]: Density calculations Table [ 2 ]: Residential Tenure and Size Mix Table [ 3 ]: Existing and proposed public realm measurements Table [ 4 ]: Renewable Energy Provision Table [ 5 ]: Demolition and Construction Programme
Appendices Appendix 1 Local meeting minutes Appendix 2: Summary of representations received Appendix 3: Mayor’s questions Appendix 4: Viability report 1.0 Introduction
Purpose of this Report
1.1 On 20th February 2015, the Council received an application for full planning permission, together with an Environmental Statement from Deloitte Real Estate on behalf of St Modwen Development (Applicant) for the redevelopment of the Leegate Centre. The proposals comprise the complete demolition of the shopping centre, (including the flats and offices within the complex), the car park and the removal of the car wash.
1.2 A Report on the planning application was presented to Members on 18 December 2015 when Officers recommended that further information/discussions was/were required from/with the Applicant in respect of a series of outstanding matters before a recommendation could be made on the determination of the Application. Officers therefore recommended that Members defer making a decision on the planning application until the further information had been submitted and assessed by Officers. Members agreed the Officers recommendations.
1.3 The list below comprises the further information required as resolved by Members in December 2015. The Applicant’s response on these matters (including further written and visual material submitted) and the outcome of the further discussions with the Applicant are addressed in the relevant sections of this Report.
Outstanding matters
Further discussions required regarding delivery/servicing hours and impact on neighbour amenity
Contribution to a temporary Town Centre co-ordinator
Possible provision of more 3 bed dwellings at podium level
Further details of Burnt Ash Road public space
Consideration of alternative tenure mixes, including a greater provision of affordable rent dwellings, and any implications on the overall number of affordable units the scheme can viably achieve
More details of highways mitigation measures
Provision of an alternative pick up/drop off point, away from the public highway
Details of the proposed location of cycle spaces
The proposed landscaping strategy, including the retention and/or the replacement of the TfL owned trees
Information about the size and fit out of the community facility
Proposals for relocation assistance for existing occupiers Clarification required regarding the provision of wheelchair accessible car parking for the shopping centre
Clarification required regarding the provision of wheelchair accessible car parking and car club bays in both Leyland Road and Carston Close (as per the Transport Assessment)
Proposed management arrangements for vehicular access to Carston Close
Further discussions/information required regarding shopping centre and market stall management
Further discussions required regarding the employment contribution
Further information required regarding the appearance of the Arcade
Further details regarding CCTV and connection to the Council’s system
Further discussions required regarding the off-site child play space contribution
1.4 This Report sets out all the matters for consideration of the planning application, including the further information which has been submitted and further discussions which have taken place with the Applicant following the SPC meeting in December 2015. The further information which has been submitted has been presented in order to further explain and describe the planning application. The additional information received is set out in the Current Planning Application section of this Report. In brief, additional drawings have been presented regarding the supermarket car park, and supporting images have been presented regarding the treatment of the arcade and public realm. Additional information has been presented regarding the dwelling and tenure mix, cycle parking and off- site child play space.
1.5 The submission of this planning application follows extensive pre application discussions between the Council and the Applicant regarding development opportunities for the Leegate Shopping Centre (Leegate Centre).
1.6 Since 2012, the Applicant has been in discussions with Council Officers, local ward Councillors and local community groups and has undertaken public engagement exercises on how the Leegate Centre might be redeveloped.
1.7 A new building would be provided comprising 229 residential flats and houses, a 3,847m2 Anchor supermarket (Use Class A1), 10 retail units ((1,588m2) Use Class A1-A3), 690m2 public house (Use Class A4), 2,041m² gym/leisure facility (Use Class D2), 353m2 non-residential institutions (Use Class D1), approximately 320 public and 106 residential car parking spaces, 530 public and residential cycle parking spaces, highways works, landscaping, access and all other associated work.
1.8 The proposed redevelopment of the Leegate Centre would result in a replacement shopping centre, comprising an anchor supermarket, and a series of smaller shops. The 320 space public car park is proposed to accommodate shoppers using the shopping centre facilities, including the smaller retails units and the community/leisure facilities as well as the anchor supermarket.
1.9 The vehicular access for the shopping centre and the service area for the anchor supermarket would be from Burnt Ash Road, slightly south of the junction with Taunton Road. Residents parking would be accessed from Leyland Road.
1.10 Pedestrian access to the shopping centre would be from Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road. The residential entrances would be from all four roads surrounding the site being Leyland Road, Burnt Ash Road, Eltham Road and Carston Close.
1.11 As explained below, the development is EIA development. In response to matters raised during the application process by the Council, further and other information has submitted by the Applicant in respect of the Environmental Statement. This responded to matters regarding traffic and transport, air quality, transport, townscape and visual heritage and sunlight and daylight.
1.12 This Report considers the proposals in light of relevant planning policy and guidance, representations received and other material considerations, and sets out the range of matters that Officers consider should be resolved prior to Officers making a recommendation and Members subsequently making their decision.
2.0 Property/Site Description
2.1 The Leegate Centre is a shopping centre situated at the junction of Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Road and located within the Lee Green District town centre. The majority of the site is owned by the Applicant.
2.2 The site currently consists of a run-down shopping parade typical of 1960’s layout, with retail units facing the surrounding streets of Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road. There is also a pedestrian shopping route running through the site which connects a north facing square addressing the corner of Eltham Road and Leyland Road connecting to Burnt Ash Road to the west.
2.3 The tallest building is on the northern part of the site, fronting Burnt Ash Road, and measures 8 storeys in height. Further blocks towards the south of the site range from 2 to 6 storeys in height. On the southernmost part of the site is a 3 level multi storey car park with capacity for approximately 266 cars. Adjacent to this is a former petrol station currently used as a hand car wash.
2.4 The site is in mixed use, comprising mainly A1 retail use at ground and first floor levels with 36 residential flats on the upper floors, while there is an A4 (pub) use towards the southern end of the site. The 8 storey tower comprises B1 office space.
2.5 The A20 Eltham Road to the immediate north of the site runs west to Lewisham and central London and south-east to both the M20 and M25. The South Circular A205 is a short distance away to the south. Both roads are managed by Transport for London (TfL).
2.6 To the south of the Leegate Centre and within the application site lies the multi- storey car park and the hand car wash. To the north and west of the site are bus stops for services terminating at Lewisham, Bromley, Blackheath and Sidcup. 2.7 The application site area is 1.92 hectares. It has a Public Transport Accessible Level (PTAL) rating 4 (as confirmed by the TfL Planning Information database, 23/8/15) of which 1 means poor access to public transport and 6 is excellent access.
2.8 Approximately 40% of the site is within Flood Zones 2 and 3 where parts of the District Centre could be affected by flooding from the Quaggy River to the north of Eltham Road. A small part of the site is within Flood Zone 1 meaning that it has a low (1:1,000 annual probability) of flooding from the Quaggy.
2.9 There is an existing public square on Eltham Road in the north east corner of the site. Within this space are 3 trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO).
2.10 The Lee Manor Conservation Area is located 100m to the south of the site. To the north and north-east, there are Listed Buildings being;
New Tiger’s Head public house (Grade II)
Fire Station (Grade II)
Police Station (Grade II)
2.11 The Old Tigers Head public house lies to the north west of the site and is locally listed (and as such a non-designated heritage asset).
2.12 To the immediate east, on the opposite side of Burnt Ash Road is a Sainsbury’s supermarket. The remainder of the District town centre includes 2-four storey terraced buildings, typically comprising retail uses at ground floor level and residential use on the upper floors.
2.13 The Lewisham Central sub area comprises Lee Green, Blackheath and Lewisham.
3.0 Planning History
3.1 The site has an extensive planning history with numerous planning decisions relating to such matters as telecommunication equipment installations, replacement shop fronts, change of uses and advertising. None of these are particularly relevant to the current proposals. The existing shopping centre was constructed following the grant of planning permission in 1959 for the redevelopment of the island site bounded by Eltham Road, Burnt Ash Road, Leyland Road and Dorville Road comprising the Leegate shopping centre and the flats and houses within Burnt Ash Road, Leyland Road and Dorville and Carston Close.
3.2 Over the years, planning permissions have been granted for an outdoor market, banqueting suite, after school club and a church. These uses remain on the site.
Pre-application discussions
3.3 Pre-application discussions started between the Applicant and Council Officers in 2012 and continued until November 2014. 3.4 In a formal pre-application response in May 2012, Officers advised that the principle of a mixed use development incorporating an anchor supermarket could be acceptable, provided that it would contribute to the regeneration of the Leegate Centre.
3.5 A Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) was entered into between the Council and the Applicant in February 2014 in order to provide a structure and timetable of discussions between the Applicant and Officers.
3.6 In August 2014, the Council issued a Screening and Scoping Opinion under Regulations 5 & 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The Council determined that the development would be EIA development and as such, would require any planning application to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
3.7 On 20th February 2015, a full planning application was submitted which is the subject of this Report.
3.8 The planning application was presented to the Strategic Committee in December 2015 in order to explain the proposals and advise Members about a number of issues that remained outstanding before Officers were able to make a recommendation as to determination of the application. Members resolved to defer making a decision so that the outstanding matters could be addressed.
3.9 In light of the further information submitted by the Applicant and the discussions which have taken place regarding the outstanding issues, Officers are now in a position to make a recommendation regarding the determination of the application. Officers recommendation is that planning permission should be granted, subject to obligations which would be secured by way of an agreement made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (and other relevant powers) and conditions which are set out in the recommendations section of this Report.
4.0 Current Planning Application
Summary
4.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a retail led mixed use development, including residential (Use Class C3), food store (Use Class A1 – referred to in this Report as the ‘anchor supermarket’), retail units (Use Class A1-A4), assembly and leisure (Use Class D2), non-residential institutions (Use Class D1), public realm, associated car parking, cycle parking, highways works, landscaping, access and all other associated works.
4.2 The proposals would provide a new shopping centre with an anchor supermarket, a series of retail units, a community centre and a gym and 229 residential units.
4.3 The proposed building would be at least 2 storeys in height across most of the site (save for the areas of public realm) with 8 storey pop up residential towers fronting Leyland and Burnt Ash Roads. A 10 storey feature building is proposed to face the Tiger’s Head junction. 4.4 The ground floor would include retail units (shops/cafes/restaurants), a community centre and circulation space leading from Eltham Road to Burnt Ash Road. The first floor would comprise car parking for the shopping centre and a gym. The pop up towers would comprise residential units from 2nd floor level. A row of 12 3 storey terraced houses would front Carston Close.
4.5 320 car parking spaces are proposed for the commercial elements. The application includes a further 116 parking spaces for the residential dwellings. The 116 spaces include 12 integral garages for the houses within Carston Close. The initial description of development referred to the provision of 100 residential car parking spaces, but a review of the relevant floor plans revealed a further 16 spaces. The Applicant has confirmed that the proposals are for 116 residential car parking spaces.
4.6 Public realm improvements are proposed, together with a landscaped podium for use as amenity space by the residents on the upper floors. Carston Close would be redeveloped to provide the 12 new houses in a cul-de-sac.
4.7 In terms of overall floorspace, the redevelopment would create 229 residential flats and houses, a 3,847m² anchor supermarket (Use Class A1), 10 retail units ((1,588m2) Use Class A1-A3), 690m2 public house (Use Class A4), 2,041m2 gym/leisure facility (Use Class D2), 353m2 non-residential institutions (Use Class D1), approximately 320 public and 116 residential car parking spaces and 530 public and residential cycle parking spaces.
Buildings
4.8 The application site is trapezoid in shape. The Burnt Ash Road, Leyland Road and Carston Road site boundaries are more or less straight, facing west, east and south respectively. The northern boundary runs parallel with Eltham Road, resulting in an apex towards the Tiger’s Head junction.
4.9 A new building is proposed which would be constructed across most of the site, save space allocated for public realm.
4.10 All 4 sides of the proposed building would be a minimum of 2 storeys in height. The elevations along Eltham Road, Burnt Ash Road and Leyland Road would comprise a series of blocks up to 8 storeys in height, rising above a 2 two storey podium. At the junction of Eltham Road/Burnt Ash Road, there is a landmark building marking this prominent corner which rises to 10 storeys in height. Block H Figure 1: Proposal outline plan 3 Storeys
Block A
4.11 Block A is located at the south western corner of the site. It is mainly 8 storeys, stepping down to 7 storeys in height abutting the new houses which are to front onto Carston Close.
4.12 Block A serves as the vehicular entrance into the car park and the internal service yard for the supermarket. Ground floor residential entrance cores would provide access to the flats above.
Block B
4.13 This block is set back from Block A and is 8 storeys in height, facing west looking towards the junction of Taunton Road/Burnt Ash Road.
4.14 Retail and residential entrances are proposed at ground floor level. The car park is at 2nd floor level and the remainder of the floors above comprise residential flats.
Block C
4.15 Block C is the feature block, 10 storeys high in an hexagonal shape, stepping down to an 8 storey, west facing wing. The feature block fronts the Tiger’s Head junction, but also has frontages onto Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Road. It is located at the north-western corner of the site and the west facing wing sits directly opposite the Sainsbury’s Car park on Burnt Ash Road.
4.16 Retail use, a pub, a stepped entrance to a first floor gym, and a residential core entrance are located at ground floor level with residential flats on the upper floors. Block D
4.17 Block D is 8 storeys in height, with the top storey set back from the main building frontage.
4.18 It comprises retail units and a community facility at ground floor level, the gym at 2nd floor level and residential use on the floors above.
Block E
4.19 This block faces north east and is 8 storeys in height. It marks the junction of Eltham Road and Leyland Road. The top floor is set back from both Eltham Road and Leyland Road.
4.20 At ground floor on the corner facing Eltham Road there is a café with D1 use above at 1st floor. The side of block E which faces Leyland Road provides an entrance to a residential core and car parking.
4.21 Residential flats are on the remainder of the upper floors.
Block F
4.22 This block is east facing onto Leyland Road and is 8 storeys in height, with the top floor set back from the front elevation.
4.23 It includes residential core entrances at street level, with space ancillary to the anchor supermarket within the core of the development at first floor and car parking at first floor level.
4.24 Residential flats occupy the remainder of the upper floors.
Block G
4.25 This block is located at the south-eastern corner of the site, facing directly east. It is 8 storeys in height, with the top floor set back from the floors below.
4.26 Residential core entrances are located at ground floor level, together with residential duplex units and vehicular access to the basement car park.
4.27 Parking is at first floor level, while residential flats are located on the remainder of the upper floors.
Block H
4.28 This block comprises a row of 12, 3 storey town houses in Carston Close along the southern boundary of the site adjoining Blocks A and H to the north.
4.29 The houses would be individually accessed from Carston Close, and all have integral garages.
4.30 Amenity space is provided at roof level, matching the podium level within the centre of the development.
Arcade 4.31 A double height arcade (Arcade) is proposed, accessed between Blocks B & C from Burnt Ash Road, and between Blocks D & E, onto Eltham Road (see Image 1 above).
4.32 The Arcade is proposed to have a glass roof, and double height glass entrance doors at either end.
4.33 Access to the anchor supermarket, would be at ground floor level from with the Arcade, while a travellator would provide access to the gym (Use Class D2), the Education Centre (D1) and shopping centre car park at second floor level. The second of the two D1 community facilities would also be accessed from within the Arcade at ground floor level.
4.34 Vehicular access for parking and servicing is proposed from Burnt Ash Road and Leyland Road. The car park for the supermarket would be located at second floor level, with access to the Arcade via travellators leading down from the car park.
4.35 Pedestrians would access the smaller commercial units directly from Eltham and Burnt Ash Roads. As referred to above, the supermarket is Accessed via the Arcade from Eltham and Burnt Ash Roads.
4.36 The proposal also involves the extension and slight shifting north of the existing bus stop on the eastern side of Burnt Ash Road, directly outside the Arcade entrance (west). Additional lay-bys are proposed on Eltham and Burnt Ash Roads to service the smaller commercial units.
Residential proposals
4.37 The majority of the residential units are to be in seven apartment blocks, while a terrace of 12 town houses would line the southern boundary at Carston Close. A total of 229 residential units are proposed comprising the following;
80 x 1 bed flats (above the commercial units)
128 x 2 bed flats (above the commercial units)
21 x 3 bed units (above the commercial units and including 12 townhouses fronting Carston Close)
4.38 The majority of the residential units would be above the commercial units, save 2 units fronting Leyland Road at raised ground floor level and the 3 storey houses fronting Carston Close. All other flats would be accessed from cores on the Burnt Ash Road, Leyland Road and Eltham Road frontages with a maximum of 8 units per core.
4.39 All flats would have access to private amenity space in the form of a balcony/terrace or roof terrace.
4.40 No north facing single aspect units are proposed.
4.41 Larger (3 bed +) units are provided as townhouses to the south or at deck and penthouse level where room for larger amenity spaces exists.
Retail 4.42 The proposed supermarket (Use Class A1) measures 3,847m2 and is proposed within the centre of the proposed building. The smaller commercial units and residential houses and flats would wrap around the supermarket and ancillary space at ground and first floor levels.
4.43 The supermarket would have a frontage facing onto, and would be accessed from, the Arcade.
4.44 10 retail units are proposed with frontages onto Eltham and Burnt Ash Roads.
4.45 A gym is proposed at 2nd floor level, accessed at ground floor level from Eltham Road or from the car park, also at 2nd floor level.
4.46 A community centre is also proposed, accessed from within the Arcade. A further D1 space is proposed at 2nd floor level, accessed from the travellator to second floor level.
Public Realm
4.47 Works to the public realm are proposed for all 4 sides of the site. The proposals alter the distribution of the public realm on site resulting in the loss of the north eastern open space on Eltham Road, but providing an area of public space along Burnt Ash Road.
4.48 The existing north eastern square currently measures 1,069m2 which would be lost in its entirety. The east to west route through the site measures 1,152m2 and this too would be lost as a result of the proposed development.
Burnt Ash Road
4.49 The proposals include a new public square incorporating trees, landscaping, designated areas for market stalls and areas allocated in front of shop fronts. Designated seating is proposed running parallel to the highway providing opportunities for people to stop and dwell.
4.50 The new square would measure 1,284m2 and would measure 90m long (north to south) and up to 17.8m wide (east to west), including shared surfaces. The pavement to the north of the public square narrows to a minimum of 6m but not for a significant stretch of the street.
4.51 The area would also include a bus stop at its northern end for people travelling south along Burnt Ash Road. To the south of the site is a vehicular entrance into the car park accommodated on at second floor level.
4.52 The Arcade through the site would also be accessed from the Burnt Ash public square, providing access through to the large supermarket, while also serving as a pedestrian route through to Eltham Road.
Eltham Road
4.53 The area of existing public space would be repaved in high quality granite sets. All existing trees would be replaced, to provide a more uniform appearance and seating and cycle parking would be aligned between the trees within the centre of a bound gravel centre strip. 4.54 This area would still include the bus stop, but would also serve the new entrance to the Arcade from Eltham Road.
Carston Close
4.55 Carston Close would be re-developed to provide a new street with a shared surface which would serve as the vehicular, cycle and pedestrian entrance to the proposed new houses and also as a thoroughfare for cyclists and pedestrians to and from Burnt Ash Road and Leyland Road.
4.56 Refuse access to this section of Carston Close would be from either Carston Close or Burnt Ash Road.
4.57 The front gardens to the new houses would be soft landscaped and less urban in character than the rest of the proposal.
4.58 The garages on the opposite side of Carston Close, to the west would remain, while additional disabled car parking would be provided to the east.
Leyland Road
4.59 The proposed new building line results in an increase in pavement width for much of the road providing up to 4.5m from back edge of carriageway to building edge. The public realm improvements include replacement paving, cycle parking, street lighting, and new street trees to sit alongside some of the existing retained on site.
Additional Public works
4.60 The bus stop on Burnt Ash Road (the same side as the application site) would be moved south and made longer to accommodate 2 buses at a time. It would also be inset into the pavement.
4.61 The bus shelters on Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road would be updated to the TfL standard black versions, which are to include real time information for bus time arrivals.
4.62 All paving around the site would be upgraded and integrated into the public realm strategy, aligning with building facades and level with building entrances.
4.63 The open space to the south east of the Tiger’s Head junction would be resurfaced, and would incorporate seating, a civic feature (for example, a clock or water feature) and a feature tree such as the Monteray Pine tree or a Liquidamber.
Highways
4.64 The proposals include a number of lay-bys around the site periphery so that loading and access points does not interfere with the surrounding free-flow of traffic.
4.65 A lay-by is proposed to the north-west corner of the site, immediately southeast of the Tiger’s Head junction for the bus stop. An additional loading bay is proposed opposite the Taunton Road junction. 4.66 Further south, a cross-over is proposed for access into a service entrance, designated for sole use by the anchor supermarket. Further south again is the main retail vehicular entrance which provides separate in and out access to the upper level car park.
4.67 The existing access to Carston Close at the south of the site would be improved through the provision of a shared surface. This would allow access to the proposed houses, and also provide a pedestrian and cycle route between Carston Close and Leyland Road. Parking spaces for the flats and houses are also proposed at the eastern end of Carston Close.
4.68 A vehicular entrance is proposed off Leyland Road providing access to the basement cycle and car parking for the residential uses above.
4.69 An existing lay-by on Eltham Road, immediately east of the Tiger’s Head junction is to be extended in length towards the junction. This would serve the commercial units fronting Eltham Road.
4.70 The bus stops on Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Road would be replaced renewed as part of the proposals.
Supporting Documents
4.71 In addition to the plans and drawings, a number of supporting document shave been submitted with the application. These are summarised below.
Statement of Community Engagement (SCE)
4.72 The SCE sets out the consultation undertaken by the Applicant prior to the submission of the planning application. The SCE states that the application submission was informed by the results of the consultation exercises. Appended to the SCE are the various exhibition materials, questionnaires and online pages and newspaper articles regarding the evolution of the current planning application.
Design and Access Statement (DAS)
4.73 The DAS provides an overview of the proposals, starting with evolution of the design concepts, a description of the existing environs through to the justification of the design and quantum of development proposed.
4.74 The DAS describes the scale, design and uses proposed and also public realm, and provides examples of floor layouts within the commercial and residential units. It also explains the design rationale for the massing of the blocks and its context, down to the detail of the materials proposed and the patterns proposed for the balconies and shutters.
4.75 Additional information was submitted in on 24th February 2015, which included updates to planning policies referred to in the Design and Access Statement and clarified the number of wheelchair units proposed (24 not 23).
Development Delivery Strategy (DDS)
4.76 This document sets out the vision and objectives of the proposed development. It explains that the Applicant owns the majority of the application site, but that some of the land to be developed is currently owned/managed by other parties such as the Council, TfL or third parties. In relation to the existing flats, St. Modwen owns the freehold interest and 18 of these are subject to long leases. The Applicant’s intention is to negotiate for their acquisition by agreement once planning permission has been granted. The DDS notes that if they are unsuccessful, St Modwen may ask the Council to consider using its compulsory purchase powers. Should that occur, that would be subject to separate procedures and any decision would be a matter for Mayor and Cabinet.
4.77 A Section of the proposed building fronting Eltham Road would overlap the footway. This footway is managed by TfL and is public highway. The DDS notes that the public right of way over the existing public square which currently fronts Eltham Road and the routes through the site and states the Applicant’s intention to seek a Stopping Up Order to enable the development to be carried out.
4.78 The DDS also confirms that the Applicant intends to develop out the site itself and then maintain and manage the shopping centre. The residential element would be run and managed by an Estate Management Team. The affordable units would be transferred to and managed by a Registered Provider.
Arboricultural Survey
4.79 This has been prepared by Tree: Fabrik who assessed a total of 27 trees in and around the site. The survey concludes that the 3 protected trees within the existing public open space on Eltham Road are Category A trees, meaning they are trees of high quality and value capable of making a significant contribution to the area for 40 or more years.
Retail Statement
4.80 The Retail Statement describes the site and its environs from a commercial point of view. It identifies the commercial activity in and around the District town centre and describes the proposals.
4.81 The Statement sets out the planning policy base and explains why the proposals are considered to adhere to planning policies. Although it advises that a Sequential test is not required, due to the District Centre location the report includes a Sequential test, which the proposed development passed.
4.82 The Statement considers the retail capacity of the town centre and concludes that the new anchor supermarket would support the new housing within the development in terms of jobs and retail offer. It also confirms that there is enough capacity for an additional supermarket as proposed until at least 2025.
4.83 The Retail Statement concludes by saying that the anchor store would provide consumer choice, generate employment and is in accordance with planning policies.
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
4.84 The Road Safety Audit considered the proposed alterations to the highway consequent upon the development. These include the following;
Extended bus stop on A2212 Burnt Ash Road Modified Raised Table at junction of A20 Eltham Road/ Leyland Road
Footway widening on the southern side of A20 Eltham Road (south east of Leyland Road to accommodate a shared use pedestrian/ cyclist facility)
Revised parking arrangements on Leyland Road
New Pedestrian/ Cycle Route between Leyland Road and A2212 Burnt Ash Road
General alterations on Burnt Ash Road relating to development and access for a new supermarket and residential units.
4.85 The report sets out a series of traffic movement scenarios as a result of the proposed highways works associated with the proposals and identifies any possible risks. Each change is considered to be accepted/part accepted/rejected. In all cases, recommendations for improvements are provided.
Transport Statement and appendices
4.86 This document sets out the policy basis for the proposals in respect of transport matters and describes the transport infrastructure surrounding and serving the application site. Details of the transport elements of the proposals are then set out. The Statement provides the parameters of the studies which include the Tiger’s head junction, the Taunton Road junction with Burnt Ash Road, Carston Close (north, which abuts the southern boundary of the application site) and Leyland and Eltham Roads which run parallel with the site boundary.
4.87 The Statement sets out the methodology for predicting the trips generated from the proposed development and provides information about where those trips would be distributed within the surrounding highway network.
4.88 It consider future traffic tends and how that might impact the site. The Statement estimates the parking demand for the site based on existing demand and discusses other forms of travel.
4.89 The appendices to the Transport Assessment provide the detail and evidence base for the information and conclusions set out within the Transport Assessment.
Framework Travel Plan
4.90 This document provides a strategy for users of the proposed development to move around, with a focus on sustainable modes of movement. It includes aims, objectives and targets and measures for monitoring the implementation of the Travel Plan.
Mechanical and Electrical Utilities Statement
4.91 This statement has been submitted in order to identify where existing utilities infrastructure is located, and how it might be relocated as a result of the proposed development. Planning Statement
4.92 The Planning Statement sets out the policies the Applicant considers relevant to the proposals. It provides a summary of the development and how it has evolved, including the influence of consultation with local stakeholders. The document sets out the policy justification for the proposal and concludes that the proposals result in the opportunity to regenerate a run-down shopping centre, while providing needed housing.
Affordable Housing Statement (AHS)
4.93 The AHS sets out the justification for the affordable housing proposed for the scheme.
4.94 The document provides the policy background which is followed by the breakdown of the tenure and dwelling mix. In summary, 80 x 1 bed, 128 x 2 beds and 21 x 3 bed dwellings are proposed, of which 36 would be affordable. This equates to 15.7% by unit or 19% by habitable rooms.
4.95 The affordable rented properties comprise the 12 town houses fronting Carston Close, while the remainder (24 units) would be shared ownership units in Block G.
4.96 It is proposed that the affordable rents would be 65% of market value while the 3 bed units are capped at £250 per week. The income thresholds for the 1 bed shared ownership units is proposed at £37k and the 2 beds at £43k.
4.97 This AHS does not include information about the viability of the scheme. This is the subject of a viability assessment which has been submitted separately by the Applicant.
4.98 Additional Documents and Drawings In response to Members resolution in December 2015, the Applicant has submitted the following documents and drawings:
Trees LgC SK01 – Existing trees overlaid on proposed layout LgC SK02 - Sketch: Footway widths along Eltham Road LgC SK03 – Trees along Eltham Road plans and elevations
Highways mitigation Technical Note 9: Sustainable Transport Investments (TN09) Area For Potential Highways Improvements 116288-TP-0007-01 Cycle Parking Sketch_1142_Sk300
Arcade design 4 x Precedent images of arcades Arcade floor plan, section and movement diagram Leegate Regeneration: Proposed Pedestrian Arcade (statement) Fall back position for anchor supermarket Future Subdivision Ground Floor Plan
Justification for Disabled car parking non-compliance Briefing Note: Leegate Utilisation of Blue Badge Bays in the UK Burnt Ash Road: comparable spaces in use Public realm proposals and references_10.3.16
5.0 Environmental Impact Assessment
5.1 By virtue of Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 as amended (EIA Regulations) the Council cannot grant planning permission in respect of the application unless it has first taken the environmental information into consideration. The environmental information means the ES, any further or other information received, any representations made by any consultation bodies and any representations made by any other person about the environmental effects of the proposed development.
5.2 Paragraph 10 (b) of Schedule 2 to the EIA Regulations identifies ‘urban development projects’ as requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA) if the development includes more than 1 hectare of development which is not dwelling-house development or it includes more than 150 dwelling-houses or the area of the development exceeds 5 hectares and, in each case, the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as size, nature and location.
5.3 In August 2014, the Applicant submitted a request for a Screening and Scoping Opinion under Regulations 5 and 13 of the EIA Regulations. The Screening Opinion issued in August 2014 confirmed the Council’s view that the proposals constituted EIA development and an ES would be required. The Scoping Opinion advised the Applicant that the ES should assess the impact of the proposals in respect of Socio-Economics, Traffic and transportation, Air Quality, Noise and vibration, Townscape, Cultural Heritage and Visual impact, Daylight, Overshadowing, Light pollution and Solar glare, Water environment, Ground conditions and contamination risk, Wind microclimate, Cumulative effects and Climate change.
5.4 Where EIA is required, the EIA Regulations require submission of an ES to assess the likely significant environmental effects of the development at each stage of the development programme i.e. demolition, construction and operation. It must provide an outline of any alternative sites/schemes considered and the reasons for selecting the proposed development site. In terms of the effects of the scheme it must identify the baseline situation, the nature of the impact both direct and indirect, whether it is temporary (demolition and construction) or permanent (operation) and measures to mitigate the adverse impacts in each case. It must also identify the residual effects after mitigation as well as the cumulative effects of such a scheme in relation to other developments in the area. The Council cannot grant planning permission for any development which is required to be subject to environmental impact assessment unless it has first taken the environmental impacts of the proposed development
5.5 An ES was submitted with the planning application. Land Use Consultants, independent EIA consultants, were appointed to advise the Council on EIA issues arising from the scheme and to help Officers scrutinise technical material prepared by the Applicant. Following their appraisal of the ES, the Council concluded that the submitted ES was deficient in respect of transport matters, such that it could not properly be considered an ES. Additional information was also required to clarify certain matters relating to townscape and visual heritage and air quality. A Regulation 22 request was therefore served requiring further information to complete the ES. This was provided by the Applicant in May 2015, together with other information requested. In November 2015, the Applicant submitted additional information in respect of discrepancies found in Chapter 11 Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing, Light Pollution and Solar Glare of the ES and ESNTS which incorrectly labelled the two towers to the east of the site. They were previously recorded as 1 and 45 Leyland Road, and should be 1-44 Leybridge Court and 45-88 Leybridge Court. Stafford House to the west of the application site was referred to as Starford House. Consultation letters were sent directly to the affected properties, and communications in the forms of letters or emails were sent to anyone who had previously submitted representations to the proposals together with all statutory consultees. This information was also publicised in accordance with Regulation 22.
5.6 The ES is considered in Section 9 of this Report.
6.0 Consultation
6.1 This section outlines the consultation carried out by the Applicant prior to submission of the planning application and by the Council following its receipt and summarises the responses received.
Pre-application consultation
6.2 The Applicant has undertaken a series of public engagement exercises. The first public exhibition was held in March 2012. In June 2014 a further public exhibition was held. A third exhibition took place in November 2014. During this time, the Applicant also held separate meetings with local groups.
6.3 The Lee Green Assemblies Group (LGAG) includes a group of local stakeholders such as residents and businesses in Lee Green who discuss ways to improve the local area. LGAG created a working group to provide feedback to the Applicant in a more structured way. The LGAG held meetings specifically to discuss the details of the scheme and to provide feedback to the Applicant team.
6.4 In October 2014, the Deputy Mayor held a meeting in response to an exceptionally high level of questions submitted to the Mayor about the proposals. Subsequent questions have been submitted to the Deputy Mayor since the application was submitted in February 2015. The Mayor’s questions can be found in Appendix 3 to this Report.
Council consultation
6.5 The Council’s consultation was in accordance with the minimum statutory requirements and those required by the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement.
6.6 Five site notices were displayed for the planning application and a further 5 were displayed in respect of the ES. Both notices were displayed on lamp posts on Leyland, Burnt Ash and Eltham Roads and Carston Close. The application and supporting documents and other relevant material are lodged on the Council’s website in the usual way. A press notice was also published in the local newspaper in respect of the planning application accompanied by the Environmental Impact Assessment.
6.7 Letters were sent to 8,500 residents and business in the surrounding area. Emails providing a link to the application details were sent to the relevant ward Greenwich and Lewisham Councillors. The following statutory consultees and stakeholders were also consulted:
Friends and Users of Staplehurst Road Shops Hither Green Community Association Grove Park Community Group Grove Park Residents Association Blackheath Village Residents Group Blackheath Village Traders Association Historic England Environment Agency Fire Prevention Group Lewisham Cyclists Royal Borough of Greenwich London Cycling Network Lewisham Primary Care Trust Natural England Network Rail Thames Water Transport for London’s Land Use Planning Team SUSTRANS Met Police Design Out Crime Officer (Lewisham) Greenwich Conservation Group Neighbourhood Community Safety Service Central London Fire & Emergency Authority Sports England Greater London Authority
6.8 The following local groups were consulted;
Lee Manor Society Blackheath Society Greenwich Society The Corbett Society Lee Green Lives A Better Lee Green
6.9 The following Council departments were consulted:
Environmental Sustainability Highways Ecological Regeneration Environmental Health Housing Education Legal Services Parks Manager 6.10 In response to further information provided in respect of the Environmental Statement under Regulation 22 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and submitted in September 2015, a second consultation exercise was undertaken. Consultation emails and letters were sent to anyone who had previously submitted representations to the proposals together with all statutory consultees. This information was also publicised in accordance with Regulation 22 which included site notices in and around the application site and a public notice published in the local press. Further consultation was also undertaken in November 2015 relating to the Environmental Statement and sunlight and daylight issues, as well as clarification relating to the level of residential car parking. Consultation again included letters which were sent directly to the affected properties, and communications in the forms of letters or emails were sent to anyone who had previously submitted representations to the proposals together with all statutory consultees. This information was also publicised in accordance with Regulation 22.
6.11 Further consultation was undertaken in April 2016 in respect of the information submitted in response to Members resolution in December 2015. Only those whom had previously submitted representations to the proposals were consulted. The consultation period ended on 4 May 2016 and the responses have been incorporated below.
Written Responses received from Local Residents and Organisations
6.12 Written responses plus a petition objecting to the proposals and signed by 906 people (of which 505 signed online), were received by the Council in response to the application. Further responses have been received in response to the consultation in September and November 2015 regarding the ES information submitted and additional representations were received in April/May 2016 in response to the additional information.
6.13 At the writing of this Report, 32 comments, 41 neutral comments and 215 objections (288 in total) have been received.
6.14 Objections received are addressed in Section 14 ‘Summary of representations’ of this Report and a more detailed summary of all consultation responses is included at Appendix 2 to this Report. Responses to the re-consultation exercises in February, September and November 2015 and April 2016 are also included. A summary of comments received is set out below.
Blackheath Society
6.15 The Blackheath Society object to the proposals on the following grounds:
The proposal results in a loss of 60% of public space which is unacceptable
The proposed scale, mass and bulk of the scheme is unacceptable
The proposal fails to provide a sufficient level of family sized dwellings and affordable housing
Lee Green Assembly 6.16 The representations received from the Assembly can be summarised as follows:
The amount of existing and proposed amenity space should be independently verified
The delivery bays, bus stop and supermarket entrances all compromise the amount of public space to be provided
The amount of public space proposed is inadequate
15% of affordable housing is inadequate
There should be more certainty regarding the mix of smaller retail shops
The proposed location of the public space would be exposed to greater levels congestion and pollution
There is insufficient space for both the public space and the proposed market stalls
The proposed development would result in additional car trips
The proposed public square would be located in an area which is exposed to air pollution 25% higher than the existing public space
The building, and equipping of the community centre needs to be secured
The Applicant should agree to reduced rents for the existing shops and market stall holders
The Applicant should ensure that the existing tenants do not become homeless as a result of the redevelopment proposals
Lee Manor Society
6.17 The representations received from Lee Manor Society can be summarised as follows:
The proposed public space is significantly less than the existing
The images for comparison of public space are not comparable
The proposed public space would be too close to the traffic
The existing information panel (the sign board in the public open space immediately south east of the Tiger’s Head Junction) should be retained or its removal separately consulted upon
The podium level amenity space would result in a ‘gated community in the sky’
The proposed development is clearly contrary to very clear policies
The proposed scale and massing would be damaging to the District Centre The proposed development should not result in any changes to traffic volumes
The increased traffic should be located on Eltham Road which is an A road
Burnt Ash Road would have more traffic and would make the proposed public space less inviting
The proposed highways mitigation measures are not convincing
The prediction of car volumes is in excess of the car parking spaces proposed
Overall, the proposed development would not be sustainable
Further discussions with planners should take place to improve the proposals
The Traders of Leegate
6.18 The Traders of Leegate includes the occupiers of the existing retail units at the Leegate shopping centre. Their representations can be summarised as follows:
No objections are raised to the proposals Compensation should be provided to the existing occupiers The planning process has resulted in the withdrawal of external funding and the reduction of trade The site has been poorly managed and maintained due to the pending redevelopment proposals
A Better Lee Green
6.19 A Better Lee Green’s representations (which include a completed on-line survey) can be summarised as follows:
The application should be refused or deferred until the proposals become compliant or refused The Applicant has failed to demonstrate a need for the additional supermarket The proposed smaller units need to be of an appropriate size for them to be feasible The diversity of the existing 25 retailers needs to be protected Independent advice needs to be sought regarding the need for the sequential test The Applicant needs to demonstrate how the proposal would adapt/survive with the growing trend of internet shopping A larger community should be provided Officers need to scrutinise the viability statement The existing and proposed amenity space should be independently measured Anyone who has an interest in the proposals should be made aware that the Lewisham Design Review Planning did not fully support the proposals. The Strategic Committee must be advised that the GLA considered the scheme using incorrect figures regarding the public space Planning Officers should obtain the responses the pre-application consultation exercises from the Applicant The application should not be determined until the outstanding concerns regarding public space, housing, education and community facilities has been adequately addressed The cumulative highways impact does not include developments immediately surrounding the application site The trip generation figures do not reflect the experience of the local community No evidence has been provided to mitigate any further rat running to local roads The application should not be considered while there are outstanding Highways matters No information has been provided regarding the home office spaces within the residential units Evidence should be provided regarding the future use of the cycle as a way of visiting the site and the cycle racks to be provided Further justification needs to be provided regarding the dangerous levels of air quality caused by a smaller public space and more vehicles around the site The Applicant should demonstrate that the new residents would be protected from noise and pollution The proposed development would not be a sustainable form of development and a scheme with greater longevity should be considered. Detailed plans of the arcade must be submitted and agreed as part of the current planning application Air pollution is one of the biggest killers in London and the examples of public spaces next to busy roads were created prior to this knowledge The future predicted traffic calculations have not been included in the new information which does not allow members of the public to fully understand the implications of the traffic from the proposal.
Written Responses received from Statutory Agencies
Greater London Authority
6.20 The application is one of potential strategic importance under paragraphs 1A, 1B and 1C of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The application is therefore required to be notified to the Mayor of London.
6.21 The GLA provided its Stage 1 response letter on the proposals on 30 April 2015. The GLA strongly supports principle of a mixed use development at the Leegate District Centre and considers the scheme to be well designed, in particular, with the wrapping of the supermarket with active frontages and the provision of the town houses. The appearance, scale and bulk of the proposed buildings is appropriate for the District Centre location. The GLA suggest a condition is added to the decision notice requiring the architects to be retained during the construction to ensure that the quality envisaged for the scheme is delivered. 6.22 Paragraph 16 of the Stage 1 response confirms that the GLA is satisfied with the information provided in the Retail Statement, which confirms that the retail floor space proposed would positively enhance the viability and vitality of the District Centre. Paragraph 19 states that the proposed development would make a 16.5% contribution to Lewisham’s Housing target of 1385 new home by 2025 which is welcomed.
6.23 The London Plan density matrix suggests a density of between 70 to 170 habitable rooms per hectare. The application proposes 119 dwellings per hectare which the GLA therefore considers acceptable.
6.24 The GLA Stage I response does, however, raise a number of strategic concerns. The GLA considers that the application does not comply with the London Plan (March 2015) housing, urban design, inclusive design, climate change and transport policies because of the reasons set out below. The GLA did, however, provide guidance on how the policy failures might potentially be addressed:
Principle of development: The principle of the proposed mixed use development on the Applicant’s site is strongly supported. But assurance is required in relation to the relocation of the evangelical church and decanting of existing business and residential tenants.
Housing mix: The proposed residential mix does not provide for a reasonable provision of larger units with just 9% 3- bed units, whilst 35% are 1-bed dwellings and 56% are 2 bed dwellings. The overall percentage of larger units should be increased to create a more balanced housing mix.
Affordable housing: The initial 15.7% affordable housing offer is supported by a viability assessment this Report should be independently assessed on behalf of Lewisham Council to ensure the maximum is being achieved on-site and the findings shared with GLA officers prior to stage 2 referral; the Council should confirm the agreement over the affordable housing mix because it is GLA officers opinion that whilst the provision of town houses is a welcome part of the scheme the Applicant should increase the proportion of 3 bed units and that the affordable rent/ intermediate for sale mix should closer to the 60%:40% targeted by London Plan policy; and the Applicant has received offers from 2 registered providers for a slightly different housing mix and GLA officers require that any correspondence be made available to review in context of concerns raised in relation to the affordable offer.
Retail: The Applicant should provide further details on the businesses response to the decanting strategy for existing businesses and set out the options explored to where existing retailers can be relocated.
Urban design: The approach to the development masterplan is strongly supported.
Access: The Applicant should provide justification for 2 type 2.25 ground floor duplex units to the south of cores F and G being elevated for visual privacy and flood protection that are not Lifetime Homes Appendix 1 compliant; increase the variety of wheelchair dwellings; and the Applicant should also illustrate what design features that will be incorporated to ensure that all shared surface areas are safe and usable for disabled people.
Children & young person’s play: The Applicant has provided this strategy but has not completed detailed work on the child yield using the Mayor’s Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Recreation SPG (2012). The Applicant should undertake this calculation work and the findings should relate to its play space strategy and the Council should consider if funds should be provided for the enhancement of existing facilities for off-site play provision.
Sustainable energy: Based on the submitted energy assessment the carbon dioxide savings exceed the target set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. However, the comments set out in energy assessment relating to verification information should be addressed in full before compliance with London Plan energy policy can be accepted. This information should be provided before stage 2 referral.
Flood risk/surface water: All flood risk and surface water run-off mitigation measures should be by condition.
6.25 Transport: It is recommended that discussions should continue between TFL, the Applicant and Lewisham Council to resolve issues relating to Eltham Road/Burnt Ash Road/Lee High Road/Lee Road junction. The Applicant should also respond in full to issues raised by TFL in relation to access and parking, trip generation & mode split, walking cycling, public transport and freight and travel planning.
6.26 The following matters were also considered within the Stage I report as outstanding:
Further information is required about how the existing tenants would be decanted and how their housing needs would be met.
6.27 The GLA would like to see correspondence between the Applicant team, LB Lewisham and the potential Registered providers to understand the justification of the dwelling and tenure mix proposed.
Clarification is required as to why the Leyland Road maisonettes do not have level entry. Without it, the units are incapable of being built to Lifetime Homes standards.
19 of the 24 Wheelchair units are 1 bed, 2 person. Larger units be provided unless a housing needs assessment can be provided to justify the unbalanced dwelling mix.
Information should be provided about how disabled people would safely use the shared surfaces.
The child yield from the scheme should be provided and incorporated into the child play space strategy. The Applicant should also commit to enhancing the Weigall Road Sports Ground and Edith Smith [Nesbit] Gardens secured by condition or S.106. The flooding management measures should be secured as a condition to the decision notice.
TfL trees should be retained and protected during works and permission may be required from TfL before any works commence.
£57k is required for bus stop upgrades (£45k) and Legible London signage (£12k)
At the request of Lewisham’s Highways officers, the TfL woks to the Tiger’s Head junction have been delayed until an acceptable mitigation strategy can be agreed. These discussions should be satisfactorily concluded prior to the Stage II referral.
There should be a reduction in the number of spaces in the town centre car park.
New residents should be prohibited from applying to any CPZ.
Free membership to a car club for all new residents.
Transport for London (TfL)
6.28 TfL require a transport modelling review mechanism to be secured in the S.106
6.29 With regard to trees within TfL highway, TfL requested the Applicant to review the detail of the building line next to largest tree to see whether a reasonable footway could be accommodated between the tree and the building line without harming the tree. If it is impractical to retain the tree and maintain an acceptable clearance for the footpath and removal of the tree proves unavoidable, then TfL will require compensation for the for loss of the tree and any other of their trees where removal proves unavoidable. Where it is maintained it is not practicable to retain the trees, TfL will require technical evidence to demonstrate this is the case before agreeing removal.
6.30 TfL has withdrawn its comment that the level of commercial parking is not policy compliant, but still maintains that, a reduction in parking may alleviate traffic at the Tiger’s Head junction.
Environment Agency
6.31 No objection subject to 7 conditions to be added to the decision notice with regard to the flooding, securing the recommendations in the FRA submitted, contamination and SUDS.
Thames Water
6.32 Initially, Thames Water did not raise any objections to the proposals, but requested that 2 conditions be added requesting further information regarding the existing infrastructure capacities and piling. The information is to be provided prior to the commencement of works.
6.33 In response to the consultation exercise carried out in November 2015, Thames Water still did not raise any objections but this time repeated the request for the previously mentioned conditions and requested a further condition regarding a drainage strategy.
Network Rail
6.34 After reviewing the information submitted, Network Rail has no objection or further observations to make.
Historic England
6.35 Having considered the available information it is concluded that any archaeological potential associated with the site would have been removed at the time the site was previously developed. It is therefore considered that there is no on-going archaeology interest with this site.
Royal London Borough of Greenwich – Reply from the Planning Department
6.36 Greenwich Council raised no objections to the proposals, and advised that it had no further observations to make regarding the proposals.
Written Objections from Councillors and MPs
Labour Party
6.37 The Local MP for Lewisham East, Heidi Alexander wrote the following in response to the Leegate proposals:
“I support the principle of redeveloping Leegate and believe a high quality, mixed use development in this location is long overdue.
In an ideal world, the redevelopment of Leegate would not entail another large supermarket in Lee Green but I appreciate the arguments advanced by the Applicant about how the presence of a large retailer makes the scheme commercially viable. I trust your Officers have thoroughly interrogated St Modwen’s claims in this regard and that St Modwen have been encouraged to consider alternatives. I know the Local Assembly’s Leegate Working Group have cross-examined St Modwen about alternatives, and both St Modwen and Asda about ways of reducing the size and/or impact of Asda, unfortunately to no avail — so we are left with the superstore.
Anyone who lives in the vicinity of Leegate will know how it has deteriorated over the last two decades. I therefore broadly welcome the plans submitted by St Modwen. However, I have a number of outstanding concerns which I list below:
Traffic - The new supermarket and the additional housing will generate new traffic. I am aware that Transport for London are currently remodelling the Lee Green junction and it is absolutely essential that the proposed redevelopment of Leegate does not result in further gridlock than that which is currently experienced. I understand that planning Officers have sought additional information from the Applicant about the impact of the development on traffic and I would hope the council could commission an independent consultant to review the data provided by St Modwen. I have read the response of “A Better Lee Green” to the planning consultation and believe they make a number of credible points regarding St Modwen’s traffic modelling which must be addressed.
Affordable Housing and New Retail Units - I understand that of the 229 new homes which will be built as part of this development, just 12 will be built to be let at affordable rents and 24 will be shared ownership properties. This is not an acceptable amount of affordable housing on a scheme of this size. I appreciate some of the units will be family-sized but the overall amount of affordable housing is still inadequate. I am also concerned that suitable arrangements should be made for the residents who currently own or rent property in the flats which sit above the existing retail and commercial units. I have written directly to St Modwen with some suggestions as to how this might be managed. I also hope that St Modwen will work with existing traders to ensure they can return to Leegate should they want to and that proper consideration has been given to the size and nature of new retail/commercial units, given the sort of future demand that will exist in a District Centre location such as Lee Green.
Public Space – I broadly support the principle of a wide linear public space on Burnt Ash Road. I believe St Modwen do need to demonstrate how such a space works in an urban environment such as Lewisham. The public space which exists currently on the corner of Eltham Road and Leyland Road is of a poor quality and the new public realm must be of significantly higher quality if it is to fulfil its intended function. I am unconvinced by the covered walkway which acts as an entrance to the supermarket for customers arriving on foot but I welcome the new pedestrian and cycling route that is opened on Carston Way.
Community Space – In recent years, the Lee Green Community Centre has become a valuable community resource. I welcome the inclusion in the scheme of new community space and note the commitment of Affinity Sutton (as per their response to the planning consultation) to supporting Lee Green Lives should they take on the running of such a space.
I would be grateful if my views could be relayed to the Planning Committee which considers this application as part of the Officer’s report. I am copying this letter to Killian Morris at St Modwen and would be grateful for any further information from you or him which addresses my concerns.”
Green Party
6.38 Below is an excerpt from a letter in response to the Leegate proposals from Störm Poorun, Green Party Parliament Candidate for Lewisham East:
“1. The plans go against the principles of town planning in that they would have a significant competitive impact on other traders and retailers in the area, large and small - but assessed on their own rather than against a properly considered and consulted-upon plan.
The lack of a town plan means that this impact on economic diversity is unmitigated and gives significant retail power over the District Centre to a single building owner, with no pre-planning from a public perspective. 2. The results of an air pollution study of NO [Nitrogen Oxide] levels, which itself is a material consideration, largely contradicts the assertions of the Applicants and both their Air Quality Assessment and the Environmental Impact Assessment.
NO levels are clearly welt above safe limits. PM 2.5 particulate pollution is also very likely by analogy to be well above safe limits.
Granting permission for an application that is going to increase traffic, parking, and pollution, even by the Applicants conservative estimates is damaging.
Permission should not be granted until a more thorough assessment of PM 2.5 particles and NO is undertaken, and modelled to account for the impact of the increased traffic, stopping, and parking.
3. The frontages of proposed cafés, and bus stops, where people dwelt for substantial periods, are likely to be well above safe limits of both NO and PM2.5 limits.
4. Air quality impact breaches the London Plan, Lewisham Air Quality Plan, the London Air Quality Plan, and Development Framework policy Development Management Policy 2.23 and Core Strategy 2.10 objective of improving local air quality.
5. It breaches the presumption in favour of development for sustainable developments, as it cannot be considered sustainable as the evidence currently available suggests it would increase illegal and dangerous air quality levels in a highly densely populated urban area.
6. Lost public areas, such as footpaths which are used as such within the development, will be lost, and such assets will not be replaced.
7. Within the plan, it appears that the current significant number of reasonably-sized business units suitable for SMEs will disappear. Their replacement would be a very small number (10 or less) much smaller units - that wouldn’t be suitable for many retailers or other small businesses. This would damage the economic diversity of Lee Green, resulting in deterioration of the character of the district town centre, breaching the Development Framework core strategy policies.”
Liberal Democrats
6.39 Below is the response to the proposals from Julia Fletcher, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Lewisham East:
“As you may be aware, we delivered a street letter around the immediate area asking for people’s views.
In response I received 11 replies in favour of the plans and 26 against.
Of the 11 in favour, 5 did not include any comments but just ticked the box to indicate that they were happy with the proposals. The other six included comments. A number of these were from people in the immediate vicinity of the existing centre who said they were fed up with anti-social behaviour there and the state of the current centre. One mentioned that the proposed new Asda store would provide jobs for local people.
Of the 26 against (one of which was by phone message) all put comments. Most were unhappy about the proposal being dominated by one large Asda store and would prefer a range of shops and services. Several commented that it does not make sense to have a new store so close to the existing Sainsbury’s. One commented that he was concerned about what would happen to the existing small shops.
A number mentioned concerns about increased traffic and pollution in the area and the use of local roads as rat-runs, it was mentioned that the junction is already a very congested and polluted one. Parking was also raised as a concern.
Several mentioned they wanted more meaningful public space, as proposed by the Lee Green Working Group and one said they would like more trees and plants to be included.
There were also concerns about the height of the proposed development and overdevelopment of the site, together with the appearance of the blocks (likened to a barracks).
One person highlighted the very low proportion of social housing to be included, especially when there is such a desperate need for social housing in London.
Another person was concerned about the proposed properties in Carston Close and Leyland Road and the lack of garden space for these, together the impact on parking.
A few people were concerned about the likely impact of the large number of flats in the proposed development on local services, particularly school places and health facilities.
School places in particular are already difficult to secure in the area.
A respondent who would be made homeless if the proposal goes ahead felt that he had not been properly consulted.
Somebody mentioned that they would like to see more evidence of energy conservation proposals.”
Royal London Borough of Greenwich – Reply from local ward Councillors
6.40 Below is a letter in response to the Leegate proposals from Councillors Christine May, Mark James and Clare Morris, Middle Park and Sutcliffe Ward, Royal Borough of Greenwich:
“The Leegate corner is positioned on the border with Middle Park and Sutcliffe ward in the Royal Borough of Greenwich and the constituency of Eltham. As Councillors of the neighbouring Borough we welcome the opportunity to respond as part of the consultation process over the redevelopment of the Leegate site. Our comments on the application as set out in the document Design and Access Statement February 2015 are listed below:-
1. Section 2. The Process
Referred to under Section 2 The Process (The District Centre Page 17) the site is described as having an 'unfortunate location' with its administrative boundary being 'designated in both the London Borough of Lewisham and the Borough of Greenwich'.
We are disappointed by the lack of engagement with Councillors and the local community living in the Royal Borough of Greenwich by the Applicant.
Given the proximity of Middle Park and Sutcliffe ward to the proposed development and its common interest in the successful future of this area, we would have expected the Applicant to proactively seek full input from all democratically elected representatives, local residents' groups and conservation societies from the earliest stages.
2. Section 3. Use
We have considered the impact on the anchor supermarket, which is the keystone of the new District Centre, of changing retail patterns in the long term. The trend is moving away from larger stores and towards smaller high street shops to meet every day requirements. Bulkier items and weekly food shops are increasingly purchased via the internet. It is our view that this will continue to be the direction of travel into the future. Given the dependence of this application on the sustainability of a large anchor supermarket, more information is needed on possible alternative uses for the site.
3. Section 5. Layout
The plans for small retail outlets, within the Arcade, appear cramped and not fit for purpose. Within the existing structure there are a number of spacious outlets, both inward and outward facing, which are available and adaptable for a variety of uses.
We note from the plans that the publicly accessible areas that are protected from traffic noise and pollution would be lost. The plans for courtyard space are attractive and pleasantly designed, but it is a private communal area and not an open community space. Only residents will be able to enjoy this amenity, not the wider residential area.
4. Section 7. Public Realm
There is an overall loss of public space. Misleading claims have been made by the Applicant that existing open space positioned on the corner of Eltham Road and Leyland Road would be redistributed to form a wider pavement on Burnt Ash Road. This is not a direct transfer of open space as implied, as a portion of this space already exists there and this is not reflected in the calculations (page 59). 5. Section 8. Appearance
The current design would create a very different aspect to Eltham Road, altering its character in terms of light and perception of space. The CGIs of these elevations create an impression of over-bearing bulk, scale and density which appear disproportionate to the size of the site and surrounding buildings.
We are disappointed by the poor quality of the design which appears to have little architectural merit and is out of keeping with the area. The redevelopment should be an opportunity to improve the street scenery; however the buildings are imposing, bland and unimaginative.
6. Section 9. Access
The considerable increase in noise and air pollution caused by the additional traffic volume commensurate with an anchor supermarket of this size would significantly impact on Royal Borough of Greenwich residents. It is also of concern that supermarkets rely on out of hour’s deliveries by HGVs, which will bring round the clock nuisance and disturbance to an area which is relatively quiet by night.
The increase in traffic has not been accurately projected, taking into account the new and significant developments at Huntsman and Kidbrooke Village. Congestion at the Tigers Head junction is already problematic with very long tail backs heading towards Leegate often to be found on Eltham Road and Lee Road.
The Tigers Head is a very hazardous junction, with higher than average collision rates according to TFL figures. This places all residents, whether pedestrian or vehicle users, at greater risk.
Conclusion
As elected representatives, we support the redevelopment of the Leegate site for the benefit of existing and future residents of the whole community. We understand the objectives, challenges and constraints that are faced in undertaking a project of this scale.
Unfortunately, a cycle of decline has been set in motion by businesses vacating their premises and the area has become a magnet for antisocial behaviour and other associated problems. We are dismayed at the rundown appearance of the Leegate shopping centre and believe this to be a relatively recent phenomenon and a direct consequence of the precinct's uncertain future. We also know this is often cited as a cynical and deliberate tactic employed by a developer seeking approval for a scheme which is likely to prove unpopular.
We urge a long term courageous approach is taken to maximise the potential of this opportunity and ensure a sustainable future for this development.”
Responses from Council departments and affiliates
Sustainability Manager 6.41 No objection to the proposed sustainability strategy.
Designing Out Crime Officer, South East Area Team (including Lewisham)
6.42 The Designing Out Crime Officer has provided an up to date analysis of reports of crime and anti-social behaviour within the Lee Green Ward which shows that for the 12 month period prior to the end of August last, the top 5 reports of serious crime were:
1. Crimes involving violence = 125.
2. Vehicle crime = 85.
3. Theft = 32.
4. Burglary = 23.
5. Anti-social behaviour = 125.
6.43 The Designing Out Crime Officer states that crime prevention measures have to be right to ensure a safe and as crime free environment as possible. This could be achieved through good design and layout as discussed and through police approved physical security measures as catered for in the Secured by Design Scheme which sets the minimum standards to be achieved.
6.44 This development would be prone to levels of crime and effective measures need to be put in place to counter this. There have over the past few years been serious assaults in the area one resulting in a high profile fatal stabbing.
6.45 The Designing Out Crime Officer therefore requests that an appropriate planning condition be applied to ensure that the development both Commercial and the Residential Units achieve Secured by Design Certification.
Education
6.46 Education Officers appreciate that this area of the Borough would benefit from regeneration and the homes included in the scheme would be an important contribution to the Borough’s target for the provision of new homes.
6.47 A development of this size is likely to increase the demand for school places in the area which the Council would be unable to meet locally. The schools serving the area, both primary and secondary, are full and on sites which are constrained and difficult to develop within the levels of funding currently available. If Lewisham residents with school age children are re-housed within the Leegate development they may be obliged to continue in their current school placement. This generates additional journeys and is expensive for parents who need to accompany their children.
6.48 Officers do not wish to object to the development but hope that the possible impact on other services is recognised and mitigated.
Highways 6.49 The Council’s highways officer considers that further information should be submitted, and further clarification provided before Officers make a recommendation.
6.50 Having all loading and drop-off from the highway is not acceptable. This would either use up footway/public realm space or carriageway, either of which should be prioritised over loading/drop off, which on both principle and in practical terms should be catered for within the site. Car parking at podium level should be reduced as a solution. The scenario of people waiting in the adjoining roads with their supermarket trolleys and/or shopping bags is not acceptable.
6.51 The traffic mitigation measures proposed do not include Borough roads - though an appendix showing areas for proposed traffic calming, most of which are already traffic calmed has been submitted. The mitigation should at least include the rest of Dorville, Cambridge and Upwood Road. The traffic calming measures also identify some proposed "Quietways", which shows a misunderstanding of what a Quietway is (a strategic cycle route linking destinations on a sub-regional level). If routes were to link to a future Quietway that would be acceptable. That said, the suggested local cycling improvements could help mitigate against the increase in local traffic and should be included, but these are already quiet streets which would be relatively safe for cycling.
6.52 Regardless of the junction modelling, there would be an increase in local journeys even compared with the Leegate Centre as existing and fully occupied. With this in mind, in terms of the pedestrian environment, the scope of works on Burnt Ash Road should be extended to Lee station and beyond to Burnt Ash Hill.
6.53 Similarly, a contribution to bus service improvements should be sought. This is to mitigate the additional journeys through the area.
6.54 The Applicant should provide 3 years membership to the local car club for future residential occupiers of the proposed development; 1 year is not enough to embed behaviours.
6.55 A robust travel plan should also be secured.
6.56 To conclude, as the proposals currently stand, an objection is maintained and Highways officers remain unconvinced that the Applicant has made sufficient effort to identify and mitigate impacts on local roads.
Environmental Health
6.57 The Environmental Health Officer considered that the Applicant had carried out the Air Quality Assessment in accordance with the guidance provided by Lewisham prior to the submission of the current planning application.
6.58 However, the results of the comparison to the benchmark were unavailable.
6.59 In relation to the construction, it is classified as high risk so would require the monitoring as detailed in the GLA SPD. In relation to the dust minimisation this can be picked up by a condition within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which should also include details of noise and dust/air quality control. 6.60 Officers understand that a £50k contribution towards air quality monitoring would be secured via a S.106 which is welcomed.
6.61 Specific text and information was provided for conditions relating to CEMP, noise protection and dust.
6.62 Objections are raised to the delivery and servicing hours given the close proximity of the residential units.
Lewisham Strategic Housing (LSH)
6.63 This is a large strategic site and should be aiming for a higher % towards the policy position of 50% of affordable housing. Departure from this should be tested via a viability assessment.
6.64 For the affordable rented housing the headline figure of 5% of total units is disappointing and they would like to see an increase of the overall percentage with some of the 2 bed properties – either private or intermediate - becoming rented units. However, Officers are pleased to see that 100% of the family sized houses are to be affordable rent with an intended capped rent of £1000 pcm. This is very much welcomed.
6.65 In terms of intermediate housing a reduction in the number of 1 beds and an increase in 2 beds – rented if viable - would be preferable.
6.66 LSH do not consider the suggested tenure split complies with the policy position. The February 2015 SPD does allow for a slight variation in favour of more intermediate in areas of where there is already a high concentration of social/affordable housing (3.1.51), but LSH do not consider this to be such a site with the amount of private homes already in the area in addition to this development balancing the tenure at nearby Leybridge Court, but in any case the suggested split is not considered ‘a slight variation’.
6.67 The balance should re-dressed with more affordable rent units being provided in lieu of some of the 1 bed intermediate units.
Lewisham’s Ecological Regeneration Manager
6.68 The Leegate shopping centre appears to be delivering 2,580.70m² of living roofs.
6.69 The design and access statement indicates that these would be 'brown roofs'. This is a term that normally indicates that they would be extensive substrate based roofs (of which Officers approve and favour) but that they would be left to naturally colonise.
6.70 Officers would however not recommend this form of establishment as it provides unwanted species such as buddleia and other weed species/grasses the opportunity to get a foothold and limit the functioning and value of the roof. They would prefer that the roofs are designed to provide a SUDS and biodiversity function and as such are plug planted and over seeded. The roofs should achieve the London Plan Policy 4A.11 Living Roofs and Walls aspirations by delivering both a biodiversity function and SUDS contribution as per the below associated definitions. where some contribution to an overall SUDS scheme is considered to be of importance the minimum holding capacity of the roof should be at least 12 litre/m²
where some contribution to the Biodiversity value of the building is required a mosaic of different substrate depths; varying between 75mm and 150mm, seeded and planted with native wildflower species that includes other materials to vary the micro-habitat/typography characteristic of the locality in which the roof is situated must be provided
6.71 Given that detailed designs have not been supplied with respect to living roofs the implement the recommendations should be secured by way of an appropriately worded condition.
Lewisham Design Review Panel (LDRP)
6.72 The application was submitted following a series of pre-applications meetings with Planning and Design Officers as well as undergoing a number of reviews throughout the process with the LDRP.
6.73 The LDRP is a group of professional design experts, who meet regularly to review development schemes at pre-application stages of the planning process. While the LDRP does not have decision-making powers, it serves as an advisory body to Officers, helping to achieve the best built environment. Comments from the LDRP have been fed into pre-application discussions and the assessment of this planning application.
6.74 The LDRP is broadly supportive of the final massing strategy and of the approach to the elevational composition. The concept of acknowledging Lee Cross, the junction of 5 major roads, with the taller building of the new development acting as the visual anchor is supported in terms of place marking, and setting back the building to create street level public realm is welcomed by the Panel.
6.75 The LDRP acknowledged the attention given to the elevational treatment to Burnt Ash Road which proposes a horizontal emphasis with wider windows to emphasise looking out not down, along with the elevational treatment to Leyland Road which is proposed to have a vertical emphasis with longer windows to emphasise looking out over the parkland setting of the Leybridge Estate. The LDRP also supports the strong architecturally framed ground floor emphasis which ties the whole scheme together.
6.76 General support is also afforded to the proposed internal layouts of the residential units, and the provision of amenity space in the form of the podium, balconies and roof terraces. With reference to the podium deck, the LDRP did remark that certain elements of the supermarket plant would need careful design, visual and acoustic screening at podium garden level so as not cause nuisance to the proposed apartments located nearby.
6.77 The approach to repositioning the existing public square from Eltham Road (to the north of the site), over to Burnt Ash Road (to the west) was supported by the LDRP. as this results in the creation of a more sheltered western facing square along Burn Ash Road which can create a better sense of place to the development and provide a more successful micro-climate for the public using the space: both walking past, waiting for a bus or using the proposed facilities. Overall the LDRP considered the proposals for the public realm result in a more generous offering along Burnt Ash Road which creates generous tree lined streets which knit back into the leafy streets of Lee and help to ground the proposals in its context.
6.78 The Panel did consider the Arcade to be sterile in appearance and suggest further thought is required in order to make the Arcade more successful. The LDRP considered rather than achieving a classic top lit mall environment, the proposals result in a standard shopping mall with the dominance of a number of travellators positioned approximately in the middle of the mall which divide the space uncomfortably both laterally and axially.
6.79 All matters raised above have now been satisfactorily addressed as set out below in this Report.
6.80 All written representations received will be made available to Members.
Local meeting
6.81 Given the level of local interest for the proposals, the consultation letter sent informing residents and businesses of the application also included an invitation to a local meeting which took place on 18 March 2015, at Trinity School. The minutes of the meeting are at Appendix 1.
7.0 Policy Context
Introduction
7.1 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) sets out that in considering and determining applications for planning permission the local planning authority must have regard to:-
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations.
7.2 A local finance consideration means:-
(a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or would or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or (b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or would or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
7.3 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear that ‘if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.'
7.4 The development plan for Lewisham comprises the Lewisham Core Strategy, the Lewisham Development Management Local Plan, the Lewisham Site Allocations Local Plan and the Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan, and the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2011) 2015. The NPPF does not change the legal status of the development plan.
7.5 It is important to note that when considering whether development proposals accord with the development plan, it is necessary to consider the question with regard to the development plan as a whole.
National Planning Policy Framework
7.6 The NPPF was published on 27 March 2012 and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. It contains at paragraph 14, a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Annex 1 of the NPPF provides guidance on implementation of the NPPF. In summary, this states in paragraph 211, that policies in the development plan should not be considered out of date just because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. At paragraphs 214 and 215 guidance is given on the weight to be given to policies in the development plan. As the NPPF is now more than 12 months old paragraph 215 comes into effect. This states in part that ‘…due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)’.
7.7 Officers have reviewed the Core Strategy for consistency with the NPPF and consider there is no issue of significant conflict. As such, full weight can be given to these policies in the decision making process in accordance with paragraphs 211, and 215 of the NPPF
Other National Guidance
7.8 On 6 March 2014, DCLG launched the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) resource. This replaced a number of planning practice guidance documents.
7.9 In March 2015, the Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard was adopted and sets out the minimum space requirements for residential accommodation.
London Plan (March 2015)
7.10 The London Plan was updated on 14 March 2016 to incorporate the Housing Standards and Parking Standards Minor Alterations to the London Plan (2015). The policies relevant to this application are:-
Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London Policy 2.6 Outer London: vision and strategy Policy 2.7 Outer London: economy Policy 2.8 Outer London: transport Policy 2.9 Inner London Policy 2.15 Town centres Policy 2.16 Strategic outer London development centres Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all Policy 3.2 Improving health and addressing health inequalities Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities Policy 3.7 Large residential developments Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities Policy 3.10 Definition of affordable housing Policy 3.11 Affordable housing targets Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes Policy 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds Policy 3.14 Existing housing Policy 3.15 Co-ordination of housing development and investment Policy 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure Policy 3.17 Health and social care facilities Policy 3.18 Education facilities Policy 3.19 Sports facilities Policy 4.1 Developing London’s economy Policy 4.2 Offices Policy 4.7 Retail and town centre development Policy 4.8 Supporting a successful and diverse retail sector Policy 4.9 Small shops Policy 4.12 Improving opportunities for all Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 5.5 Decentralised energy networks Policy 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals Policy 5.7 Renewable energy Policy 5.8 Innovative energy technologies Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling Policy 5.10 Urban greening Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs Policy 5.12 Flood risk management Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage Policy 5.14 Water quality and wastewater Infrastructure Policy 5.15 Water use and supplies Policy 5.16 Waste self-sufficiency Policy 5.17 Waste capacity Policy 5.18 Construction, excavation and demolition waste Policy 5.20 Aggregates Policy 5.21 Contaminated land Policy 6.1 Strategic approach Policy 6.2 Providing public transport capacity and safeguarding land for transport Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity Policy 6.7 Better streets and surface transport Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.10 Walking Policy 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion Policy 6.12 Road network capacity Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.3 Designing out crime Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.5 Public realm Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.7 Location and design of tall and large buildings Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology Policy 7.14 Improving air quality Policy 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes Policy 7.18 Protecting local open space and addressing local deficiency Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature Policy 7.30 London’s canals and other rivers and waterspaces Policy 8.1 Implementation Policy 8.2 Planning obligations Policy 8.3 Community infrastructure levy Policy 8.4 Monitoring and review for London
London Plan Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD)
7.11 The London Plan SPD’s relevant to this application are:-
Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (2014) Housing (2012) Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (May 2016) Sustainable Design and Construction (2014) Planning for Equality and Diversity in London (2007) Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation (2012)
London Plan Best Practice Guidance
7.12 The London Plan Best Practice Guidance’s relevant to this application are:-
Development Plan Policies for Biodiversity (2005) Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition (2006) Wheelchair Accessible Housing (2007) Health Issues in Planning (2007) Managing the Night Time Economy (2007) London Housing Design Guide (Interim Edition, 2010)
Core Strategy
7.13 The Core Strategy was adopted on 29 June 2011. The following lists the relevant strategic objectives, spatial policies and cross cutting policies from the Core Strategy as they relate to this application:-
Spatial Policy 1 Lewisham Spatial Strategy Spatial Policy 3 District Hubs Spatial Policy 5 Areas of Stability and Managed Change Core Strategy Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability Core Strategy Policy 4 Mixed Use Employment Locations Core Strategy Policy 5 Other employment locations Core Strategy Policy 6 Retail hierarchy and location of retail development Core Strategy Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects Core Strategy Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency Core Strategy Policy 9 Improving local air quality Core Strategy Policy 10 Managing and reducing the risk of flooding Core Strategy Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets Core Strategy Policy 13 Addressing Lewisham’s waste management requirements Core Strategy Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport Core Strategy Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham Core Strategy Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment Core Strategy Policy 17 The protected vistas, the London panorama and local views, landmarks and panoramas Core Strategy Policy 18 The location and design of tall buildings Core Strategy Policy 19 Provision and maintenance of community and recreational facilities Core Strategy Policy 20 Delivering educational achievements, healthcare provision and promoting healthy lifestyles Core Strategy Policy 21 Planning obligations
Development Management Local Plan
7.14 The Lewisham Development Management Local Plan (DMLP) was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 26 November 2014. The following lists the relevant policies from the DMLP as they relate to this application:-
DM Policy 1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development DM Policy 7 Affordable rented housing DM Policy 9 Mixed use employment locations DM Policy 13 Location of main town centre uses DM Policy 14 District centres shopping frontages DM Policy 17 Restaurants and cafés (A3 uses) and drinking establishments (A4 uses) DM Policy 19 Shopfronts, signs and hoardings DM Policy 20 Public houses DM Policy 21 Mini cab and taxi offices DM Policy 22 Sustainable design and construction DM Policy 23 Air quality DM Policy 24 Biodiversity, living roofs and artificial playing pitches DM Policy 25 Landscaping and trees DM Policy 26 Noise and vibration DM Policy 27 Lighting DM Policy 28 Contaminated land DM Policy 29 Car parking DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character DM Policy 32 Housing design, layout and space standards DM Policy 35 Public realm DM Policy 36 New development, changes of use and alterations affecting designated heritage assets and their setting: conservation areas, listed buildings, schedule of ancient monuments and registered parks and gardens DM Policy 37 Non designated heritage assets including locally listed buildings, areas of special local character and areas of archaeological interest DM Policy 38 Demolition or substantial harm to designated and non- designated heritage assets DM Policy 39 Domestic satellite dishes and telecommunications equipment & Radio and telecommunications masts and infrastructure DM Policy 40 Public conveniences DM Policy 41 Innovative community facility provision DM Policy 42 Nurseries and childcare DM Policy 43 Art, culture and entertainment facilities DM Policy 44 Places of worship
Site Allocations Local Plan
7.15 The Site Allocations local plan was adopted by the Council on 26 June 2013. The Site Allocations, together with the Core Strategy, the Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan, the DMLP and the London Plan is the Borough's statutory development plan.
7.16 The following lists the relevant Site Allocations in the local plan as they relate to this application:-
SA23 Leegate Centre, Lee Green, SE12 8SS
Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document (August 2006, updated 2012)
7.17 This document sets out guidance and standards relating to design, sustainable development, renewable energy, flood risk, sustainable drainage, dwelling mix, density, layout, neighbour amenity, the amenities of the future occupants of developments, safety and security, refuse, affordable housing, self containment, noise and room positioning, room and dwelling sizes, storage, recycling facilities and bin storage, noise insulation, parking, cycle parking and storage, gardens and amenity space, landscaping, play space, Lifetime Homes and accessibility, and materials.
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (February 2015)
7.18 This document sets out guidance and standards relating to the provision of affordable housing within the Borough and provides detailed guidance on the likely type and quantum of financial obligations necessary to mitigate the impacts of different types of development.
Shopfront Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (March 2006)
7.19 This document seeks to promote good design in order to enhance the character and appearance of the Borough as a whole. The guide advises on the use of sensitive design and careful attention to detail and that whilst shopfront design encompasses a wide variety of styles and details there are certain basic rules that apply everywhere.
8.0 Planning Considerations
Introduction
8.1 The current application proposes a comprehensive, high density, mixed use development of the Leegate centre. The redevelopment of the site has the potential to transform the District centre. 8.2 The application comprises a large anchor retail unit, surrounded by smaller retail units. A pub, gym and community centre are also proposed, as well as additional housing. Such a significant change within the District centre raises a large number of planning considerations. The application has also generated a significant amount of interest and objection. The planning considerations are set out and examined in the following section of this Report.
8.3 The main issues to be considered in respect of this application are:
Principle of development Site allocation SA23 Loss of existing uses Loss of existing A4 pub Loss of existing use: D1 (Church) Land use: Retail (Use Class A1-A3) Permitted development/restrictions on use Land use: Non-residential institutions, including churches and community centres (Use Class D1 Land use: Assembly and leisure (Gym) (Use Class D2) Land use: Housing Neighbour amenity Layout, scale and design Public realm, landscaping and private amenity space Conservation, heritage assets and archaeology Highways and traffic Crime and safety Energy & sustainability
Principle of development
8.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states in Paragraph 14 that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that proposals should be approved without delay so long as they accord with the development plan.
8.5 The development plan for Lewisham, so far as relevant to the application, is the London Plan, the Core Strategy, the Site Allocations DPD, and the DMLP.
8.6 London Plan Policy 1.1 Delivering the Strategic Vision and Objectives for London states that growth in London will be supported so long as it does not have an unacceptable impact upon the environment. Policy 2.9 Inner London states that boroughs should ensure that developments utilise the potential of inner London by improving its “distinct environment, neighbourhoods and public realm, supporting and sustaining existing and new communities, addressing its unique concentrations of deprivation, ensuring the availability of appropriate workspaces for the area’s changing economy and improving quality of life and health for those living, working, studying or visiting there”.
8.7 The application site is located within Lee Green District Centre. Spatial Policy 3 of the Core Strategy encourages a more intensive mixed use redevelopment of the Leegate shopping centre. The site reference for the Lee Green District centre is SA23 in the Site Allocations local plan DPD (June 2013) which allocates the land use opportunities for the site as a retail-led mixed use scheme with housing, offices and hotel. DMLP Policy 1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) repeats the ambitions of the NPPF and confirms that the Council will take a positive approach to sustainable development and will work proactively with Applicants to find solutions which mean that proposals secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the Borough.
8.8 The Town and District Centres Retail Report 2014 contains surveys of different shopping parades and centres across the Borough. The surveys report the uses of the ground floor uses, retail provision and vacancy rates and provides updates of any trends over the years. The report advises that Lee Green has higher than London and national vacancy rates and has seen a constant decline in occupancy for the last 20 years. It groups shopping areas of different sizes and functions together. The report raises concerns that the primary shopping frontages of Lee Green no longer have a predominantly retail function. In this respect, Policy 14 of the DMLP is of some relevance as it seeks to protect A1 uses within such frontages. Annex 2 London’s town centre network of the London Plan (2011) lists the network of town (and district) centres in London and identifies a broad indication of potential growth for them. The list, however, also provides an indication of changes to town centre classifications over the life of the plan. In this list it was anticipated that Lee Green would need monitoring and that Lee Green had moderate levels of demand for retail, leisure or office floorspace. The Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (January 2014) had Lee Green struck through in the in the same list indicating that it was the intention to no longer classify Lee Green as a District Centre in an updated/future version of the London Plan. In response to the London Plan consultation exercise, the Council asked for the District Centre to be retained as such given the current (then impending) redevelopment proposals for the site.
8.9 As adopted, the 2015 London Plan retains the District Centre designation, although the London Plan still maintains that there is moderate demand for retail in Lee Green and that the District centre should be monitored.
8.10 During the course of the pre-application discussions, Officers explored but discounted the proposition of altering, extending and refurbishing the existing accommodation in favour of a comprehensive redevelopment, as redevelopment afforded the opportunity to design a better urban form. As the supporting text to Spatial Policy 3 points out, the existing buildings impact negatively on the coherence, legibility and identity of the town centre. Redevelopment enables a layout that follows good urban design principles. The existing configuration of the buildings results in north facing public spaces, while complete redevelopment offers an opportunity to propose a new development that would take advantage of the positive aspects of the geography of the site, while creating a more sustainable development. For these reasons, Officers favour redevelopment over retention and refurbishment of the existing buildings.
Site allocation SA23
8.11 Policy SA23 in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document identifies the site as appropriate for retail-led mixed use scheme with housing, offices and hotel. The 2009 NLP Retail Study conducted identified the Leegate Shopping Centre as being in need of investment. The redevelopment of the centre to create modern units is a clear opportunity to enhance the centre (para. 3.72) and any measures to secure investment into the centre should be encouraged (para. 3.77).
8.12 Officers are of the opinion that a comprehensive redevelopment provides the best solution to revitalising the centre and the retail offer in particular. Further, the existing shopping centre is of a layout and design which no longer provides a safe, attractive or readily accessible group of buildings and structures and with the low occupancy, Officers are satisfied that the existing buildings can appropriately be lost in order to make way for a more sustainable form of development.
8.13 SA23 refers to hotel and business space as part of any mixed use scheme. DM Policy 12 Hotels states that the Council will encourage the provision of hotels in appropriate locations, with a preference given to those in highly accessible sections of town centres, in close proximity to train stations or other locations where there is good public transport access. Both the Planning Statement and Design and Access Statements submitted with the planning application are silent regarding these uses not being re-provided within the proposed development. However, during pre-application discussions, the Applicant advised that the provision of a hotel was discounted due to poor access and lack of demand and maintained, notwithstanding the allocation, that there was lack of any evidence base supporting the requirement to provide the hotel. To this regard, site allocation SA23 and DM Policy 12 seek to encourage the provision of hotel accommodation but it is not a absolute requirement. Further, the Clarendon Hotel is an established hotel in Blackheath District Centre and planning permission has recently been granted for a new Premier Inn Hotel in Lewisham Town Centre. Officers are also imminently expecting an application for a new hotel in the Deptford Town Centre. The Lewisham and Deptford Town Centres have Public Transport Accessibility Levels in excess of 6, where 1 is poor and 6 is excellent with direct links to Central London. The existing, proposed and anticipated provision in the nearby centres are considered to provide sufficient provision in the locality of Lee Green. Officers are therefore satisfied that hotel provision is being accommodated elsewhere within the Borough which contribute towards policy ambitions.
8.14 In relation to business space, Leegate House currently comprises 1,076m² of B1(a) office space. For a substantial period of time, the building has remained under occupied, even with current space being offered at below market rent. The existing office space at Leegate is not designated employment land and comprises an ‘other employment location’ for the purposes of the Core Strategy. Core Strategy Policy 5 (Other Employment locations) seeks to resist the loss of employment space. It states that the loss of employment space will be supported if it can be demonstrated that the employment use is no longer viable. The supporting text to the policy advises that Policy 5 is (amongst other things) responding to the existing and predicted need for jobs and forecast demand and predicted supply for new employment space. This approach is carried forward into DMLP Policy 11 (Other employment locations) which states that the Council will seek to retain employment uses (B Use Class) on sites where they are considered capable of continuing to contribute to and support clusters of business and retail uses and where the use is compatible with the surrounding built context by reason that they:
a. are well located in relation to the highway network b. are well located in relation to town centres and public transport
c. offer the potential for the expansion of existing in-situ businesses
d. offer the potential for the provision of workshop/industrial units for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) serving local residential and commercial areas, particularly where there is little alternative provision in the local area and
e. provide lower cost industrial accommodation suitable for small, start-up
businesses.
Loss of existing uses
8.15 The proposals would result in the complete loss of the existing B1 space within the site. During the pre-application discussions, the Applicant maintained that there is a lack of interest in the current office space, even when heavily discounted; this was considered to be an indication that the demand for office space in this location is low. As previously stated, the Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement are silent on the issue. However Chapter 6 (Socio- Economic Issues) of the ES advises that there are currently 96 full time jobs, 20 part time retail jobs and 130 commercial office jobs and approximately 18 part- time jobs (based on 12 market stalls only intermittently present) on site. The Chapter equates 2 part time jobs to 1 full time job and has used this approach to conclude that the site currently contains 245 full-time jobs. The Chapter then advises that if the site were fully occupied, a further 24 jobs would be provided (making 269 in total).
8.16 Chapter 6 explains that the proposed development would yield 345 new jobs derived from direct job creation from the anchor supermarket, the A1-A3 retail units and the D1 and D2 uses and indirect job creation from, for example, external businesses servicing the application site. This results in a net increase of 100 jobs from the proposed development using the existing jobs total or 76 if the existing development was fully occupied.
8.17 As referred to above, Core Strategy Policy 5 seeks to protect employment space. The Planning Obligations SPD (February 2015) underlines the policy to resist the loss of employment space, but provides that in exceptional circumstances, the Council make take the view that the loss is acceptable. In such cases, the SPD states the Council will seek a financial contribution towards flexible and affordable business space elsewhere in the Borough. The objective of the Council’s employment policies is to ensure that the Borough maintains its employment space in order to retain jobs in the Borough. The Planning Obligations SPD provides that when the Council deem that direct provision (either on or off site) by the developer is not achievable a financial contribution may be necessary. The December 2015 committee report considered the question of an employment contribution to be outstanding.
8.18 Officers consider that there is a balance to be struck between calculating the loss of potential jobs from the B1(a) employment space and the job creation from the proposed development. Officers are satisfied that in order to maintain the District Centre status, a retail led mixed use scheme as currently proposed, would be an acceptable way to achieve this. 8.19 A total of 1,076m² of B1(a) employment space (130 office jobs) would be lost as a result of the proposed development, none of which would be replaced. The Applicant has advised, however, that the proposed development results in a net increase in retail jobs, while also providing further jobs during the construction process. Neither Core Strategy Policy 5 (Other Employment locations) nor the Obligations SPD distinguish between the types of jobs lost and those proposed. The proposed development does result in an overall increase in job creation and, on balance, Officers consider that in the circumstances of this case, the increase in job creation from the proposed development appropriately mitigates against the loss of office space.
Local Labour and Business
8.20 Section 3.3 of the Planning Obligations SPD requires a financial contribution in respect of new development towards the training, support and recruitment of local people. Such financial contributions are required to support the capital and revenue costs of services provided by the Local Labour and Business Scheme which benefits both the residential population and local economy. The approach in the SPD is thus to split the contributions between residential and commercial development and to seek an equal amount (calculated at 530 per dwelling/job) for each job and dwelling proposed.
8.21 Officers consider that the general approach in the SPD should apply and a contribution required to be made. Given there are existing jobs and residential units on site, however, Officers consider it a reasonable approach to apply the necessary contribution to the uplift, or the increase in population and jobs as a result of the proposed development, rather than just on the overall proposed residential and employment population figures.
8.22 The uplift is 193 additional dwellings which equates to a contribution of £102,290 and an additional 100 jobs as referred to in the ‘Loss of existing uses’ section of this Report which equates to £53,000, resulting in a total payment of £155,290.
8.23 The SPD also states that the Council will use planning obligations to secure commitments from developers, contractors and end users which will support local people into work through, for example, apprenticeships, placements and work experience and upskilling the workforce with a specific focus on Lewisham residents. Commitments will also be sought to engage with local business to enable them to access contract opportunities arising from the development. These commitments will be secured through planning obligation requiring a Local Labour and Business Strategy. The development will provide significant opportunities for jobs and business through the construction and end user phases and Officers consider it appropriate that the opportunities for local people and local businesses should be secured through obligations in the proposed S106 agreement requiring a Local Labour and Business Strategy.
8.24 The applicant has raised concerns regarding the required financial contribution and the consequence this may have upon the viability of the proposed development. However, the Council’s Viability Consultant has confirmed that the viability assessment submitted with the planning application has provided for a 5% contingency fund for unknown expenses. This fund could comfortably absorb the required contribution of £155,290, and therefore Officers are satisfied that the contribution would not render the proposed development undeliverable. 8.25 Accordingly, both the financial contribution, strategy and monitoring would be secured in the S.106 should Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
8.26 Loss of existing A4 pub
8.27 As part of the redevelopment proposals, the existing pub located towards western corner of the site, opposite the junction with Taunton Road would be lost. Development Management Policy DM Policy 20 (Public houses) states that the Council will only permit the change of use or redevelopment of a pub if it is no longer viable to run, if it is demonstrated that there is no demand for the pub as a community use, the design or historic value of the building would not harm the appearance of the street scene or there is no feasible alternative use for the site.
8.28 In this case, the existing pub forms an integral part of the existing shopping centre in terms of both its appearance and use.
8.29 The pub frontage has been designed with timber shop fronts including French doors, stall risers and pillars and painted in cream and dark green to give it a more traditional appearance. Lanterns and floor tiles have also been added in order to further emulate the appearance of a traditional building. This fenestration treatment is contrary to the stark yellow brick and cladding and concrete flooring as seen on the rest of the buildings within the Leegate shopping centre.
8.30 The design alterations to the pub however do not add any intrinsic value to the appearance of the pub to warrant any different approach to the remainder of the site with regard to its demolition.
8.31 In terms of its use as a community facility, the proposals include a new pub which is to be provided at the north western corner of the application site. For the above reasons, Officers do not raise any objections to the loss of the A4 pub in this instance.
8.32 In light of the above, Officers are satisfied with the principle of comprehensively redeveloping the Leegate shopping centre to provide a retail led, mixed use scheme together with a significant increase in residential units, subject to appropriate mitigation for the impact of the proposed development.
Loss of existing D1 (Church)
8.33 London Plan Policy 3.1 (Ensuring Equal Life Chances for All) states that Development proposals should protect and enhance existing facilities which are meeting the needs of the local community and that any proposals including loss without adequate re-provision or justification should be resisted. DMLP Policy 44 (Places of worship) states that the preferred location for churches are within District Centres as they benefit from good public transport links.
8.34 The application site currently includes at least 3 churches, but only 1 has planning permission and the others are considered to be unlawful, not having subsisted for the requisite period to gain lawfulness. All churches would be lost as a result of the redevelopment proposals and from a planning policy point of view, the displacement of the lawful D1 church needs to be addressed. The GLA has also raised concerns regarding the re-location of the church in its Stage I response. 8.35 The Use Class D1 includes both churches and community centres within the D1 Use Class. For the purposes of this application, the D1 Use Class ‘Non- residential institutions’ also includes uses such as Clinics, health centres, crèches, day nurseries, day centres, schools, art galleries (other than for sale or hire), museums, libraries, halls, law court. Non-residential education and training centres. Therefore the re-provision of any of the uses referred to under Use Class D1 could be an acceptable form of re-provision of the existing church and community facility. This is discussed further in the ‘Land use: Community’ section of this Report. While a D1 facility is to be re-provided, the current proposal is not to re-provide the church use. The Applicant has stated that they would provide assistance to the church in helping them find alternative premises, by appointing a local agent. Lewisham Officers consider the provision of a community facility adequately maintains the level of D1 use on the application site. Officers also consider the offer of providing re-location assistance to the lawful church to be an acceptable.
Land use: Retail (Use Class A1-A3)
8.36 The application site is a “town centre” site in accordance with the definition within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2012). Main town centre uses are defined by the NPPF (Annex 2) and include, inter alia, retail, leisure, restaurants and pubs. Paragraph 23 of the NPPF promotes competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres (para. 23). Paragraph 24 of the NPPF and DMLP Policy 13 states that the Council should apply a sequential test to planning applications for town centre uses where the proposed use departs from the local plan policies. Core Strategy - Spatial Policy 3 (‘District Hubs’) and the Site Allocations DPD encourage the redevelopment of the Leegate Centre for a mixed use development including retail and Development Management - Policy 14 states that within Primary Shopping Frontages (which includes Burnt Ash Road), the Council will, inter alia, seek to maintain 70% of units within Class A1 use. DMLP Policy 14 (District centres shopping frontages) states that the Council would resist the loss of retail frontages at ground floor level in these locations. SA23 has designated the site as being suitable for a retail led mixed use development.
8.37 The Council appointed Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners (NLP), as an independent retail consultant to consider the robustness of the Retail Statement submitted by the Applicant and to advise on the feasibility of the redevelopment proposals and the capacity for both the new supermarket and the existing Sainsbury’s at Lee Green within the District Centre.
8.38 When assessing applications for town centre uses, the NPPF sets out two policy tests against which developments need to be assessed in certain locations. The first is the Sequential test. Main town centre uses should be directed towards defined town centres in the first instance. When an application for town centre uses comes forward on edge or out of centre sites that are not in accordance with an up to date local plan, a sequential site assessment is required to demonstrate that there are no town centre sites that are suitable and available to accommodate the development (NPPF para. 24 and DMLP 13).
8.39 The second is the Impact test. An impact assessment is required for retail and leisure developments above a set threshold located on edge or out of centre sites (again, unless allocated in an up to date development plan). This is to demonstrate that developments will not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the relevant town centres (NPPF para. 26).
8.40 As explained above, the application site is located within Lee Green District Centre and is a “town centre” site. It is also allocated for redevelopment for retail and leisure uses within the Site Allocations DPD 2013 and the Core Strategy (Spatial Policy 3) encourages a more intensive mixed use redevelopment of the shopping centre. Accordingly, NLP have advised that there is no requirement for the Applicant to undertake a sequential or impact test and the principle of main town centre uses on this site is acceptable. In this respect, the GLA concurs with this view in their Stage I response and confirmed that “As the site is within a town centre and identified in Lewisham Council’s Core Strategy for retail led mixed use redevelopment, there is no requirement under London Plan policy 4.7 (Retail and town centre development) for the Applicant to provide a sequential test or retail impact assessment.”
8.41 Notwithstanding the above the Applicant has undertaken a retail capacity assessment as part of the submission pulled together in the Retail Statement. This is to respond to concerns about the potential for Lee Green District Centre to accommodate an Asda foodstore (the proposed operator), in addition to the existing Sainsbury’s.
Retail capacity
8.42 Core Strategy Policy 6: (Retail hierarchy) and location of retail development, sets out the retail hierarchy and location of retail development across Lewisham. Lee Green is identified as a District Centre. Policy 6 states that the Council would:
a) expect major retail development, leisure and related town centre uses, including arts, cultural and entertainment facilities, to be located within the Major and District Centres;
b) designate primary and secondary frontages within the Major and District town centres to ensure essential services are maintained and contribute to their vitality and viability;
c) protect local shopping facilities from change of use or redevelopment where there is an economic demand for such services
d) support the retail hierarchy through farmers’ and street markets within the town centres, local centres and parades.
8.43 DMLP Policy 14 (District centres shopping frontages) states that the Council would resist the loss of retail frontages at ground floor level in these locations.
8.44 In addition to the Leegate Centre, Lee Green District Centre includes a Sainsbury’s supermarket (c. 3,616m² net) fronting Burnt Ash Road and a number of retail/commercial units along Lee High Road and Lee Road. These are outside of the application site.
8.45 As part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) evidence base, the Council undertakes an annual survey of the town and District Centres within the Borough, the latest being the Town and District Centres Retail Report 2014. Lee Green currently (at the publication of the 2014 report) has the highest vacancy rates at 13.5% in comparison to the other town or District Centres across the Borough. Whilst a 13.5% vacancy rate maybe close to the national average, the majority of those vacant units are found within the Leegate Shopping Centre; the surrounding parades have a much lower vacancy rate.
8.46 It is therefore important to acknowledge that while the Leegate shopping centre is considered to be dilapidated and comprises many vacant units, the shops within the remainder of the District Centre are relatively viable and still provide vitality to the peripheral parades. It is therefore vital that the current proposals would not compromise the functionality of the existing retail offer.
8.47 The annual survey also confirms that Lee Green has less than 50% of primary shopping frontage units in A1 use, and therefore any proposals to redevelop the site should see more primary frontage so that the District Centre reinstates its retail function.
8.48 The second part of the annual survey provides statistical information regarding the existing types and amounts of use which should be used to assist considerations for complementary retail types of use.
8.49 As referred to above, in November 2009, the Council commissioned Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners (NLP) to carry out a Retail Capacity Study for the LDF evidence base. This document describes Lee Green District centre and its immediate surrounds and raises concerns about its viability. It provides a SWOT analysis which includes weaknesses of poor environmental quality and high vacancy rates, and threats including the success of nearby District and Town Centres.
8.50 The Applicant’s Retail Statement is based on the NLP Retail Study 2009. The northern side of Eltham Road and the eastern side of Lee Road is located within the Royal Borough of Greenwich, the majority of the District Centre is within Lewisham Borough. Officers consider and NLP have confirmed that using Lewisham’s retail study as a starting point for considering the acceptability or otherwise of the proposed retail offer is considered to be the right approach.
8.51 The Retail Statement uses the Lewisham Central sub-area, which comprises Blackheath, Lewisham and Lee Green Town/District Centres and concludes that there is sufficient available expenditure within the catchment to support a new supermarket in the Lee Green District Centre. The methodology for the Retail Statement included reviewing the total expenditure available within the catchment area (which is derived from Experian in terms of average spend per head on convenience goods within each zone in the study area), the expenditure being directed towards Lee Green and how this compares to the average (or benchmark) turnover of the stores. NLP agree that this is a standard approach when comparing how stores perform.
8.52 The glossary to the DMLP states that a District Centre is a “town centre that provides convenience goods and services to local communities and is accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.” District centres typically contain 10,000- 50,000 square metres of retail floorspace. Lee Green is quoted as being one of Lewisham’s District Centres. 8.53 Convenience goods can be considered as items purchased on a frequent basis such as food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, tobacco, newspapers and periodicals and non-durable household goods. Comparison goods are items not obtained on a frequent basis such as clothing, footwear, recreational goods, furniture, household appliances, tools, medical goods, games and toys, books and stationery, jewellery and other personal effects.
8.54 The 2009 Retail Study identified a significant surplus of convenience expenditure in the Lewisham Central sub area; £33.52 million in 2009 predicted to rise to £80.78 million in 2025, some of which has already been absorbed by developments that have come forward since the publication of the 2009 Retail Study. The 2009 Study identifies these sites and the Applicant’s Retail Statement has updated the list of committed schemes in the Central sub area to ensure that the information up to date.
8.55 The Applicant’s Retail Statement also includes and considers sites outside of the sub area, but does not include the retail allocations within the Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan (2014). However, even with the inclusion of the Lewisham Town Centre schemes, in addition to other schemes outside the sub-area, the Applicant’s Retail Statement considers there would still be sufficient surplus of convenience expenditure in order to accommodate the proposed anchor supermarket unit in 2019. The Council’s retail consultant shares this view and Officers agree with this conclusion.
8.56 NLP’s 2009 Retail Study apportioned the surplus convenience expenditure within the Central sub area to floorspace figures in each of the 3 centres, for plan making purposes. This was in line with their position in the retail hierarchy i.e. Lewisham (3,666m², Lee Green 1,776m² and Blackheath 286m² by 2019). The proposed anchor store at Leegate measuring 3,847m² exceeds this plan making aspiration by 2,071m². However if you consider, Lee Green in isolation the 2009 Retail Study shows that by 2019 there is £34.66 million surplus expenditure, rising to £39.06 million in 2025 which means the turnover of the anchor store remains within this (c. £30 million in 2019). Although the envisaged potential capacity for Lee Green (i.e. 1,776m² in 2019) is exceeded by these proposals, Officers do not consider that this is a reason to refuse the proposals given the site’s ‘town centre’ location and development plan support for redevelopment of the shopping centre.
Vitality and Viability of Lee Green District Centre
8.57 NLP’s 2009 Retail Study identified the Leegate Shopping Centre as being in need of investment. The redevelopment of the centre to create modern units is a clear opportunity to enhance the centre (para. 3.72) and any measures to secure investment into the centre should be encouraged (para. 3.77).
8.58 Paragraph 23 of the NPPF promotes competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres (para. 23). Along with the new foodstore, 10 retail units, a pub and leisure facilities are proposed which would improve the retail offer and provide greater consumer choice in Lee Green District Centre.
8.59 Paragraph 3.1.2 of the Town and District Centres Retail Report advises that concerns are raised if the proportion of shops (use class A1) drops in a centre, as this may result in the centre losing its ability to meet the retail needs of the local population. For that reason, DMLP Policy 14 District centres shopping frontages sets a target of 70% of units within the primary shopping frontage of each centre to be in A1 use.
8.60 As explained in earlier paragraphs, the Leegate shopping centre is in decline and has been for some time and less than 50% of the frontage is in A1 retail use. The Lewisham Town and District Centres Retail Report 2014 raised concerns that the primary shopping frontages of Lee Green no longer have a predominantly retail function.
8.61 The proposed development would re-instate the retail frontage necessary for a District Centre and thus help secure the retention of its status as a District Centre and help retain expenditure within the Borough.
8.62 Foodstores can provide spin off benefits by attracting new customers and facilitating linked trips which can have a positive effect on the vitality and viability of the smaller units within the centre. The proposed foodstore is located in the centre of the new development and would offer free car parking for 3 hours which in turn should facilitate linked trips to other shops within Lee Green.
8.63 The 10 A1/A3 units proposed offer 1,588m² (net) floorspace, approximately 150m² floorspace per unit but the Applicant has confirmed that the sizes of the units could change, with the inclusion of mezzanine levels and internal subdivisions/opening up, subject to demand. Such units are appropriate and typical for a District Centre. Their proposed location, along Burnt Ash Road, a primary retail frontage, should enhance the offer within Lee Green, and help retain current operators (subject to the decanting strategy referred to by the GLA in its Stage 1 response) and attract new ones to the centre. Officers agree with the retail offer proposed and in the context of DMLP Policy 14 (District centres shopping frontages). Officers recommend the a condition on any planning permission which requires a proportion of the retail units to be Class A1 to ensure a vibrant mix of uses.
8.64 In overall terms, Officers consider the proposed development would have a positive impact on the vitality and viability of, and the proposed mix of uses within, the District Centre. The GLA’s Stage I response accords with this view. However, Officers are concerned about the disruption to the remaining shops within the District Centre during the demolition and construction works, and also of their ability to compete with the proposed new retail units. Officers consider it appropriate that this impact should be mitigated and this is an outstanding issue which has been discussed further with the Applicant following deferral of consideration of the application by SPC in December.
8.65 Following further discussions, the Applicant has now agreed to a contribution of £20,000 towards initiatives to assist local businesses. Officers consider this proposal to be acceptable.
8.66 Officers consider that the contribution should appropriately be used to fund a part time/temporary district centre co-ordinator who would seek to firstly understand the issues for current businesses and the opportunities which would be created from the development. The initiatives could include support for existing businesses and/or developing new kinds of (temporary) business activity and place-making (such as one-off events, temporary landscaping strategies and signage) which would support the long term development.
Sainsbury’s Lee Green
8.67 Information regarding Market share and averages of store turn over in relation to store size are used as benchmarks to measure how well or how poorly individual stores are performing.
8.68 NLP advise that for the Sainsbury’s in Lee Green the market shares were much higher than the average turnover levels for a Sainsbury’s store of that size, which confirmed it was “over trading”. NLP’s 2009 Report predicted that by 2019, the Sainsbury’s at Lee Green would be trading at £60.21 million (based on a constant market share approach i.e. the level of trade to the Sainsbury’s store remains at constant levels and is not diverted elsewhere). The benchmark (i.e. average turnover for Sainsbury’s, published by Sainsbury’s) is £28.29 million which means the store is over-trading by over 100%. This suggests a lack of alternative facilities for residents within the catchment area.
8.69 The level of potential overtrading is more than the estimated total convenience turnover of the proposed Asda store at 2019. As such, the Sainsbury’s store should be able to withstand any trade diverted to the new Asda store, even though it is accepted that the majority of trade diverted to the Asda store is likely to come from the existing Sainsbury’s.
8.70 As a worst case scenario, if it is assumed that the Sainsbury’s turnover only grows by the efficiency rate of 0.3% between 2011 and 2019, the store would trade at £54.63 million at 2019. This would be £26.34 million over the benchmark turnover and also demonstrates that even if the majority of Sainsbury’s trade diverted to the proposed anchor store, it is still likely to trade above the benchmark.
8.71 Reference has also been made to the recently opened Co-operative store along Burnt Ash Hill to the south of the application site. This shop forms part of a local shopping parade and provides smaller convenience shopping offer and would therefore not be considered to have any significant impact upon the feasibility of the proposed 2 supermarkets trading within the Lee Green District Centre.
8.72 Officers are satisfied that it has been adequately demonstrated that there is capacity within the ‘Central Lewisham’ sub area at 2019 to accommodate the proposed anchor supermarket. In addition, the existing Sainsbury’s’ store in the centre is significantly over trading and would be able to withstand the likely level of trade diversion to the new foodstore. This extra competition is encouraged by paragraph 23 in the NPPF which states planning policies should promote competitive town centres ‘that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres’.
8.73 Officers are satisfied that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the existing Sainsbury’s and proposed Asda store.
Permitted development/restrictions on use
8.74 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) puts uses of land and buildings into various categories known as 'Use Classes'. Planning permission is usually required to change between the different uses but in some instances, the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) allows some changes to take place without the benefit of planning permission. For instance, the GPDO (2015) allows permitted change from A3 (Café and restaurants) to A1 (retail) or some changes such as A1 (retail) to C3 (residential).
8.75 The A3 Café is at the north eastern corner of the site and is proposed to be operated by the anchor supermarket. It is important that the part of the site is kept active and it is therefore proposed that a condition should be imposed to ensure this space is restricted to café use and cannot change to A1 or A2 use in reliance on permitted development rights. Although the A3 café is to be operated by the anchor supermarket, in planning terms it is considered as a separate planning unit.
8.76 For any A1 units, it is considered that permitted development rights which could allow a change of use to residential should be withdrawn by condition, again in order to maintain an active retail presence within the District Centre location. Officers would also restrict permitted change for the proposed D1 use for the same reasons.
8.77 Officers are satisfied that subject to conditions restricting changes of use, an appropriate retail offer for the District Centre can be maintained.
Land use: Non-residential institutions, including churches and community centres (Use Class D1)
8.78 At present, there is an existing lawful church and community centre on site. Development Management Policy 44 (Places of worship states) that District Centres are appropriate locations for such uses due to the transport links and parking facilities and therefore it would be appropriate to re-provide the existing church within the proposed development. A lawful community centre is also in operation at the existing site and DM Policy 41 (Innovative community facility provision) encourages the provision of community facilities.
8.79 Both the church and community facility are considered as D1 use by the Use Class Order 1987 (as amended). Core Strategy Policy 19 (Provision and maintenance of community and recreational facilities) states that there should be no net loss of community facilities through redevelopment. There are other churches on site without the benefit of planning permission but as they are unlawful, Officers consider it unreasonable for the floor space of those units to be considered in any re-provision in this instance.
8.80 The existing community centre at 3 Leegate measures approximately 150m² and the church at 14 Leegate measures approximately 140m² (ground and first floor), although this is an estimate. The space to be re-provided should therefore be in excess of 290m².
8.81 The Applicant is proposing D1 floor space within the proposed development. The Design and Access statement advises that this re-provision represents the size of the community facility already on site. The proposed D1 space is to be split between a community facility at ground floor level (approximately 100m²) and an education and training centre at 2nd floor level (approximately 230m²). It should also be noted that the ground floor community centre is double height, allowing the opportunity in the future to double the floor area by creating a mezzanine level. 8.82 The proposed floor area (without mezzanine) is larger than the existing lawful space provided on site, plus the quality and sustainability of the space proposed is also to be taken into consideration to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
8.83 The Applicant has therefore agreed to fit out the D1 ground floor community facility to shell and core level plus a shop front, and internal finishes. The occupiers of the current community facility have raised the point that the new centre would have higher overheads and therefore a greater fit out would be required in order to make the space self-funding. Any additional expense on the scheme could, however, impact on viability and thus the provision of affordable housing. An alternative could be to exchange a greater level of fit out for a smaller floor space. It has come to light that a 3rd party may also have an interest in using/managing the community centre and therefore could create a funding stream to fit out the community facility.
8.84 As other funding might be available, Officers consider that an appropriately worded obligation could secure the space and a flexible level of fit out to secure the space as a community centre.
8.85 The Applicant has advised that an occupier for the D1 education/training centre has been identified and Officers are satisfied that this unit can be commercially viable and sustained.
Land use: Assembly and leisure (Gym) (Use Class D2)
8.86 Paragraph 9 of the NPPF states that in the pursuance of sustainable development, developments should improve the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure. Paragraph 37 states that land uses should be allocated as to minimise the need to travel. London Plan Policy 2.15 Town Centres and Policy 4.7 (Retail And Town Centre Development) states that development proposals should support and enhance the competitiveness, quality and diversity of town centre uses including the leisure offer. Policy 7.1 (Lifetime Neighbourhoods and public services) states that development should enable people to live healthy and active lives. Core Strategy Policy 3 states that town centres (including Lee Green District Centre) are key places to support the development of a sustainable Borough and that town centre uses, including leisure facilities will be focused in these areas. Core Strategy Policy 19 Provision and maintenance of community and recreational facilities states that a range of amenities including leisure should be provided to accommodate the needs of current and future populations.
8.87 A 353m² D2 Gym is proposed within the development. Planning policy is clearly supportive of the provision of leisure facilities to support the increased density in residential accommodation on the site. Having the gym within the scheme significantly reduces the need for both the employees and residential occupiers of the development to travel. Officers are satisfied that the proposed D2 use is acceptable.
Land use: Housing
8.88 At national level, the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraphs 50 to 55 of the NPPF recognise the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. It specifies that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations. This should reflect local demand and where a need for affordable housing is identified, local planning authorities should set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.
8.89 At regional level, the London Plan seeks mixed and balanced communities (Policy 3.9). Communities should be mixed and balanced by tenure and household income, supported by effective and attractive design, adequate infrastructure and an enhanced environment. Policy 3.11 of the London Plan confirms that Boroughs should maximise affordable housing provision. Though the Plan does not set percentage targets for the provision of affordable housing at Borough Level, it sets a strategic target of 17,000 more affordable homes per year across London as a whole and confirms that Boroughs should set their own targets according to the Strategy of the London Plan. The London Plan requires the provision of affordable housing subject to viability, the need for larger, family sized dwellings and the character of the site. The London Plan policy also refers to a strong and diverse intermediate sector, where 60% of provision should be for social and affordable rent and 40% should be for intermediate rent or sale and priority should be accorded to the provision of affordable family housing.
8.90 The supporting text to Core Strategy Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability notes that the Lewisham Housing Market Assessment [2007-8] showed an overwhelming housing need within Lewisham and that 6,777 net dwellings should be provided over the current 5-year period to meet current the identified need. Following on from this, the South East London Housing Market Assessment (2014) noted that between 2011 and 2014 the annual housing target had been increased by 25% to meet growing demands. Table 3.1 of the London Plan (2015) sets a target of 13,847 additional homes to be built in Lewisham in the 10 years from 2015-2025 with an annual monitoring target of 1,385 per year. This is an increase on the 2011 London Plan which sought 11,050 units to be provided by 2016 with an annual target of 1,105. As part of the overall need for housing in Lewisham the Housing Market Assessment shows that there is a pressing need for more affordable housing in the borough, which supports the overall Core Strategy target of 50% affordable housing on new developments. Lewisham’s Site Allocation SA23 advises that the Leegate Centre has an indicative capacity of 130 dwellings.
8.91 There are currently 36 residential units on the upper floors of the shopping centre which would be lost through the proposals. The proposed scheme would, however, provide 229 new dwellings resulting in an uplift of 193 dwellings.
8.92 The 193 uplift in dwellings is 63 dwellings (67%) more than was indicated as suitable for the Leegate Centre by SA23. However, SA23 refers to 130 as an indicative figure and since the adoption of the Site Allocations DPD in June 2013, the housing need in Lewisham has increased by 25%. In addition to this, Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential in the London Plan 2015 states that Local Planning Authorities should consider developments which optimise housing output for different types of location. For this reason, Officers consider the principle of providing 229 new dwellings, which is an uplift on the current provision of 193 dwellings to be acceptable as it would increase the supply of housing in the Borough.
Density
8.93 Core Strategy Policy 15 (High quality design for Lewisham) seeks to ensure a high quality of development in Lewisham, including residential schemes and that densities should be those set out in the London Plan. Policy 3.4 in the London Plan seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with local context, the design principles in Policy 4B.1 and with public transport capacity. Table 3.2 in the London Plan (Sustainable residential quality (SRQ) density matrix (habitable rooms and dwellings per hectare) identifies appropriate residential density ranges related to a site’s setting (assessed in terms of its location, existing building form and massing) and the public transport accessibility (PTAL). This site is considered to be in an ‘urban’ setting and has a PTAL rating of 4 giving an indicative density range of 45-260 dwellings per hectare / 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare (dependent on the unit size mix). The London Plan states that residential density figures should be based on net residential area, which includes internal roads and ancillary open spaces.
8.94 Paragraph 3.28 in the London Plan introduces the density table by stating that ‘It is not appropriate to apply Table 3.2 mechanistically.’ The point of the table is to provide guidance, and is not to be used in isolation to consider the acceptability or otherwise of a scheme; It is to be used conjunction with other considerations such as a design and access to local amenities. Core Strategy Policy 1: (Housing provision, mix and affordability requires regard to be given) states that the Council will seek an appropriate mix of dwellings having regard to the physical character of the site and its setting, previous use of the building, access to private gardens or communal areas for family dwellings, the effect on car parking, the surrounding housing mix and density and the location of schools, shops, open space and other infrastructure requirements.
8.95 The proposal is for 229 dwellings, and the site measures 1.92 hectares creating a density of 119 dwellings per hectare and a habitable room density of 338. Table [ 1 ]: Density calculations
No. No. Total habitable dwellings in habitable rooms per development rooms in unit type development
1 Bed = 2 80 160 hab rooms
2 Bed = 3 128 384 hab rooms
3 Bed = 5 21 105 hab rooms
Total 229 649
8.96 The density is therefore comfortably within the London Pan density matrix suggested levels of 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare and 45-260 dwellings per hectare.
8.97 Having regard to the density matrix and the other factors of the proposal such as the District Centre location, the existing accessibility of the site and appropriateness of the proposed layout, scale and design, Officers consider the proposed density to be acceptable.
Affordable housing and tenure mix
8.98 Core Strategy Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability states that the Council will seek the maximum provision of affordable housing with a strategic target for 50% affordable housing from all sources for developments providing more than 10 dwellings. The target is, however, subject to viability. The 50% of target in new schemes is the starting point for negotiations. The policy also seeks provision at 70% social rented and 30% intermediate housing and family housing (three+ bedrooms). Where existing areas have a high concentration of social rented housing, the policy states different proportions of affordable housing will be sought. Lee Green is considered to have an existing, well balanced tenure mix, however, and so the policy split of 70/30 in favour of social rented remains.
8.99 The proposals are for 229 new dwellings broken down into the following size and tenure of residential accommodation: Table [ 2 ]: Residential Tenure and Size Mix*
1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Total
Private 69(16) 116(3) 8(1) 193 (20)
Affordable 12(0) 12 (0) Rent
Shared 11(3) 12(0) 1(1) 24 (4) Ownership
Total 80(19) 128(3) 21(2) 229 (24)
*Wheelchair accessible units shown in ( )
8.100 The proposal is for 80 x 1 bed, 128 x 2 bed and 21 x 3 bed units of which 15.7% or 36 dwellings would be affordable. All of the proposed houses would be affordable rent, while the remainder of affordable would be shared ownership tenure. 10% (or 24 wheelchair units) are also proposed.
8.101 Given that the application site is within reasonably close proximity to local services and access to the necessary social infrastructure it is considered suitable for affordable housing in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 1 and London Plan Policy 3.11 and 3.12. The proposed 15.7% (19% by habitable room) is considerably less than the target of 50% and the Applicant has provided a financial viability assessment with the application in order to justify the shortfall. This indicated affordable housing provision at 15.7%, Urban Delivery, specialist viability consultants were appointed by the Council to advise on viability issues. They have undertaken an appraisal of the development to assess to assess the level of affordable housing that can viably be provided. A copy of Urban Delivery’s report is attached to this Report at Appendix 4. Having fully assessed the scheme and the proposed affordable housing provision, they have found this to be the maximum number of affordable homes achievable at this time.
8.102 The current proposal of 15.7% is based on 12 affordable rent, 3 bed town houses, and 11 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed shared ownership flats or 33:66 (affordable rent/shared ownership) ratio which does not reflect the policy requirement of a 70:30 ratio. The proposal is also for 1 x 3 bed shared ownership unit (4%) which also does not reflect the 16% requirement in respect of 3 bed+ intermediate units as set out in the Obligations SPD. In this case, however, all affordable rent units would be 3-bed townhouses which would be capped at £1,000 per month (£250 per week). This equates to 60 habitable rooms. Whilst the percentage of affordable units proposed by unit numbers is low, as a habitable room percentage it is 19%. Furthermore, policy allows for units up to 80% of market rent to be deemed affordable. In this case, the £1,000 cap represents 64% of market rent. The £1,000 cap represents 65% of market rent and this level of discount is considered appropriate and would satisfy an important need for family rented housing.
8.103 Strategic Housing asked Officers to explore with the Applicant whether fewer shared ownership units might be provided in exchange for more affordable rented units with a similar rent cap. In order to maintain a viable scheme, however, such a switch could reduce the overall number of affordable dwellings.
8.104 In response to this, the Applicant carried out a sensitivity exercise based on the reduction of shared ownership units in exchange for the provision of more family sized affordable rent units at podium level. Overall, this scenario would see the quantum of affordable housing reduced from 36 units (15.7%) to 26 units (11.4%).
8.105 The Applicant stated that the change in tenure and dwelling mix would not be practical for the following reasons:
The podium level flats would require a significant redesign
It is highly unlikely that any of the affordable housing Registered Providers would accept individual affordable rented units dispersed within private blocks
The cost of redesigning the scheme would impact on viability and could reduce the overall level of affordable housing being provided compared to what is currently being offered.
8.106 Officers, together with the Council’s Housing Officer have considered the alternative dwelling and tenure mix and conclude that the dwelling and tenure mix as originally proposed results in the provision of the optimum level of affordable housing and is the right approach.
8.107 After considering the alternative options, Officers are therefore satisfied that the initial housing and tenure mix offering is the optimum and is therefore acceptable.
Review mechanism (Affordable Housing)
8.108 When a scheme fails to provide the policy requirement of 50% affordable housing, in the required dwelling mix, the costs and values used in the viability assessment when planning permission was granted may be reviewed at a later date to see if any increase in value could allow for a greater provision of affordable housing. The Council’s SPD on Planning Obligations states (para. 4.37) that the Council will consider the use of review mechanisms.
8.109 The application proposals are to be built in one phase. However, once planning permission has been granted, it could take time before works commence on site or once works commence, for one reason or another, the development may not proceed expeditiously to completion. In these circumstances, Officers consider it appropriate that a review of the viability should be provided for so that if there is delay and values increase over that period, an additional contribution can be secured to be applied towards affordable housing provision off-site. Given the shortfall in affordable housing provision relative to the levels set out in planning policy, it is appropriate that this is kept under review. To this end, and as is recognised in the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD, it is proposed that if permission is granted, the mechanism as referred to above is included in the proposed S.106 agreement to secure additional affordable housing should values increase to a level where this would be financially viable. Whilst the precise terms of the review will be negotiated with the Applicant, Officers consider it appropriate for a review to take place in the event the development has not materially commenced within 2 years of the grant of permission. If the development does commence within the 24 month period but has not been completed within a further period thereafter (to be agreed with the Applicant), then that should also trigger a review.
8.110 The Applicant has agreed to the principle of applying a review mechanism, and it is proposed that this is secured through the S.106 agreement.
Standard of residential accommodation
8.111 DMLP Policy 32 (Housing design, layout and space standards) states that new development should adhere to the standards set out in the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing SPG. The Council’s adopted Residential Standards SPD (2006) sets out criteria for new residential units but this document is now largely out of date and London Plan Policy 3.5 (Quality, and design of housing developments), the London Mayor’s Housing SPG and DMLP Policy 32 together with the Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard, contain the relevant criteria The Mayor’s Housing SPG (2012) sets out guidance to supplement London Plan policies. Part 2 of the Housing SPG deals with the quality of residential accommodation setting out baseline and good practice standards for dwelling size, room layouts and circulation space, storage facilities, floor to ceiling heights, outlook, daylight and sunlight, external amenity space (including cycle storage facilities) as well as core and access arrangements. The Mayor’s Housing SPG Baseline standard 5.2.1, is underpinned by Policy 3.5 in the London Plan.
8.112 The Government’s Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (in effect from 1 October 2015) sets out minimum space standards for new development. The technical housing standards require the 1-bed units to be a minimum 50m² and the smallest 2-bed units to be 70m², the 3-bed units 86m² and the 3 storey houses 99m². All units meet the minimum floor area as set out in the Technical housing standards. Furthermore, all submitted plans are annotated with essential furniture. This demonstrates that even though the units all meet the minimum floor area requirements, their irregular shapes could also comfortably accommodate the necessary furniture and circulation spaces. As such, the units are considered to be of an acceptable standard.
8.113 The Housing SPG and states that developments should avoid single aspect dwellings that are north facing, exposed to noise levels above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur, or contain three or more bedrooms.’ Of the 229 residential units proposed, 74 (32%) would be single aspect units but none of these are north facing. The north of the site fronts Eltham Road, which is the busiest road in the context of the locality. As no single aspect, north facing units are proposed, no objections are raised to the proposed development on these grounds.
8.114 The sunlight and daylight chapters in the ES, show that 94% of the dwellings proposed would achieve the necessary levels of internal sunlight in accordance with British Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines. The ES concludes that only a small percentage of the dwellings would not experience the necessary levels of internal sunlight. This would be caused by balconies above units or their lower level locations. The ES considers that the majority of the effects identified in terms of access to sunlight for future occupiers is either negligible or minor adverse. Officers are satisfied that a development of this scale would inevitably result in some dwellings not achieving the necessary sunlight levels and consider the low level (6%) of failures to be acceptable when compared with the overall regenerative benefits of the scheme.
8.115 Standard 4.10.1 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG sets out the baseline requirements for private open space. The standard requires a minimum of 5m² to be provided for 1-2 person dwellings and an extra 1m² for each additional occupant. All private amenity spaces adhere to the policy requirements in terms of their sizes.
8.116 The ES notes that two balconies on the 5th floor of Blocks E and F would experience wind conditions that would mean in summer, the wind conditions would only be comfortable for those standing within their balconies. Suitable mitigation could take the form of balustrades that are slightly higher than others or the introduction of retractable screens. Officers are satisfied with the mitigation measures proposed which can be secured by a suitably worded condition should permission be granted.
Accessible Housing
8.117 Core Strategy Policy 1 requires major schemes to provide 10% of all units and each tenure type to be constructed as accessible. Development Management Policy 32 states that the Council will require new build housing to be designed to ensure that internal layout and external design features provides housing that is accessible to all intended users. The supporting text confirms that the South East London Housing Partnership (SELHP) wheelchair accessible housing guide will be used to assess homes for wheelchair accessibility and lifetime homes compliance. Each wheelchair unit must benefit from a parking space. With effect from 1 October 2015, the standards for wheelchair accessible housing are covered by Part M of the Building Regulations. The development was designed prior to the changes coming into effect. 24 (10%) wheelchair units, all which are SELHP compliant in terms of room sizes are, however, included in the scheme and these would all comfortably achieve Building Regulations Part M Category 2 - Accessible and adaptable dwellings and Category 3 - Wheelchair user dwellings. All wheelchair units have level access to their car parking spaces. If Members were minded to grant planning permission, the wheelchair units can be secured in the S.106 to ensure that the affordable rent wheelchair units are to be fitted out (subject to need demonstrated by Council waiting list), and any requirement to fit out market units is subject to an approved marketing strategy.
8.118 Core Strategy Policy 1 and London Plan Policy 3.8 state that all new housing should be built to Lifetime Homes standards. Drawings scaled at 1:50 were submitted for the typical and irregular shaped unit types demonstrating how the 16 Lifetime Homes criteria would be achieved. All drawings submitted confirm that the units would be Lifetime Homes compliant. These standards will be now be secured via Building Control accreditation of the units.
8.119 Overall, the proposed standards of accommodation, including the private amenity space proposed for each of the units proposed are considered to be acceptable for the reasons set out above. The amount and standard of residential accommodation to be provided is considered to be appropriate for this District Centre setting.
Neighbour Amenity 8.120 DMLP Policy 32 (Housing design, layout and space standards) requires new schemes to be attractive and neighbourly meaning that the provision of new dwellings should not significantly compromise the amenities of existing nearby occupiers. The Council’s Residential Standards also require developments to be neighbourly and provides guidance on the Council’s approach to such matters as levels of outlook, access to sunlight etc and suggests minimum distances between buildings. For developments of the scale of the current proposals, a balanced judgement is required with regard to the percentage of properties negatively affected and the overall benefits of the scheme.
8.121 The list below comprises the properties which were assessed with regard to the impact of the proposals upon their access to outlook, sunlight and daylight.
21-25 Eltham Road 17-19 Eltham Road 1-3 Eltham Road 161-167 Lee Road New Tigers Head Old Tigers Head 347-349 Lee High Road 1-8 Stafford House 38-40 Burnt Ash Road 1-42 Merridale 1-44 Leybridge Court 45-88 Leybridge Court
8.122 The Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing, Light Pollution and Solar Glare chapter within the ES explains that daylight is measured by assessing how much light gets through the window glass while the sunlight is measured measuring the level of skylight falling on a vertical wall or window within a dwelling.
8.123 Of the properties assessed, windows facing the proposed development within 1- 42 Merridale, 1-44 Leybridge Court and 45-88 Leybridge Court would receive levels of daylight below BRE guidance levels. This is due to their windows being overhung by balconies. These windows are already experiencing poor levels of access to daylight and sunlight and Officers are satisfied that the proposals overall result in a relatively negligible change to levels of sunlight and daylight received, albeit there are technical breaches.
8.124 Windows within 1-44 Leybridge Court and 45-88 Leybridge Court would also see sunlight levels below those suggested in the BRE guidance. Again, this is primarily generally due to overhanging balconies which Officers consider to be acceptable.
8.125 The proposal results in a significant increase in land mass and scale and the outlook from the existing surrounding buildings would change materially. The Townscape, Visual and Heritage Chapter in the ES sets out the impact to views and outlook and advises that the impact would be minimised by the design which incorporates gaps between the taller elements of the proposed building. The ES also states that outlook would improve by virtue of the regeneration of the Leegate centre and the high quality of the buildings proposed. 8.126 Merridale House, which is to the immediate south of the application site, and the flanks of the houses within Carston Close and Burnt Ash Road are the closest to the proposed development. The houses are 3 storeys in height, while Merridale House is an 11 storey tower.
8.127 The scale and massing strategy has resulted in the lowest buildings being located to the south in order to respect the existing hierarchy of buildings, but also to minimise the visual impact of the development on its closets neighbours. The north facing first 3 floors of Merridale house currently look onto an unmade road and 2 storey car park. The new houses would follow the southern building line of the existing car park, but the houses would be an additional storey higher. Officers consider that the increase in scale would be compensated by the improved appearance of Carston Close and the attractive new terrace of houses.
8.128 The proposed car park entrance for the new shopping centre would be in a similar location to the existing and therefore more cars would frequent the southern end of the site. This too would result in an impact the amenities of the existing residential properties fronting Burnt Ash Road (east and west sides) and Carston Close in particular. However, if the existing shopping centre were fully occupied, the frequency into the existing car park would also result in an impact to neighbour amenity. Taking this into account, together with the design that ensures the car parking is mostly covered and concealed, Officers are satisfied that the relatively close proximity of the car parking entrance would not result in an unacceptable level of impact on neighbour amenity.
8.129 The ES also identified that 38 to 40 Burnt Ash Road (35m west from the proposed development) would suffer a significant reduction in views of the sky and access to sunlight (overshadowing). Officers consider the conclusions are perhaps overstated as some of the windows within the western elevation (fronting Burnt Ash Road and the development) would serve non habitable rooms. The flank of the two storey house fronting the eastern end of Taunton Road (36m west) is considered to have limited impact from the development as views from these properties face directly onto the flank of Sainsbury’s car park. Officers consider the impact to residential amenity is acceptable in this respect.
8.130 The existing buildings at the northern end on the east side of Burnt Road are 21.5m away from the proposed development while on the opposite side (north) of Eltham Road they are between 25m and 35m away. The buildings range between single and 4 storeys in height, many of which have residential use on the upper floors.
8.131 The proposed development would result in impact to neighbour amenity for these properties. Existing views of the sky would be reduced, some overshadowing would occur while general noise and disturbance and an increase in traffic from the proposed development would all result in a change to the current situation. However, for the reasons set out above, Officers consider the design rationale for the development has minimised the visual impact of the development, while the noise, traffic and general increase in footfall are all impacts associated with a District Centre location.
8.132 As mentioned earlier in this Report, after the submission of the application, it came to light that whilst the properties assessed are correct and relevant, there had been a mislabelling in terms of the addresses. The addresses referred to in the ES text are largely correct, but “Leybridge Court” which were previously recorded as 1 and 45 Leyland Road), and should be 1-44 Leybridge Court and 45-88 Leybridge Court which are the 2 towers to the east of the proposal site. A further discrepancy with regard to the property known as “Stafford House” (previously recorded as ‘Starford’ House). The Council re-consulted the neighbours directly affected by the typographic errors in December 2015 but no specific objections were received to the proposal from those properties on the grounds of a loss of light or overshadowing.
8.133 The proposal is for the anchor supermarket to open 24 hours a day, except for Sundays, where the proposal is to open between 11am and 5pm. Officers consider that the majority of any disturbance would happen at peak hours and that the frequency of night time visits would result in minimal impact to residents in terms of noise. The proposals are considered acceptable in this regard.
8.134 The Applicant has requested that servicing is permitted up to midnight and from 5:30am Monday to Saturday (inclusive) and up to 9pm and from 8am on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Whilst the service yard is within the body of the building, the entrance to the yard area is beneath and directly opposite residential units. Officers consider that the Applicant’s requested hours of servicing would have an unacceptable level of impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has objected to the proposals in this respect. Officers consider that delivery and servicing hours of between 7 am and 8 pm on Mondays to Saturdays, and 11am and 5pm on Sundays or Public Holidays are appropriate to enable proper operation of the anchor supermarket whilst protecting neighbour amenity. Such hours would be secured by way of a condition should Members decide planning permission should be granted.
8.135 Officers are satisfied that the other properties surrounding the proposed development would have a limited level of impact to neighbour amenity and therefore any such impact is acceptable.
8.136 The proposed development would include a substantial amount of plant and equipment which could compromise the amenities of nearby existing and proposed occupiers. However, with appropriate sound reducing insulation, and other measures, including the prior approval of plant equipment, Officers are satisfied that any impact on the grounds of noise from plant and machinery can be appropriately mitigated. These matters would be secured by condition if planning permission is granted for the proposed development.
8.137 Subject to conditions, Officers consider the level of impact to the amenity of nearby existing occupiers and future occupiers of the development, mitigated where required, is acceptable in the context of the District Centre location.
Layout, Scale and Design
8.138 Urban design is a key consideration in the planning process. The NPPF makes it clear that Government places great importance on the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. The NPPF states that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.
8.139 The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to undertake a design critique of planning proposals to ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. Decisions should aim to ensure that developments:
establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;
optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses and support local facilities and transport networks;
respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;
create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion;
are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.
8.140 Access to high quality open space and public realm is an important urban design consideration that plays a fundamental role in enhancing the health and well-being of communities.
8.141 London Plan Policy 7.6 Architecture requires development to positively contribute to its immediate environs in a coherent manner, using the highest quality materials and design. Core Strategy Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham repeats the necessity to achieve high quality design but also confirms a requirement for new developments to minimise crime and the fear of crime. DMLP Policy 30, Urban design and local character states that all new developments should provide a high standard of design and should respect the existing forms of development in the vicinity. The London Plan, Core Strategy and DMLP policies further reinforce the principles of the NPPF setting out a clear rationale for high quality urban design.
8.142 During the pre-application consultation for the proposals, Officers, the LDRP and the Lee Green Working Group were all involved in the development of the proposals. The public engagement exercises also influenced the evolution of the design.
Layout
8.143 The key layout principles for the proposed scheme are:
. The provision of a public square located on Burnt Ash Road
. The provision of a large foodstore wrapped by other uses creating an urban block active on all four sides . The creation of an internal pedestrian route connecting Burnt Ash Road to Leyland Road and providing circulation of the various retail and supportive uses
. Other retail/commercial uses sited in the busier locations addressing Burnt Ash Road and close to the Tigers Head Junction on Eltham Road
. Foodstore parking access located off Burnt Ash Road
. Residential parking access located off Leyland Road
. Cores to the residential buildings are distributed around the periphery of the block
. Townhouses located on the south side facing Carston Close
8.144 These layout principles are further explained and considered below.
8.145 The anchor supermarket and associated servicing has a large footprint which has a significant impact on how the layout of the site is generated. Officers explored with the Applicant team the various options for how the uses could be distributed on the site. The option that sites the anchor supermarket towards the southern edge of the site and wraps this use with other uses which face out onto the surrounding streets is endorsed by Officers and considered to be the best solution for the site. The ground floor frontages would comprise residential uses to the east and south fronting Leyland Road and Carston Close respectively, a primary retail frontage to the west, fronting Burnt Ash Road, with a secondary retail frontage to the north, fronting Eltham Road.
8.146 The rationale for this design approach is to create four active edges addressing the public realm on all street frontages which shields the 3,647m² supermarket, ancillary storage and service areas with car parking above. The proposal has been developed around the footprint of the supermarket to provide other small scale uses and enhanced public realm and permeability. To ensure that the ground floor frontages are active, the proposals include residential uses wrapping the supermarket to the south and east, and commercial A1-A4 uses to the west and north. Residential blocks face each of the streets and their entrances contribute to activity at ground level.
Permeability
8.147 Another key principle for the site is to provide a pedestrian route running through the site connecting Burnt Ash Road to the west to the eastern edge of the site. Various options were examined, including a route from Burnt Ash Road to Leyland Road. This was not pursued, however, as Leyland Road is a less prominent street in the street hierarchy and people would naturally want to go to the streets which provide bus stops and street crossings. The option which connects Burnt Ash Road to the eastern corner of Eltham Road and Leyland Road is the preferred choice, as this creates a connecting route to two principal streets.
8.148 The proposed permeability of the site is also considered appropriate. The 4 edges to the site all provide active frontages and offer overlooking and passive surveillance onto the surrounding streets improving safety perception. The proposal is considered to be a significant improvement on the existing built form on site which provides very little in terms of active frontages and passive surveillance for both Carston Close and Leyland Road. The scheme provides a positive response to Carston Close, creating a terrace of south facing family houses with generous private amenity on the top floors of the dwellings (through balconies and roof terraces) along with ground floor activity contributing to the passive surveillance to the street.
8.149 The proposed Arcade provides a covered thoroughfare for pedestrians which is accessible during shop opening hours. The Arcade provides permeability through the site and gives access to the main entrance of the foodstore, smaller retail units at ground floor and access to the community facilities, gym and large car park via travellators up to first floor.
8.150 As reported at the SPC meeting in December 2015, Officers agreed with the LDRP that the Arcade needed further thought to ensure that it is of the necessary high quality and appropriately designed to ensure that it is active and inviting. Officers requested additional information from the Applicant on the design details and materials for the Arcade in order to ensure the highest quality public realm is secured. This information has now been submitted in the form of various images providing examples of internal public spaces elsewhere, with a statement entitled ‘Leegate Regeneration: Proposed Pedestrian Arcade’ setting out how the space is envisaged to be used. This document refers to the Arcade as being an alternative place to congregate during inclement weather.
8.151 A further drawing showing active frontages and pedestrian movement within the Arcade has also been submitted. This drawing illustrates where the light and activity, in addition to the entrances and overhead light would come from.
8.152 Officers are satisfied that on balance, the additional information demonstrates that the Arcade would be well lit and safe to use. Officers further consider that a requirement for the details of the treatment of the Arcade to be submitted for prior approval and retained should be imposed on the planning permission should Members resolve that it be granted.
8.153 The Applicant has advised that the anchor supermarket would manage and maintain the arcade. The opening hours of the supermarket is proposed to be 24 hours, except for Sundays which would be 11am until 5pm and the Applicant proposes that the arcade would have opening times matching that of the anchor supermarket.
8.154 The arcade has been designed into the scheme to provide permeability through the application site, as well as access to the commercial and community uses. The 24 hour opening hours of the supermarket and arcade mean the arcade would function as a thoroughfare for the majority of the time. However, the commercial and community units may have opening hours outside of the Sunday supermarket opening hours. Further to this, if the anchor supermarket ceases trading, the arcade may not be open to the public at all.
8.155 Officers consider that part of the design philosophy of the proposed development is its permeability. However, Officers are mindful of the use of the area during un- sociable hours and the potential for anti-social behaviour which needs to be balanced with accessibility through the site for the convenience of users. For that reason, Officers propose that the arcade is managed independently and has opening hours of 8am-12.30am Friday-Saturday; 8am-10.30pm Monday-Thursday and 8am-8pm Sundays, in order to provide adequate access to the Arcade as a thoroughfare and as an alternative access to the units within the shopping centre. The times proposed can be secured via the S106 Agreement should Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
Scale (Massing and height)
8.156 There are a number of different building heights on and around the existing site. The existing Shopping Centre consists of a plinth of 2-3 storeys with accents of 5 storeys and a taller building on the Tigers Head junction of 8 office storeys. The Leybridge Estate to the south east of the site consists of a number of 11 storey blocks set in green space. The remainder of the surrounding area with the exception of the fire station is between 2 and 4 storeys.
8.157 There is no single overriding scale or grain in the surrounding context leading to a variety of scale and building type being a key characteristic of the area.
8.158 As referred to above, Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Road are tree lined boulevards in access of 16m in width. The 11 storey towers of the Leybridge Estate set in a large green space are located to the west of the site, with the area to the south of the site having potential for a 15m wide street, being the regenerated northern end of Carston Close.
8.159 The contextual scale of height, grain and public realm has been considered throughout the pre-application meetings with LBL Officers and the LDRP process. The proposed scale of development is also responding to the site’s status as a District Centre, different to most of the surrounding areas which is classified as residential.
8.160 A number of massing options were worked through with the design team, Officers and the DRP and the proposed massing of 7 buildings is considered the most appropriate.
8.161 Various options including taller buildings were considered for this location but through testing it was considered that 10 storeys provides a sufficient height to mark the crossroads. The 3 storey townhouses to Carston Close respond to the smaller scaled residential context to the south of the site. The southern-most block to Burnt Ash Road steps down one storey towards the south in order to create a more contextual scale with the surrounding residential blocks.
8.162 The proposed tall building (sited at Tiger’s Head Cross) is of a similar mass to the existing tallest office building on the site which is 8 storeys in height and only 7m lower than the proposed feature building. With regard to the other proposed residential blocks, the spaces in between the blocks which vary between 7m and 15.5m in width, reduce the bulk and mass of the podium allowing daylight and sunlight to penetrate the surrounding public realm and provides visual interest. Officers support the approach which results in a varied and interesting built form.
8.163 Officers consider that the massing has responded to a design led approach, creating a considered design response rather than being driven by technical issues. 8.164 The division of the street facades into separate buildings has been a key design principle and the proposal responds to a traditional urban structure and appropriate urban grain.
8.165 Entrances into the arcade have been reinforced by building mass creating a legible urban structure.
8.166 Officers and the LDRP support the scale, massing and height of the proposals which is considered to be convincing and well considered for the site.
Appearance and Architectural design
Façade articulation
8.167 The overall façade strategy is supported by Officers, with each of the proposed streets providing appropriate façade articulation according to the particular scale, massing and public realm.
8.168 Officers support the use of brick as the primary material for the development, due to the contextual response it delivers in terms of colour, texture, scale and durability. Brick is a robust material which does not deteriorate aesthetically with age and in some instances, the ageing of brickwork adds further character and charm to buildings. The choice of brick is imperative to the success of the design, however, and Officers propose that brick and mortar compositions should be secured by condition if permission is granted.
8.169 The application submitted includes a comprehensive set of large scaled bay studies, plans, sections, architectural details and detailed material palette which satisfy Officers requirements to secure a building of high quality design for the site.
8.170 Each of the buildings’ facades respond specifically to the building’s location on site and the public realm it addresses.
8.171 The landmark building at the Tigers Head Junction has the most formal response with the darker choice of brick and vertical façade articulation creating a distinctive building.
8.172 The Eltham Road frontage also responds in a formal way with each building presenting a variety of brick colour and façade articulation. These are unified by the podium plinth and a family of common details.
8.173 The Burnt Ash Road frontage also has a formal character with each of the three blocks having their own identity in articulation colour and detail which provides a richness to the scheme and breaks down the urban block.
8.174 Leyland Road creates an elevation of 3 ‘urban villas’ fronting onto the adjacent street and the green space of the Leyland Estate. These villas have their own unique identity using more vertical articulation whilst sitting within the family of buildings within the development as a whole.
8.175 Carston Close creates a modulated 3 storey terrace which responds well to its immediate context of residential buildings. The elevation is distinct but has many of the key characteristics used elsewhere in the scheme. 8.176 The podium is bound by the buildings which sit on the 3 surrounding streets and has its own character with simplified courtyard facades occupied by informal balconies which contrasts with the more formal responses to the surrounding streets.
8.177 The scheme has been reviewed a number of times by the LDRP. Whilst very supportive of the emerging elevations along Leyland Road, Eltham Road and Carston Close, the LDRP felt a better architectural solution was required on the corner block with Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road. The Applicant has developed the proposals taking on board the comments raised by the LDRP and Officers are satisfied that the architectural treatment of the elevations satisfies the LDRP concerns.
8.178 Overall, Officers consider that the architecture is well considered, responsive to its environment and appropriate for the site. The more prominent block at the Tiger’s Head Junction has a vertical alignment emphasising it as a feature block, whilst the podium block and the other residential buildings have a more horizontal emphasis grounding the development to its context. The town houses have their own articulation, and are considered entirely appropriate for their scale and function within the remainder of the development.
8.179 If permission is granted, Officers consider that a S106 obligation should be imposed requiring reasonable endeavours to be made to retain the same architects to ensure quality throughout the scheme. The GLA has also raised a similar point and agreed that the architects should be retained during the construction of the proposed development. The Applicant has agreed for this to be secured in the S.106, if Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
Public realm, landscaping and private amenity space
8.180 Details of the public realm proposals have been set out in Section 4 of this Report. Initial proposals were considered by Officers and the LDRP to not have enough quantum of public realm on site. Various options were considered before on the submission of the proposed scheme. There have been concerns raised during the consultation process about the actual amount of public realm lost and proposed and whether the Applicant’s stated figures are correct. Officers have undertaken their own calculations. A summary of the existing and proposed public realm, which includes public space as well as footways, is set out below. This information has been provided in the interest of clarity only regarding the size of the existing and proposed spaces.
Table [ 3 ]: Existing and proposed public realm measurements Diagram of existing and proposed public realm areas depicting the redistribution of public realm
Existing Amount Proposed Amount
North eastern square 1,069m² Burnt Ash Road square 800m²
Burnt Ash Road to Leyland 1,152m² Carston Close 1,739m² Road pedestrian through route
Leyland Road 324m² Leyland Road 589m²
Burnt Ash Road 1,225m² Burnt Ash Road 1,889m²
North/west corner/ Tiger’s 477m² North/west corner/ Tiger’s 432m² Head open space Head open
Eltham Road 630m² Eltham Road 875m²
Existing Total 4,877m² Proposed Total 6,324m²
Leegate proposals +1,447m²
8.181 The above summary shows that whilst there is an overall increase in public realm, this is largely attributable to increased footway widths. The area of public square in the development would be reduced in the proposed scheme.
8.182 While the amount of space to be provided is a material consideration, Officers consider that greater weight should be afforded to the quality of the public realm to be provided.
8.183 The proposed public realm would be located on Burnt Ash Road. The existing space to the north east of the site is overshadowed by the existing buildings, and Officers consider that the proposed new location would benefit from the evening sunlight and therefore would provided a better space for sitting out.
8.184 Generally, the existing public realm comprises concrete paving stones. The proposed hard surfacing comprises granite sets which Officers consider to be of a higher quality than the existing provision. More trees are proposed to complement the alignment of the proposed new buildings and the spaces surrounding it which Officers again consider to be a substantial improvement upon the existing offering.
8.185 Officers consider that the proposed layout fully accords with good urban design principles. The active frontages ensure that all elevations of the proposed development would be attractive, safe to use and practical. Each of the proposed spaces is considered in turn below.
Burnt Ash Road
Figure 2: Existing and proposed public space
8.186 A key issue regarding the public realm is the size and location of the public space proposed. As existing, public space is provided in Eltham Road in the form of a large square measuring 1,410m² with a maximum length of 55m and maximum width of 35m. It is proposed to move this space to Burnt Ash Road with a space measuring 800m² with a maximum width of 17m and a maximum length of 60m. Figure 3: Existing and proposed western (Burnt Ash Road) public space
8.187 The overall existing space on Burnt Ash Road measures 1,225m² while the proposed space would measure 1,889.5m2 which is an increase of 664.5m². Both spaces incorporate the bus stop, and vehicular entrances to the shopping centre. However, the proposed scheme includes a new lay-by which has therefore been excluded from the floor area calculations. Officers are satisfied that a greater provision of space in this location is being provided. That said, the re-provision of public realm is not a simple formulaic transfer of floor areas. The quality, location and usability of the space is also to be considered.
8.188 The landscaping for the eastern side of Burnt Ash Road (immediately south of the Tiger’s Head open space) would comprise new trees, public seating and cycle stands. The bus stop would be inset into the pavement and extended, being flush with the remainder of the pavement surface.
8.189 The proposed building would be set back, creating a linear (north to south) public space which is deeper than the remainder of the pavement. It would comprise public seating areas in front of the retail units, and further spaces for general seating dispersed between the strategically positioned trees. Areas have been designated for a market and retractable electrical points would be integrated into the paving to provide access to utilities for market stalls holders. Lighting columns would be attached to the building where feasible to reduce the necessity for free standing columns and thus reducing street clutter.
8.190 Officers are also satisfied with the market stall locations which intertwines with, and compliments the A1 units being in close proximity for the convenience of the patrons of the shopping centre. The provision of these locations could be secured via a condition should Members resolve that planning permission be granted. 8.191 The existing public square on Eltham Road is set back away from key routes and has no active frontage. It is also poorly defined with only containment at its southern and eastern edges. Officers consider that its retention in this location would lead to problems of overshadowing and represent a missed opportunity to improve and enhance the public realm. Officers and the LDRP therefore support the alternative positioning of the public square.
8.192 Initial proposals first explored by the design team, and presented to Officers and reviewed at an early LDRP proposed less public realm surrounding the development resulting in relatively narrow pavements and a lack of placemaking. Officers felt that the scale and massing of the proposals required a more generous provision of public realm on the streets with more footfall in order to create a successful scheme with a distinct identity. The proposal to provide more public realm to Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Road is therefore welcomed.
8.193 Various options were considered by the Applicant in terms of the distribution of public realm. The Applicant’s preferred option sets some of the buildings further back from the carriageway along Burnt Ash Road creating a new public square. The proposed public square to Burnt Ash Road is less in square metres to the existing public square located on the corner of Leyland Road and Eltham Road and Officers considered that such an approach could be acceptable, subject to further detail being provided about comparable spaces elsewhere to demonstrate that the reduced area of the square could still be an enhancement to public realm.
8.194 Further detail on this public space was requested as part of the committee resolution on 15 December 2015.
8.195 To help better explain how this space might look and feel, the Applicant has submitted a series of images of spaces, which have some similar characteristics to the Burnt Ash Road proposed space:
Tranquil Vale (north side), in Blackheath is adjacent to a busy highway, albeit separated by vehicles parked perpendicular to the street. This space is north facing and therefore does not benefit from direct sunlight. It measures 10.1m in width yet has sufficient space for tables and chairs associated with the restaurants, benches and a clear thoroughfare for pedestrians which is actively used; Catford Broadway. The southern end of the Broadway measures 17m in width and is west facing. This space has tables and chairs outside some of the shops, and benches; Old Street, in central and east London and Plumstead High Street have been provided as examples of how a greater density and strategically aligned series of trees would contribute to the appearance of the public realm.
8.196 The proposed Burnt Ash Road space would be west facing, benefiting from sunlight from the afternoons onwards, and would measure 16.1m. Rather than parked cars, loading bays are proposed directly opposite the space. The Sainsbury’s store on the opposite side of Burnt Ash Road is far away enough as not to result in any wind tunnels or overshadowing to the Burnt Ash Road space. The proposed planting strategy would see replacement trees aligned with the new buildings and spaces. Benches are also proposed to encourage the public to dwell. 8.197 More public realm has been provided through the positioning of the urban block away from Eltham Road and particularly Burnt Ash Road. The proposals now create a west facing public square providing a civic space that can be used occasionally for an outdoor market as well as allowing the surrounding retail, bars, café’s and restaurant uses to spill into the space providing activity and passive surveillance. There are also opportunities for large trees to be planted and seating created which further animates the space. The bus stops would still be provided along Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road and the location and position of these shelters has been incorporated into the design.
8.198 Whilst there are clear differences in the characteristics between the comparable sites, there are none which Officers consider would render the Burnt Ash Road space to be unsuccessful. Whilst overall, the public square proposals provide a reduced quantum of public realm but which is better located and better designed and is surrounded by further public realm improvements. Officers are confident that the Burnt Ash Road space proposed would be capable of providing the necessary high quality public realm. The further information submitted is considered to provide a quality benchmark against which the detail could be assessed.
8.199 Public realm improvements are also proposed for the periphery of the site; the southern side of Eltham Road, the western side and north end of Leyland Road, the northern end, (unmade road) of Carston Close and the northern end on the eastern side of Burnt Ash Road. These areas would all have public realm changes as part of the proposals.
8.200 New trees are proposed on all roads where they would be surrounded by bound gravel in their tree pits. New public seating and cycle stands are proposed for Eltham and Burnt Ash Roads. A cohesive paving strategy is proposed to unite the public realm between Burnt Ash Road and the Tiger’s Head junction (at the open area to the south east of the road junction). Granite flags, or a similar material is proposed in 2 tones creating diagonal stripes across the footway along Burnt Ash Road up to the Tiger’s Head junction.
8.201 The development is surrounded by different types of street and roads and this is addressed in the design of the public realm as addressed below.
8.202 Matters relating to air quality in the location of the public square are considered in section 14 of this Report.
Eltham Road
8.203 The proposals involve removal all of the existing trees along the southern side of Eltham Road and their replacement with trees better aligned with the proposed landscaping strategy. The trees along Eltham Road are within footway which is owned and managed by Transport for London (TfL). Thus, permission would be required from TfL to remove or do other works to the trees. TfL have raised objections to the landscaping scheme along Eltham Road on the grounds of the loss of the existing trees. Initial discussions took place between the Applicant team and TfL and the Applicant has been advised of a value for each of TfL owned and managed trees. The Applicant has agreed to compensate TfL for the loss of their trees either through the replacement of the trees with new trees of similar value or a financial sum. 8.204 The Applicant has submitted alternative drawings showing the landscaping strategy amended to incorporate the existing trees. This drawing is for information purposes only, and does not form part of the proposals.
8.205 Officers consider that the landscaping strategy as initially proposed forms an integral part of the overall landscaping strategy along Eltham Road, Leyland Road and Burnt Ash Road. TfL have yet to agree to the removal of the trees and require technical justification before agreeing to any loss. They will also require compensation if the loss of the trees is unavoidable. This is a matter which can be addressed though conditions or planning obligation (any requirement to pay compensation to TfL would need to be secured through the S106 agreement) and Officers suggest that the appropriate mechanism is left to them to agree with TfL/the Applicant as appropriate. The resultant mechanism would be appropriately worded to ensure that above ground works do not commence until the position regarding the retention or removal of the trees has been resolved.
Leyland Road
8.206 Under the proposals, some of the trees on the east and west of the northern end of Leyland Road would be replaced. To the immediate south of the existing open space, the existing pavement on the western side of Leyland Road measures 2.9m at its narrowest point. The proposals see the pavement width being extended to 4m. The additional width is to compensate for the fact that the open space is being replaced by 3-8 storey buildings. The pavement itself would be replaced with concrete flags (concrete cubes).
8.207 The proposals so far indicate actual and passive market stalls for the Burnt Ash Road square, although the market stalls are not intended to be permanent features of the square, and so all provision should be considered as passive.
Carston Close
8.208 The northern end of Carston Close is currently an unmade road, closed to the east by a 2m high brick wall. Pedestrian access is through a gated section of the close on the south east side. Vehicles can access the road from Burnt Ash Road.
8.209 The proposal is to open the road to create a linear thoroughfare between Leyland and Burnt Ash Roads for cyclists and pedestrians. Vehicle access to the integral garages for the proposed houses and the existing garages to the south west would be created through the area which is currently occupied by the gate.
8.210 The proposal is to create a shared surface to be used by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, with the priority being for pedestrians and cyclists. This means that there is no distinction by changes in gradients between the pedestrian and vehicular surface treatment; the usual approach is to have raised curbs with a 300mm wide curb being flush with the concrete sets either side. This approach is considered by Officers to be acceptable as it encourages awareness and caution when different users are sharing their spaces. A further added benefit is that it provides a less visually cluttered and more design lead urban environment.
Trees
8.211 London Plan policy 7.21 (Trees and woodlands) states that existing trees of value should be retained and any lost as the result of development should be replaced. A preference for trees with large canopies was referred to in the policy. Core Strategy Policy 12 (Open space and environmental assets) states that public realm greening can help mitigate against pollution and therefore the Council will protect existing trees and require replacements where a loss does occur.
8.212 At present, trees run parallel to the site on Leyland Road, Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road. All of the trees are in excess of 5 years old, while some are more established such as the London Plan Trees on Eltham Road and Leyland Roads.
8.213 In relation to the trees in the existing public square on Eltham Road, the 3 trees which would be lost as a result of the development are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). By virtue of the TPOs, the trees are clearly considered to be a valuable contribution to visual amenity in the vicinity. However, whilst a TPO means that permission is required for their removal (either because it is necessary to implement planning permission or express consent is granted) this does not preclude their felling in principle.
8.214 The Council’s Tree Officer considers the row of Ornamental Pear (Pyrus Calleryana 'Chanticleer') currently growing along Eltham Road should not reasonably be required to be retained. They would never reach a size appropriate to the scale, height, massing and status of the proposed development. Further, the existing Ornamental Pear does not provide ample shelter and shade when compared to an oriental plane, which is similar to the London Plane which are the trees suggested for Eltham Road.
8.215 Officers have no objection to the retention of the existing Ornamental Pear in their current environment, but consider the existing Ornamental Pear trees can appropriately be lost in order to improve the environment through providing large shady trees, and contribute to a place that people would enjoy using. Large London Plane trees would need pruning in the future and this can be controlled through a management and maintenance strategy.
8.216 Drawing number LgC SK01 was submitted in March 2016 for information purposes only, showing an alternative landscaping strategy with the existing TfL trees retained. TfL have viewed this drawing and have raised concerns to the lack of space between the tree in the raised planter along Eltham Road, the proposed new building, and the loading bay. The proposed new building would also impede upon the root protection area for this tree. Officers are satisfied however, that there is an acceptable solution and a condition can be imposed so that this matter is resolved before development commences.
8.217 The Council’s Tree Officer has raised objection to the proposed tree pit design, being concerned that the design would not ensure the longevity of the proposed trees. The advice provided by the Tree Officer to the Applicant team prior to submission was that the trees should be planted in a long trench with specific designed 'cells' to make sure the tree would have enough soil volume to thrive in a London urban setting. The trench should stretch the whole length of the street, from beginning to the end of the tree-pits, to ensure years of space for the roots to development. The trench detail has not been provided and the Applicant has asked for this information to be secured by condition should planning permission be granted. 8.218 Officers are satisfied that detail could be secured via an appropriately worded condition should Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
8.219 On balance, the benefits of regenerating the District Centre, including the provision of new housing and shops and thus employment and homes, are considered to outweigh the retention of the 3 protected trees. Their retention would significantly prohibit the deliverability of the proposed development. In this case, Officers consider that the overall benefits of the regeneration of the prominent site are considered to justify their loss, subject to suitable on site replacements and appropriate conditions regarding the tree pits.
8.220 With regard to the loss of trees on Leyland and Burnt Ash Roads, these are not protected and the Council’s Tree Officer considers these specimens to be of low value due to their lack of maturity. The trees would be replaced as a result of a overall landscaping strategy for both roads. Officers consider the proposed strategy to be appropriate and fitting for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Application site.
8.221 In relation to the existing trees on Eltham Road, as referred to above, they are within highway managed by TfL and TfL object to their removal. Officers consider that the proposed tree removal and replanting strategy would tie in with the remainder of the landscaping strategy for the scheme. The proposed species would complement the areas immediately outside the buildings, as well as the feature tree proposed at the Tiger’s Head junction, in terms of their height and hierarchal relationship with each other. If permission is granted, the discussion between the Applicant and TfL needs to continue in order to try and arrive at an acceptable solution. This may result in the existing trees remaining in their entirety, or perhaps only some being removed and replaced.
8.222 The new trees proposed along Burnt Ash Road are intended to create a boulevard styled row of trees and have been placed to complement the seating and proposed market stall areas. The proposed removal of trees and the installation of new ones in different locations along Leyland Road is intended to provide better alignment which would improve the appearance along the pavements and in turn make the spaces along the pavement easier to navigate.
8.223 Overall, Officers consider the quality of the public realm as well as the quantity to be acceptable subject to a condition preventing commencement of the development until the matter regarding the existing trees in Eltham and Leyland Roads is resolved.
Public Conveniences
8.224 DM Policy 40 Public conveniences states that new developments that expect large numbers of customers and pedestrian flows, should provide accessible public toilets. Public toilets, which should be accessible to wheelchair users are proposed at ground floor level, accessed from the Arcade. The toilets are to be managed by the anchor supermarket and provision is proposed to be made in the S106 agreement for public access to the facilities. In order to reduce anti-social behaviour, Officers consider it appropriate for the toilets to be chargeable at no more than a nominal fee. This shall be secured as an obligation within the S.106 if Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
Private Amenity Space Podium (communal space for residents)
8.225 Car parking for the supermarket and retail uses is proposed at 2nd floor level. Initial iterations of the scheme had the flats overlooking the car park. Both the LDRP and Officers raised significant concerns regarding the impact of this on the amenity of residential occupiers. In response, the proposals cover the car park at 2nd floor level with a landscaped podium providing amenity space for residential occupiers of the flats. A thin, vertical light well is proposed to allow light and ventilation into the car park area below, but this would be screened by the landscaping.
8.226 Officers consider this design approach to provide good quality amenity space providing a dual function of concealing the functional appearance of the car park. This design solution also serves to reduce noise and fumes associated with the car park, while also creating a pleasant outlook.
8.227 To ensure that the podium can be delivered as proposed, the application submission includes engineering drawings demonstrating that the depth required for the proposed high quality and robust landscaping scheme, including generous trees for the podium, is achievable.
8.228 Access to the podium would be exclusively for the residents of the flats proposed for the upper floors of the proposed development. Access would be through the residential cores which would be accessible only via a key fob issued to residents.
8.229 A plan in relation to the maintenance and management arrangements for the podium is proposed to be secured by way of a condition. Officers could also propose that the condition requires the landscaping of the podium to be completed, prior to the occupation of any of the flats, and an obligation secured by a S.106 allowing residents full access at all times.
Playspace
8.230 The proposed development would have an estimated child yield of 41 - 18 under 5's, 14 5-11 year olds and 9 12+ year olds. The Mayor’s Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPD requires 10m² of child playspace to be provided per child for new developments, equating to 410m² to be provided on site.
8.231 London Plan policy 3.6 (Children and young people’s play and recreation) requires all necessary play-space to be provided on site. Play-space including appropriate equipment should be provided on site where feasible for 5-11 year olds and 12 years and over age groups as well as the under 5’s.
8.232 Communal playspace for children within the upper level units is to be provided at podium level. Various forms of play space zones are to be created and access for the whole of the podium (except for the smaller section to the north) would be accessible by the occupiers of the flats. The proposal is to provide the door step play for the under 5's (which needs to be less than 100m from the dwellings) on the podium. The open space for general use for adults is also to be provided at podium level. Playspace for older children is to be provided off site at Weigall Road sports ground and Edith Nesbit Gardens. 8.233 The town houses by themselves create a child yield of 12, which equates to 120m² of playspace which is not being provided on site as the occupiers of the town houses would not have access to the podium. Further play-space including appropriate equipment should be provided on site where feasible for 5-11 year olds and 12 years and over age groups as well as the under 5’s, so the development is not therefore fulfilling the requirements for children's play space on-site.
8.234 The Design and Access Statement points to Edith Nesbit Gardens and Weigall Road Sports Ground as the open space to be used for the shortfall of playspace that cannot be provided on site.
8.235 The podium level serves as communal amenity space for the proposed residents but also has a visual amenity value. Given the close proximity to the residential units, providing all of the necessary play equipment would be to the detriment of its function as general amenity for all residents and could result in a visually cluttered and compromised playspace.
8.236 The inability to provide all playspace on site is not in itself a reason to refuse a scheme and the Mayor’s London Plan: Shaping neighbourhoods: Play and informal recreation SPD (2012) allows for off-site provision, including creation of new facilities, improvements to existing provision and/or a financial contribution towards this provision may be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that this would fully satisfy the needs of the development whilst continuing to meet the needs of existing residents.
8.237 Officers are satisfied that the site constraints including the provision of public realm and the landscaping strategy for the proposed development render it impractical to provide all of the necessary playspace on site. Officers consider that financial contributions for improvements to the open spaces closest to the application site, being Weigall Road Sports Ground and Edith Nesbit Gardens are necessary as these facilities would not be able to meet the needs of the development whilst continuing to meet those of existing residents if the contribution is not secured. This money would be directed towards improvements for the 2 parks in light of the additional demand created by the child yield of the scheme.
8.238 £80,000 is to be secured in the S.106 which is to address the shortfall of playspace to be provided on site. Officers consider the playspace provided by the development, together with the financial sum, to be acceptable.
Private gardens
8.239 The private amenity spaces for the residential units within the scheme comprise balconies, raised terraces in front of the podium and roof terraces on top of the houses. All balconies and terraces exceed the minimum standards in terms of size and level access as required by the London Plan Housing SPG 2012 and as such, Officers consider that the provision of private amenity space is acceptable.
Market stalls
8.240 The existing shopping centre also has a market which is to be re-provided within the proposed development. The market stalls would share the public space on Burnt Ash Road. There would be a minimum of 8 stalls with the capacity to provide double that amount on special days. Electrical outlets would be provided, which would be integrated within the paving. The market stalls would be sited adjacent to the loading bay along Burnt Ash Road which the market stall holders would use for loading. Officers consider the quantum and location of the proposed market stalls to be well placed within the public realm, and compliments the adjacent open space and is therefore acceptable. Officers would seek to secure the location of the market stalls and times of operation should Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
Conservation, heritage assets and archaeology
8.241 The NPPF states that preserving and enhancing the historic environment is one of the core principles of sustainable development. London Plan Policy 7.8 (Heritage assets and archaeology) states that developments that could affect the setting of heritage assets should be developed with a scale and design sympathetic to the heritage assets. Core Strategy Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment and DMLP Policy 36 (New development, changes of use and alterations affecting designated heritage assets and their setting: conservation areas, listed buildings, schedule of ancient monuments and registered parks and gardens) both require designated and non-designated heritage assets and Conservation areas and their settings to be protected, preserved and/or enhanced through new development and changes of use.
8.242 The NPPF gives guidance on the approach when considering the impact of proposals on heritage assets. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Paragraph 134 advises that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF requires that ‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’.
8.243 The application site sits immediately east of the Manor House, Lee Area of Archaeological Priority (APP 19). The Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) has been consulted and has confirmed that there is no on-going archaeology interest within the site since any archaeological potential would have been removed at the time it was previously developed.
8.244 The application site itself is not within a conservation area nor does it contain any Listed Structures, but it is considered to fall within the setting of various designated and non-designated heritage assets.
8.245 The proposed development would affect the immediate setting of the Grade II listed Lee Green Fire Station, which lies opposite the site on the northern site of Eltham Road within the boundary of the RB of Greenwich. The site also falls within the wider setting of the Grade II listed suburban villas at nos. 56 to 62 Burnt Ash Road to the south and the Grade II listed Police Station to the west. To the south-west is the Lee Manor Conservation Area. All these designated heritage assets fall within the ‘Zone of Visual Influence’ of the new development i.e. in approaching Lee Green junction on the main routes from all directions the new development would be seen in views from and to or within the context of the designated heritage assets.
8.246 The site also affects the setting of various non-designated heritage assets. These comprise the locally listed Old Tiger’s Head Public House, 351 Lee High Road and The New Tiger’s Head Public House opposite on the Greenwich side, as well as 159 Lee Road, which the Conservation Officer considers equally worth of local listing, if not statutory listing. The historic junction of Lee Green itself is considered to constitute a heritage asset based on the townscape quality provided by the terraces that turn the corner and the landmark quality provided by the two above named pubs.
8.247 Section 66 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a statutory duty on local planning authorities when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting. In such cases, the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses ‘preserving’ in the context of the statutory duty means doing no harm. There is, in effect, a strong statutory presumption against granting planning permission for development which would cause harm to the settings of listed buildings.
8.248 As indicated above, the proposed development would affect the immediate setting of the listed Lee Green Fire Station, Eltham Road (nationally listed at Grade II), and the wider setting of the Grade II listed suburban villas Nos. 56 to 62 Burnt Ash Road to the south and the Grade II listed Police Station to the west. In approaching Lee Green junction on the main routes from the east, south and west the listed buildings would be seen within the context of the new development, although, in case of the Burnt Ash Road Houses and the Police Station, merely as backdrop. Officers consider that due the massing and scale of the new development within the historic suburban context of Lee, it would change the setting of these listed buildings.
8.249 In the case of the listed Police Station and the suburban villas along Burnt Ash Hill, given the physical distance of these buildings from the site, Officers consider that the setting of the buildings and their architectural significance would not be harmed.
8.250 Lee Green Fire Station at present has the lower elements of the existing centre in closest proximity and there would therefore be a noticeable change in scale with the proposed development. The proposals would not affect the intrinsic architectural merit of the building as an outstanding example of an early 20th century fire station, because that significance is not reliant on the scale on the opposite site of the street to remain a domestic one and views onto the building itself would remain unaffected. Given the poor quality of the existing buildings and the quality of the proposed scheme, Officers consider that the setting of this building would be preserved.
8.251 The development would be visible in views from the Lee Manor Conservation Area from the south and west and from the Blackheath Park Conservation Area (within Greenwich). The historic suburban development is largely ‘protected’ by the Lee Manor Conservation Area and the large Sainsbury's and car park provide a buffer zone to Lee Green that somewhat mitigates the visual impact on Lee Manor Conservation Area. The main views are limited to Burnt Ash Road, which itself benefits from mature trees that obscure long-distance views towards and from Lee Green for most parts of the year.
8.252 Within the context of the historic junction and core of Lee Green, the significant rise in scale of the proposed development would be most visible and its impact felt most significantly against the 2 to 3 storey buildings that define this junction, including the two historic pubs. The proposal does not involve physical alterations to or loss of individual buildings, but its incongruent scale is considered to affect and dominate the townscape of the junction.
8.253 However, Officers consider that the historic context of the south-eastern corner of the site has long been lost with the presence of the existing Leegate House 1960s development. Officers further consider that the poor design and state of repair of the existing buildings have a degrading effect on the area and that the proposal is of a design quality that would visually improve the settings of the designated and non-designated heritage assets, in addition to the place making benefits that would result from the scheme to the wider area. The new Leegate District Centre is of a form and layout which follows good urban design principles, which in turn creates a more coherent sense of place and aesthetically pleasing surroundings, and delivers additional housing and a regenerated District Centre, including jobs.
8.254 In light of the above, Officers consider that, the setting of both the designated and non-designated heritage assets, whilst altered by the proposed development, would ultimately be preserved.
Highways and traffic
8.255 The NPPF recognises that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up and that (depending on the nature and location of the site), safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. It should be demonstrated that improvements could be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. The NPPF clearly states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
8.256 The NPPF includes as one of the 12 core land-use principles a requirement for Boroughs to actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. Regarding the promotion of sustainable transport para. 29 states that the transport systems needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. 8.257 Policy 6.1 in the London Plan (Strategic Approach) sets out the Mayor’s strategic approach to transport which aims to encourage the closer integration of transport and development by: encouraging patterns and nodes of development that reduce the need to travel, especially by car; seeking to improve the capacity and accessibility of public transport, walking and cycling; supporting measures that encourage shifts to more sustainable modes and appropriate demand management; and promoting walking by ensuring an improved urban realm. Core Strategy Policy 14 (Sustainable Movement and Transport) states that there will be a managed and restrained approach to car parking provision to contribute to the objectives of traffic reduction while protecting the operational needs of major public facilities, essential economic development and the needs of people with disabilities. A network of high quality, connected and accessible walking and cycling routes across the Borough will be maintained and improved. London Plan Tables 6.2 and 6.3 which provide maximum and minimum cycle and car parking requirements should be used as a basis for assessment. Parking levels are considered further below.
8.258 Due to the complexity of the scheme, the Council employed a Transport Consultant (Project Centre) to work alongside Lewisham’s Highways Officers to advise Officers with regard to the proposed development. The consultant supported Officers throughout the pre-application process through to the submission and the consideration of the current application.
8.259 The planning application was supported by a Transport Assessment (TA) and Framework Travel Plan (TP) prepared by the Applicants transport consultant. As an appendix to the TA a Car Park Management Plan is included.
8.260 Since submission of the TA, Officers have engaged with the Applicant to address areas where further information/clarification was needed. The Applicant has produced a series of technical notes to provide this information, including additional modelling scenarios to help Officers and their consultants understand the implications of the development from a transport and highways perspective.
8.261 Transport for London (TfL) are the highway authority for the red route adjacent to the site, namely the Tiger’s Head junction and Lee High Road / Eltham Road. They have been consulted on the development proposals and have emphasised that the grant of planning permission does not obviate the need for any permission required from TfL regarding works to be carried out on highway managed by TfL.
8.262 Separate from the application proposals, TfL have begun implementing an improvement scheme at the Tiger’s Head Junction. These changes are intended to improve pedestrian safety. The aspiration is that these improvements would be completed by the end of 2015 before the development is first occupied. At the time of writing this Report, the TfL works were on hold due to unexpected services which have been exposed during construction.
Access & Parking Strategy
8.263 The application proposes 3 main vehicular access points to the site, which are explained in Section 4 of this Report and are summarised below:
Main vehicular access at the southern end of the site off Burnt Ash Road, providing access to the car park above the anchor supermarket Secondary access to the north of the main access off Burnt Ash Road providing access to the anchor supermarket’s service yard
A further vehicle assess from the residential basement of the development on to Leyland Road to the east is proposed.
8.264 In addition, Carston Mews to the south of the site provides access to the individual dwellings but is not a through route for vehicular traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists access would be able to use Carston Mews as a through route, creating a route where one does not currently exist. Pedestrian and cyclist measures are considered later within this Report.
8.265 As part of the provision of additional information, the Applicant has provided an indicative drawing showing how a drop off/collection point could be accommodated within the upper level car park. Officers are now satisfied that it is feasible to provide a drop off/collection point which would not interrupt the use of the loading bays at street level. Officers consider that the drop off/collection point should be secured by condition, should Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
8.266 Car parking has been calculated using the standards in the London Plan which provide a range for each land use type based on the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL). Whilst some of the parking figures cited within the TA did not match the actual plans submitted with the proposals (a further 16 car parking spaces have been accounted for at basement and ground level within Carston Close), Officers are satisfied that the additional spaces would not have any material implications for the TA and so the TA does not need to be revised or updated.
8.267 Using the application site’s PTAL and the mix of uses and their floor areas provides a London Plan target of between 317 and 452 spaces. The proposed non-residential car park contains 320 spaces, which is within the range in the London Plan. TfL have withdrawn their objection (on policy grounds) to the proposal to provide 320 non-residential car parking spaces, but maintain that a reduction in parking may alleviate traffic at the Tiger’s Head Junction.
8.268 16 of the 320 car parking spaces are for disabled users. Officers, the GLA and TfL all consider that the provision of 16 disabled spaces is below the London Plan policy requirement; Of the 320 supermarket spaces 6% (19) should be disabled spaces and a further 4% (13) enlarged standard spaces. The plan in the TA shows only 16 disabled spaces. The parent / child spaces are not large enough to count as enlarged spaces. The Applicant has advised these could be used for disabled spaces in the future to meet the policy position.
8.269 Officers asked the Applicant to review the car parking layout in order to provide sufficient space for both the actual and passive provision of disabled spaces. The Applicant maintains however, that the space available prohibits the ability to provide 320 car parking spaces including the 19 required disabled space and the 13 passive spaces.
8.270 Officers do not consider that the inability to provide 13 passive disabled car parking spaces provides a sufficient reason for refusing permission. However, the requirement remains important and therefore Officers consider that if planning permission is granted, a condition should be imposed requiring regular review of the usage of car parking spaces and demand after the anchor supermarket has opened and is operating and requiring any necessary changes to the car park layout to be undertaken.
8.271 In addition there are 116 residential parking spaces. 94 of these are in the basement and 10 (of which 4 are for disabled users) are on Carston Mews. The remainder are for residents of Block G and up to 3 car club spaces; A further 12 spaces are within the integral garages within the town houses in Carston Mews. Table 6.2 in the London Plan states that 3 bed units should have up to 1.5 car parking spaces per unit and 1-2 bed units less than 1 car parking space per unit. The proposal is for 116 residential car parking spaces for 229 dwellings. Thus, none of the car parking allocated to the individual dwellings exceed the London Plan targets. Officers consider the level of residential car parking provision to be acceptable.
8.272 Officers consider the level of non-residential parking is policy compliant, save the failure to achieve the required level of passive disabled spaces, and is appropriate for the variety of services proposed on site as well as acting as a District Centre car park, replacing the existing multi storey car park.
8.273 Lewisham Officers are satisfied that the overall level of commercial and residential car parking proposed is appropriate for the district centre location, for the reasons set out above.
8.274 In line with London Plan Policy, charging for electric vehicles would be provided for the commercial (10% active plus 10% passive) and residential (20% active plus 20% passive) uses. Officers therefore consider this element of the proposals to acceptable and if planning permission is granted, the provision of the allocated spaces could be secured by condition.
8.275 Servicing of, and refuse collection from the anchor supermarket would take place from an enclosed service yard accessed from Burnt Ash Road. Access to this area would be controlled and it has been designed to accommodate up to two service vehicles, although the Delivery and Service Management Plan states that there should not be more than one service vehicle at any one time. Refuse and servicing for the smaller retail units is to take place on the loading bays on Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road. Refuse storage for the residential units and shops are to be located at ground floor level and collected from the loading bays. Refuse for the town houses in Carston Close would be stored within the curtilage of the new houses and collected directly from Carston Close.
8.276 It is proposed that the loading bay on Eltham Road is lengthened and widened to accommodate deliveries to the relocated pub and other units. This is under TfL’s jurisdiction and as such the detailed proposals would need to be agreed with them. A footway level service bay is proposed on Burnt Ash Road to serve the units at ground floor level as well as the proposed market stalls.
8.277 The existing loading bays on Leyland Road are proposed to be removed. Parking would be removed from the east side of the road to facilitate the widening of the footway adjacent to the development. The justification to remove the parking bays was provided via results of a parking stress survey which showed for the area as a whole the parking stress was less than 60% and for Leyland Road the averages for Thursday and Saturday were less than 65%. These figures are below the generally accepted 80% and 90% cited by other authorities and within the ‘Lambeth Methodology’ which is widely accepted as the standard across many London Boroughs.
Pedestrians and cyclists
8.278 Footways around the site would generally be wider and a new public square is proposed on Burnt Ash Road. Pedestrian access would be facilitated to individual unit frontages around the site and via the covered arcade between Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Road which provides access to the anchor supermarket.
8.279 The pedestrian crossing over Burnt Ash Road is relocated from the south to the north of Taunton Road in order to make space for the new car park and service access and provide a more direct link to the Arcade.
8.280 As part of its further information submitted after the SPC meeting in December, the Applicant has provided a ‘Transport Note TN09’ which confirms that 464 residential cycle spaces are to be provided as part of the proposals. 133 non- residential cycle spaces are also proposed, made up of 45 long stay (staff) and 88 short stay spaces. Of the 45 long stay spaces 32 would be for the anchor supermarket’s staff and sited in their loading area and the rest within the demise of the units. The Applicant advises 5 staff bicycles would be provided for the non- food retail units, 5 for pub staff, 1 for the Community space and 2 for the gym within the demise of the individual units.
8.281 The 88 short stay cycle spaces are to be provided for customers within the public realm. Their proposed location has been identified on a drawing (Cycle Parking Sketch_1142_Sk300) submitted in March 2016.
8.282 The cycle parking provision accords with London Plan Standards. However, Officers wish to avoid cycle stands resulting in street clutter and potentially compromising the delivery of the landscaping and public realm strategy.
8.283 The information provided in TN09 and Sketch_1142_Sk300 indicates that the necessary number of cycle parking spaces can be accommodated in and around the site without resulting in street clutter or disruption to the functionality of the loading bays. Officers are satisfied that the general cycle parking locations and final detail can be secured by condition should Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
8.284 The proposals include facilitating a pedestrian and cycle route along Carston Mews at the south of the site. Vehicles would only be able to access the road for servicing and access to the garages belonging to the houses. The through route would be provided only for pedestrians and cyclists. The proposals include a cycle and pedestrian shared surface close to the Leyland Road junction with Eltham Road. This surface was intended to have a path marked out for the cyclists, but TfL are not currently promoting such surfaces and prefer that no dedicated facility is provided. Officers raise no objections to designated surface not being provided and are satisfied that natural desire lines would enable both pedestrians and cyclists to use Carston Close, notwithstanding the lack of designated routes.
8.285 The Transport Assessment states that ‘Carston Mews’ would be a no through road for vehicles and would terminate at the Leyland Road end. The existing gate at the junction with Carston Close would remain and would only be used by emergency and refuse vehicles if necessary. At the junction of Carston Mews with Leyland Road, cycles and pedestrians would be able to pass through bollards to access Carston Mews.
8.286 Officers are satisfied that strategy for prohibiting vehicular traffic flow from Carston Mews and prioritising pedestrians and cyclists is acceptable and can be secured by condition in the event Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
Proposed Highway Works
8.287 As described earlier, TfL are planning to implement improvement measures at the Tiger’s Head junction which are not part of the development proposals but the aspiration is that they would be implemented prior to any development occurring on the site.
8.288 The application proposes highway works as follows:
• Removal of the bus lane on Burnt Ash Road
• Changes to the Taunton Road crossing to provide a raised table and narrowed crossing point
• Relocation of the existing crossing over Burnt Ash Road from the south to the north of Taunton Road
• Provision of pedestrian refuge islands on Burnt Ash Road to the south of Taunton Road
• Southbound bus stop on Burnt Ash Road lengthened and inset in to a bay
• Extension of the loading bay on Eltham Road
• New footway level loading bay on Burnt Ash Road
• Footway widening on western side of Leyland Road with removal of parking on the eastern side with associated alterations to the Eltham Road junction
8.289 The highway proposals were accompanied by an independent Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. The applicant has set aside £500,000 for these works. The funds allocated, and the proposals including mitigation measures have been reviewed by Council highways Officers and the Council’s Transport Consultant and are considered to be acceptable. The works would be delivered pursuant to a Section 278 Agreement between the Applicant and the relevant highway authority and appropriate conditions would be imposed to ensure the works are completed at the appropriate time.
Trip generation and highway impact
8.290 The TA includes forecast trip generation and mode share figures for the proposed uses on site. These figures have been agreed with the Council’s Transport Consultants and used to take forward in the assessment.
8.291 An agreed set of committed developments has been considered in assessing the impact on the highway network. 8.292 The highway network in the area suffers from congestion and delays during peak times. As such the effect of development traffic has been carefully considered in order to understand the degree of impact it may cause. The weekday AM and PM peaks and Saturday afternoon peaks have been assessed using a LinSig model. LinSig is a software tool widely used in the industry and accepted by TfL. It is used to model traffic signals and junctions in a local network to allow an understanding of traffic capacities and queuing. Part of the modelling was used by TfL to assess their Tiger’s Head junction improvement scheme and provided to the Applicant for their use in the assessment of the development.
8.293 As the TfL scheme would be implemented before the proposed development is scheduled to begin, it was agreed that this should be used as the highway layout upon which to assess the impacts. The initial modelling showed that with just the inclusion of the TfL improvement scheme and the addition of committed development there were capacity problems at the junction before considering development traffic.
8.294 In discussion with TfL a series of scenarios was agreed upon in order to understand the implications of the development traffic. As is normal planning practice, the existing permitted use of the Leegate centre can be taken it to account in determining impact. Comparison has therefore been made between the proposed application development and the already permitted uses on site, if fully occupied.
8.295 Based on this assessment, full occupation of the existing Leegate centre would theoretically cause some elements of the Tiger’s Head junction to operate over capacity. Comparing the modelling results from the Leegate Centre as existing fully occupied against the Leegate proposed development shows that the results on the junction as a whole are not significantly different. This means that whilst the proposed development would impact upon the operation of the junction, when this is compared to the impact in the event the existing development was fully occupied, the effects on the junction are similar, albeit as expected the redeveloped Leegate would generate additional traffic; just not as much as might be expected at face value.
8.296 The most significant impact from the proposed development (in comparison to the Leegate existing, fully occupied) would be the left hand turn from Burnt Ash Road, through the Tiger’s Head junction, into Lee High Road. The queuing would be significant, potentially stretching back 190m, ending just before Carston Close. Whilst that is worse than the scenario without the proposed development, it is only 40 metres worse than the predicted queue for the Leegate Centre as existing and fully occupied. Officers consider that with appropriate mitigation, this level of impact could be accommodated in an acceptable manner. Figure 4: Queue lengths left turn from Burnt Ash Road into Lee High Road
Figure is not to scale
Leegate existing at full capacity 149 meters from Tiger’s Head Junction Leegate proposals 189 meters from Tiger’s Head Junction
8.297 Officers note that the TfL improvement scheme has not been built and allowed to settle in. Until such time, future testing scenarios are hypothetical. It is therefore considered necessary to secure future modelling of the junction in order to better inform where any mitigation improvements should be targeted.
8.298 The TfL scheme should improve capacity at the junction but to measure whether the junction works operate as envisaged, the TA confirms that the Applicant would undertake a detailed data collection and highway modelling test of the development proposals once the TfL improvement scheme has been implemented and traffic has settled down. This would allow a clearer understanding of the impact of the development traffic and where best to target mitigation measures. The monitoring would include an assessment of the level of rat running traffic on residential streets resulting from the development. This could be secured by condition.
Mitigation
8.299 The Applicant proposes to provide a financial contribution to implement the following mitigation measures to the extent necessary and appropriate:
£500k towards works at the Tiger’s Head junction
Funding for the implementation of cycle links avoiding main roads These routes would link the site with Lee Station as well as offer quieter and safer routes cyclists could use to avoid the Tigers Head junction.
New pedestrian crossing facilities along Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Rd.
£12,004 for Legible London signage for the route between Lee Station and the development. This signage would continue routes already signed in the area.
£45,000 for improvements to the bus stops servicing the site to accord with relevant TfL guidance.
The funding of up to 3 car club car parking spaces (subject to need by the car club operator) with free membership for residents for 3 years (businesses would receive free membership direct from the car club company). £125,000 towards the implementation of traffic calming measures in the roads surrounding the development, including but not limited to:
o Changing the priorities of some junctions to reduce vehicle speeds along roads.
o Changing the priorities of some junctions prioritising cyclists on a new cycle route on quieter roads that avoids the Tigers Head junction.
o Reorganising the parking arrangements, creating ‘Home Zone’ style environments where vehicle speeds are greatly reduced.
o Increasing the amount of car parking, and reduce the carriageway width to reduce vehicle speeds.
8.300 The Applicant has proposed a series of mitigation measures which are considered to be appropriate given the highways impact identified. The Applicant proposes a contribution of £500,000 towards the potential mitigation, but that this should be subject to time limits on the expenditure and agreement over the mitigation works. These conditions are not considered by Officers to be acceptable. Given the need for TfL’s improvement scheme to be implemented and traffic levels to settle in prior to the mitigation works being implemented, Officers consider that subsequent testing and monitoring of the Tiger’s Head Junction and surrounding roads may result in further refinement of the proposed mitigation measures to be applied. Officers also want to ensure that it is not just the immediate roads which are monitored, but also those further afield which form part of a rat-running network to, from and though the District Centre. For that reason, the proposed mitigation measures and timeframes need to be flexible and unencumbered to ensure that the mitigation is the most appropriate and is applied at the optimum time.
8.301 The Applicant has agreed that subject to an overall cap of £500,000 the area for which the mitigation measures will be in the Council’s discretion. However, the Applicant still maintains that the funds should be secured for a period of time and should not be used to compensate or top up the TfL works which are currently taking place at the Tiger’s Head Junction. Officers are satisfied that the financial contribution is satisfactory, but the period over which the money may be spent remains to be agreed. Officers consider this aspect can be left for negotiation through the S.106 agreement.
8.302 The Applicant has proposed sustainable transport measures which it considers would mitigate the impact of the proposed development. These comprise:
133 non-residential cycle parking spaces to be provided at the development.
A number of new pedestrian crossing facilities along Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Rd.
First time residents to be provided 3 years free membership of the car club to help encourage uptake.
The provision of up to two car club spaces off site
£45,000 towards improvements to the bus stops servicing the site to accord with relevant TfL guidance. £12,004 Legible London signage
Travel plans for residents and businesses and the recruitment of a Travel Plan co-ordinator.
Car usage management incentives.
8.303 Details of a Car club company (Zip Car) which serves the Lee Green area have been provided. The details note that there are currently 4 car club vehicles within a 20 minute walk from the development at Handen Road, Chalcroft Road, Belmont Park and Kidbrooke Village. Officers accept that the demand for car club spaces cannot be fully established until the development is occupied. Thus, the car club company would request further car club spaces as and when there is sufficient demand. Officers therefore consider that if permission is granted, provision should be made in the S106 agreement to enable provision of two off- site car club spaces to be provided when required.
8.304 The Applicant’s Transport Note TN09 includes additional information to supplement the information provided within the Strategic Level Framework Travel Plan provided with the application. This includes proposals such as a welcome pack from the car club company, information about where and how the required cycle parking would be located within the development and proposals for car usage reduction measures. Officers are satisfied that the information provided within TN09, together with the submitted Strategic Level Framework Travel Plan can be secured by condition should Members resolve that planning permission be granted.
Crime and safety
8.305 The Designing Out Crime Officer has requested that the scheme be designed to Secure by Design Standards. However the requirements of Secure by Design accreditation are onerous and provide a limited palette of materials from which to add the finishing qualities to a scheme. Officers are satisfied that the overall re- designed scheme, which results in fewer blind corners and significantly improves natural surveillance, together with improved management and maintenance of the scheme would all result in better security for future users and occupiers.
8.306 The existing buildings currently comprise CCTV cameras owned and used by Lewisham’s security team. The Applicant has advised that the new shopping centre would have its own CCTV systems to be located in positions in and around the development to be agreed with Officers. However, the existing cameras on site would have to be re-located and new cameras within the District Centre, outside of the demise of the shopping centre. would be required to achieve the necessary surveillance. Officers are mindful of the crime rates in the area and it is important that CCTV is in place throughout the construction and operational phases of the development. The Applicant has agreed that Lewisham’s CCTV can have access to the external cameras within the development and that it (the Applicant) would pay for the reasonable costs associated with the re-provision of any external CCTV cameras. Officers consider that the details of the CCTV strategy can be secured by obligations in the proposed S106 agreement should Members resolve planning permission be granted. Energy and sustainability
8.307 The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The NPPF requires planning policies to be consistent with the Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards. In determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should expect new development to comply with adopted policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the Applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable and take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption.
8.308 The Mayor’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (April 2014), requires development proposals to plan for and incorporate sustainability measures as early on in the design process as possible. It sets out targets and provides guidance as to how to achieve those targets as efficiently as possible.
8.309 The SPG sets out the London Mayor’s priorities and best practice (Table 1.1: Summary of the SPG) and the Mayor’s sustainability objectives for developments. Where it is feasible, buildings should be refurbished and re-used. Where it is not possible to refurbish, new developments should be built on previously developed land and should take into account local factors such as the existing land form, public access, existing green infrastructure (parks, trees, open space etc.).
8.310 London Plan Policy 5.3 (Sustainable Design and Construction) and Core Strategy Policies 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects and 8 (Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency) advocate the need for sustainable development. All new development should address climate change and reduce carbon emissions. For major development proposals there are a number of London Plan requirements in respect of energy assessments, reduction of carbon emissions, sustainable design and construction, decentralised and renewable energy. Major developments are expected to prepare an energy strategy based upon the Mayors energy hierarchy adopting lean, clean, green principles.
8.311 In March 2015, the Government announced a new approach to the setting of technical standards for new housing. As a result, the Code for Sustainable Homes has been withdrawn, save for legacy cases (i.e. cases where the development is already contracted to a specific code level, or planning permission is already in place requiring delivery to a code level). The Ministerial Statement advises that as from 1 October 2015, existing policies relating to water efficiency, access and internal space are required to be interpreted by reference to the nearest equivalent technical standard.
8.312 In relation to water efficiency, National Planning Practice Guidance advises that all new homes have to meet the national standard in the Building regulations of 125 litres/person/day. Where there is clear local need, however, local planning authorities can set local plan policies to meet the tighter optional requirement of the Buildings Regulations of 110 litres/person/day.
8.313 The March 2015 Ministerial Statement also advised that until legislative changes are introduced alongside the introduction of the zero carbon homes policy expected later this year, local planning authorities may also set and apply policies on energy performance which exceed energy requirements of the Building Regulations.
8.314 Core Strategy Policy 8, ‘Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency’ does require compliance with CSH level 4 rising to Level 6 from April 2016. DMLP Policy 22 ‘Sustainable design and construction’ gives further guidance on energy efficiency. However, as explained above, the requirements relating to energy and water efficiency above Building Regulations can still be required from new development in a way that is consistent with the Government's statement and the advice in NPPF. As such, Officers consider the following standards of energy and water efficiency should be applied:
Energy efficiency - a 19% improvement in the Dwelling Emission Rate over the Target Emission Rate as defined in Part L1A of the 2013 Building Regulations
Water efficiency - 110 litres per person per day (this includes a 5 litre allowance for external water use).
8.315 The standard for energy efficiency is approximately equivalent to CSH Level 4. The optional higher standard for water consumption aligns with the tighter requirement in the Building Regulations based on existing policy requirements.
8.316 As the current planning application was submitted prior to the changes resulting from the March 2015 Ministerial Statement, the Applicant’s Sustainability Statement prepared by Cudd Bentley consulting submitted with the application documents does include Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM Pre- assessments which confirm that the residential units would achieve a minimum of Level 4, Code for Sustainable Homes and the commercial units an ‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating. In order to achieve the Level 4 and ‘excellent’ ratings, the proposed development would include the measures set out in the following paragraphs.
Energy
8.317 The Applicant’s submitted Energy Statement states the proposal is to construct buildings which are more energy efficient through their fabric and design, together with installing energy saving devices on the site and within the individual units.
8.318 The external walls, floors and roofs and the glazing would all be constructed from materials that would minimise overheating from the sun during the summer months and the escape of warmth during the winter months. The U value measures the loss of heat and therefore reduces the need to mechanically heat properties. The savings from this passive form of energy saving is 2.20% reduction in CO2.
8.319 In addition to the passive energy saving measures, the proposal is to install a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant to provide the development with hot water and 60% of the heat. The retail units would gain their heating and cooling from Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs).
8.320 The Energy Statement confirms that there are no existing community heat networks close enough to the application site to connect to, but that the necessary infrastructure is being developed close to the edges of the site to ensure that if one becomes available, the site could be readily connected. Officers would propose to cover this by condition.
8.321 Biomass boilers are discounted because they would necessitate deliveries of the bio-fuel to the site, a large plant area within the site to store the bio-fuel. There would also be emissions from the burning of the biomass fuel and the biomass boiler technology would not work collaboratively with the CHP.
8.322 Wind turbines are discounted as they require large amounts of space, are not aesthetically suitable for the built environment, cause electrical interference and necessitate minimum wind speeds.
8.323 Ground source heat pumps and solar water heating were considered to be cost prohibitive and not as effective as other methods of providing heat and hot water.
8.324 The predicted CO2 reductions in respect of the development are set out in Table 4 below.
Table [4]: Renewable Energy Provision
Total CO2 reduction (%) output (Kw) Savings from energy demand 18.48 2.20% reduction Combined Heat and Power 165kW 20.57% (electrical) Air Source Heat Pumps 44.32 5.27% (ASHPs) Solar PV 60.48 7.19% Total reduction 35.23%
8.325 The proposed measures would significantly improve on the current lack of any renewable energy on site.
8.326 Officers are satisfied that the chosen energy reduction technologies of a CHP, ASHPs and PV panels, together with the passive measures incorporated into the building design exceed the policy requirements of energy savings, and are therefore considered to be acceptable.
8.327 Notwithstanding the above, the GLA have raised strategic concerns with regard to sustainable energy and have asked for further information to verify the scheme’s ability to achieve the energy savings envisaged. The GLA have requested that this information is submitted to the GLA for review prior to the Stage II referral.
8.328 Officers are satisfied with the energy strategy at a local level and should Members resolve that planning permission be granted, consider that the information requested by the GLA can be provided as part of the Stage II referral. If the GLA have any further issues, this can be addressed prior to issue of the GLA’s Stage II response, with any appropriate conditions added to the decision notice.
Living Roofs 8.329 Policy 5.11 of the London Plan confirms that development proposals should include ‘green’ roofs and that Boroughs may wish to develop their own green roof policies. To this end, Core Strategy Policy 7 specifies a preference for Living Roofs (which includes bio-diverse roofs) which in effect, comprise deeper substrates and a more diverse range of planting than plug-planted sedum roofs, providing greater opportunity for bio-diversity.
8.330 The proposal is for 2,580.70m² of living roof across the flat roofs above the flats. The houses fronting Carston Close would not have living roofs as their roofs are required for private amenity space.
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
8.331 Policy 5.13 of the London Plan requires development to utilise SUDS, unless there are practical reasons for not doing so. The supporting text to the policy recognises the contribution ‘green’ roofs can make to SUDS. The hierarchy within that policy is for a preference for developments to store water for later use.
8.332 The proposals include living roofs, a podium and tree planting. Hard and soft landscaping is also proposed. London Plan 5.13 (Sustainable Drainage) advises that a SUDS strategy should include measures such as rainwater harvesting, permeable paving and appropriate drainage channels.
8.333 A limited SUDS strategy has been submitted with the application documents. It advises that the minimum requirements would be achieved with regard to SUDS. It confirms that the first 5mm of rain would not run off into water courses, and any rain thereafter would be adequately treated. The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application also provides a strategy and confirms that at least 1 storage tank would be necessary to accommodate the water run-off from the living roofs.
8.334 Officers are satisfied that a more precise SUDS strategy could be secured by way of a condition. The Environment Agency (EA) is also satisfied with this approach and have raised no objections subject to conditions being imposed on any decision notice with regard to SUDS (and other matters relating to drainage).
Flood Risk
8.335 Paragraph 99 of the NPPF states that developments in areas at risk of flooding should employ measures to mitigate flooding without displacing the risk of flooding elsewhere. The Government’s Technical Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change (2014) requires the mitigation of the potential impacts of flooding through design and flood resilient and resistant construction. Buildings should also be designed to accommodate a safe exit for less able bodied residents/users.
8.336 The London Plan Policy 5.12 (Flood Risk Management) requires the mitigation of flooding, or in the case of managed flooding, the stability of buildings, the protection of essential utilities and the quick recovery from flooding. Core Strategy Policy 10: (Managing and reducing the risk of flooding) requires developments to result in a positive reduction in flooding to the Borough.
8.337 Approximately 2/3 of the site is within Flood Risk Zones 2 & 3 as the River Quaggy is just over 100m north of the application site. The majority of the southern section of the site, together with the south eastern corner of the site are within Flood Zone 1. As indicated above, the application was accompanied by with a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
8.338 The FRA advises that the site is susceptible to flooding due to surface water flow from Eltham Road and the relatively close proximity to the River.
8.339 The impacts of flooding have been reduced through the design of the scheme. The houses fronting Carston Close are within the area with the lowest exposure to flood risk on the site (Zone 1), while the dwellings fronting Leyland Road are located within Flood Risk Zone 1 but are also situated 1/2 storey above ground/pavement level in order to further reduce the impact of any flooding.
8.340 The northern half of the site is within Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3. No residential units are to be provided at ground level in this location. The basement would be at risk, but there are no habitable areas at basement level and a pump would be installed. The mitigation measures set out within the FRA can be secured by condition. To reduce water ingress, all public realm would be constructed with slight gradients, sloping towards the highway. Flood evacuation plans are also proposed and a condition would be imposed accordingly. The retail and D1 units can be readily evacuated and are considered to be appropriate uses, notwithstanding the risk of flooding.
8.341 Surface water run-off from the site would be stemmed by the absorption properties of the podium and living roofs. For all other surface water run-off from the site and when the living roofs/podium become saturated, a 418m² overflow tank would capture the excess water. Only when the aforementioned water sustainable urban drainage systems reach capacity would any subsequent surface water run off enter into the public network
8.342 The EA has considered flooding as well as site contamination and has not raised objection to the development. The EA has requested 7 conditions should permission be granted in order to obtain the further information required from the Applicant in relation to surface water drainage.
8.343 Officers consider that the flood risk strategy submitted to be practical and suitable for a District Centre location which is partially located within a Flood Risk Zone. Therefore, Officers are satisfied with the FRA subject to the imposition of conditions.
Ecology
8.344 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF addresses ecology and states that the planning system should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF also states that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged. Core Strategy Policy 11 seeks to protect the Borough’s rivers and waterway network and Core Strategy Policy 12 seeks to protect open space and environmental assets. 8.345 The site is a brownfield site and not a protected site of nature conservation importance, although ecology has informed the landscaping and living roof proposals.
8.346 The podium at upper floor level, together with the living roofs provide new green space on the site. Officers consider the proposals to provide a reasonable provision of green space on site from an ecological perspective In the event Members resolve that planning permission should be granted, this would be secured by condition.
9.0 Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 The position regarding the need for environmental impact assessment of the proposals is set out in Section 5 of this Report. As indicated earlier in this Report, the Council appointed Land Use Consultants to advise the Council on EIA issues and assist with analysis of the ES.
9.2 This Section reviews the various topics covered by the ES. As is required, the ES is accompanied by a Non-Technical Summary (NTS) which provides a brief introduction of the proposals, advises of discounted alternative development approaches and confirms who has been consulted during the application preparation process. It also provides an indicative period of construction to completion; Phase 1 demolition January – September 2016, Phase 2 erection of main building envelope September 2016-December 2017; Phase 3 fit out September 2017-October 2018; Phase 4 southern townhouses constructed October 2018-June 2019 and; full operational development by June 2019. Whilst the commencement date has slipped, the Applicant has confirmed that the length of time each development stage would take would broadly remain the same.
9.3 The NTS then sets out the topics requested in the Screening and Scoping Opinion (DC/14/88269) and provides a non-technical summary of the identified environmental impacts, the level of impact, and the means of mitigation.
Environmental Statement (ES)
9.4 The sections below set out how the ES and the further and other information submitted for the ES have addressed the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed development, what the impacts are and proposed mitigation. It also sets out the Council’s conclusions regarding impacts and proposed mitigation measures and identifies the mechanisms by which mitigation would be secured. The headings correspond to the relevant chapters of the ES.
9.5 The assessment of the ES has been undertaken using a criteria-based approach, developed by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). The IEMA criteria include general criteria looking at the information contained in the ES, including the presentation of the results and the non- technical summary. Issue-specific criteria address:
The baseline conditions;
Assessment of impacts;
Mitigation measures and management. Alternatives to the current proposals
9.6 Chapter 3 of the ES sets out alternatives to redeveloping the site as proposed and gives an introduction to the design evolution for the scheme. It explains that public consultation events and pre-planning discussions with the Council were undertaken to inform the evolution of the scheme. The Chapter sets out alternative scenarios, sites, uses and configurations that were considered for the development and provides justification for the adoption or rejection of options which is considered acceptable. The alternatives include:
9.7 Do nothing – The ES stated that due to the configuration of the site, the units can not satisfy the requirements of modern day businesses. It is for this reason that the site has suffered poor occupancy rates and why the units that are occupied are let on unsustainable low rents.
9.8 Redevelopment – Redevelopment would result in the shopping centre bringing Lee Green back to life, creating a viable and vibrant District Centre.
9.9 Alternative sites – The Applicant owns the majority of the application site and Lewisham Site Allocations SPD provides for the redevelopment and regeneration of the Lee Green District Centre (SA23). Therefore the consideration of an alternative site was not appropriate in this instance.
9.10 Alternative uses – The site is allocated in Lewisham’s Core Strategy as a District Centre and therefore a residential-led scheme with ancillary retail was inappropriate. The scheme as it is presented provides an Anchor supermarket which is a use in accordance with a District Centre use, while residential housing is also proposed in line with planning policies encouraging the provision of further housing through the efficient use of sites.
9.11 Alternative configurations – included the following:
Partial demolition; not well received by the public.
Retail layouts; the proposed layout of the retail units is as a result of the evolution of the design.
Hotel use; discounted due to concerns over access and demand.
Public realm; the proposed location of the public space is as a result of the evolution of the design as guided by the public and Lewisham planning Officers. Matters such as overshadowing, pollution, design are taken into account. More generous pavements are proposed to surround the site.
Access; vehicular and pedestrian access is kept separate while a pedestrian access has been provided to link Burnt Ash Road with Eltham Road.
Scale (height); the height of the proposals has been set with regard to the impact to sunlight/daylight and visual amenity.
Massing and layout; the basement can only be used for car parking due to flood risk concerns. However, the shopping centre car park is to be located at 2nd floor levels as the public perceive basement car parks to be unsafe. Rainwater storage tanks are also proposed at basement level.
9.12 Developments which have been granted planning permission and which are likely to be using the A20 for construction and end user traffic were also considered for the preparation of the ES, as agreed with Officers at pre-application stage, which included the following sites:
The Huntsman site Kidbrooke village 52-54 Thurston Road Thurston Road (Land north of Sherwood Court) Excalibur Estate 160 Bromley Road IKEA, Bugsby’s Way Leybridge estate Lewisham Gateway Heathside and Lethbridge 223-225 Lewisham High Street Thurston Road 1-13 Lewisham High Street Christopher Boones Almshouses
Construction Programme and Methodology
Baseline
9.13 Chapter 5 of the ES provides descriptions of the demolition and construction methods and plant to be used for the development and the potential sensitive receptors (existing and proposed occupiers). The key stages of the programme are identified, as well as the likely duration of each stage in construction:
Table [ 5 ]: Demolition and Construction Programme
Demolition and Approximate Start Approximate End Construction Date Date Programme Activity Phase 1 – Demolition Jan 2016 Sept 2016 and Enabling Works Phase 2 – Main Sept 2016 Dec 2017 Structure and Envelope Phase 3 – Fit Out Sept 2017 Oct 2018 Phase 4 – Southern Oct 2018 June 2019 Townhouses Development in full June 2019 operation
9.14 As the current planning application is yet to be determined, some of the dates above have slipped, but as confirmed above, the timeframes of the phases are still applicable. Assessment
9.15 Paragraphs 5.33 and 5.34 of ES Chapter 5 explain that the main earthworks for the southern townhouses would be constructed at the same time as the main development and residential towers. The Applicant states that this demonstrates that significant effects during construction are not anticipated and states in paragraph 5.34 “The construction of the townhouses would not involve any major earthworks or piling once the other phases are occupied”. The Townhouses would be constructed following fit out of the residential units in the main blocks. It is assumed that the residential towers would not be occupied during construction of the Southern Townhouses (and therefore no additional sensitive receptors would be created). The Applicant has not provided a site logistics plan on the basis that a Principal Contractor has yet to be appointed. However, once the detailed construction management plan has been created, the sequence of events and any mitigation can be refined in order to address any further identified sensitive receptors.
9.16 Hours of work have been confirmed as being 08:00-18:00 weekdays, and 08:00- 12:30 on Saturdays, with no work undertaken on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays. This accords with the Council’s ‘Good Practice Guide on the Control of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites’. Works outside these hours would require written permission from LBL.
Mitigation and Management
9.17 Controls/mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant adverse effects are identified and include production of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (an example of which is included within the ES). A detailed CEMP would be required to be submitted and approved prior to the start of works. This would be secured by a planning condition.
9.18 The management of waste is also covered and an Outline Waste Management Strategy is included within the ES, which estimates the quantities of construction and operational waste likely to be produced and sets out an approach to sustainable waste management. A detailed Site Waste Management Plan would be required to be submitted and approved prior to the start of works. This would be secured through a planning condition.
9.19 An outline programme showing construction phases and details of activities at each stage have been provided which provides sufficient information on which to assess effects. Officers consider this approach to be acceptable as it is often difficult to establish sufficient detail on construction logistics at this stage. It is considered that a site logistics plan, including and traffic profiling should be required to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of works. This could be secured by condition if permission were to be granted.
Socio-Economic Issues
9.20 The assessment of Chapter 6 considers the effects on population, housing provision, employment, local expenditure, healthcare facilities, education, health and well-being and a ‘meanwhile use’ church on site.
Baseline 9.21 This Chapter of the ES sets out an extensive list of national, regional and local planning policies. It then confirms the baseline study area being a 7 mile radius around the application site including areas such as Hayes, Sidcup, Bexley, and Streatham north east London spanning from Barking to Shoreditch, and extends south of the River Thames to Bromley. The following matters were assessed:
Population Housing; Employment; Local Expenditure; Healthcare Facilities; Education; Open Space and Amenity; and Crime
9.22 The Chapter has factored the loss of existing employment into the assessment and takes into account existing retail and commercial jobs. The outdoor market has been referred to but the ES states the exact number of jobs supported by the market cannot be quantified at this stage. This is considered an acceptable approach.
Assessment
9.23 The assessment sets out a clear method for assessing the significance of effects during the construction and operational phases and considers both positive and negative effects. The assessment covered demolition, construction and occupation and used the ‘worst case scenarios’ when drawing conclusions regarding the level of impact.
9.24 With regard to the assessment of effects on education, the assessment has used a 2 mile catchment radius for primary schools, which is considered reasonable.
9.25 The effects on education, healthcare and housing are not considered during the construction phase of the development as they are not considered to result in significant impact. The effects of construction on health and well-being are considered and are assessed as minor adverse as they would be temporary and would be mitigated through the proposed CEMP. Once the development is operational, the effects would be moderate beneficial through the creation of new housing, jobs and improved looking buildings.
9.26 The ES states that whilst the affordable housing provision falls below the Council’s 50% target, this has been calculated through a viability appraisal. This chapter concludes the proposed affordable housing provision correlates with the Council’s policy (50% subject to viability) and therefore it is accurate to conclude this is a moderate beneficial significant.
9.27 The assessment of operational employment effects refers to the number of existing FTE jobs on the site, and states that the office jobs would be expected to relocate elsewhere. The assessment considers 2 scenarios for effects on employment: scenario one assumes current occupancy levels and scenario two assumes full capacity. 9.28 Minor adverse effects are identified with regard to employment during construction but minor beneficial effects were found in respect of expenditure during the 3.5 year construction phase.
9.29 The projected 538 additional residents occupying the scheme are considered to provide a minor beneficial effect. The proposed employment and expenditure levels are set to be moderate beneficial while the effects of the development upon healthcare and education are considered to be negligible as there is sufficient capacity in the vicinity.
9.30 The effects on crime were considered to be minor beneficial due to the improved design while the effects on open space and amenity were considered to result in moderate beneficial effects due to the provision of public realm and the podium level open space for use by the residents.
9.31 The Applicant has considered the ‘meanwhile use’ church in the consideration of temporary displacement during construction of a range of activities currently undertaken at the site. The Applicant notes that there are alternative religious spaces within 1km which should be suitable for similar use.
Mitigation and Management
9.32 The chapter provides an assessment of cumulative effects and the residual effects presented rely on mitigation to be provided through Section 106 agreements and ‘developer contributions’. It is common for an ES to rely on subsequent action to mitigate likely significant adverse effects.
9.33 The Applicant states that all schemes considered in the cumulative assessment would be expected to mitigate effects on healthcare and education provision through Section 106 Agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy and concludes that effects on the primary healthcare system and education are ‘not judged likely to present significant effects.’. Officers deem this approach to be acceptable, as matters such as social infrastructure, including health and education are provided for financially under the Community Infrastructure Levy. For the schemes approved prior to the introduction of CIL, S106 contributions secured in respect of those schemes would cover their impact.
Traffic and Transportation
9.34 As indicated in Section 5 of this Report, the Traffic and Transportation information in the ES was subject to a Regulation 22 request, because the Traffic and Transport information originally supplied for the ES was not considered sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the EIA Regulations in respect of an ES. However, further information and clarifications have been submitted and Officers consider that the environmental information in respect of Traffic and Transportation is now sufficient.
9.35 The ES Traffic and Transport chapter notes that the scope of the assessment, including the study area and scope of the baseline traffic surveys, have been agreed with the Council. In relation to the study area, the Scoping Opinion issued by the Council noted that “particular attention should be paid to major roads leading in and out of London and likely construction and operational traffic routes should be established, so that receptors could be appropriately assessed in other assessment chapters e.g. air quality/noise”. The ES indicates that as minimal impacts are predicted within the immediate highway network, Officers accept that it is appropriate not to consider impacts on more distant receptors.
Baseline
9.36 The information provided in the section on ‘Baseline Conditions’ covers the local highway network and traffic flows, the existing public transport network including Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) (bus, rail, Overground and DLR) and existing pedestrian and cycle facilities. The reader is also referred back to the Transport Assessment in Volume 3 of the ES for further information.
Assessment
9.37 This Chapter of the ES sets out the methodology for all aspects of the assessment and provides a detailed explanation as to the approach to determining effect significance referring to relevant guidance produced by Environmental Protection UK and the Institute of Air Quality Management. An air quality neutral assessment is included in line with the Mayor of London’s Supplementary Planning Guidance.
9.38 The assessment sets out likely effects, discusses mitigation and then sets out residual effects and includes a summary of the assessment.
9.39 The chapter describes necessary mitigation measures with reference to relevant recommendations in IAQM guidance and BS6187:2011, which would be incorporated into a CEMP or Air Quality and Dust Management Plan (AQDMP), all of which is to be secured by condition. The Council’s ES consultant advises the Council that this approach is reasonable.
9.40 The assessment considers the traffic generated from the proposed development against the ‘baseline’ scenario which includes committed developments. The highways impact of the proposals, with regard to what is necessary for the ES, involved measuring the impact of the proposals against a ‘Future Existing’ scenario (with the TfL Tiger Head junction improvements currently being installed on site, updated with the traffic flows surveyed in spring 2014), against a ‘Future Proposed’ scenario (with the development generated traffic).
9.41 The measurement of the highways impact also used 2018 as the date for when the development would be complete, as would the majority of the committed developments. Officers consider that the above approaches for assessment to be the most realistic and practical way of assessing the highways impact of the scheme with regard to the ES.
Secondary, Cumulative, and Combined Impacts
9.42 Minor adverse effects are predicted during the construction phase of the proposed development and in relation to severance (creating a further perceived divide between the west side of Burnt Ash Road from the east) on the Burnt Ash Road (north) link during the operational phase would result in a moderate impact which due to the installation of a further crossing is not considered to be an issue of concern.
Mitigation and Management 9.43 The Traffic and Transportation chapter of the ES provides a summary of the proposed measures to help mitigate and minimise the impacts of the proposed development and to improve pedestrian comfort. Examples of some of the measures proposed are raised pedestrian tables at key locations to improve pedestrian safety at junctions, shared pedestrian and cycle surfaces, such as on Carston Close to facilitate safe movement through the Site, avoiding Tigers Head junction and relocation of the pedestrian crossing on Burnt Ash Road to better serve the pedestrian desire line and reduce severance. Travel plans and including public transport information and the encouragement of use of car clubs are also cited as proposed mitigation.
9.44 Officers consider that the Transport and Traffic chapter of the ES, together with the further information received in response to the Regulation 22 request provides an appropriate assessment of the traffic impacts of the proposed development.
9.45 For the reasons set out in the Highways section of this Report, Officers consider that the proposed mitigation measures identified could adequately mitigate the impact of the proposed development (including its cumulative impact), but further monitoring of the Tiger’s Head junction is required in order to refine and more accurately quantify the mitigation measures to be employed.
Air Quality
9.46 Chapter 8 presents the main sensitive receptors in the accompanying figures and these are described in the text in the ES. It also assesses relevant effects during the construction and operational phases of the development.
Baseline
9.47 This part of the Borough is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) where concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10) are already high, the principal source being from road traffic.
9.48 Officers consider that the baseline in Chapter 8 is adequately described in relation to local air quality monitoring station data and the published Defra background air quality database. The future baseline has been set assuming that 2013/2014 background concentrations are representative of background concentrations in 2018 which represents a worst case assessment. Officers accept this approach.
Assessment
9.49 Chapter 8, together with the further information submitted, sets out likely effects and discusses mitigation based on the following:
Dust during the demolition and construction phases upon sensitive areas adjacent to the Site.
Emissions of air pollutants (principally nitrogen dioxide and PM10) from the additional road traffic movements during the demolition, construction and operational phases and including the road traffic emissions generated from other committed developments in the area.
Emissions of nitrogen dioxide from the proposed energy generation plant during the operational phase. The implications of dust during the construction phase.
Cooking extraction fumes.
The appropriateness of the proposed development in the context of local air pollution.
Impacts and Mitigation
9.50 Construction activity has the potential to produce dust and other emissions which could impact on neighbouring properties, as well as on residents and businesses on site. The ES confirmed that dust derived from the demolition works and track out (the transport of dust and dirt using the road network) are considered to be a medium to high risk. The risk to human health was considered to be low risk. Risk associated with dust can be managed using appropriate mitigation.
9.51 This Chapter of the ES suggests these potential impacts are typical of major development projects and with the proposed mitigation measures in place, impacts could be reduced to low levels. The Chapter confirms that for the areas close to the roads, the annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations would be minor adverse. That being said, the Chapter has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development would not be creating residential units at locations which exceed the air quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide and PM10. The air pollutant and the proposed mitigation measures are set out in Chapter 8. The Chapter identifies that without appropriate mitigation, Air Quality could be worsened by:
Emissions of dust during demolition and construction (Construction Phase)
Emissions to air from road vehicles travelling to and from the Site, the on- site car park and on-site combustion plant (Operational Phase)
Emissions of odour from on-site commercial kitchens and foodstore bakery (Operational Phase).
9.52 This Chapter also identifies the level of impact which ranges from minor adverse for both dust soiling and human health risks, minor adverse for nitrogen dioxide and negligible for PM10 and negligible in respect of the odour from the commercial kitchens.
9.53 The measures proposed in order to mitigate and minimise the reduction in air quality are set out in Chapter 8 and include the following which it is considered can be secured by condition:
- Pedestrian and cycle links, cycle parking provisions
- A travel plan designed to encourage non-car travel
- Enhanced planting of trees along Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road.
- Careful selection of energy centre stack location and height
- Appropriately designed ventilation system 9.54 Officers consider all recommendations to be acceptable.
9.55 The Chapter describes necessary mitigation measures with reference to relevant recommendations in IAQM guidance and BS6187:2011, which would be incorporated into a CEMP or Air Quality and Dust Management Plan (AQDMP). Officers consider the this approach (to be secured by condition) to be acceptable.
9.56 Road transport is recognised as a significant contributor to poor air quality, particularly in urban areas. LPAs can play a key role by ensuring that developments reduce the need to travel and encouraging more sustainable travel choices.” As a District Centre location immediately adjacent to a major transport interchange, the site is highly sustainable. Accordingly a balance needs to be struck between no development occurring on this site (given existing and likely ‘with development’ impacts) and a development that can deliver a number of significant benefits for the District Centre. In this case the current application proposes site-wide and individual building Travel Plans for occupiers incorporating a number of measures to promote non-car modes of transport and reduce trips arising from the development. Officers also satisfied with the measures set out in the proposed travel plan in order to further reduce polluting modes of travel once the development is operational.
Noise and Vibration
9.57 Chapter 9 has addressed the issues raised in the Scoping Opinion and refers to the appropriate British Standards and best practice guidance. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has also been consulted.
Baseline
9.58 A detailed baseline report has been included with baseline noise data collected in 2012 and 2014. Long and short term baseline noise and vibration measurements have been carried out on separate occasions at relevant receptor locations in consultation with the Council.
Assessment
9.59 Noise sensitive receptors are illustrated in the ES and described in the assessment. Relevant legislation and guidelines have been used to assess the potential impact significance of noise and vibration arising from the scheme during demolition, construction and operation. Account has been taken of ambient noise levels and assumptions on working hours and plant in assessing construction noise impacts, and operational noise impact primarily from road traffic and building services plant, have been assessed using standard procedures.
9.60 The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have prescribed a standard condition to be applied to the current application requiring the internal noise level standard within bedrooms to be 30dB LAeq (night), which follows the WHO standards and the Good design requirement under BS8233.
Impacts and Mitigation
9.61 Chapter 16 of the ES deals with Cumulative Effects and accepts that there would be negligible to major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to occupiers within Leybridge Court and Carston Close. The ES also concludes that mitigation measures could help reduce the impacts.
9.62 The Council’s standard approach for external noise requires the internal noise level standard within bedrooms to be 30dB LAeq (night), which follows the WHO standards and the Good design requirement under BS8233 and the Applicant was made aware of this during the scoping process. As a result of the Regulation 22 request, the Applicant confirmed that a number of measures are proposed to ensure that night time noise levels are met at all properties and where exceedances are expected as a result of road traffic noise break-in (main residential towers which face directly on to Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Road). These include selection of glazing, ventilation and other façade elements to provide insulation to achieve an internal noise level of 30 dB L Aeq, 8hr. The design of the podium level would also serve as a form of noise mitigation associated with car parking and plant equipment. Conditions would be imposed to ensure noise protection measures are installed.
Townscape, Visual and Heritage
9.63 The scope of assessment is stated to include impacts on:
Physical characteristics of the Site and surrounds
Landscape/townscape character
Visual receptors (i.e. people)
Cultural heritage assets and their settings.
Baseline
9.64 During the pre-application stage, Officers agreed a list of key viewpoints with the Applicant upon which to base this part of the ES assessment.
9.65 Subsequent to the ES, information was provided regarding the discounted committed developments in the vicinity; the views not only had to consider the proposed development in light of the existing townscape, but also in the context of any schemes soon to be constructed.
9.66 The ES also identifies the heritage assets in and around the site, while also acknowledging any implications in terms of views to heritage assets further afield such as those within the Blackheath Conservation Area.
Assessment
9.67 This Chapter of the ES assesses the overall impact of appearance, scale and mass of the development in relation to nearby heritage assets, conservation areas and views. The impact was considered cumulatively so took into account other committed developments.
Impacts and Mitigation
9.68 The conclusions drawn in the ES were that impact of the proposals would be negligible to beneficial upon the nearby Listed Buildings and even though the proposed development would be more than twice the height of the fire station, the broken mass of the design strategy and the re-establishment of the retail frontage serve for an improvement to visual amenity therefore would not result in any harm to the designated heritage assets. Officers agree with this conclusion.
9.69 In terms Townscape, Heritage and visual Impact, a minor adverse impact was identified in relation the setting of Manor House, within Manor House Gardens; the top two storeys of Block C would be visible, intermittently through the established trees. Adverse impacts were also identified at Manor Park and the Lee Manor Conservation Area.
9.70 No specific mitigation measures are proposed. Minimising the harm from the proposed development was concluded to be in the design, scale and quality of the proposed built form, which was considered would generally ‘create an enhanced townscape. Officers agree with this conclusion. The Conservation and archaeology section of the Report deals with Officers views as to the impact of the proposals on heritage and non-heritage assets.
Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing, Light Pollution and Solar Glare
9.71 As mentioned earlier in this Report, Officers have identified, and the Applicant has confirmed, that whilst the properties assessed are correct and relevant, there has been a mislabelling in terms of the addresses. The addresses referred to in the EIA text were largely correct, with the exception of the “Leybridge Court” which were previously recorded as 1 and 45 Leyland Road and should be 1-44 Leybridge Court and 45-88 Leybridge Court which are the two towers to the east of the proposal site. “Stafford House” was previously recorded as ‘Starford’ House. Officers have yet to draw any conclusions or made a recommendation regarding daylight and sunlight, pending conclusion of the recent consultation on this issue. Officers are, however, satisfied that the assessment criteria, conclusions drawn and the mitigation measures proposed remain valid, notwithstanding the incorrect labelling and that the scope of the assessment comprehensively considers daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts on existing developments, internal day lighting for the proposed development and light pollution and solar glare.
Baseline
9.72 Officers consider that the baseline is clearly set out in sufficient detail and supported by appropriate figures and tables.
Assessment
9.73 The methods of assessment used are in accordance with the BRE 2011 guidance (Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice) and Officers consider the methods used to be acceptable.
9.74 The ES states that “If all the windows in a building meet the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) criteria it is likely there would be adequate daylight potential of the windows in question. If the windows in the building do not meet the VSC criteria, the No Sky Contour (NSC) analysis for the room served by that window would be considered.” 9.75 The assessment includes Average Daylight Factor (ADF) results for all of the rooms assessed. The results are based on assumed room layouts, although the criteria used in the ADF calculation for glass transmittance and internal reflectance have not been provided. Therefore, the ADF results can only be an approximation of the actual ADF available within the rooms. This is not unusual where access has not been gained to neighbouring properties.
9.76 With regards to the daylight results (VSC and NSC), the assessment calculates the daylight to all of the windows in the elevations facing the development site.
9.77 The results showed that daylight levels after development remain good but that 3 residential blocks have some windows which would receive daylight levels below BRE minimum standards:
1-42 Merridale
1-44 Leybridge Court
45-88 Leybridge Court
9.78 The ES states that the windows in these buildings already have poor access to sunlight via overhanging balconies and therefore any additional impact would seem magnified. It is for this same reason why the units would also experience levels of sunlight lower than the BRE guidance.
9.79 No adverse effects were found with regard to the overshadowing of external amenity spaces surrounding the application site, although it is acknowledged that further overshadowing would occur during the winter months, due to the increase in the mass of buildings but not to an unacceptable level.
9.80 It identified that the windows within 1-42 Merridale, 1-44 Leybridge Court and 45- 88 Leybridge Court would experience a minor adverse impact to VSC, while 38-48 Burnt Ash Road would experience a moderate adverse impact from the proposed development.
9.81 38-48 Burnt Ash Road is a 3 storey block of flats on the western side of Burnt Ash Road, immediately south of the Taunton/Burnt Ash Road junction.
9.82 Officers consider that some of negative impact to surrounding buildings counted is skewed as some of the windows do not serve habitable rooms. Rather, they serve communal entrance doors and bathrooms and it is many of those windows that experience the greatest impacts. Therefore, the results for some properties appear worse than they actually are.
9.83 Officers acknowledge that the BRE standard is not met for some of the surrounding properties, but Officers are satisfied that there is likely to be an inevitable result of any scheme that occupies a greater site area and has a greater mass than the existing buildings. When moderate adverse impacts would be caused however, this would be materially noticeable to neighbouring residents, but the level of impact is considered to be acceptable within an urban environment.
Secondary, Cumulative, and Combined Impacts 9.84 The assessment states that there are no cumulative schemes within a close enough distance to have a cumulative effect on daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, light pollution or solar glare.
Mitigation and Management
9.85 Officers consider that the majority of effects identified are negligible or minor adverse and Officers are satisfied that no mitigation is required. Moderate adverse effects are predicted for 38-40 Burnt Ash Road but the chapter states that these “effects are driven by very high existing levels of daylight in the case of 38-40 Burnt Ash Road. Accordingly, no mitigation measures are considered necessary”. This is considered appropriate.
Water Environment
9.86 The site is located partly within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with a small area within Flood Zone 1 (as defined by the EA). A separate Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been completed for the development and is provided as an Appendix to the ES. Correspondence from the EA and Thames Water is included in the FRA. Paragraph 12.44 states that “Thames Water has confirmed that the local surface water sewerage network has sufficient capacity to accommodate flows from the Proposed Development”.
Baseline
9.87 Within this chapter, the relevant legislation and guidance is considered, including the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan. The FRA references the London Plan and associated supplementary guidance notes (SPGs), the LBL and Royal Borough of Greenwich Strategic Flood Risk Assessments.
Assessment
9.88 Tables of significance criteria are provided which incorporate consideration of magnitude into the overall judgement of significance. Officers are satisfied that the before and after mitigation (residual) are appropriately assessed.
Secondary, Cumulative, and Combined Impacts
9.89 Cumulative effects have been assessed and conclusions rely heavily on the assumption that other developments would be required to implement Construction Environmental Management Plans and produce Flood Risk Assessments and therefore reduce likely significant effects and in turn minimise cumulative effects. Officers consider this approach to be reasonable and the findings of the cumulative assessment are therefore considered to be acceptable.
Mitigation and Management
9.90 Officers consider that the proposed FRA and drainage measures, CEMP and necessary conditions would collectively result in acceptable forms and levels of mitigation.
Ground Conditions & Contamination Risk 9.91 The baseline conditions for Chapter 13 are established by reference to historical mapping, pollution databases in the public domain and a desktop Phase 1 Contamination Assessment. The assessment states that ground investigation data is not currently available for the site. Ground investigations should be carried out prior to construction and this would be secured by a planning condition. The description of these conditions in the main ES chapter is detailed and considered acceptable.
Assessment
9.92 Officers consider the assessment methodology, the significance criteria used, and the assessment findings to be consistent with current good practice.
Secondary, Cumulative, and Combined Impacts
9.93 The assessment considers that there would be no in-combination effects with other impacts assessed in the ES which is considered acceptable.
Mitigation and Management
9.94 The assessment sets out a range of mitigation measures, reflecting best practice and Officers consider the measures to be satisfactorily comprehensive and appropriately secured by condition.
Wind Microclimate
9.95 In accordance with best practice, wind tunnel modelling has been completed for the proposed development. The following scenarios were tested:
existing site with existing surrounding conditions (Configuration 1)
proposed Development with existing surrounding buildings (Arcade Closed) (Configuration 2)
proposed Development with existing surrounding buildings (Arcade Open) (Configuration 3)
proposed Development with cumulative surrounding buildings (Configuration 4)
9.96 A qualitative assessment of construction impacts has been undertaken.
Baseline
9.97 Configuration 1 provides the modelled baseline conditions with reference to meteorological data where necessary. This is considered acceptable for the assessment.
Assessment
9.98 The widely accepted Lawson Comfort Criteria have been used to assess the effects.
9.99 The assessment concludes that wind conditions either remain the same as the baseline or the proposed uses (of relevance to this assessment) are generally predicted to result in calmer conditions. 4 receptors on the podium level and 2 receptors on the balconies are predicted to be one category windier than desired (i.e. minor adverse). Mitigation has been suggested for the balconies but the chapter acknowledges that “Conditions are unlikely to be significantly improved at these locations by the inclusion of the features on the landscaping plan”. It is acknowledged that effects at the podium level are predicted to be minor adverse.
9.100 A cumulative assessment has been carried out considering committed developments within 360m of the site, and for all receptors and site uses, conditions are either suitable or calmer than the required level with the exception of the podium and balcony receptors which would be one category windier than desired (as per the main assessment). Officers consider this level of impact to be acceptable, subject to the mitigation measures referred to.
9.101 4 receptors on the podium were considered only acceptable to those standing in the summer months, while 2 balconies were also considered acceptable for standing during the summer months.
Mitigation and Management
9.102 The modelling was undertaken without trees or landscaping and as such the results represent the worst case. Mitigation could be employed in the form of higher balconies/screening for the instances where receptors on the podium and balconies would experience conditions that are windier than desired. The landscaping scheme could go some way to reducing some of the impact from wind, the effects at the podium level (new open space) cannot be mitigated unless users of the space move to a less windy area.
9.103 Officers are satisfied, however, that the limited number of spaces on the podium affected are minimal in the overall context of the development, and that practically, when weather conditions are adverse, such as in the winter months when some areas were not suitable for standing, it would not be typical for users to want to use those spaces in any event. With regard to the 2 balconies which also were not suitable for sitting in the summer months, the higher balconies could be secured by condition.
9.104 Officers are therefore satisfied with the assessment and conclusions drawn and consider the proposed mitigation to be appropriate.
Cumulative Effects
9.105 Chapter 16, Cumulative Effects refers to the other chapters within ES and how they collectively impact the environment. The Chapter also considers committed schemes.
9.106 Officers are satisfied that a thorough assessment has been made of the cumulative effects, including potential effects on human health.
9.107 Overall, the chapter concludes that the proposal would have a minor adverse impact through disruption during the construction process to human health and well-being and when the proposed development is up and running upon human health and well-being through poor air quality, and reductions to of views of the sky and access to daylight. However, suitable mitigation has been proposed in most instances which minimises the adverse impacts to acceptable levels. In other cases where an adverse impact is unavoidable, they are for limited periods, which again is considered to be acceptable.
9.108 However, beneficial impacts would be derived from the regeneration of the District Centre which officers consider would, in the longer term, outweigh the adverse impacts experienced during the construction of the proposed development.
9.109 Officers accept the conclusions in respect of the cumulative effects.
Conclusion
9.110 The ES together with the further information received, provides a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development during both construction and on completion/operation. The documents submitted are considered to be acceptable in that sufficient information has been submitted in order for it to constitute an ES and in terms of their scope and methodology for assessment and reporting. As a major development there are significant impacts and, where appropriate, mitigation has been identified to address these impacts. There are some impacts where there would be an adverse residual impact, specifically, the failure of some of the windows within the adjacent Merridale and Leybridge Courts to achieve the BRE levels of light, but Officers are satisfied that although the residual impacts are adverse, the actual impact from the proposed development is relatively minor, and therefore acceptable.
9.111 Officers are satisfied that the level of environmental impact from the proposed development, is acceptable subject to the mitigation as set out above, being secured.
10.0 Planning Obligations
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that in dealing with planning applications, local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. The NPPF further states that where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled. The NPPF also sets out that planning obligations should only be secured when they meet the following three tests:
(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable
(b) Directly related to the development; and
(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
10.1 Paragraph 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (April 2010) puts the above three tests on a statutory basis. A planning obligation cannot be a reason for granting planning permission, unless it satisfies the tests set out in Regulation 122.
10.2 Officers have been in negotiations with the Applicant regarding the Section 106 requirements arising from the redevelopment proposals. In this case, as well as securing the various elements required to deliver the project (such as highway infrastructure works) and commitments made in the application itself (such as affordable housing and the community facility), a range of other contributions and obligations are considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
10.3 The obligations secured need to be considered in the context the infrastructure payments covered by the Community Infrastructure Levy CIL). The matters covered by CIL are set out in the Council’s Regulation 123 List and include the following:
State education facilities
Public health care facilities
Strategic transport enhancements (excluding site-specific, highways and public transport matters
Publicly accessible open space, allotments and biodiversity
Strategic flood management infrastructure
Publicly owned leisure facilities
Local community facilities including community but excluding places of worship)
Public Emergency Services (this is intended to apply to physical projects by the police, fire or ambulance services)
10.4 The following S106 requirements have been identified in respect of the scheme:
Housing 15.7% affordable housing including 12 town houses to be affordable rent capped at £1,000 per month and 24 intermediate flats. A financial review mechanism to enable additional funds to be applied to affordable housing 10% of all tenure types to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair use
Highways £30k financial contribution to future CPZ consultation exercise / implementation Inability of future occupiers of the scheme to apply for residential parking permits in any existing local CPZs in Lewisham or Greenwich Boroughs Tigers Head junction modelling review mechanism £500k financial contribution towards mitigation works to the Tiger's Head junction £125k towards the alleviation of rat running/traffic calming on surrounding roads A £15k financial contribution towards, and the undertaking of monitoring in respect of the Tiger's Head junction Bus stop replacement shelters to include real-time arrival times on Eltham Road heading east and west, Burnt Ash Road heading south and north (x4 bus stops in total) Legible London signage contribution to TfL £12,004 A financial contribution towards existing bus service enhancements necessitated by the development 3 hours free car parking for shoppers and users of the District Centre Car club membership for 3 years for all first occupied residential units (arranged/paid, prior to first occupation of any unit) The provision of a minimum of 2 car club spaces on site and a financial contribution towards a further space off site (the latter space as and when required). £50k financial contribution towards air quality monitoring All areas of public realm to remain available for use by the public Detailed Travel Plan for residential and non-residential uses to be submitted and approved by the Council Submission, approval and implementation of a parking management plan to restrict on-street parking (except Blue Badge holders)
Local Labour and Business £155,290 financial contribution towards employment and training £20k financial contribution towards supporting businesses within the District Centre Local Labour and Business strategy to be submitted, implemented and monitored
Playspace £80k financial contribution towards children’s playspace in the locality of the application site Communal and private residential amenity areas to be maintained and managed in accordance with a plan submitted to and approved by the Council
Shopping centre access Shopping Centre/Arcade opening hours to the public to be 8am-12.30am Friday-Saturday; 8am-10.30pm Monday-Thursday and 8am-8pm Sundays, independent from anchor supermarket Fall-back position for management of Arcade should the anchor supermarket not occupy the site, or subsequently cease trading Public access over Carston Close for pedestrians and cyclists, 24 hours a day and free of charge. Public toilets to be available for use by the public at no more than a nominal fee in perpetuity
Commercial units Fit out of all commercial units to have shop fronts and internal core finish Rights for the patrons and staff of the commercial units to access the car park, arcade and travellator independent from the opening hours of the supermarket.
Community facility The provision of the D1 community facility to shell and core plus shopfront and internal fit out and/or installation of mezzanine floor and internal access to Arcade. Nil rent in perpetuity for the community facility
Trees Mechanism regarding agreement over removal of trees in TfL highway Financial compensation payable to TfL for any trees lost as a result of the development
Air Quality Financial contribution for environmental protection (air quality) of £50k
Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) The provision of CCTV cameras (at the Applicant’s expense) in and around the site to be connected to the Council’s CCTV network
Miscellaneous Monitoring, legal and other professional fees Reasonable endeavours to retain the same architects throughout the construction process The land to the south of the site for the new houses is to be secured prior to commencement of works (excluding demolition)
10.5 As set out elsewhere in this Report, the obligations outlined above are directly related to the development. They are considered to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and to be necessary and appropriate in order to secure policy objectives, to prescribe the nature of the development, to compensate for or offset likely adverse impacts of the development, to mitigate the proposed development’s impact and make the development acceptable in planning terms. Officers are therefore satisfied the proposed obligations meet the three legal tests as set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.
11.0 Local Finance Considerations
11.1 Under Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), a local finance consideration means:
(a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or would or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown; or (b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or would or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
11.2 The weight to be attached to a local finance consideration remains a matter for the decision maker.
11.3 CIL is therefore a material consideration. CIL is payable on this application and the Applicant has completed the relevant form. 12.0 Community Infrastructure Levy
12.1 The above development is liable for both the Mayor’s CIL and the Council’s CIL. The completed CIL form was submitted with the application documents. An informative would be added to the decision notice advising the Applicant to notify the Council when works commence.
13.0 Equalities Considerations
13.1 Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”) imposes a duty that the Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to:-
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act;
(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not;
(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
13.2 The protected characteristics under the Act are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
13.3 The duty is a “have regard duty” and the weight to attach to it is a matter for the decision maker bearing in mind the issues of relevance and proportionality.
13.4 The application site is currently in a run-down state and therefore attracting occupiers has been done by significant reductions in rent levels. These low rent levels have enabled occupiers to afford their spaces, but once the site is redeveloped, the new spaces could become unaffordable for the current occupiers.
13.5 This situation would result in the displacement of many homes and businesses. However, it cannot be an argument to maintain a run-down shopping centre in order for the properties to benefit from low rents. If the Leegate Centre was in full occupation, then the rent levels might be unaffordable for that reason too. Officers do not consider it unreasonable that as a result of the proposed development, some occupiers would become displaced.
13.6 Objection has been raised to the proposals on the grounds that the demolition of the existing buildings would result in residential occupiers becoming homeless or unable to afford rents elsewhere. Other legislation is in force to protect the most vulnerable such as the residential occupiers within the development. The Housing Act is in place to ensure that any necessary notice periods and/or compensation is duly applied and the Council’s Housing department are responsible for re-housing any displaced tenants who have the benefit of protection.
13.7 There are therefore legislative mechanisms outside the planning process which address displacement as a result of the proposed development. 13.8 In relation to the Church, the GLA Stage I Report sought assurance regarding its relocation. There is no planning policy requirement for an Applicant to provide assistance with relocation of such uses and the lack of such assistance would not provide a valid reason for the refusal of planning permission. The Applicant has nevertheless agreed to provide assistance to the church in helping them find alternative premises, by appointing a local agent and on balance, Officers consider this appropriately addresses the effect on the Church from an equalities perspective.
13.9 Officers are satisfied that equalities issues have been appropriately considered through the assessment of the application.
14.0 Summary of representations
14.1 The scale of development proposed for the Leegate District Centre has generated considerable interest amongst local residents, interest groups and other consultees. The representations received in response to the consultation exercises carried out in February and September 2015 and April 2016 are summarised in Appendix 2 to this report.
14.2 The representations received cover a range of topics but can be grouped into 6 broad categories:
. Design scale and mass of development
. Highways and parking implications
. Environmental Impact
. Reduction and location of public realm
. Housing
. Pre-application consultation
Design scale and mass of development
14.3 Objections have been raised to the proposals on the grounds that the design, scale and mass of the proposed building are too great given the mass of the existing buildings and existing townscape and conclude that the buildings are too large and overwhelm the District Centre. Objections have also be submitted regarding the layout of the proposed development resulting in the public open space being provided at the western side of the development.
14.4 Equally, letters of support have been received to the proposals on the grounds that the existing centre is in a poor state of repair and that the new buildings would provide attractive, regenerative benefits to the District Centre.
14.5 During the pre-application consultation for the proposals, Officers, the LDRP and the Lee Green Working Group were all involved in the development of the proposals. The public engagement exercises also influenced the evolution of the design.
14.6 Layout, scale and design are considered in Section 7 of this Report. The Site Allocations DPD and London Plan support the redevelopment of the Lee District Centre and with the principle of redevelopment supported by policy, the requirement to develop land in accordance with other planning policies need to be applied.
14.7 The layout scale and design of the proposals are as a result of input from local groups and Council Officers. The submitted version of the development is considered by Officers to be appropriate and in accordance with local and national planning policies and guidance with regard to principle of good urban design.
14.8 Officers are satisfied that the drawings submitted with the application, including elevations, floor plans, sections and detailed drawings scaled at 1:5 adequately inform Officers about the proposed design, scale, mass and detailing of the proposed development. Officers are satisfied that the information submitted would produce a building as envisaged in the computer generated images submitted in support of the technical drawings.
14.9 The sunlight and daylight chapters in the ES submitted with the application also confirm that there would not be any greater than a minor adverse impact from the proposed development, which when compared with the regenerative benefits of the scheme, is considered to be acceptable.
Highways and parking implications
14.10 With regard to the number of objections received, highways implications have been the most common objection to the proposal. Objections have been raised on the grounds that the proposed development would exacerbate existing congestion around the Tiger’s Head Junction, create congestion around the proposed entrance to the new shopping centre while also increasing current on- street parking problems.
14.11 Highways matters are considered in Section 8 of this Report. TfL have confirmed that the Tiger’s Head junction is currently experiencing undesirable levels of congestion/queuing and has a poor incident rate, and it is for that reason TfL are implementing changes to the junction.
14.12 However, during the course of road works, it is likely that some drivers would naturally divert away from the junction to avoid further delays. It is not until the TfL works have been completed would drivers again use the junction. Officers consider that it is from this base the proposed mitigation measures should be further refined and applied.
14.13 For the above reasons, Officers accept the modelling/predictions which provide a logical, albeit theoretically based level of impact of the additional traffic caused by the proposed development. Officers deem this approach to be acceptable for the purposes of determining the current planning application with the condition that further testing should be carried out at the Applicant’s expense once the TfL works are established.
14.14 The predictions confirm that the proposal would result in additional congestion to the Tiger’s Head junction, in particular the left turn from Burnt Ash Road to Lee High Road. Officers are satisfied impact can be mitigated and have agreed a financial sum to inform the final strategy which is to be secured and agreed via a S.106 obligation. 14.15 Officers consider that the highways mitigation measures set out Section 8 of this Report may not be the optimum way to mitigate the identified impacts of the proposal, but are satisfied that any refinement of such measures can be satisfactorily dealt with via conditions and S.106 obligations. The position regarding highways mitigation measures is therefore considered to be acceptable.
14.16 The Applicant has advised that the 320 car parking spaces proposed is the minimum in order to fulfil the requirements of the anchor supermarket. The car parking layout as initially submitted does not show provision for a pick up/drop off area within the car park and it was initially expected that collection and drop offs would take place from the lay-bys surrounding the application site.
14.17 Officers did not consider a drop off/collection at street level to be acceptable as it would significantly compromise visual amenity, sense of place and traffic flow if the proposed lay-bys were to be used to collect customers of the anchor supermarket in particular. Leyland Road (north end) is the farthest away from the public entrances to the shopping centre and therefore the collection/drop offs would most likely take place on Eltham and Burnt Ash Roads. In the first instance, people wheeling their shopping trolleys through areas which are intended to be sitting out areas in front of the smaller A1 units is considered to be contrary to the public realm design strategy. In addition, the Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road lay-bys are intended to service the commercial units and market stalls and therefore any further sharing of this space would compromise access/availability for the intended users. Further, the additional vehicles coming and going from the Eltham Road and Burnt Ash Road lay-bys would result in further congestion/delays to the free flow of traffic along these roads.
14.18 In response, the Applicant submitted a drawing (116288-TP-0007-01) which shows how the car parking layout can be re-arranged to provide the necessary drop off/collection space. This drawing demonstrates that it is feasible to provide the drop off/collection point at upper level, away from the public highway. Officers consider that such location for the pick up/drop off should be secured by condition in the event Members resolve that planning permission should be granted.
14.19 TfL have withdrawn their objection (on grounds of policy) to the provision of 320 non-residential parking spaces, but maintain that less parking would reduce the impact to the Tiger’s Head Junction. Officers acknowledge the inability to include the necessary passive car parking spaces, but consider this does not in itself warrant refusal of the scheme. To address this issue, Officers recommend a car parking review mechanism is secured by condition to ensure that the car parking spaces are adequately accommodating the needs wheelchair users.
14.20 Overall, Officers consider the non-residential parking provision of 320 spaces to be acceptable.
14.21 The parking ratio for the residential units is 0.5 spaces per unit (229 dwellings and 116 car parking spaces). The application site has a PTAL of 3, but immediately north of the site on Eltham Road has a PTAL of 4. Planning policies allow up to 1 residential car parking space per unit for and sites with PTALs of 4 and over to be car free. The amount of residential parking proposed is therefore considered policy compliant. 14.22 However, in real terms, proposing more dwellings than parking spaces is likely to result in parking on the adjacent roads especially on the immediately surrounding roads which do not have any parking restrictions. The recent CPZ consultation exercise concluded in November 2014 and at that time residents would not know or have experienced the impact the proposed development might have on the surrounding roads. Residents voted against a new CPZ for the western side of Burnt Ash Road which would be most affected by the proposals. Officers propose that a further CPZ consultation exercise should be carried out once the development is occupied. The Applicant has agreed to provide £30,000 towards the cost of the CPZ consultation exercise and the implementation of a new CPZ should neighbours vote for this once the proposed development becomes established. If it is deemed necessary to extend the consultation or implementation area, the Council’s Highways department would fund any shortfall.
14.23 A restriction would also be placed on residents within the development preventing them from applying for residents parking permits to minimise the impact upon existing on-street parking availability.
14.24 Officers are aware of a planning application submitted to the Royal London Borough of Greenwich in respect of a new school and particular objections have been raised to the potential cumulative impact of the traffic generated from the proposed school combined with the current proposals for the Leegate Centre.
14.25 Officers are satisfied that any large-scale development proposals in the vicinity of the application site would need to consider and satisfactorily mitigate against the cumulative implications of traffic, including traffic generated from both the construction and operational phases of the currently proposed scheme.
14.26 Officers consider that the proposals regarding the residential car parking are acceptable.
Environmental Impact
14.27 The application was accompanied by an ES which is considered in Section 8 of this Report. The matters considered in the ES were agreed prior to the submission of the application in the Screening and Scoping Opinion issued to the Applicant in August 2014.
14.28 The Council appointed consultants to assist Officers in assessing the ES and whether its conclusions are reasonable and justified. In its originally submitted form, Officers considered that the information submitted was not clear, and in some circumstances lacking. The outstanding matters were concluded and re- consultation undertaken on two separate occasions; September and November 2015.
14.29 Air Quality has been another aspect of the current proposals which has received a number of objections. The objections are raised on the grounds that the air quality in the vicinity of the site is already poor. The proposed location of the public realm is to be located closer to the road, thus exposing the public to the poor air quality and the increase in car use would further exacerbate the problem of poor air quality.
14.30 Work was carried out by Clean Air and A Better Lee Green and the findings submitted in response to the current application. The work involved installing nitrogen dioxide tubes in the Leegate Shopping Centre and its surrounding areas for a couple of months. The report highlighted exceedance of 75% above the limit, but this is against an annual mean limit and not a 2 month mean limit. The limit of an annual NO2 mean concentration is of no more than 40 µg/m3. The use of Nitrogen Dioxide tubes is also primarily for trends and not for monthly accurate measurements.
14.31 As set out in Section 8 of this Report, the development would result in an increase in pollutants during the construction process and by virtue of the additional traffic once the development is occupied. However, the Council regularly monitor air quality, through four continuous monitoring sites and a nitrogen dioxide tube network.
14.32 The London Borough of Lewisham Nitrogen Dioxide Diffusion Tube Survey 2014 shows locations where Lewisham Environmental Health Officers monitor with diffusion tubes and also shows the results have to be biased corrected against continuous monitoring sites, which are part of the London Air Quality Network. The nearest location to Leegate where the Council measure with Nitrogen Dioxide tubes is L5, 307 Lee High Road SE12 8RU, which shows levels just below the annual mean limit. It is accepted however that the area as a whole is subject to high levels of nitrogen dioxide and an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) has been declared in this area. Where an AQMA is declared, the local authority is then required to develop an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) detailing the measures that will be employed to help improve air quality within that area. In this way, areas which may be close to, but not exceeding the threshold can also benefit.
14.33 The primary air pollutants of exceedance across London have been from particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Recently levels of PM10 have reduced but NO2 levels are still exceeding the criteria set by the European Union for the protection of health. A recent European Supreme Court ruling on the Government’s breach of NO2 limits requires work on a comprehensive plan to meet pollution limits as soon as possible.
14.34 DEFRA is currently consulting on a draft N02 action plan and among the measures that it must consider are low emission zones, congestion charging and other economic incentives. The GLA has recently finished it’s consultation on a new London LAQM (LLAQM) proposal, where it seeks to ‘ensure a co-ordinated, effective and consistent approach across London to maximise reductions in air pollution’. There will be a streamlining on reporting requirements, and GLA will provide relevant guidance and templates, to support London boroughs who will then, in future, have to report directly to GLA on air quality reviews and assessment, rather than DEFRA, as was previously the case. The GLA are introducing an ultra low emission zone from 2020. The area covered by the ULEZ will be the same as the current Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ). It will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and require all cars, motorcycles, vans, minibuses, buses, coaches and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) including buses and coaches to meet exhaust emission standards (ULEZ standards), or pay an additional charge, when travelling in central London. Lewisham has made representation, along with other London Boroughs to further increases to the zone, to include the whole area of the existing Low Emission Zone, into the ULEZ. There is also a proposal to expand the electric vehicle charging points within London, through Source London and at this point there are 1,300+ charge points across London with the aim to include 4,500 more installations between now and 2018, all of which Lewisham is actively supporting and adopting.
14.35 The issue of poor air quality is clearly a London wide issue and is predominantly caused by road traffic. DEFRA has recently shown, in it’s consultation on a draft NO2 action plan, that most of the exceedances will occur in London. The government has an important role in the take up of less polluting vehicles, particularly in incentivising the market to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, to work closely with the GLA in supporting measures for ultra-low emission zone expansion and importantly providing some measures and testing of vehicle exhausts for monitoring car manufacturers in relation to their vehicle emissions.
14.36 As explained above, London suffers from poor air quality and there are strategies that have been put in place to reduce this, such as the reduction of the carbon footprint of new buildings, the requirement to have less polluting vehicles on the roads and the protection and retention of urban trees and planting. Monitoring has also been put in place to keep track as mentioned above.
14.37 National Planning Guidance on Air Quality states that unless a proposed development (including proposals for mitigation) leads to an unacceptable risk to human health from air pollution, prevent sustained compliance with EU or nationally prescribed limits then permission should be granted subject to conditions/obligations securing those mitigation measures.
14.38 Officers consider that the robustness of the information provided by the Applicant regarding Air Quality is acceptable, and the conclusions drawn, reasonable. The conclusions confirm that there would be unacceptable peaks of pollutants during the construction phase, but this would be for limited periods and reduced with appropriate mitigation, such as dampening down during the demolition works.
14.39 Once the development is occupied, the increase in pollution from the site would be within EU and nationally prescribed limits levels and Officers consider the proposal to be acceptable on the grounds of air quality.
14.40 With regard to the location of the proposed public square, objectors have voiced a preference for the public space to be retained in its existing location, (which they deem to be further away from the busy Tiger’s Head junction) and inset deeper into the site, away from the busy road.
14.41 On balance, Officers consider bringing the activity to the western side of the development would forge a better relationship between the shopping centre and the uses on the western side of Burnt Ash Road. The open space in this location would also benefit from the afternoon/evening sun, rendering the spaces outside the shops more desirable places to sit out.
14.42 It is acknowledged that the pollutants on the west side of the site are higher than those on the northern side of the site. However, the overall quality of the proposed open space is not solely a question of air quality but is also related to orientation and the relationship with shops. The current proposed location is deemed on balance, by Officers to be appropriate and would not suffer from a level of air pollution that would render it unsafe or unusable.
Quantum of public realm 14.43 Objections have been raised regarding the fact that the space on the west side of the application site proposed to be the new public space results in less floor area than the existing equivalent floor space.
14.44 There are policies in place which are to protect the erosion of public spaces in the Borough. However, the provision of public realm is not a strict area based calculation and the quality of the space has to be considered.
14.45 The proposal is to renew and create additional public realm around the whole of the application site. Therefore, Officers have considered the loss of the existing space to the north eastern corner of the site, including the 3 protected trees, against the creation of a more attractive western square on Burnt Ash Road, the improvements to Carston Close, as well as the improvements to the pavements around the site. When counting all of the public space renewed and proposed, the proposal actually results in an increase of 592m² of public space. In this instance, Officers consider that the provision of public realm around the site is acceptable.
14.46 Both residents and TfL have objected on the grounds of the loss of the existing trees along Eltham Road and at the northern end of Leyland Road. Neighbours would like all of the trees which are subject to a TPO retained, while TfL request that none of their trees aligning Eltham Road and on the northern end of Leyland Road are felled and are protected during the course of works should planning permission be granted. The only solution would be to completely redesign the proposed development in order to continue to protect the trees.
14.47 To move the building line in order to retain the trees would result in a need for wider redesign of the scheme, core positions and unit sizes.
14.48 Officers do not raise any objections to the loss of the trees as explained in the ‘Trees’ section of this Report. The landscaping proposals have evolved from discussions with Officers and TfL during the pre-application stages of the proposals. TfL were silent on the retention of the trees during the pre-application discussions while Lewisham Officers actively supported their replacement and considered the benefit of creating a strategic landscaping strategy to complement the proposed development to outweigh their loss.
14.49 Subject to the replacement or retention of the trees being agreed prior to the commencement of works, Officers are satisfied with the proposed public realm strategy.
Housing
14.50 Objections have been raised on the grounds that the proposed new dwellings would displace the existing residents and not be affordable for the existing residents to move into the new development. This is addressed elsewhere in this Report.
14.51 Planning policies provide a starting point for provision of affordable housing of 50% of new dwellings. The 50% provision is subject to the viability of the scheme. This issue is addressed in the ‘Housing’ section of this Report. The proposal is to provide 15.7% affordable. 14.52 At present, there is a general shortage of affordable rent dwellings that can be afforded by the market that they are aimed at. The Government currently defines affordable rent as rent that allows registered housing providers to charge no more than 80% of local market rent. However, when the local prices are already expensive, the 20% reduction can render many dwellings, especially the larger ones, still too expensive. Officers therefore seek to negotiate lower caps and in this case the rent on the affordable rented properties would be capped at £1,000 or 65% of the market rate. The Council’s Housing officer supports the principle of providing this and through Officers, asked the Applicant to consider providing less shared ownership units in exchange for more affordable rent units capped at the 65%. In response, the Applicant carried out a sensitivity test which is discussed in Chapter Land use: Housing of this Report. The alternative provision would result in major changes to the design of the current scheme, an overall reduction in the number of affordable units to be provided and difficulties with finding a Registered Social Landlord taking on the units which were scattered amongst the private dwellings.
14.53 In light of the above, Officers consider that the original quantum and tenure and dwelling mix proposed provides the optimum level of affordable housing and is therefore acceptable.
Environmental Statement (ES)
14.54 The planning application, accompanied by an Environmental Statement was submitted in February 2015 and therefore some of the information within the Environmental Statement may have been superseded by the approval and commencement of other developments within the locality of the application site.
14.55 The Council’s Environmental Statement consultant has confirmed that the Applicant is not required to revisit its ES as a result of schemes submitted post the application and any cumulative impact should be addressed in any subsequent applications.
Pre-application consultation
14.56 Objections have been raised with regard to the consultation that took place prior to the submission of the current planning application. The objections were raised on the following grounds:
The consultation area was not wide enough
The Applicant did not take the views from the consultation exercises into account in the final scheme
The feedback relayed was not objective/impartial
Feedback from the consultation exercises was never made available to members of the public
14.57 The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement strongly encourages Applicants to carry out pre-application consultation. Officers also encourage Applicants to carry out pre-application consultation, especially as it Officers the public an opportunity to be involved with the regeneration of their local area, as well as affording the Applicant an opportunity to benefit from useful suggestions or to identify any potential objections early on in the design process.
14.58 There is no statutorily prescribed level or means of public consultation by Applicants as such. In this case the Applicant carried out the following consultation exercises:
Public exhibitions
A project website (www.leegate-regeneration.co.uk) with an online feedback form
A consultation email address
Dedicated telephone consultation line open Monday to Friday 9am to 5:30pm) with an out-of-hours answer phone
Attendance of the local Lee Green Assembly meetings to explain and update attendees on the progress of the scheme
Leafleting to the local neighbourhood
Press releases and advertisements
Meeting with the local Working group
14.59 The consultation undertaken by the Council in respect of the planning application been in accordance with the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 with regard to the planning application and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 with regard to the Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application. Officers are satisfied that the representations received show an understanding of the matters of consideration.
15.0 Conclusion
15.1 This Report provides Officers comprehensive consideration of the planning application and it supporting documentation, including the further/additional information submitted and representations received.
15.2 The Leegate Shopping Centre is in a poor state of repair, and the redevelopment of the site is supported by adopted policy, including Site Allocation 23 within the Site Allocations Local plan (June 2013) which provides for a retail led redevelopment. The proposal is for a mixture of housing, retail and community uses. A level of 15.7% of affordable housing is proposed, including 12 affordable rent townhouses, with a capped rent of £1,000 per month. Comprehensive highways works, car and cycle parking facilities new lay-bys, bus stops and monitoring and a financial £500,000 contribution for mitigation works once the development is in operation are proposed, together with a number of other obligations related to the development and considered necessary to make it acceptable in planning terms.
Key Considerations 15.3 This Report has considered the proposals in the light of adopted development plan policies and other material considerations including the information in the ES and other information or representations relevant to the environmental effects of the proposals. The application site is located within Lee Green District Centre where Spatial Policy 3 of the Core Strategy encourages a more intensive mixed use redevelopment of the Leegate shopping centre. The application site is an allocated site within the Site Allocations Local Plan. Site Allocation SA23 in the Site Allocations Local Plan specifies the land use opportunities for the site as a retail-led mixed use scheme with housing, offices and hotel. DMLP Policy 1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) repeats the ambitions of the NPPF and confirms that the Council will take a positive approach to sustainable development and will work proactively with Applicants to find solutions which mean that proposals secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the Borough. Lewisham Spatial Strategy Policy 1 states that all new development will need to contribute positively to the delivery of the vision for Lewisham which includes the provision of new homes, good design in new buildings a net increase in open spaces and for developments to mitigate that impact where appropriate.
15.4 The proposed development achieves a number of the urban design and spatial planning objectives set out in Core Strategy policies and Site Allocation SA23 as well as the provision of new anchor supermarket as part of a mixed use development of the site. However, for the reasons explained above, the scheme does not include re-provision of the B1(a) employment space, nor does it include a hotel. The failure to provide passive disabled car parking spaces means that the proposals do not fully comply with policy 6.13 Parking in the London Plan. However as set out in Section 8 above, Officers consider that on balance, and subject to conditions, the parking levels proposed are the optimum in the context of the scheme overall.
15.5 The proposed development would provide additional housing including a proportion of affordable accommodation, and would significantly improve the appearance of and regenerate a prominent district centre site for which, without the proposed development could be downgraded and lose its district centre status.
15.6 It is considered that the scale of the development is acceptable, that the buildings have been designed to respond to the context, constraints and potential of the site and that the development would provide a high standard of accommodation. The proposed development would also deliver a key element of the Council' strategy for the wider area in terms of regenerating the Lee Green district centre.
15.7 The proposals have attracted a number of objections on a wide range of issues. Those material concerns expressed by residents and local groups have been considered and addressed in earlier sections of this Report and in provisions set out in the recommended conditions and Section 106 agreement.
15.8 Given the acceptability of the proposed use as well as the totality of the policy compliance, the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the development plan as a whole.
15.9 The NPPF is underpinned by a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Officers consider that with the recommended mitigation, planning conditions and obligations in place, the scheme is consistent with national policy. For the reasons addressed in this report, there are no other material considerations which Officers consider outweigh the grant of planning permission. In light of the above, on balance, the application is therefore recommended for approval.
16.0 RECOMMENDATION A
16.1 Agree the proposals and refer the application and this Report and any other required documents to the Mayor for London (Greater London Authority) under Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (Categories 1A, 3E and 3F of the Schedule of the Order).
17.0 RECOMMENDATION B
17.1 Subject to no direction being received from the Mayor of London, to authorise officers to negotiate and complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to cover the following principal matters including such other amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development:
State education facilities
Public health care facilities
Strategic transport enhancements (excluding site-specific, highways and public transport matters
Publicly accessible open space, allotments and biodiversity
Strategic flood management infrastructure
Publicly owned leisure facilities
Local community facilities including community but excluding places of worship)
Public Emergency Services (this is intended to apply to physical projects by the police, fire or ambulance services)
17.2 The following S106 requirements have been identified in respect of the scheme:
Housing 15.7% affordable housing including 12 town houses to be affordable rent capped at £1,000 per month and 24 intermediate flats. A financial review mechanism to enable additional funds to be applied to affordable housing 10% of all tenure types to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair use
Highways £30k financial contribution to future CPZ consultation exercise/ implementation Inability of future occupiers of the scheme to apply for residential parking permits in any existing local CPZs in Lewisham or Greenwich Boroughs Tigers Head junction modelling review mechanism £500k financial contribution towards mitigation works to the Tiger's Head junction £125k towards the alleviation of rat running/traffic calming on surrounding roads A £15k financial contribution towards, and the undertaking of monitoring in respect of the Tiger's Head junction Bus stop replacement shelters to include real-time arrival times on Eltham Road heading east and west, Burnt Ash Road heading south and north (x4 bus stops in total) Legible London signage contribution to TfL £12,004 A financial contribution towards existing bus service enhancements necessitated by the development 3 hours free car parking for shoppers and users of the District Centre Car club membership for 3 years for all first occupied residential units (arranged/paid, prior to first occupation of any unit) The provision of a minimum of 2 car club spaces on site and a financial contribution towards a further space off site (the latter space as and when required). £50k financial contribution towards air quality monitoring All areas of public realm to remain available for use by the public Detailed Travel Plan for residential and non-residential uses to be submitted and approved by the Council Submission, approval and implementation of a parking management plan to restrict on-street parking (except Blue Badge holders)
Local Labour and Business £155,290 financial contribution towards employment and training £20k financial contribution towards supporting businesses within the District Centre Local Labour and Business strategy to be submitted, implemented and monitored
Playspace £80k financial contribution towards children’s playspace in the locality of the application site Communal and private residential amenity areas to be maintained and managed in accordance with a plan submitted to and approved by the Council
Shopping centre access Shopping Centre/Arcade opening hours to the public to be 8am-12.30am Friday-Saturday; 8am-10.30pm Monday-Thursday and 8am-8pm Sundays, independent from anchor supermarket Fall-back position for management of Arcade should the anchor supermarket not occupy the site, or subsequently cease trading Public access over Carston Close for pedestrians and cyclists, 24 hours a day and free of charge. Public toilets to be available for use by the public at no more than a nominal fee in perpetuity Commercial units Fit out of all commercial units to have shop fronts and internal core finish Rights for the patrons and staff of the commercial units to access the car park, arcade and travellator independent from the opening hours of the supermarket.
Community facility The provision of the D1 community facility to shell and core plus shopfront and internal fit out and/or installation of mezzanine floor and internal access to Arcade Nil rent in perpetuity for the community facility
Trees Mechanism regarding agreement over removal of trees in TfL highway Financial compensation payable to TfL for any trees lost as a result of the development
Air Quality Financial contribution for environmental protection (air quality) of £50k
Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) The provision of CCTV cameras (at the Applicant’s expense) in and around the site to be connected to the Council’s CCTV network
Miscellaneous Monitoring, legal and other professional fees Reasonable endeavours to retain the same architects throughout the construction process The land to the south of the site for the new houses is to be secured prior to commencement of works (excluding demolition)
18.0 RECOMMENDATION (C)
18.1 Subject to completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions, including those set out below and with such amendments as are considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development:
Conditions 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.
Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following application plans, drawings and documents which are hereby approved:
344_P_0_900_000_Rev A, 344_P_0_900_100_Rev A, 344_P_0_900_200_Rev A, 344_P_0_900_001_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_700_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_701_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_702_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_703_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_704_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_706_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_707_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_708_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_799_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_801_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_803_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_806_Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1_07_Rev A, 344_P_A_000_402_Rev A, 344_P_A_000_403_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_102_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_103_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_104_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_202_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_203_Rev A, 344_P_A_20D_204_Rev A, 344_P_B_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_B_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_B_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_B_20D_202_Rev A, 344_P_C_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_C_000_402_Rev A, 344_P_C_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_C_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_D_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_D_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_D_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_E_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_102_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_202_Rev A, 344_P_E_20D_203_Rev A, 344_P_H_000_401_Rev A, 344_P_H_000_402_Rev A, 344_P_H_20D_101_Rev A, 344_P_H_20D_201_Rev A, 344_P_H_20D_202_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_001_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_002_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_003_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_004_Rev A, 344_P_X_31D_EXX_005_Rev A, LGC 01.10, LgC 01.11 Rev A, LGC 01.20, 344_P_0_000_000_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_001_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_002_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_003_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_004_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_006_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_007_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_008_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_010_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_099_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_201_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_310_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_320_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_330_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_340_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_350_Rev A, 344_P_0_000_351_Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.15 Rev B, 344_P_0_00A_3.19 Rev B, 344_P_A_000_401_Rev A, 4009_SS01(a), 4009_SS01(b), 4009_SS01(c), 4009_SS01(d), 4009_SS01(e), 4009_SS01(f), 4009_SS01(g), 4009_SS02(a), 4009_SS02(b), 4009_SS02(c), 4009_SS02(d), 4009_SS02(e), 4009_SS02(f), 4009_SS02(g), LgC 01.10, Rev A, LgC 01.20 Rev A, LGC 02.20, LGC 03.11, LgC 04.12 Rev A, LgC 04.13 Rev A, LGC 04.14 Rev A, LgC 04.20 Rev A, LGC 04.22, LgC 04.23 Rev A, tf 980/TS/100, 11-062/110 Rev P1, 11-062/112 Rev P1, 11-062/113 Rev P1, 11-062/114 Rev P1, 11- 062/115 Rev P1, 11-062/116 Rev P1, 11-062/117 Rev P1, 11-062/118 Rev P1, 11-062/119 Rev P1, 11-062/120 Rev P1, 11-062/121 Rev P1, 11- 062/122 Rev P1, 11-062/125 Rev P1, 344_P_0_00A_1.03 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.02 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.16 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.05 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.06 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.07 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.12 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.13 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.14 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.16 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.16a Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.16b Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_1.22 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.02 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.03 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.05 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.07 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.08 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.09 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.17 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.17a Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.25_00 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.25_01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.34 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_2.39 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_00 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_02 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_03 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.01_09 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.12_00 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.12_01 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.12_02 Rev A, 344_P_0_00A_3.12_03 Rev A, Affordable Housing Statement, Arboricultural Survey February 2015, Certificate C - Schedule of Ownership, Design & Access Statement, Development Delivery Strategy, Energy Statement, Framework Travel Plan, Transport Assessment, Transport Assessment Appendices, Planning Statement, Retail Statement, Stage 1 Road Safety Audit - Designer's Response, Sustainability Statement, Treefabrik Utilities Statement, Development Delivery Strategy Final, Energy Statement, Affordable Housing Statement, Schedule Of Ownership Table, Structural Statement, Utilities Statement, Existing BT Services, Statement of Community Engagement, Errata Statement, Environmental Statement Non- Technical Summary, Environmental Statement Volume 1, Environmental Statement Volume 2 Part 1, Environmental Statement Volume 2 Part 2 received 24/2/15; Townscape Visual & Heritage Assessment: Technical Appendix 10-3 Townscape & Visual Assessment received 1/4/15; Responses to Comments Received on ES Submission – Lee Green Regeneration, Lewisham, Technical Note: Leegate Shopping Centre TN02 - Committed Developments received 13/5/15; Figure 8.1: Location of off-Site receptors and modelled road links, Lee Green Regeneration - Map of Committed Developments, received 7/9/15; Errata Statement in relation to the Environmental Statement dated February 2016 (dated 16/11/15), Updated Appendices 11.1-11.3 and Updated Figures 11.1-11.50 received 17/11/12
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents, plans and drawings submitted with the application and is acceptable to the local planning authority.
3. (a) Development shall not commence until such time as a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall cover:-
(i) Dust mitigation measures.
(ii) The location and operation of plant and wheel washing facilities
(iii) Details of best practical measures to be employed to mitigate noise and vibration arising out of the construction process
(iv) Details of construction traffic movements including cumulative impacts which shall include the following:- (a) Rationalisation of travel and traffic routes to and from the site. (b) Full details of the number and time of construction vehicle trips to the site with the intention and aim of reducing the impact of construction related activity. (c) Measures to deal with safe pedestrian movement.
(v) Security Management (to minimise risks to unauthorised personnel). (vi) Details of the training of site operatives to follow the Construction Management Plan requirements and any Environmental Management Plan requirements
(b) No works shall be carried out other than in accordance with the Construction Management Plan as approved under part (a) of this condition
Reason: In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied that the demolition and construction process is carried out in a manner which will minimise possible noise, disturbance and pollution to neighbouring properties and to comply with Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction, Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity and Policy 7.14 Improving air quality of the London Plan (2015).
4. (a) No deliveries in connection with construction works shall be taken at or despatched from the site other than between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and 8 am and 1 pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays.
(b) No work shall take place on the site other than between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and 8 am and 1 pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupants at unsociable periods and to comply with Paragraph 120 of the National Planning Policy Framework and DM Policy 26 Noise and Vibration, and DM Policy 32 Housing design, layout and space standards of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
5. (a) (i) The residential units shall be designed so as to provide sound insulation against external noise and vibration, to achieve levels not exceeding 30dB LAeq (night) and 45dB LAmax for bedrooms, 35dB LAeq (day) for other habitable rooms, with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided;
(ii) 85% of external amenity areas as set out in Jacobs Noise Assessment shall be designed to achieve levels not exceeding 55 dB LAeq (day);
(iii) the evaluation of human exposure to vibration within the buildings shall not exceed the vibration dose values criteria ‘Low probability of adverse comment’ as defined BS6472.
(b) Development of residential units shall not commence until details of a sound and vibration insulation scheme complying with part (a)(i), (ii) and (iii) this condition have been submitted to an approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(c) The residential units shall not be occupied until the sound and vibration insulation scheme approved pursuant to part (b) of this condition has been implemented in its entirety. Thereafter, the sound and vibration insulation scheme shall be permanently maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings and to comply with DM Policy 26 Noise and vibration, DM Policy 31 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings including residential extensions, DM Policy 32 Housing design, layout and space standards of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
6. (a) The rating level of the noise emitted from fixed plant on the site shall be 5dB below the existing background level at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at the façade of any noise sensitive property. The measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:2014.
(b) Other than demolition, site clearance and ground works, development shall not commence until details of a scheme complying with part (a) of this condition have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(c) The development shall not be occupied until the scheme approved pursuant to part (b) of this condition has been implemented in its entirety. The scheme as approved shall be permanently retained thereafter.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally and to comply with DM Policy 26 Noise and vibration of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
7. (a) The anchor supermarket and commercial units shell and core works hereby approved shall achieve a minimum BREEAM Rating of ‘Excellent’.
(b) No development of the anchor supermarket and commercial units shall commence until a Design Stage Certificate for each building (prepared by a Building Research Establishment qualified Assessor) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to demonstrate compliance with part (a) of this condition.
(c) Within 3 months of first occupation of the anchor supermarket, evidence shall be submitted in the form of a Post Construction Certificate (prepared by a Building Research Establishment qualified Assessor) to demonstrate full compliance with part (a) of this condition for the anchor supermarket.
(d) Within 3 months of first occupation of any commercial or community unit, evidence shall be submitted in the form of a Post Construction Certificate (prepared by a Building Research Establishment qualified Assessor) to demonstrate full compliance with part (a) of this condition in respect of such commercial unit.
Reason: To comply with Policies 5.1 Climate change and mitigation, 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions, 5.3 Sustainable design and construction, 5.7 Renewable energy, 5.15 Water use and supplies in the London Plan (2015) and Core Strategy Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects, Core Strategy Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency (June 2011).
8. The residential units hereby approved shall achieve the following energy efficiency and water efficiency standards : Energy efficiency - a 19% improvement in the Dwelling Emission Rate over the Target Emission Rate as defined in Part L1A of the 2013 Building Regulations;
Water efficiency - 110 litres per person per day (including a 5 litre allowance for external water use).
Reason: To comply with Policies 5.1 Climate change and mitigation, 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions, 5.3 Sustainable design and construction, 5.7 Renewable energy, 5.15 Water use and supplies in the London Plan (2015) and Core Strategy Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects, Core Strategy Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency (2011).
9. (a) Other than demolition, site clearance and ground works, no development shall take place until details of the proposed heat networks and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system set out in the Energy Statement approved under Condition (2) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(b) The details submitted under part (a) of this condition shall include the commissioning of the heat networks and CHP system and details of the catalytic converter if required.
(c) The heat networks and CHP system shall be provided in accordance with the details approved under part (a) of this condition and shall be permanently retained thereafter.
Reason: To comply with Policies 5.1 Climate change and mitigation, 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions, 5.3 Sustainable design and construction, 5.5 Decentralised energy networks and 5.7 Renewable energy in the London Plan (2015) and Core Strategy Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects and Core Strategy Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency (2011).
10. (a) Development shall not commence until a detailed scheme for surface water management, including specifications of the surface treatments and sustainable urban drainage solutions, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(b) The scheme for surface water management as approved under part (a) of this condition shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved and permanently retained thereafter.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality in accordance with Policies 5.12 Flood risk management and 5.13 Sustainable drainage in the London Plan (July 2011) and Objective 6: Flood risk reduction and water management and Core Strategy Policy 10:Managing and reducing the risk of flooding (2011).
11. (a) No piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall take place, other than with the prior written approval of the local planning authority. (b) Details of any such operations referred to in part (a) of this condition must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of any piling works and such details shall include details of the relevant penetrative methods.
(c) Any such operations referred to in part (a) of this condition shall be carried out only in accordance with the details approved under part (b) of this condition.
Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and to comply with Core Strategy (2011) Policy 11 River and waterways network and Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) DM Policy 28 Contaminated land.
12. Air quality monitoring and reporting to the local planning authority shall be carried out as set out in Chapter 8 Air Quality of Chapter 1, Environmental Statement herby approved.
Reason: In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied that the development is not going to result in significant health impacts to existing and future residents from a deterioration in local air quality and to comply with Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) Policy 23 Air quality.
13. (a) 464 secure and dry residential cycle parking spaces and 45 secure and dry staff spaces shall be provided within the development in locations and in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the development,
(b) 88 short stay cycle parking spaces shall be provided within the public realm in locations and in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the development.
(c) The residential cycle parking spaces as approved under part (a) of this condition shall be provided and made available for use prior to first occupation of the corresponding residential units and shall be permanently retained thereafter and used solely by occupiers of or visitors to the residential units.
(d) The staff cycle parking spaces as approved under part (a) of this condition shall be provided and made available for use prior to first occupation of the corresponding anchor supermarket, community and commercial units and shall be permanently retained thereafter and used solely by staff of the anchor supermarket, the commercial units or the community uses within the development.
(e) The short stay cycle parking spaces as approved under part (b) of this condition shall be provided and made available for use prior to the first use of the corresponding anchor supermarket, community and commercial units and shall be permanently retained thereafter for use solely by visitors to the development.
14. No development shall commence until a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in respect of the existing trees to be retained along Eltham Road, Burnt Ash Road and Leyland Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The TPP shall follow the recommendations set out in BS 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations). The TPP shall also clearly indicate on a dimensioned plan superimposed on the building layout plan and in a written schedule details of the location and form of protective barriers to form a construction exclusion zone, the extent and type of ground protection measures, and any additional measures needed to protect vulnerable sections of trees and their root protection areas where construction activity cannot be fully or permanently excluded.
Reason: To safeguard the health and safety of trees during building operations and the visual amenities of the area generally and to comply with Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets of the Core Strategy (June 2011), and DM Policy 25 Landscaping and trees and DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014)
15. (a) Details of the number and location of the bird and bat boxes to be provided within the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of above ground works.
(b) The bird and bat boxes shall be installed in accordance with the details approved under part (a) of this condition before first occupation of the building to which they relate. The bird and bat boxes shall thereafter be permanently retained in such locations and shall be renewed as required.
Reason: To comply with Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature conservation in the London Plan (2015), Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets of the Core Strategy (June 2011), and DM Policy 24 Biodiversity, living roofs and artificial playing pitches and local character of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014)
16. (a) 20 electric vehicle charging points shall be provided for residents use at basement level and 64 electric vehicle charging points shall be provided for public use in the District Centre Car Park to be provided pursuant to the development (‘District Centre Car Park’). Passive provision shall be made for 20 further electric vehicle charging points within the residential car park for use by residents within the development.
(b) Details of the electric vehicle charging points and a programme for their installation and maintenance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to construction of the District Centre Car Park and residential car parks.
(c) The electric vehicle charging points shall be installed in the District Centre Car Park in accordance with the details approved under part (b) of this condition prior to first occupation of the anchor supermarket and commercial units and shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained in accordance with the details approved under the said part (a).
(d) The electric vehicle charging points for the residential units shall be installed in accordance with the details approved under part (a) of this condition prior to first occupation of the residential development block and shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained in accordance with the details approved under the said part (a).
Reason: To reduce pollution emissions in an Area Quality Management Area in accordance with Policy 7.14 Improving air quality in the London Plan (July 2011), and DM Policy 29 Car parking of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014). 17. (a) Prior to demolition, site clearance and ground works, details of the biodiversity living roof which shall allow for a substrate depths of 150 mm and shall be designed to support a water load of 12litres/m2 (=12kg/m2) and a soil load of 150mm depth minimum (circa 225kg/m2) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(b) The biodiversity living roof shall be laid out in accordance with plan no. 344_P_0_000_0 Rev A approved under Condition 2 and provided in accordance with the details approved under part (a) of this condition and such biodiversity living roof shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.
(c) Evidence that the living roof has been installed in accordance with part (a) and (b) of this condition shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the first occupation of any residential units.
(d) The biodiversity living roof shall not be used as an amenity or sitting out space of any kind whatsoever and shall only be used in the case of essential maintenance or repair, or escape in case of emergency.
Reason: To comply with Policies 5.10 Urban greening, 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs, 5.12 Flood risk management, 5.13 Sustainable Drainage and 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature conservation in the London Plan (2015), Policy 10 managing and reducing flood risk and Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets of the Core Strategy (June 2011), and DM Policy 24 Biodiversity, living roofs and artificial playing pitches of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
18. (a) The specification of the appearance of and the equipment comprising a ventilation system which shall include measures to alleviate noise, vibration, fumes and odours (and incorporating active carbon filters, silencers and anti- vibration mountings where necessary) in respect of the commercial units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to first occupation of any commercial units.
(b) No commercial unit shall be first occupied until the ventilation systems as approved under part (a) of this condition has been installed in that commercial unit in accordance with the plans and specification approved under the said part (a) and such ventilation systems shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained in accordance with the approved specification.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally and to comply with Policy 17 Restaurants and cafes (A3 uses) and drinking establishments (A4 uses) of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
19. (a) Prior to first occupation of the development, a scheme for any external lighting that is to be installed at the site, including measures to prevent light spillage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and such details shall include evidence to demonstrate that the proposed lighting is the minimum needed for security and working purposes and that the proposals minimise pollution from glare and spillage. (b) Any such approved external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the scheme approved under part (a) of this condition and shall thereafter only be retained in accordance with the scheme approved under the said part (a).
Reason: In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied that the lighting is installed and maintained in a manner which will minimise possible light pollution to the night sky and neighbouring properties and to comply with DM Policy 27 Lighting of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
20. (a) The development shall not be occupied until a detailed Delivery and Servicing Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(b) The Delivery and Servicing Plan submitted under part (a) of this condition shall include details which demonstrate the expected number and time of delivery and servicing trips to the site, with the aim of reducing the impact of servicing activity.
(c) The Delivery and Servicing Plan as approved under part (a) of this condition shall be implemented in full as from first occupation of the development and shall be complied with thereafter.
Reason: In order to ensure satisfactory vehicle management and to comply with Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the Core Strategy (June 2011).
21. The development shall not be first occupied until any existing accesses to or from the site has been closed, the highway reinstated and any new accesses have been constructed in accordance with Drawing Number LgC 01.10 Rev A approved under Condition 2.
Reason: To confine access to the permitted points in order to ensure that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway and to comply with the Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the Core Strategy (June 2011).
22. (a) There shall be no vehicular access at any time from Leyland Road into the northern end of Carston Close, except by emergency vehicles, refuse and other servicing vehicles of the local authority.
(b) Prior to first occupation of the development, lockable bollards shall be installed across the northern boundary of Carston Road with Leyland Road in accordance with details that have first been approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In order to protect the safe passage of pedestrians and cyclist and to negate traffic flow through the new street in accordance with the objectives of Core Strategy Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport (2011).
23. Each of the residential units shall meet Lifetime Home Standards (in accordance with the 2010 (Revised) document) as shown on the drawing hereby approved under Condition 2 of this decision notice.
Reason: In order to ensure an adequate supply of accessible housing in the Borough in accordance with Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability and Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and DM Policy 32 Housing design, layout and space standards of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
24. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no satellite dishes shall be installed on any of the buildings hereby approved, including the houses fronting Carston Close, where visible from the public realm or podium level.
Reason: In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal and to accord with Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
25. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), the integral garages with access onto Carston Close shall be used for the garaging or storage of private motor vehicles only or for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the houses hereby approved and shall not be used as living accommodation and no trade or business shall be carried out therefrom.
Reason: To ensure the garage is for domestic use for the dwelling-house only. The application has been assessed only in terms of this restricted use and any other use may have an adverse effect on the character and amenity of the area and amenity for future occupiers contrary to relevant Polices in the London Plan (2015), Core Strategy (2011) and the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
26. (a) Notwithstanding the drawings and documents hereby approved, prior to commencement of development, details of the District Centre Car Park which shall provide not more than 320 car parking spaces (which shall include a minimum of 3 spaces for collection/drop off, 16 wheelchair accessible spaces and 64 spaces for electric vehicles) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for approval. The District Centre Car Park shall be provided in accordance with the details approved prior to first occupation of the anchor supermarket or any commercial unit.
(b) The residential car parking accommodation comprising 94 basement spaces (including 18 wheelchair accessible spaces, 20 electric vehicle spaces and 20 passive electric vehicle spaces, 4 wheelchair accessible on street spaces on Carston Close (to be re-named Carston Mews), to serve the wheelchair units in Block G) and 12 car parking space in the form of integral garages shown on drawings hereby approved under Condition 2 of this decision notice shall be provided and made available for use prior to first occupation of the associated residential units. The residential parking spaces shall be permanently retained thereafter and used solely by residents of the development and their visitors.
(c) 3 on-street wheelchair accessible car parking spaces in Carston Mews to serve wheelchair units in Building G shall be provided prior to first occupation of said units and shall be permanently retained thereafter and used solely by residents within Building G and their visitors. (d) (i) Prior to the date of first use of the District Centre Car Park, details of the monitoring strategy in respect of the wheelchair accessible car parking spaces (including frequency of use and occupancy levels) within the District Centre Car Park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(ii) The wheelchair accessible car parking spaces shall be monitored in accordance with the monitoring strategy approved under part (d)(i) of this condition and monitoring reports shall be submitted to the local planning authority at the intervals specified in the approved monitoring strategy.
(iii) In the event that any monitoring report indicates the demand for wheelchair accessible spaces exceeds that accommodated by the 16 wheelchair accessible spaces provided pursuant to part (a) of this condition, additional wheelchair accessible spaces, the number of which shall be in accordance with the conclusions of the monitoring report, shall be provided in a locations(s) and in accordance with a timescale approved by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the permanent retention of the spaces for parking purposes, to ensure that the use of the buildings do not increase on-street parking in the vicinity and to comply with Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the Core Strategy (June 2011), DM Policy 29 Car Parking of the Development Management Local Plan, (November 2014), and Table 6.2 of the London Plan (2015).
27. In respect of the anchor supermarket, loading and unloading of goods including fuel, shall only be carried out within the curtilage of the anchor supermarket and the servicing area shown on Approved Drawing. 344_P_0_000_000 Rev A and such servicing area shall be permanently retained and kept unobstructed at all times.
Reason: To avoid obstruction of neighbouring streets and to safeguard the amenities of adjacent premises in the interests of public safety and to comply with the Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the Core Strategy (June 2011).
28. No deliveries shall be received at or despatched from the site other than between the hours of 7 am and 8 pm on Mondays to Fridays, 8 am and 1 pm on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents and to comply with Paragraph 120 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and DM Policy 26 Noise and Vibration, and DM Policy 32 Housing design, layout and space standards of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
29. No music, amplified sound system or other form of loud noise (such as singing or chanting) shall be used or generated which is audible outside the any of the A1-A4 and D1 units hereby approved.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally and to comply with Paragraph 120 of the National Planning Policy Framework and DM Policy 26 Noise and Vibration and DM Policy 32 Housing design, layout and space standards of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014). 30. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), the A3 cafe at the north eastern corner of the site, the D2 gym at first floor level and D1 community facility hereby approved shall be used as a cafe, gym and community facility respectively and for no other purposes of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order).
Reason: In order to protect the viability and vitality of the District Centre in accordance with the provisions of Policy 6 Retail hierarchy and location of retail development in Lewisham’s Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 14 District centres shopping frontages of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).
31. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no gate, fence or wall shall be erected at podium level other than those shown on drawing number LgC 01.20 Rev A as hereby approved.
Reason: To ensure that the gates, fences or walls do not compromise the appearance and landscaping strategies at podium level.
32. The 12 houses to be provided in Carston Close shall not be occupied until the hard and soft landscaping works, for Carston Close have been completed in full in accordance with the details approved under Condition 2.
Reason: In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal and to comply with Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) Policy 25 Landscaping and trees, and DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character.
33. (a) A car parking management plan in respect of the District Centre Car Park, including details of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the opening of the new shopping centre or any commercial units therein.
(b) The District centre Car Park shall be operated at all times in accordance with the car parking management plan approved under part (a) of this condition.
Reason: In order that both the local planning authority and local highway authority may be satisfied as to the practicality, viability and sustainability of the proposed car parking arrangements and to comply with Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the Core Strategy (June 2011).
34. Details of balconies identified in the Environmental Statement, Chapter 14 Wind and microclimate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any above ground works.
Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the future occupiers of the relevant units.
35. (a) Notwithstanding the drawings approved under Condition 2 attached to this decision notice, details of any trees to be retained and replaced shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, prior to the commencement of development.
(b) Notwithstanding the drawings approved under Condition 2, details of the size and design of the tree pits for any proposed trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of any above ground works.
(c) The landscaping proposals for the podium, level as shown on Approved Drawing LgC 01.20 Rev A shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any residential unit.
(d) All planting, seeding or turfing shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development, in accordance with the approved scheme under parts (a) to (c) of this condition. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.
Reason: In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal and to comply with Core Strategy Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011), and DM Policy 25 Landscaping and trees and DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
36. The market stalls shall be positioned as indicated in drawing number LGC 01.10 Rev A.
Reason: In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal and to comply with Core Strategy Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011), and DM Policy 25 Landscaping and trees and DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
37. The market stalls shall be positioned as indicated in drawing number LGC 01.10 Rev A.
38. No works shall be carried out in respect of the development hereby approved until a Section 278 Agreement has been entered into in respect of highways works detailed drawing number LGC 01.10 Rev A, which include works to Carston Close, Leyland Road, Burnt Ash Road, Eltham Road, traffic signals and pedestrian crossing and any necessary associated reinstatement works to roads and pavements including the blocking up of any redundant crossovers.
In the interests of highway safety and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development, in accordance with Policies Objective 9, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham and Policy 14 Sustainable Movement and Transport in Lewisham’s Core Strategy (June 2011). INFORMATIVES
A. Positive and Proactive Statement: The Council engages with all applicants in a positive and proactive way through specific pre-application enquiries and the detailed advice available on the Council’s website. On this particular application, positive discussions took place which resulted in further information being submitted.
B. Pre-commencement conditions: The following pre-commencement conditions attached to this decision notice are considered necessary in order to protect the protect the amenities of future occupiers and users of the proposed development and encompasses ecological benefits, and to ensure that the proposed development results in a sustainable and well designed scheme:
Condition 3 construction management plan Condition 5 insulation against external noise and vibrations Condition 6 noise from fixed plant and machinery, Condition 7 BREEAM Condition 8 Energy efficiency Condition 9 Combined Heat and Power Condition 10 surface water management, Condition 11 Piling Condition 14 Tree protection plan, bat and bird boxes, Condition 17 biodiverse living roof Condition 34 balcony details (wind) Condition 35 Trees to be retained and pit details Condition 38 S.278 works
C. The Applicant is advised that any works associated with the implementation of this permission (including the demolition of any existing buildings or structures) will constitute commencement of development. Further, all pre commencement conditions attached to this permission must be discharged, by way of a written approval in the form of an application to the Planning Authority, before any such works of demolition take place.
D. It is the responsibility of the owner to establish whether asbestos is present within their premises and they have a ‘duty of care’ to manage such asbestos. The Applicant is advised to refer to the Health and Safety website for relevant information and advice.
E. As you are aware the approved development is liable to pay the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which will be payable on commencement of the development. An 'assumption of liability form' must be completed and before development commences you must submit a 'CIL Commencement Notice form' to the council. You should note that any claims for relief, where they apply, must be submitted and determined prior to commencement of the development. Failure to follow the CIL payment process may result in penalties. More information on CIL is available at: - http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/planning/apply-for-planning- permission/application-process/Pages/Community-Infrastructure- Levy.aspx
F. You are advised that all construction work should be undertaken in accordance with the "London Borough of Lewisham Code of Practice for Control of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites" available on the Lewisham web page.
G. The land contamination condition requirements apply to both whole site and phased developments. Where development is phased, no unit within a phase shall be occupied until a), b) and c) of the condition have been satisfied for that phase.
Applicants are advised to read ‘Contaminated Land Guide for Developers’(London Borough’s Publication 2003), on the Lewisham web page, before complying with the above condition. All of the above must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's (EA) - Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination.
Applicants should also be aware of their responsibilities under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure that human health, controlled waters and ecological systems are protected from significant harm arising from contaminated land. Guidance therefore relating to their activities on site, should be obtained primarily by reference to DEFRA and EA publications.
H. You are advised to contact the Council's Drainage Design team on 020 8314 2036 prior to the commencement of work.
I. In preparing the scheme of dust minimisation, reference shall be made to the London Councils Best Practice Guide: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition. All mitigation measures listed in the Guide appropriate to the size, scale and nature of the development will need to be included in the dust minimisation scheme.
J. The assessment of the light spill and lux level at the window of the nearest residential premises shall follow the guidance provided in The Institution of Lighting Engineers, Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light.
K. The Applicant be advised that the implementation of the proposal will require approval by the Council of a Street naming & Numbering application. Application forms are available on the Council's web site.
L. Assessment of the sound insulation scheme should be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant.
M. Assessment of the sound and vibration insulation scheme should be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant.
N. The weighted standardised level difference (D’nT,W + Ctr) is quoted according to the relevant part of the BS EN ISO 717 series. To guarantee achieving this level of sound insulation, the Applicant is advised to employ a reputable noise consultant details of which can be found on the Association of Noise Consultants website. O. The Applicant be advised that the details to be submitted pursuant to this permission should have regard to the principles of energy and natural resource efficiency through their design, orientation, density and location, in compliance with Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011).
P. You are advised that this permission must not be construed as overriding any legal rights which the existing tenants of the property may have.
Q. Premises to comply within the provisions of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 will apply.
R. Waste Comments Thames Water requests that the Applicant should incorporate within their proposal, protection to the property by installing for example, a non-return valve or other suitable device to avoid the risk of backflow at a later date, on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge to ground level during storm conditions.
Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the Applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0800 009 3921. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application.
Thames Water would recommend that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses.
Thames Water recommends the installation of a properly maintained fat trap on all catering establishments. We further recommend, in line with best practice for the disposal of Fats, Oils and Grease, the collection of waste oil by a contractor, particularly to recycle for the production of bio diesel. Failure to implement these recommendations may result in this and other properties suffering blocked drains, sewage flooding and pollution to local watercourses.
Water Comments The existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands for the proposed development. Thames Water therefore recommend the following condition be imposed: Development should not be commenced until: Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the/this additional demand.
No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement. Reason: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground water utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to impact on local underground water utility infrastructure. The Applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0800 009 3921 to discuss the details of the piling method statement.
Supplementary Comments
Running through the proposed development are easements and way leaves. These are Thames Water Assets. The company will seek assurances that these will not be affected by the proposed development. On the Map a dashed yellow line shows the easements and wayleaves. (Map previously provided)
Appendix 1
Leegate Shopping Centre – Local Meeting
18 March, 7pm Trinity School
Attendees
Monique Wallace (MW) – LBL Planning
Emma Talbot (ET) – LBL Planning
Cllr Simon Hooks (SH) – ward councillor (chair)
Killian Morris (KM) – St Modwen
Colin Darby (CD) – St Modwen
Mark Underwood (MU) – Deloitte
Craig Wells (CW) – Jacobs
Approximately 100 residents attended the meeting
Leegate Shopping Centre – Local Meeting
18 March, 7pm Trinity School
Attendees
Monique Wallace (MW) – LBL Planning
Emma Talbot (ET) – LBL Planning
Cllr Simon Hooks (SH) – ward councillor (chair)
Killian Morris (KM) – St Modwen Colin Darby (CD) – St Modwen
Mark Underwood (MU) – Deloitte
Craig Wells (CW) – Jacobs
Approximately 100 residents attended the meeting
SH gave a brief introduction to the purpose of the meeting and sought to focus questions and comments around four main areas: public realm/public space, traffic and pollution, massing and community impacts.
MW spoke to explain where the scheme is in the planning process. MW noted that an application had been received and validated in February 2015 and the formal consultation period was underway. The local meeting is an opportunity to find out more about the scheme and ask any questions to help inform consultation responses and to also make comments which would be reflected in a note of the meeting that would accompany an eventual report to planning committee.
KM gave an overview of the pre-application process and consultation undertaken to develop the current scheme and explained where documents are available to view.
He explained that the current centre is in decline and has a number of problems which the current planning application was seeking to overcome.
Following the introductions, the floor opened for questions and comments
[comments/ questions noted in italics]:
The Lee Manor Society have given a consistent view that the scheme does not achieve good quality public space. The existing centre has a large amount of public space which provides refuge from traffic and pollution. The submission documents state that an equal area of public space would be provided (1400sq.m) but the calculations include the pavement area. The Society calculate that in fact the linear square would provide a third to a quarter of the current space. Planning officers have stated previously that the provision of open space is ‘not a numbers game’ but the current proposals are not good enough. The examples of other spaces in the submission are not always comparable – Old Street is wider than the proposed linear square and it is questionable whether Tottenham Court Road is successful. There is a good size space currently that is better than is what is being offered.
There are also concerns that the space on the 3rd floor (roof space) is thought of as public space when in fact it is for future residents only and there is no link between that and the ground floor.
The transport assessment show that Burnt Ash Road is busier than Eltham Road but the public space is being moved to that busier area.
The residents get all the fresh air in the podium while the public get the traffic polluted square at ground floor level.
Can we have more public space?
It should be set further back into the site, away from the traffic on Burnt Ash Road.
There are existing problems with parking and people struggle to find a space. What will happen to cars as the works takes place and congestion during the construction period?
What are the criteria that St Modwen are using to argue that the proposed public space is an improvement on the existing situation?
KM stated that the both the before and after area calculations for the public space include the existing pavement so he considers that to be a fair comparison.
Replicating the current precinct would repeat the current problems and the benefit of the proposed arcade also needs to be considered along with the pedestrian and cycle link to the south of the site. There would be an impact on parking and disruption during the construction of the proposed scheme as it is a single phased development. However, a piecemeal/phased scheme is not supported. The scheme includes measures to seek to mitigate the construction impacts.
KM considered that the reasons that the proposed space would be considered an improvement on the existing is its configuration and location [the audience were in strong disagreement that the existing space is poor]. KM stated that the existing space would be great if it was used, however, there is not enough footfall to attract retailers and the proposed number of units would also not provide enough of an attraction.
Where is the evidence to demonstrate that the space is not attractive to retailers – it worked when Woolworths was there? Retailers have been discouraged because of rental levels and some potential occupiers such as a cycle shop have said that they have been actively discouraged from taking up space within Leegate.
KM stated that this is not the case.
The arguments about the new public space are disingenuous. The proposed public space has been dictated by a large Asda store.
What is the specific criteria to set out what is public space and standards for public space?
KM replied that there are no specific ‘rules’ or absolute science for public space and instead you have to use experience and judgement. The scheme has also been to the Lewisham Design Review Panel and has been reviewed by the Greater London Authority.
What is the definition of what is public and what isn’t? The requirements of the retail end user seem to being put first.
A covered walkway is not public realm and neither is Carston Close route. Have the GLA been provided with inaccurate figures?
There is talk about judgement calls being made but are they informed by profit or by what’s best for Lee Green?
KM answered that he considered these are not mutually exclusive and a mix of uses and mix of people could result in safer, well used streets with natural surveillance.
Wide pavements are not public realm. What are the ‘hidden gardens’ that have been mentioned? KM answered that these are podium gardens which have been encouraged as amenity space for local residents.
How would they be maintained?
KM stated that these would be managed by a maintenance company.
Would the Council count Carston Close as public space?
ET answered that when assessing the scheme, existing areas of pavement and new areas of pavement would not be counted as being open space provision. However all areas provided as part of any development, including new routes, are taken into account as a whole but they would not be counted as public open space.
There is a public square in Woolwich which is a fantastic space used by the whole community with a mix of uses surrounding it which are for the community as a whole. Don’t impose a corporate look on this space. The community can make it work. Don’t forget the street drinkers – they are also part of our community. There is no grass in this square – why can Woolwich have grass and not Lee Green – what’s ‘green’ about Lee Green?
The Network for Clean Air has undertaken air quality monitoring of the existing site.
This has shown that NO2 levels are exceeded around this site apart from the
existing square. The replacement space would be in an area where air quality
standards are being exceeded – the public space is being replaced with a space where air quality exceeds target levels.
ET noted that the applicant’s own assessment had also determined that the NO2 levels around the site were being exceeded. She also stated that the Council had received the conclusions/summary of the report but would welcome viewing the wider work so that this can be considered. What are the current proposals doing to mitigate the impact on air quality?
ET advised that in addition to ventilation for new residential units, reduced car parking and travel plans, the proposed mitigation for open space was the inclusion of trees.
Traffic and pollution in the area is beyond control. What about pollution levels within the proposed arcade – has this been considered?
The traffic in the area is feeding off the A20 and A2. The building line means that fumes would be trapped between the road and the buildings themselves and this would be worsened by cars ticking over at traffic lights which would also give rise to rat running. How will lorries access the site and what will be their routing? It’s appalling to even consider this scheme.
Servicing and customer access would be from Burnt Ash Road – how can that not increase traffic problems?
There are already parking problems in the area. The current proposals would provide 96 residential parking spaces for 229 flats. That number reduces to 56
when disabled parking bays and electric vehicle charging points are considered.
This will lead to parking on surrounding streets which currently have no restrictions.
There have been two consultations about introducing a Controlled Parking Zone and as a result of this scheme there is a private road close to the site and residents will just park there. As freeholder, no consultation has taken place directly. Will St Modwen discuss providing allocated spaces for residents on the private road?
KM answered that an intensification of uses is necessary on the site but the fact that the existing space could be filled without needing planning permission must also be considered. Detailed traffic surveys have been carried out to look at the existing situation and post development. Methodologies for this work have been agreed with Lewisham and Transport for London (TfL). During the construction period there will be an impact and there will be extra traffic. Mitigation measures are being put in place to control those. Fears about the extra traffic from the food store are unfounded and fail to appreciate that some cars are on the road already driving elsewhere and these are not necessarily extra trips. The increase that has been modelled is between 2-5% but you have to think where these people are coming from and when they will be travelling. There are already improvements to the Tigers Head junction being undertaken by TfL and people generally do not do their food shopping in rush hour.
On the issue of air quality this is a London wide matter and is not entirely in control of a developer. Other initiatives have to be considered on a Borough wide or London basis. If no development was permitted in existing areas of poor air quality, there would be little development in London. Conditions and/or obligations would be used to capture mitigation measures. Overall the impact on air quality is termed to be ‘minor adverse’ in the accompanying Environmental Statement but the scheme has been designed so that people would be further away from traffic on roads.
With the numerous documents and figures that make up the Environmental Statement, it is a barrier to the public in accessing the information - they are blinded by science. There are lots of facts and figures in the appendices which don’t then match the conclusions within the documents. The headline figures to note are that levels of NO2 would increase by 2% when there are already exceedences of 75% and traffic will increase by 25% - 35% in the peak hours. How do these two figures match? How can air quality increases be so low when traffic will increase? It has been stated that Section 106 planning obligations would be used to address rat-running – what more could be done? What would these measures be? A Better Lee Green are happy to share the full report on the air quality monitoring that they have commissioned with the Council.
Is it correct that there will be two recommendations to the planning committee; one from officers and one from the Council’s highways department?
What will happen to existing tenants within the flats on site? If you don’t own the flat and are a tenant of a private landlord, what rights do you have? People need to be able to plan if they are going to be made homeless as a result of any redevelopment. There are concerns that rental levels generally within the area aren’t affordable. How is this being considered?
ET noted that the Environmental Statement is accompanied by a non Technical Summary which provided a non-technical overview of the main Environmental Statement to be more accessible to the general public. If there are concerns that the main report and Non Technical Summary do not match, this would be looked into as the scheme is assessed to ensure that the document is an accurate reflection of the main report. On the issue of rat-running measures, the potential options would need to be discussed with Highways colleagues to understand the potential measures available as well as if the proposed contribution would be sufficient. Only one recommendation would be made to the Planning Committee as part of an eventual planning report which would incorporate the views of Highways officers. It is usual that an officer would attend the Planning Committee and may be asked to give a view or provide guidance on certain topics but this would not in itself be a separate recommendation. Should planning permission be granted, that would not override any private rights of the owners of those flats. However, if a private landlord did agree to sell their property and end an existing tenancy, it would be advisable to seek advice on rehousing options.
SH noted that ward councillors would be able to assist in this type of matter.
How much social housing is proposed? If it’s 15% this should be unacceptable.
ET confirmed that it would be 15% and the applicant was seeking to discuss the exact tenure (i.e. affordable rent or social rent) with the Council.
KM confirmed that the proposed 15% is a result of the viability assessment which is yet to be considered by officers.
People need to remember that this site is not a town centre, it is a district centre. This development would swamp surrounding buildings and streets. It has referenced the height of the tallest buildings as landmarks and then dwarfs them.
This is an enormous change in character and establishes a height for other places.
Don’t agree that Asda has to be as big as it is or at one level.
The last comment is supported. This is a big building and will be dominating. The Leybridge Estate although high, is steeped back. This scheme should be lower.
The proposed size of the community centre is much less than is needed to make this a sustainable enterprise. 100sq.m has been offered but 350sq.m is needed. On behalf of existing businesses on site – the site is not being maintained by the landlords and rent reductions should be agreed. Want to understand the monetary value of the scheme offer to the community and how that would be broken down. It should also be noted that 4 churches exist on the site and these should not be forgotten even if their planning status may be questionable. What could the use of the Asda be if it fails? Large supermarkets are not the trend.
What’s sustainable about this if it’s not Asda?
Has Greenwich been involved? There is an existing flood barrier – how will that be affected?
MW confirmed that Greenwich had been involved and had been consulted. They have written to confirm that they will be submitting comments. The Environment Agency will be assessing the application and advising on flood risk issues. The
proposed basements and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems will be considered.
The submitted retail strategy is selective in the statements taken from the Lewisham Retail Assessment and omits those parts that states there should be a comparison offer. This is not sufficient.
The statements on community support and consultation state that 42% of people broadly or fully support the plans. Where is the evidence? A Better Lee Green have surveyed people and 78% of the 420 respondents don’t want this development and 82% want it to be reconsidered.
The Mayors office states that Lewisham supports small independent shops. What in this development supports that?
MW confirmed that a retail specialist has been appointed to review the submission.
It should also be noted that the District Centre extends beyond Leegate itself and this wider area had to be considered when looking at independent and small businesses as well as comparison offers rather than the development alone. All comments will be considered and any collected by an applicant or even by local groups will be considered but with more weight given to those received to the Council’s formal consultation which seeks views objectively. Therefore people are encouraged to write in and let the Council know their views on the scheme. On transport matters, these are being looked at in a great level of detail to truly understand the implications so people can be assured that this is being robustly assessed. The Council would normally look at whether a decision could be defended on appeal if a scheme was refused. The Lee Manor Society consider that there are very clear policies on massing and the protection of public space which warrant a refusal and that this is defensible. The concern is not necessarily the location of the public space but it should be bigger and extend into the area of the current block.
The meeting closed at 9.30. ET explained that a note of the meeting would be made and would form part of an eventual report to the Strategic Planning
Committee. Appendix 2:
Summary of representations received
ABLG Petition received
A Better Lee Green - 104 Woodyates Road - Objection – Survey of what issues members and the public have raised with them included below:
Lee Green Assembly Group- Objection
Then main points raised are: Public space Size of proposed Asda Traffic and Pollution Economic Sustainability Housing and Massing
Addresses that signed a document from Cllr Jim Mallory agreeing with Lee Green Assembly Group and are listed below:
21 Aislibie Road- Objection
58 Cambridge Drive- Objection
86 Woodyates Road- Objection
15 Cambridge Drive- Already have comment registered
3 Micheldever Road- Already have comment registered
20 Manor Lane- Already have objection registered
50 Leyland Road- Already have objection registered (petition)
64 Southbrook Road- Already have objection registered
105 Burnt Ash Road- Objection
20 Cambridge Road- Already have objection registered
Lee Gate Community Centre- Comment
Need for compensation for the local shop keepers, traders and tenants
Individual/organisation representations
Objections
23 Burnt Ash Road- Comment
What will happen to the current housing?
23c Burnt Ash Road- Comment
The traffic assessment referred to peak hours which were too short
The proposed cycle parking should be secure
How will secure the site when Asda is closed?
Existing tenants should be given priory when the new housing is being allocated
Why would the new development succeed when the previous shopping centre failed? The loss of business floor space means that people will have to travel outside of Leegate to find employment
62 Burnt Ash Road- Objection
Redevelopment is needed Is a district not town centre Redesign the proposed plans
15 Cambridge Drive- Comment
Supermarket out of scale for area Regeneration is needed
8 Chalcroft Road- Comment
Questions regarding the impact of traffic, extra doctor and school places and about pollution in the area
Flat B, 9 Eliot Park- Objection
Do not need another supermarket
72 Handen Road- Comment
Supportive of redevelopment Changes that relate to the pub
19 Horn Park Lane- Comment
Alarm to pollution levels Agree to redevelopment
76A Lee Road- Comment
Broadly supportive Ease traffic congestion Anchor tenants unnecessary opening hours Moving new pub close to the existing 3 would be over intensification of use
60 Manor Lane- Comment
Do not need another supermarket Good Development 4 Reed Close- Objection
St Mowden’s should rectify – reduced public space Footpaths High density of buildings Lack of small retail shops
60 Southbrook Road- Comment
Improvement to the area but believes there should be conditions regarding traffic and pollution The height and massing would compromise neighbour amenity The applicant has not been straightforward about the amount of public space proposed The public space on Burnt Ash Road would be too busy, noisy and fume filled Traffic; clarity is needed about the impact of the current TfL works and the rat-running on the surrounding roads
57 Sunnydale Road- Comment
Lower building, more shops and facilities and removal of old building Different supermarket Proposal is better for future benefits
72 Taunton Road- Comment
Only concern is traffic Would like a Leegate Community Centre
32 Weigall Road- Objection
Traffic and air pollution Public space Parking
The Bridge House, Willowcroft- Comment
Cycle spaces are too many
65 Abergeldie Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Traffic
154 Alnwick Road- Objection-
Traffic Health and Safety from fumes Do not need another supermarket Wants a community hub
19 Aislibie Road- Objection
Traffic Small amount of affordable housing and no social housing
21 Aislibie Road- Objection
Public Space Housing Mass of proposed work Economic Sustainability Traffic and Pollution
11 Bankwell Road- Objection
Traffic and pollution Public space Strain on local doctors and schools
4B Barmeston Road- Objection
Traffic Two identical stores is unnecessary Development does not prioritise housing
Flat B, 16 Barmeston Road- Objection
Object for housing not being Council Housing
22 Belmont Grove- Objection
Traffic and air pollution Do not need another supermarket Increase in more traffic is a danger to local residents
58 Belmont Park- Objection
Traffic Do not need another supermarket Public space (poor) Affordable housing needed 50 Blackheath Park- Objection
Public spaces and community facilities needed Do not need for another supermarket Density and height too big
50 Blackheath Park- Objection
Not enhance the local area Traffic and pollution Missed opportunities for local businesses Removal of trees Unpleasant and noisy public space
156 Bramdean Road- Objection
Traffic Air Quality Open Space Affordable Housing Do not need another supermarket
111 Brightfield Road- Objection
Public space Do not need for another supermarket Removal of mature trees Public realm will be severely damaged Traffic and Pollution Parking for local residents
23 Brightside Road- Objection
Pollution Public space Removal of trees Premises for local businesses Strain on local schools and doctors Do not need another supermarket
232 Brightside Road- Objection
Increased pressure on schools and doctors due to housing Do not need another supermarket Pollution Traffic Green Space 10 Brookway- Objection
Lacking natural light Open space
Flat 2, 120 Burnt Ash Hill- Objection
Do not need for another supermarket Traffic
11 Burnt Ash Road- Objection
Homelessness to residents who currently live there Pollution Loss of business to local retailers
40 Burnt Ash Road- Objection
Size and scale of proposed development (too large)
45 Burnt Ash Road- Objection
Parking problems for local residents
49A Burnt Ash Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Public space Traffic Height and size of proposed buildings
51A Burnt Ash Road- Objection
Loss of parking for local residents The applicant has not had any regard for the existing parking arrangements directly affected by the development
62 Burnt Ash Road- Objection
Traffic and pollution Lee is a district centre not a town centre Do not need another supermarket
108A Burnt Ash Road- Objection Do not need another supermarket Traffic The arcade should not be taken up by trolleys The images of the arcade are misleading The open space should be in the middle of the site to protect users from high levels of pollution The café proposed is adjacent to a busy road which is unacceptable.
Flat 2, 120 Burnt Ash Hill- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Traffic and Pollution
15 Cambridge Drive- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Do not need another supermarket Impact on schools and local health services Housing
20 Cambridge Drive- Objection
Scale of the scheme Design and massing (does not respect surrounding streetscape) Affordable housing Bulk of proposed Asda Traffic and Pollution Destruction of trees Social Infrastructure provision Community provision Lack of arts and technology development The additional information submitted did not address the reasons for deferral
Upper Floor Flat, 24 Cambridge Drive- Objection
Size of proposed supermarket Traffic
57 Cambridge Drive- Objection
Traffic Parking
69 Cambridge Drive- Objection
Housing and effect it has on local amenities 15 Carston Close- Objection
St Modwen cannot be trusted Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket Local schools
34 Carston Close- Objection
Overdeveloped Balance Congestion Air Quality Open space Does not meet the London Plan Does not meet with the Greater London Authority Report
45 Carston Close- Objection
Public space Prefer low rise housing Range of shops not another supermarket
47 Carston Close- Objection
Scale of development Do not need another supermarket Traffic and pollution Diversity in shops
123 Carston Close- Objection
Property overlooked Traffic and congestion
11 Chalcroft Road- Objection
Traffic Open space Do not need another supermarket
22 Chalcroft Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Safety of pedestrians crossing with increase of traffic Height of the development Do not need for another supermarket Affordable housing Schools and doctors- spaces with more occupants Open Space
22 Chalcroft Road- Objection
Traffic High density of the flats
32 Chalcroft Road- Objection
No new school More community facilities
117 Chudleigh Road- Objection
Impact will have on local traders and retailers Traffic, parking and Air pollution Air Quality Impact Public Areas Damage the economic diversity
23 Corner Road- Objection
Congestion Pollution Limited Public Space
61 Corona Road- Objection
Affordable Housing Public Realm and Open Space- loss of open space Traffic and Air Pollution Size and Massing of the Development Retail Mix- There is already a supermarket close by and should consider smaller retail shops
47 Courtlands Avenue- Objection
Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket Public space Loss of independent traders
60 Courtlands Avenue- Objection Appearance of proposed plans The proposed retail Increased traffic and poor air quality Open public space Housing The additional information still do not address residents concerns There is not a diverse retail offer There is no clear indication of what the Arcade would look like
77 Courtlands Avenue- Objection
Does not meet the needs of local community Public Space Traffic
80 Courtlands Avenue- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Resident parking
186 Courtlands Avenue- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Needs more green space and affordable housing
10 Dallinger Road- Objection
Open Space Not enough Public Services- Health centres, schools Do not need for another supermarket
104 Dallinger Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Traffic and Pollution Public Space The pressure on local public services
3 Dorville Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Supermarket proposal is too big Public space Proposed housing is too dense for area
24 Dorville Road- Objection Traffic and pollution Open space Parking for new residents No social housing, just affordable housing New buildings are too high
13 Effingham Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Car Park Do not need another supermarket Public space Inappropriate height and density
15 Effingham Road- Objection
Scale of the development Strain on doctors and schools Do not need another supermarket Increase air pollution levels The proposed smaller retail units may not the correct size to be commercially viable The proposed smaller units are not readily visible for users of the car park What if ASDA pull out? The development will be built with a large void in the District Centre Additional stress on local services Poor light to some of the units A higher percentage of social and affordable housing should be provided The proposed dwellings would suffer from noise and air pollution from the close proximity of the supermarket The proposal would exacerbate the existing congestion on the surrounding roads
21 Effingham Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Density of proposed housing
23 Effingham Road- Comment
Concern about traffic and pollution, have a larger public space Design a store that will reduce traffic
43 Effingham Road- Objection
Pollution and traffic Public space
44 Effingham Road- Objection Congestion and Pollution Parking for residents Public Space Increase in housing will add more pressure to schools and doctors
62 Effingham Road- Objection
Traffic, rat-running and congestion Pollution Public transport- not connected well with public transport, increase frequency of buses etc Massing Public area No need for another supermarket Increased traffic/number of cars increases road safety danger for school children The scheme needs to fund realistic and specific measures to cut rat-running, through the closure of local roads and changing priorities
2 Exford Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket
60 Foxes Dale- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Traffic and pollution Danger to cyclists No diversity to locals
62 George Lane- Objection
Massing of the supermarket Traffic, congestion and pollution Safety of the traffic for schools Public Space Insufficient space for local markets and retailers Lost opportunity to create diversity and sustainable development Agree with the points raised by ABLG
132 George Lane- Objection
Lack of Primary School places with the redevelopment Space could be used for community facilities, cafes and clinics not a corporate retailer
22 Glenton Road- Objection No need for another supermarket Parking will be an issue and decrease public space No sense of community with the proposed plans
25 Glenmere Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket
37 Gilmore Road- Objection
Too high Do not need another supermarket Public space No social housing Removal of trees
42 Heather Road- Objection
Fails to meet needs of local residents Do not need another supermarket Traffic and Pollution
34 Heathlee Road- Objection
Traffic and pollution Development should have balance
32 Hafton Road- Objection
Public space Do not need another supermarket No consideration to infrastructure support
52B Halesworth Road- Objection
Oversized supermarket Traffic, congestion and pollution
9 Handen Road- Objection
No benefit to the local community Traffic Public Space Jobs are limited Do not need another supermarket 16 Handen Road- Objection
Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket
23 Handen Road- Objection
Increased footfall- more traffic and pollution and safety of children Overdevelopment Public space
25 Handen Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Does not another supermarket
25 Handen Road- Objection
Footfall will lead to pollution and traffic Overbuild with the amount of spaces in schools and doctors Height of development Pubic space
54 Handen Road- Objection
Congestion and traffic Air Pollution
54 Handen Road- Objection
Pollution and congestion One supermarket is enough The traffic surveys should be done again after the Tiger’s Head junction works are complete
(Upper Flat)145B Hither Green Lane- Objection
Air pollution Not keeping in character with the area
1 Horn Park Close- Objection
Congestion Pollution Limited Public Space Traffic 1 Horn Park Close- Objection
Traffic Air quality Inconsistent plans
49 Horn Park Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Too many houses for area- Strain on schools and doctors The proposals would exacerbate current poor air pollution It would put additional pressure on local services such as schools and doctors The size and amount of units proposed is too great for the site
30 Kellerton Road- Objection
Size and density to big for surrounding area Pollution Loss of trees Poor Connectivity Unsustainable Decrease in diversity
48 Kellerton Road- Objection
Parking
21 Leahurst Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket
26 Lee Church Street- Objection
No need for another supermarket- should support smaller local businesses Pollution All affordable housing not social housing Not enough schools or doctors surgery and will worsen with more occupants
28 Lee Park- Objection
Traffic and pollution Diversity and choice of local people
71 Lee Road- Objection Traffic and Pollution Public space High density and massing of building Supermarket is too big/ Do not need another supermarket Affordable Housing no social housing
Flat 2, 101/103 Lee Road- Objection
Mass of the development Suffering of the local shops
105 Lee Road- Objection
Traffic and congestion Deliveries to Leegate Air Pollution Do not need another supermarket
8 Lenham Road- Objection
Traffic, congestion and pollution Pubic space/access Should be more housing
22A Leyland Road- Objection
Square footage of Asda No need for a public house Pollution
30 Leyland Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Not appropriate for Lee Green Air and noise pollution Outdoor space Height of buildings Rise of housing will dominate the environment negatively Impact of local school, doctors and parking The additional information submitted does not address the concerns of local residents
31 Leyland Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Public Space Size and design of proposed Asda Size and density of development Impact of the development on the local public services
32 Leyland Road- Objection
Lack of and poor public space proposed The trees should be retained The buildings are too high Community centre needs to be bigger Traffic and pollution A poor variety of shops are proposed The additional information submitted does not address the concerns of residents
35 Leyland Road- Objection
Proposed plans for supermarket are too big Traffic and Pollution Public Space Buildings to dense and high Removal of tree No social housing and not enough affordable housing
Flat C, 35 Leyland Road- Objection
Overdevelopment Removal of trees Traffic Lack of local schools
Top Flat, 39 Leyland Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket, smaller shops would be more beneficial Pollution and congestion Not enough parking for residents Not enough Affordable Housing
Top Flat, 39 Leyland Road- Objection
Pollution and congestion. Increase football and traffic Loss of small retailers
Flat 3, 41 Leyland Road- Objection
Existing businesses should be retained Safety of people Traffic and pollution Housing
44 Leyland Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Traffic
50 Leyland Road- Objection
Scale of proposed supermarket is too big Public space Traffic and pollution Noise The internal appearance of the Arcade shodul be provided before permission is granted It is not appropriate to build a superstore on the Lee Gate site.
52A Leyland Road- Objection
Size of Asda Do not need another supermarket Traffic and pollution Parking
54A Leyland Road- Objection
Overdependence on Asda Supermarket Reduction of local amenities Traffic
58A Leyland Road- Objection
Inadequate for St Modwens Community consultation Traffic Public space Proposed supermarket is too big The detailed designs of the arcade and air pollution calculations should be made public before any decision on the scheme is made.
71 Leyland Road- Objection
Urban Scale, Scale and Massing Traffic and Pollution Not enough Schools, Housing or health centres Public Space and Planting Not another supermarket Sustainability
75 Leyland Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Unnecessary mass and density
141 Lyme Farm Road- Objection
Parking Traffic and Pollution Removal of trees Open green spaces No need for another supermarket
10 Manor Lane- Objection
Public space Mass of building Traffic and congestion
14 Manor Lane- Objection
Size of proposed development Traffic and pollution Open space
20 Manor Lane- Objection
Traffic and air pollution Poor public space Unacceptable massing Inappropriate size for supermarket Lack of retail diversity The scheme needs meaningful changes
20 Manor Lane- Objection
Supermarket is too large for the site and area Poor traffic and air pollution Decrease of retail diversity Poor massing of site
27 Manor Lane- Objection
Traffic Parking Do not need another supermarket
37 Manor Lane- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Junction is unsafe Do not need another supermarket
44 Manor Lane- Objection
Pollution and traffic Housing and affect it has on schools and doctors
44 Manor Lane- Objection
Pollution Do not need another supermarket Space for proposed people and places in schools and doctors
46 Manor Lane- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Traffic, congestion and pollution A new traffic survey should be undertaken given the recent works to the Tiger’s Head junction and new school proposed
136 Manor Lane- Objection
Size and density to big for surrounding area Pollution Loss of trees Loss of retail diversity Public Space
13 Manor Lane Terrace- Objection
Pollution and Air quality Road safety Landscaping Over development Due to increase in housing not enough thought to doctors and schools
18 Manor Lane Terrace- Objection
Massing of site Traffic and Pollution Parking Lack of affordable housing and no social housing Public Space
65 Manor Park- Objection
Size of Asda Traffic and Pollution Not enough affordable housing and no social housing
99 Manor Park- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Public space Do not need another supermarket Housing and strain on local schools and doctors Small amount of affordable housing and no social housing
9 Manor Way- Objection
Congestion Do not need another supermarket
10 Manor Way- Objection
Public Space Mass of buildings Traffic and congestion Lazy proposal
13 Manor Way- Objection
Traffic Height of proposed development Low percentage of affordable housing Local schools- strain
27 Manor Way- Objection
Size Traffic and Pollution Parking Do not need another supermarket
37 Manor Way- Objection Traffic and pollution- Safety of children crossing Do not need another supermarket
3 Micheldever Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Does not satisfy needs of local community (do not need 2 supermarkets) No Public Space There has not been any consideration of the alternative schemes put forward by the community
5 Micheldever Road- Objection
Public Space Traffic and Pollution Not the right design for borough
5 Micheldever Road- Objection
Noise Traffic and Air Pollution Public Space
7 Micheldever Road- Objection
Excessive scale and massing Inadequate provision for Affordable Housing Traffic and pollution Loss of open space
15 Micheldever Road- Objection
Traffic Height of proposed development Do not need another supermarket
18 Micheldever Road- Objection
Another supermarket is not needed Traffic Not enough housing
18 Micheldever Road- Objection
Traffic Massing
24 Micheldever Road- Objection
No need for another supermarket Traffic and Pollution Public and Green space
29 Micheldever Road- Objection
Traffic Another supermarket
45 Micheldever Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Public space Proposed building is high density Proposed supermarket is too big/ no need for another supermarket Amount of housing will have a negative effect on doctors and schools No social housing
67 Micheldever Road- Objection
Not beneficial to community Pollution Overcrowding Strain on transport links Do not need another supermarket Redevelopment is unnecessary
75 Micheldever Road- Objection
Sainsbury’s fulfil the needs so why another supermarket Parking should be underground due to flooding Public space should be raised Air Pollution
76 Micheldever Road- Objection
Open Space Congestion, Traffic Residents will increase capacity Affordable housing Parking 77 Micheldever Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Height of proposed development Traffic
78 Micheldever Road- Objection
Scale of new building Public spaces Removal of trees Open space Do no need another supermarket The additional information shows how mean the Arcade is proposed to be Could the travellators which currently overcrowd the arcade be relocated to an external façade? The illustrations show mature trees, but confirmation is required as to how long it would take the proposed trees to reach maturity and what impact they would have on reducing pollutants
12 Milborough Crescent- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Brings nothing for the community
2 Millers Meadow Close- Objection
The large supermarket could render Lee Gate an eyesore if unsuccessful The traffic problems would be exacerbated, which would also make it more difficult for pedestrians The additional cars from the proposal would result in more pollution The site should be regenerated but not with this scheme The additional dwellings would cerate additional pressure local resources on such as schools The supermarket of that scale is not needed in the area The proposal with the proposed school application in Greenwhich would add to the strain on local infrastructure
3 Millers Meadow Close- Objection
Pollution Places in Schools, doctors surgeries
8 Millers Meadow Close- Objection
No need for another supermarket Does not want public house Gardens will be overlooked by high rise flats Traffic, congestion and parking High Rise Flats Road Congestion A new 900 student school is proposed in Blackheath which would further exacerbate traffic and congestion Smaller, independent shops will not be able to compete with two large supermarkets The scheme should not have the supermarket but rather a gym, cinema or general store. Relocating the pub will cause anti-social behaviour and disturbance The scale of the proposed buildings would dominate the centre of Lee Green The development would result in a lack of privacy for nearby residents
46 Mottingham Lane- Objection
Heavy pollution Another supermarket not needed Reduced public space Transport, Schools and Medical Centres in Lee are already full stretch
19 Morden Mews Road- Objection
Traffic congestion High density and population will put strain on local schools, doctors and dentists Large supermarkets are closing ‘favoured’ small shops
58 Murillo Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Affordable housing and community space is more essential to wellbeing rather than another supermarket Traffic and pollution
29A Old Road- Objection
Not another supermarket Pollution
Flat B, Old School House- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Not another pub
4 Osberton Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Traffic Parking
29 Parkgate Road- Objection
Damage the environment Traffic and pollution Density of the proposed plans- no footpaths or public space
5 Pitfold Close- Objection
The proposal is too large for the site Poor pollution for users and future residential occupiers Loss of the TPO’d trees Tall buildings are anti social and cast large shadows (reference to City of London_ Refurbish the existing buildings Asda is too large Increased traffic and congestion Increased pollution from the additional traffic Overshadowing form the height of the buildings which are too high Lack of public space in quieter area of the site The open space should be for residents and the public Pressure on schools, doctors and clinics Increase in parking demand
5 Pitfold Close- Objection
Too large, high and density Pollution and Vehicle use Public space Removal of trees Creates private fortress enclave with limited access Low affordable housing provision The applicant has purposefully allowed the site to run-down The scheme should be redeveloped to retain the TPO’d trees in the existing public area Lewisham Planning Officers should liaise with Greenwich Planning Officers given the proposals for a new school off Lee Road Traffic
12 Pitfold Road- Objection
Traffic, congestion and pollution Height of proposed buildings Amount of housing and strain on local schools
Plumcroft Primary School- Objection
Loss of public space Housing not affordable to local people Traffic
4 Riverside Court- Objection
Increase of noise Traffic and Pollution Not environmentally friendly Public Space High Density of buildings Do not need another supermarket
40 Rose Way- Objection
Traffic and pollution Parking Do not need another supermarket
26 Southbrook Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Public space Limited spaces in doctors and schools
32 Southbrook Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Size of proposed Asda Schools Inappropriate for the area
54 Southbrook Road- Objection
St Modwen lack moral fibre Do not need another supermarket
55 Southbrook Road- Objection
Scale
64 Southbrook Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution Parking for new residents Buildings are too high 9 Spangate, Blackheath Park- Objection
Smaller Asda Pollution Open Space Density Traffic Removal of trees Parking The TPO’d trees should remain The proposed boulevard is too close to the road and users would succumb to pollution Concerns about the affordability of the housing proposed
10 St Peters Church- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Traffic and pollution Public space Not user friendly area Housing will put strain on local doctors, schools and transport
12 St Peters Church- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Footfall and traffic Pollution
55 Taunton Road- Objection
Loss of public space Traffic Failure to devise a comprehensive scheme for the whole site
59 Taunton Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Frontage for proposed flats look like a barracks Public space
78 Taunton Road- Objection
Pollution and Traffic Unattractive and unpleasant
103 Taunton Road- Objection
Sustainability Traffic
13 The Glebe- Objection
Asda store proposal is too large Traffic and Pollution Public space is too small Should have smaller shops and community spaces
8 The Keep- Objection
Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket Public space
17 Thornwood Road- Objection
Size of proposed Asda Congestion Open space
20 Thornwood Road- Objection
Traffic, congestion and pollution No need for another supermarket
27 Thornwood Road- Objection
Air Pollution and traffic Safety of the local schools with increase of traffic Size of the redevelopment is too big
29 Thornwood Road- Objection
Pollution and traffic Effect on small local businesses Parking Public space
Eastnor Garden House, 73 Tranquil Vale- Objection
Affect quality life of local community Traffic Parking Public space Small amount of affordable housing Air Pollution
26 Upwood Road- Objection
Do not need another supermarket Traffic and Pollution Flooding of area Parking Additional traffic and congestion
38 Upwood Road- Objection
Traffic Air Pollution
49 Upwood Road- Objection
Traffic and pollution Proposed Asda is too big Density of the development
67 Upwood Road- Objection
Traffic No need for another supermarket No green space
67 Upwood Road- Objection
Traffic Do not need another supermarket Increase on housing will increase pressure on amenities
5 Wantage Road- Objection
Traffic and Pollution (safety and public health) Sustainability of the scheme in the long run- No thought into the housing on the development
26 Weigall Road- Objection
Open space Housing density will cause increased congestion Parking Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket Removal of trees
30 Weigall Road- Objection
Size of the proposed Asda is too large for the site A lack of open space is proposed The loss of business for local shops Increase in traffic The additional information submitted does not address the problems
62 Weigall Road- Objection
Environmental Implications No School places to deal with the proposed housing No need for another supermarket Needs more of a sympathetic development Insufficient public spaces
13 Wellmeadow Road- Objection
Public Space Do not need another supermarket
104 Woodyates Road- Objection
Public Space Pollution
135 Woodyates Road- Objection
No need for another supermarket Traffic Needs more social housing
157 Woodyates Road- Objection
No need for another supermarket- should be more local businesses Traffic, congestion and pollution
181 Woodyates Road- Objection
Not a relevant form of development in the immediate or surrounding area
7 Willowcroft Road- Objection Supermarket is inappropriate as another supermarket is so close Traffic congestion Pollution More housing is needed
12 Willowcroft Road- Objection
Supermarket is inappropriate as another supermarket is so close Traffic congestion Pollution More housing is needed
83 Winn Road
The proposals will exacerbate existing parking problems without adequate mitigation put in place before planning permission is granted.
75 Quentin Road- Objection supports the ‘A Better Lee Green’ campaign
Flat 2, 17 Eltham Road – Objection
The arcade is unattractive
Overdevelopment
99 Burnt Ash Road
Traffic and congestion Pollution Low level of affordable housing Nothing cultural A gym is not needed More independent shops are needed
57a Burnt Ash hill
The proposed buildings are too tall and bulky and out of scale with the surrounding area The scheme would generate additional traffic, to a level of concern No information regarding the displacement of the existing free car parking spaces on site No information regarding the car parking of the building contractors
12 Holme Lacey Road
The application states that there are 539 places at local schools which must be incorrect Flat 2, Stafford House, 2a Burnt Ash Road
St Modwen have made no alterations to the planning application in the last year No rationale for another large supermarket in the area Given the recent opening of supermarkets in the vicinity, Asda will not last The scheme should not be considered until the Tiger’s Head junction works are completed The air pollution figures referenced in the planning application documents are incorrect Another large supermarket would starve the local economy The protected trees and surrounding open space should be retained The scale and massing of the proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings The proposed development would not regenerate Lee Green. The scheme would result in an increase in traffic and pollution There is no allocated space for outside smokers for the new pub The anti-social behaviour would just be transferred elsewhere in the locale The proposal is proposing an insufficient level of affordable housing
29 West Park
Object to the proposals and support the ‘A Better Lee Green’ campaign
49 Manor Lane
The applicant has done nothing to address neighbours concerns and therefore the scheme should be rejected The proposed design is poor There is a lack of open space in the scheme The proposals would add to existing traffic and pollution levels
54 Handen Road
A large Asda would result in more traffic and pollution Most customers to the store would drive because of Asda’s retail offer The proposals would exacerbate existing traffic and congestion problems The traffic survey submitted with the application was carried out in the holidays and the current works at the Tiger’s Head junction mean that the traffic surveys should updated
93 Pitfold Close
The proposals would bring more traffic to the Lee Gate Centre The cafes will be located next to the polluted road The proposals do nothing to enhance the community provision
4 Horn Park Pane
There is no need for another supermarket in Lee Green Another supermarket would exacerbate existing traffic and congestion in the area The proposals do not include a path through the site 115 Manor Park
Trinity School has no substantial playground and a new school is being built on Meadowcourt Road. A better environment should be provided for the whole community We don’t need a new supermarket, we need more schools, playing fields and housing. The proposals are pre thought out and does not fit into our community
Lee Forum Steering Committee (Designated in January 2016, but Members yet to be voted in)
The proposals are contrary to policy They proposals fail to provide a sufficient variety of retail The proposals are at risk of not being sustainable in the long-term The proposals would result in further exposure to pollution for members of the public The proposals result in the loss of the existing public space The proposals isolate Sainsbury’s from the rest of Lee Green The current plans do not accord with the Government’s Distressed High Street report The application is incomplete as it does not provide detailed plans of Arcade, a social and health impact assessment and fire evacuation plans
Support
1 Carston Close- Support
Area needs refurbishment
6 Carston Close- Support
No objection to proposed plans
36 Carston Close- Support
Improve local area New housing is needed
37 Carston Close- Support
Reinvigorate the area
59 Carston Close- Support
Regenerating the Leegate 65 Carston Close- Support
New life to the area
75 Carston Close- Support-
Exciting for the area
83 Carston Close- Support
Brighter Feel safer Job opportunities
93 Carston Close- Support
Blight for the area Job opportunities
95 Carston Close- Support
New makeover for Leegate area
195 Carston Close- Support-
No reason as to why they support
Flat 4- Cambridge Drive- Support
Improvement to area The proposals would provide additional housing It is important that the site is redeveloped as it forms an integral part of the Lee area The benefits of the scheme outweigh any doubts and misgivings
Flat 5 Cherion Court- Support
Improve area Job opportunities Variety of a supermarket
Flat 7 Cheriton Court- Support
More housing Mixed use development
78 Effingham Road- Support
Attractive More housing- only issue is what will happen to current residents
4 Eliot Place- Support
Inclusion of affordable housing
149 Eltham Road- Support
Huge improvement
Maple House, Bromley- Support
Provision of new homes Creation of jobs Improved public space Creation of a new community centre which will cater for diverse community
12 Micheldever Road- Support
Footprint of the proposed Asda Influence of ‘public realm’
103 Morden Hill- Support
Quality affordable housing Uplift and improvement on environment Employment to the borough
Hyde Housing, 30 Park Street- Support
Quality for affordable homes Job opportunities Positive transformation
Explore Learning Limited, 74 North Street- Support
Excellent location for tuition centre New jobs Community focused scheme 18 Old Road- Support
Well designed Long overdue improvement Long term benefits for local residents and businesses
10 Riverside Court- Support
Welcome investment
27 Strathaven Road- Support
Welcomes proposed plans
34 Upwood Road- Support-
No reason given as to why they support
61 Upwood Road- Support
Current area is eyesore Massive improvement
21 Wantage Road- Support
Site is currently eyesore Jobs and housing
The Gym Group, Woodgate Meadows- Support
Opportunity for a gym in development
South East London Chamber Office- Support
Supports renewal of commercial space for retail, regeneration of communities, ability to live and shop locally The creation of jobs, training and a better more diverse shopping experience both in the centre and surrounding businesses. Anchor store supports smaller units by attracting customers. Also to note comments from GLA supporting the application and LBL’s Design Panel 4 Cambridge Drive
The site is currently derelict and needs to be redeveloped as soon as possible
Affinity Sutton The scheme is providing 229 new homes which is to ‘dovetail’ the investment over the last 5 years of the Leybridge Estate The creation of 400 jobs Upgrade to the public realm New Community Centre
83 Brightfield Road
Appreciate the efforts of local groups to get the best for the community Prolonging the planning application is making things in Leegate worse Given the close proximity of local parks, no objections are raised to the proposed open space within the development
8 Clarendon Mews The shopping Centre is a state, bringing down the area
84 Leybridge Court
The area is currently scruffy and unsafe Another feed store is needed for the older residents in the area The proposed development would revitalise the area and create jobs
3 Dallinger Road
The change to the current eyesore is positive Not convinced that Lee needs an Asda, but redevelopment needs an anchor tenant to be feasible Supportive of the plans as they are
Appendix 3
Mayors Questions o
Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 23
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: David Hansom.
Member to reply: Councillor Onikosi
Question
Has the Council considered outsourcing the maintenance and management of the golf course (in 18 hole format) to a not-for-profit organisation? Either an existing organisation, such as MyTimeActive, or a consortium formed especially for this purpose;
Reply
The Council has no current plans to seek a new service partner for the management of an 18 Hole Golf Course within the park.
Ifthe decision is made to retain the Golf Course the Council will require officers to identify sustainable options for its future management and bring a report back to the Council for consideration and approval. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 24
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Imogen Solly
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
St Modwen relies on Lewisham’s 2009 Retail Capacity Study (RCS) to show that a second superstore in Lee Green is economically sustainable in their Leegate planning application. However, the study actually states that:
• Lee Green is strong on convenience offer but weak on comparison offer (SWOT analysis RCS 3.1) • Lee Green has national average convenience offer but only 50% national average comparison offer (RCS Appendix A table A.20) • Forecast need/capacity for retail floor space is not sufficient justification to support new retail floor space (RCS 5.52) • Beyond 2014 capacity figures should be treated ‘witha high degree of caution’ due to changes such as increases in internet shopping (RCS 5.52); • It is essential that the need/capacity for retail floor space is assessed at regular intervals and at least once every five years (RCS 5.52) • Lee Green’s surplus convenience spending and over trading figures are likely to be overstated (RCS 5.34 and RCS 5.46); • By 2025 estimate borough need new 5,164 m2 convenience floor space and 22,897 m2 comparison floor space (RCS 6.24) • Post 2014 Leegate specifically proposed as a comparison, not a convenience shopping site (RCS 7.25)
In summary, the RCS states that its forecast capacity figures should not be relied on past 2014 (RCS5.52); that in any case comparison, rather than convenience, is what Leegate needs and should be developed for (RCS 3.1, RCS Appendix A table A.20, RCS 7.25); and that Lewisham as a borough is in need of more comparison floor space than convenience floor space (RCS 6.24).
Given that it is incumbent on St Modwen to show that the Leegate development will be economically sustainable, and that depending on the 2009 Retail Capacity Study in its application fails to do this, what further requirements is Lewisham making of St Modwen to prove the economic sustainability of its plans? Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 25
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: John Keidan
Member to reply: Councillor Best
Question
WillLewisham follow the lead of other Councils by signing up to Unison’s Ethical Care Charter, ensuring all home care workers in Lewisham receive the London LivingWage and are given enough time and training to provide higher standards of care for the thousands of Lewisham residents who rely on them?
Reply
The Council is currently re-commissioning domiciliary care services with new contracts scheduled for October 2015.
The Council pays the London LivingWage in the current contract price and with some travel time built in. Training requirements have always been specified and are monitored. However, the new contracts willbe organised very differently. Service users will have more flexibilityas to how they use their allocated care provision on a week by week basis, although many willstill require morning and evening daily visits.
Although the contracts themselves willallow for more flexibilityin how a cater’s time is deployed, the Council remains committed to paying the London LivingWage, travel time and training time as appropriate. It is envisaged that as these new contractual relationships develop the Council willgive due consideration to Unison’s Ethical Care Charter. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 26
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Amongst the published ‘insupport’ responses to Lewisham’s consultation on St Modwen’s Leegate proposals are:
One from an Edmondton-based private tuition company which would benefit financially from the proposals.
One from Hyde Housing, who are based in London Bridge.
Lewisham’s Statement of Community Involvement (SC I) lists specifically who are stakeholders in section two. Which subsections of SCI section 2 do the tuition company and Hyde Housing fall in to (ifany)?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO.31
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Mr Hirsch
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Table 9.2 of St Modwen’s traffic assessment shows that six locations around the Tiger’s Head junction will be above full saturation traffic flow levels (up to 135.6%) in the proposed Leegate development.
The applicant has, therefore, chosen to recalculate their figures at Table 9.1 excluding traffic created by the 1815 new properties that are being built in Kidbrooke and Huntsman developments.
The applicant has also omitted to include traffic that will be produced by the development of the large London and Quadrant buildings, Vauxhall Garage and Greek Taverna sites at the Tiger’s Head junction.
Given that traffic from all these developments will drive through the Tiger’s Head junction, will Lewisham Council insist that the applicant re-instate the traffic from these developments in their traffic calculations?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO.32
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Bob de Groot
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
It has been said that St Modwen could turn Leegate into 100% private low quality residential housing under permitted development rules. The fear of this could affect reactions to St Modwen’s current Leegate proposals. However, there is confusion in this area given that in their letter to St Modwen of 3lth July, planning officers said For Al units, permitted development rights would be withdrawn’ (page 8) Does Permitted Development apply in Leegate and are Officers able to uphold a decision to withdraw permitted developments in court ifSt Modwen appeal it?
Reply
As a planning application is being considered for the Leegate Centre, it not appropriate to respond to these points outside of the formal planning process. However, on the general enquiry relating to permitted development rights, the government introduced permitted development rights for existing shops to change to residential accommodation in 2013 subject to certain criteria. This includes consideration as to whether a building is located in a key shopping area and ifthe change would affect the sustainability of that shopping area as well as certain size restrictions. In this case officers would consider that given the size of the existing units coupled with their location in a District Centre, a change of use to residential would be unlikely to be considered as permitted development. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 33
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Caroline Bray
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
National Planning Policy Framework states that the ‘planning system should prevent new development from contributing to unacceptable levels of air pollution’ (section 11)
Evidence has been submitted to Lewisham that pollution at the Tigers Head Junction is already up to 75% above legal limits. Plans for Leegate’s development will increase traffic and so pollution levels. They willalso move public space closer to a busy road, so increasing exposure to pollution.
a. Is the council aware of sustainable developments such as Bermondsey square which have been developed without major increases to congestion or exposure to pollution, thereby showing this is possible? b. When negotiating and considering development does Lewisham make the protection of people against high levels of pollution one of its priorities?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO.34
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Julie Reason
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
With regard to the Leegate development what has been done to achieve:
1) A coordinated mechanism between TEL and Lewisham Highways, which have been cut and are very understaffed, to ensure traffic is not just shifted from one road to another?: and
2) That enquiries have been made to bus and rail companies to ensure that they have capacity to absorb additional travellers?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question ID. Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO.38
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Imogen Solly
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
St Modwen claims that it does not need to make a retail impact or sequential assessment for the proposed Leegate development. Lewisham’s Retail Capacity Study says:
• Itwould be appropriate for Lee Green’s convenience capacity to be absorbed into Lewisham Town Centre to keep the retail hierarchy of the two centres (Core Strategy Policy 6) (RCS 5.47),
• That estimated capacity figures should not be taken as literal interpretations of the amount of additional convenience floor space that should be accommodated in each centre, but should be viewed on the basis of accommodating capacity within the most appropriate centre within the Borough (RCS 5.46).
Given the council has therefore previously stated that any further convenience development at Leegate might affect the retail situation in Lewisham Town Centre and the wider borough, and that any further convenience capacity at Leegate might be more appropriately provided for in Lewisham Town Centre, does Lewisham Council agree with the applicant that it does not need to supply sequential or impact assessments for its Leegate plans?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO.43
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Mr Hirsch
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
It has been calculated in St Modwen’s Leegate planning application that approximately 41 children willbe in need of places in local nurseries, primary and secondary schools. Local schools already have to take on bulge classes. One child 66th livingon Horn Park Road has been offered a school in Downham and is on the list for a local school for 2015 entrance. Amenities willbe further stretched by hundreds more homes being built close by in the Greek Taverna, Huntsman development, London and Quadrant Building and potentially the New Tiger’s Head and Vauxhall garage. Will Lewisham make publicly available details of where school and doctors places will be provided before a decision is reached on St Modwen’s planning application to reassure local people?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question JO. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO.47
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Imogen Solly
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
London Plan: 7.6A: ‘The Mayor .... seek to ensure that developments.., take account of what different people say they need and want’
The Leegate applicant’s ‘comprehensive programme of public consultation’ has included several meetings with the Lee Green Assembly Leegate working group 2012-2014. The minutes of the Assembly and working group papers show the nature of the working groups’ meetings with the applicant:
‘Lack of progress in discussions’ (2012 position paper) ‘Continued delays of meetings’ (2012 position paper) ‘Residents and traders not kept informed and uncertainty’ (February 2013 motion) ‘Promoting consultation before meeting the working group as previously agreed’ (June 2014 paper) ‘For 2 years saying housing, underground parking and total redevelopment were impractical when they weren’t (June 2014 paper)
‘St Modwen’s seeming reluctance to consider suggestions that would create a genuine quality public space’ (November 2014 paper)
‘What has disappointed us most about exchanges has been the sense that, following last June’s consultation, there has been little in the way of movement from St Modwen, giving a sense of fait accompli’ (November 2014 paper).
St Modwen have held two public ‘consultations’:
2012 consultation: 4.1.1 Statement of Community Engagement (SCE), ‘residents particularly highlighted the size of the superstore and traffic as areas of concern’, then at 4.1.2 ‘as a result of feedback, plans were changed in ways that addressed concerns’. However, neither the size of the superstore nor the traffic issues were addressed.
2014 consultation: Page 17 of the SCE states that, as in 2012, the largest community concern was having a second large superstore and the second most common concern was the traffic impact of the development. Both issues are still unaddressed by the applicant’s plans, in which the superstore has in fact been made bigger since both 2012 and the July 2014 consultation, in clear disregard of the issues of concern raised by both events.
The developers have therefore ‘held consultations’, as they have held displays of their plans that they refer to as consultations, but have not in fact consulted the community, since major concerns have remained both unimproved and unanswered. ‘Presentations’ would be a better term for the events St Modwen have held. Given this, and their lack of willingness to engage with working group meetings, does Lewisham Council have minimum levels of adequacy in community consultation that they hold either themselves or developers to? Ifso, what are these minimum levels — how can they be demonstrated to have been achieved in specific cases?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 10.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Mr Hirsch
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Are you aware of Core Strategy Policy 15: ‘Ensure development is flexible and adaptable to change’?
The use of a supermarket anchor in Leegate was negotiated 5 years ago, when supermarket trading conditions were very different. Since then:
2014 Distressed High Street Taskforce’s ‘Beyond Retail’ report ‘ there is too much retail in our urban centres town centres need to evolve urgently to meet the broader needs of the communities that they serve for the next 50 years... .means a smaller retail core, supplemented by the introduction of a wider range of uses such as food and leisure, civic functions’
Bloomberg 29th August 2014: ‘withinfive years sales from traditional supermarkets willbe lower than those from discount stores, online supermarkets and convenience stores. This is an extra-ordinary shift in the market and one that is going to cause damage to not only to Tesco, but to Sainsburys, Asda and Morrisons’. Guardian February 19th 2015. ‘Asda is to invest £600m opening 17 new supermarkets and revamping 62 more, despite undergoing a tough 12 months of flat lining sales and profits’.
Asda is alone in continuing to build large stores.
Is the proposed Leegate development sustainable whilst dominated so heavily by a large superstore, directly opposite another, in these straightened times for supermarkets? I have heard it suggested that if itfailed it would be hidden since the supermarket is wrapped in housing, or could become a dark storage centre.
Question:
a. Does Lewisham consider that either being empty or dark storage would satisfy the planning policies of a District Centre or create fooffall for small shops?
b. Communities around the country are currently blighted by empty supermarket sites as they pull out of their larger stores. What appropriate usages of Asda’s space in Leegate does Lewisham have in mind ifAsda pulls out?
Reply
A planning application is currently being considered for the redevelopment of the Leegate Centre. The questions raised relate to the specifics of that application and it is therefore not appropriate to respond to these points outside of the formal planning process. However, the questions raised have been passed to planning officers and willbe considered as part of the formal planning process and fully addressed in a report to planning committee. A copy of this report willbe made publically available and published on the Council’s website in advance of the committee. Regarding question 21 specifically, the Council will respond to any FOI or EIR requests on a case by case basis as any such application arises. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 11.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Bob de Groot
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
In a letter to St Modwen dated 31st July 2014, planning officers said ‘Proposals involving change of use should not compromise existing retail provision’ (pg 5) and that St Modwen should “protect local shopping facilities where there is an economic demand for such service’ (pg 6).
In 2015 traders of Leegate sent a petition to St Modwen saying ‘continuing deterioration in trading conditions largely caused by St Modwen’s actions’
St Modwen’s neglect of the Leegate Centre over a long period is a story repeated in many communities where St Modwen hold properties such as such as Hatfield, Walthamstow, Cafford and Elephant and Castle. It seems that St Modwens strategy is calculated: To drive small traders out so that it can be claimed that there is no economic demand for them, and make communities so desperate they willaccept anything.
There was an average of 25 active units in Leegate 2009-20 14. Does Lewisham, therefore, consider that there is economic demand for 25 small traders in Leegate?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 13.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Caroline Bray
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Under District Centres (6.101) Lewisham’s Core Strategy states that ‘The emphasis within the District town centres willbe to protect the existing open spaces.’ St Modwen’s Leegate planning application suggests that 1400 m2 of existing public space will be replaced with 1400 m2 of new public space. On closer examination, St Modwen’s illustrations show that they have omitted to measure around half of the existing public space that currently runs through the centre of Leegate; Moreover, the proposed public space included in their calculations includes existing pavement, which are excluded from the 1400m of existing space. St Modwen’s calculation of public space also includes a covered walkway that willbe locked at night. a. What does the Core Strategy mean by ‘protect from development’? ‘Prevent from being built over’ would seem to be a reasonable assumption: is this correct? b. Is the covered walkway is considered ‘public space? c. St Modwen are proposing a pedestrianised area along the re-vamped Carston Close, away from retail frontage. How willa wide pathway through a residential area fit with Lewisham’s definition of ‘town centre public space’? d. Does Lewisham intend to commission an independent body to measure existing public realm and compare that proposed by St Modwen, and make these figures public?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 14.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Julie Reason
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
What arrangements have/will be made to re-house the current residents of the Leegate flats, whilst the redevelopment work is going on?
After redevelopment, willthe original residents be re-housed in the new development, as they have been part of the Lee Green community for many years and surely should be given privileged access to the new flats or houses as appropriate? By ‘privileged access’ I mean that ifthe accommodation is too costly for them that St Modwen and the Council should subsidise them according to their financial needs.’
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 17
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Gordana Lazic-Duffy
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
In the executive summary of the Leegate sustainability statement, the applicant says ‘itis recommended that a central combined heat and power plant, air source heat pumps and a photovoltaic array should be incorporated in the scheme’. There was nowhere in the application that mentioned where these features would be discharged (no illustration on the drawings either) or noise & air pollution as measurements of their effects on the neighbouring residents’ homes and gardens and public spaces.
WillLewisham require St Modwen to submit further details of these plants, pumps and airway pipes and outlets array for consideration before the Leegate application is considered?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 18
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Julie Williams
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Chapter 9 of St Modwen’s Leegate environmental statement volume I states that the area most affected by supermarket noises willbe Leybridge court (9.140), and concludes that noise levels there willbe acceptable. However, new Leegate residents and those in existing Carston Close willbe much closer to noise pollution in their gardens and homes and yet there is no mention or measurement of the levels of noise pollution that they will be exposed to. IfAsda remains open 24 hours the noise element would be of further concern.
Will Lewisham require St Modwen to submit further evidence of the noise impact on both Leegate and Carston Close residents in the redeveloped Leegate before considering St Modwen’s planning application?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 19
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Emma Warren
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
In November 2014 St Modwen supplied A Better Lee Green with Design Panel reports on Leegate. The Design Panel report stated ‘cars within the central courtyard would not produce an acceptable livingenvironment or appropriate communal amenity aspect to the development for the residents. The proposals for a planted deck including large trees, whilst desirable, were not yet convincing, given the weight of the trees and the material needed to sustain them. The panel noted this as potentially failing the scheme’. To add further doubt, St Modwen is to enter a five year agreement for maintenance of the planting. St Modwen has a poor record of maintenance of its properties, so it is likelythat the planted deck willquickly deteriorate after five years.
How can this potential failing of the Leegate scheme be addressed to ensure acceptable livingenvironment and communal amenity?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 20
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Marietta Stankova
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
In their planning application for redevelopment of the Leegate centre, St Modwen claim endorsement of their proposals by the Greater London Authority (GLA)by quoting selectively a short excerpt from a pre-application response by the GLA Planning Unit. It appears that as a statutory consultee, the GLAwere given figures that show the public space in the proposed scheme increasing in size by 21%, from 3774 sqm (according to the applicant’s July 2014 Screening and Scoping Request Report) to 4571 sqm (according to the applicant’s Screening and Scoping Request Report, GLA pre-application response and Lewisham Design Panel Review Panel).
As it is clear from simple scrutiny of the plans that the open public space is being significantly reduced, is it the case that the GLA, and other consultees, were supplied with inaccurate figures? Would this call the GLA’s response and St Modwen’s reliance on it into question?
Lewisham’s Planning Department, Deputy Mayor and Lee Green councillors have been made aware of the discrepancy at community meetings and at the public discussion of the proposals last March. Whose responsibility is it to inform the GLA, Lewisham’s Design Review Panel and Lewisham’s Strategic Committee of the incorrect measurements of public space in the Leegate Centre and has this been done yet? Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 21
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JUNE 2015
Question asked by: Roger Hum
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Core Strategy Policy 1. The Council will seek the maximum provision of affordable housing with a strategic target for 50% affordable housing from all sources’
In Leegate, St Modwen proposes 12 affordable and 24 shared ownership properties which represent just 16% of the proposed housing. St Modwen defends this reduction with their viabilityassessment: This assessment is not made public, leading to public scepticism.
St Modwen may claim that the viability assessment is confidential due to trade secrets and prejudice to commercial interests, however, the decision to publish is not St Modwen’s but Lewisham Council’s, and there is substantial precedent that the viability assessment should be made public.
Recently, in a first-tier tribunal review, Greenwich Council lost an appeal against a decision by the Information Commissioner to make public an economic viability report that related to the Greenwich peninsula development. The tribunal report said in its cover that using FOIA exemption Sections 41 and 43(2) Private and Confidential is an obvious attempt to circumvent the report being made public in a FOIA request and that Companies can ask for exemptions or exceptions to be considered; but they ate not decision makers in relation to freedom of information. That task falls to the Public Authority, the ICO and, sometimes, the Tribunal.
In response to the above tribunal decision, Greenwich Council recently confirmed its intention to make all financial viability reports public.
Further, the BBC recently lost an appeal to keep private two contracts relating to licence fee collection. The Commissioner accepted that some of the information in the contracts was commercially sensitive and it was likelythat it would prejudice the BBC’s commercial interests. However, in this case, even though the information was commercially sensitive, the public interest overrode confidentiality.
Question: Given the above precedents, will Lewisham made immediately available; a. St Modwen’s financial viabilityassessment regarding Leegate; b. Like Greenwich, future financial viability statements relating to development in the borough?
Reply
Please see the response to Public Question 10. Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 6
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Patricia Richardson
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
How many properties in the new Leegate development willbe available as affordable housing to rent? Does the council consider itwill be able to sustain the costs of rent rebates to enable the less well-off to be able to rent such properties, ifthe true cost of rent is the going rate for marketable rents in the area? What willbe the impact of the numbers of new residents on local schools, GPs and space?
One of the stated aims of the redevelopment is to provide more competition in retailing. Competition from another supermarket may well damage some of the smaller businesses thus eradicating the competitive factor. Has the Council researched such possible effects and what was the outcome? Also what happens to these businesses while the new centre is under construction and local residents have less competition? Has the council taken these possibilities into account when formulating its planning policy?
How many properties in the new Leegate development willbe available as affordable housing to rent? Does the council consider it willbe able to sustain the costs of rent rebates to enable the less well-off to be able to rent such properties, ifthe true cost of rent is the going rate for marketable rents in the area? What willbe the impact of the numbers of new residents on local schools, GPs and space?
One of the stated aims of the redevelopment is to provide more competition in retailing. Competition from another supermarket may well damage some of the smaller businesses thus eradicating the competitive factor. Has the Council researched such possible effects and what was the outcome? Also what happens to these businesses while the new centre is under construction and local residents have less competition? Has the council taken these possibilities into account when formulating its planning policy?
Reply
This note has been prepared in response to a significant number of public questions that are to be raised at the Council Meeting on 17 September.
The site and its context
The Leegate Centre is situated at the junction of Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Road which comprises the A20 running west to Lewisham and central London, or south east to both the M20 and M25. The South Circular A205 is a short distance away to the south and there are numerous bus routes with pick up/drop off points immediately adjacent.
To the south of the shopping centre lies a large multi-storey car park and former petrol station, both of which form part of the site boundary for redevelopment.
• The site area is 1.53 hectares (including the car park and petrol station). • The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 3, • The site is located within a Flood Zone • The Lee Manor Conservation Area is located lOOmto the south of the site. • There is an existing public square in the north east cornet of the site with trees that are protected by Preservation Orders (TPO). In principle, Officers consider the loss of this public square to be acceptable provided the development includes re-provision of high quality public realm and mature trees as part of the landscaping. • To the north and north east, there are three Listed Buildings
The centre has been in relative decline for a number of years and Officers are of the opinion that a comprehensive redevelopment would provide the best solution to revitalising the centre and the retail offer in particular. The redevelopment opportunities for the site are supported by the Council’s adopted Core Strategy and the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) which states the Council’s preferred option for development as being ‘retail led mixed use including housing, offices and hotel’.
Planning Policy
The Core Strategy defines Lee Green as a District Hub within which the town centre is designated as a District centre in the borough’s retail hierarchy. Spatial Policy 3 identifies district hubs as places which willsustain a diversity of uses and activities. Such locations will be managed to facilitate change that contributes to the economic vitality and viability of the District centre. The policy specifically states that the objectives for Lee Green are to improve civic space and facilitate a more intensive mixed use development on the shopping centre site and to improve connectivity between the shopping centre and the supermarket sites.
The Lewisham Site Allocations DPD (June 2013) refers to Lee Gate as Site SA23; a centre with underutilised land and regeneration potential. The policy document goes further to suggest an indicative housing provision of 130 dwellings. The Retail Capacity Study is quoted and warns that the continued decline of the Leegate Centre as being a threat to the Lee Green District Centre, and identifies the redevelopment or refurbishment of the Centre as an opportunity to provide modern retail units.
To summarise, the shopping centre is considered to form a significant part of the Primary Shopping Area within the Lee Green District Centre and its successful redevelopment would support and enforce the role of the District Centre within the borough’s retail hierarchy.
The proposal
Historically, the owners, St Modwen, were seeking to explore redevelopment of the site comprising a new supermarket on the southern section together with conversion of some of the existing buildings on the northern end.
The proposition of conversion and refurbishment has been discounted in its entirety because Officers believe that retention of the existing buildings places considerable constraints on how the site could deliver better public realm, permeability/legibility. Further, the existing buildings do not make a positive contribution to the townscape and Officers believe that they would require significantly more than refurbishment to make them attractive in the townscape. It is considered that a comprehensive mixed use development of the entire site is necessary to deliver a high quality, design led scheme that willmake a positive and sustainable contribution to the district centre.
The applicant is now proposing complete demolition to facilitate a comprehensive mixed use development with a supermarket as the anchor to support a range of other commercial uses and over 200 residential units. In principle, a proposal of this nature accords with adopted planning policies.
Key principles of the current proposal include:
• Comprehensive redevelopment of the site comprising total demolition and replacement of the Leegate Centre with high quality new buildings • Provision of a new supermarket together with other retail uses (A1-A4), a gym, education facility and community facility • Enhanced permeability, through the opening and regeneration of Carston Close (north) • High quality public realm provided in a new public square along Burnt Ash Road and improvements to Leyland and Eltham Roads • Opportunity to increase density taking into account renewed planning guidance for sustainable town centre locations. • The provision of a significant number of new homes, with new private and affordable housing ensuring a greater mix of local housing choice. • Provision of an upgraded car park to serve the supermarket and District centre.
Officers consider the principle of a mixed use scheme comprising a supermarket anchor, AJ/A2/A3/A4 and DJID2 uses, as well as a significant number of residential units to be acceptable subject to the uses being located appropriately within the development and in the context of the existing environs.
The use class for a supermarket is Al retail which is considered to be an appropriate use for a District Centre location. On balance, a large anchor supermarket is considered to be a reasonable form of enabling development. However the proposal also includes an opportunity for a number of small retail units that could be occupied by local independent businesses. As part of the application, St. Modwen will submit a retail study and an economic regeneration statement which will discuss capacity for the uses proposed, employment generation and measures to deal with existing businesses. Asda has been identified as the potential operator of the supermarket and has signed a Development Agreement with St Modwen. Nevertheless, the proposal will include reference to use classes and not specific operators and it is not for planning to consider the workings of individual companies.
The provision of civic space, public realm and permeability is an important element of the proposal which has been subject to a significant level of negotiation both with Officers and the Lewisham Design Review Panel. It is considered important to secure high quality public realm as part of the proposals as well as increasing permeability and connectivity to, from and through the site. An important part of this has been to create four active street edges, as well as a new public space, incorporating space allocated for market stalls on Burnt Ash Road.
The scale, mass and design of the proposed buildings have also been discussed at length with officers and the Design Review Panel. Officers will aim to secure an appropriate form and massing through the pre-application process. The evolution of the design will be set out in the Design and Access Statement and the Statement of Community Involvement.
Stage of the Proposal
The scheme is at pre-application stage. Officers have been engaged in high level discussions with the applicant team for approximately 2 1/2 years.
!n December 2013 St Modwen entered into a development contract with Asda and began detailed pre application discussions with Lewisham Officers. Officers are still in the process of negotiating details of the proposals. The applicant intends to submit a planning application towards the end of the year. Public engagement is an important part of the pre application process. St Modwen have been encouraged to engage with the local community since the outset. The most recent public exhibition was held on the weekend of 21st June 2014. Officers are satisfied with the community engagement to date and are pleased that more is proposed. When the planning application is submitted, the Council will undertake a statutory consultation exercise in order for members of the public to formally comment on the proposals.
A number of questions that have been raised cannot be answered until a planning application has been received and is valid. The planning application will provide confirmation of all matters regarding the development through the submission of drawings and supporting statements. The statements relevant to the questions raised that willbe submitted with the application are in the table below. The final list of documents willbe confirmed once the application is submitted.
Design and Access Statement The statement will set out the evolution of the final design and the design rationale for the proposals. Planning Obligations This document will set out the contributions Statement offered by the applicant in order to mitigate the impact of the development. It will respond to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations which includes reference to a wide range of infrastructure including health and education needs as a result of development. Environmental Statement This document will comprise a series of headings considering the Environmental Impact of the development during construction and occupation/use, including socio-economic matters. Affordable Housing Statement The statement will confirm the number of residential units and the dwelling and tenure mix for the scheme. Air Quality Impact This document will include details such as changes to traffic movement and the effect of the development on dust and pollution and proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. It will consider the consequent impact on air quality as a result of the development. Construction and This document will consider any congestion, Environmental Management pollution and noise that might affect local Plan residents and businesses and the environment generally during the construction process. Daylight/Sunlight Assessment This assessment will address any potential impact upon the current and proposed levels of sunlight/daylight to adjoining and proposed properties or buildings, including gardens and amenity space. Economic/Regeneration This document will advise of regeneration Statement benefits from the proposed development, including details of any new jobs that will be created or supported. Parking Management Plan This will confirm the parking strategy in and around the site. Statement of Community A statement will set out how the applicant Engagement has engaged with the public and has taken into account any representations received in the formulation of development proposals. Transport Assessment This will provide an assessment of the traffic that will be generated from the proposals as well as details of proposed measures to improve access by public transport, walking and cycling, to reduce the need for parking associated with the proposal, and to mitigate transport impacts. It willtake in account road safety and willbe subject to consultation with TfL. ViabilityAssessment The assessment willexplain how a proposed level of affordable housing has been derived. This document will be confidential and will be independently assessed by Viability consultants appointed by the Council.. Retail Assessment This willconsider the existing retail provision and sets out how the proposed development will result in a viable and healthy balance between the existing (on adjacent parades) and the proposed retail provision within the District Centre. Tall Building Assessment This document will consider the impact of any taller buildings proposed when viewed from different vantage points in the vicinity and will assess the appropriateness of the proposed buildings.
Members of the public have enquired as to why the Leegate Shopping centre was not purchased at the same time as the Cafford shopping centre. Questions have also been raised regarding why the Council does not use its Compulsory Purchase Order powers in order to buy Leegate from St. Modwen.
The Council rarely buys property of a large scale. The shopping centre including Milford Towers was purchased to assist in the comprehensive regeneration proposals for the Cafford Town Centre. in the case of Leegate, Officers feel that negotiations with St. Modwen are moving in the right direction and are hopeful that a satisfactory outcome willbe achieved. LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Marietta Stankova
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Given that:
(i) the Leegate centre is in an Air Quality Management Area and the scientifically collected and analysed data shows steady increase of the average annual levels of N02 at the diffusion tube site in Lee High Road (in 2011- itwas 36pg1m3, in 2012-39pg/m3 and in 2013-43pg1m3);
(ii) after applying the local adjustment factor the Lee High Road location is among the 12 diffusion tube locations which recorded annual mean N02 concentrations exceeding the annual mean N02 objective of 40 ig/m3, while after applying the national bias adjustment factor the Lee High Road location is among the 14 sites exceeding the annual mean N02 objective;
(iii) recent citizen science results show the Lee High Road (near the corner with Brightfield street) to exceed the legal N02 limits by as much as 66%. how concerned is the cabinet member with a redevelopment scheme for the Leegate centre which from its publicly-available pre-application documents makes it clear that it willbring more people to live in a spot of increasing traffic and deteriorating air quality at the same time as it willby the nature of its retail proposition encourage more people to drive to the same area. Would the approval of such a scheme contravene the legal and moral obligations of the Council to improve the air quality of its area and consequently, the quality of life of its existing and new residents?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question asked by: Julie Pannell-Rae
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
The development of the Leegate site:
The 2014 Silvertunnel Pollution study shows that Lee Green junction has pollution levels 66% higher than EU legal limits (Readings above 40 pg/m3 are in breach of EU air quality regulations).
Lewisham Council has designated Lee High Road including Lee Green Junction as an ‘AirQuality Management Area’ since nitrogen dioxide and particulate levels exceeded the council’s objective levels.
National Government Planning Framework: Page 9 states ‘encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion’.
London Plan: 6.38 writes ‘The Mayor wishes to see DPDs and Local Implementation
Plans (LIPs) take a coordinated approach to tackling congestion . . by promoting local services that reduce the need to travel’
Does the Mayor agree that any developments in Lee Green District Centre should not increase and should preferably decrease pollution and congestion?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 13
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Natalie Doucy
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Given that there are currently around 15 independent retailers in the Leegate Centre, can the Mayor assure residents that current niche offer willnot be reduced?
Looking at the success of the Westfield shopping malls in Stratford and in the US, one can see the success of the open-air malls while more and more old-fashioned huge malls are going bankrupt (look at what happened in Detroit). Why change the Leegate design? Do you agree that this just needs to be refurbished and requires a variety of shops (attracting firms like Costa, small Waitrose and Hobby Craft). Leegate has insufficient space to provide for both another supermarket —sized competitive convenience shopping provision and more choice and diversity in the form of comparison and A31415shops.
Does the Mayor agree that any developments in Lee Green District Centre should not increase and should preferably decrease pollution and congestion?
Spacial Policy 3 for Lee Green states that plans should ‘Improve Civic Space’. “The strategy seeks to create a permeable, memorable and sustainable place’. Does the mayor agree that the size and quality of the existing civic space in the Leegate Centre must be protected?
How willyou deal with traffic congestion and car parks, and what about road safety with three schools in the immediate vicinity?
There ate non-acceptable inconsistencies in the public consultation which referred to 7 to 8 small retail units and 250 residential ones and the Screening and Scoping request which quotes 6 and 300 respectively. Willthis be re-submitted with a necessary clarification on those points?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 14
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Atanas Christev
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
The London Plan and the Councils’ Retail Capacity Study, suggest councils increase their use of Compulsory Purchase Powers to purchase property on the grounds that it is mostly empty as per The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act May 2004. The National Planning Framework also states that CPOs can be used to ensure that ‘needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full’. Lewisham’s Site Allocations Local Plan at 2.3 states: ‘Where comprehensive redevelopment of an area is indicated, the Council may choose to use its compulsory purchase powers’.
Does the Mayor believe that ifthe current owners of the (mostly empty) Leegate Centre, which sits at the heart of Lee Green district centre, are unwillingto provide a solution in line with Lewisham’s own planning policies, then the Council could use its Compulsory Purchase Order powers to purchase the site for itself or on behalf of a third party. Who would provide the funds, to achieve a satisfactory outcome for Lee Green?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 15
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Emma Warren
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
St Modwen’s proposals for the Leegate centre.
Spatial Policy 3 for Lee Green states that plans should ‘Improve Civic Space’. Spatial Strategy 3 C states that: ‘Connectivity improvements to and throughout each district centre will be prioritised where development opportunities arise and where the Council can play a lead role. The emphasis within the District town centres will be to protect the existing open spaces from development and to promote environmental improvements which enhance the role of the centre and its attractiveness for those who shop there and use other services. The strategy seeks to create a permeable, memorable and sustainable place’
Does the Mayor agree that the size and quality of the existing civic space in the Leegate Centre must be protected?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 16
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Lewisham Council commissioned a Retail Capacity Study in 2009 and its findings, in line with National Planning and London Plan requirements for an evidence based approach, were included in Lewisham’s Core and Spatial Strategies: In regards to Lee Green District Centre it was found that development should:
facilitate a more intensive mixed use development on the shopping centre site to strengthen its role and function, in particular strengthen the A3/4/5 role to provide a niche offer’
Given that there are currently 20 independent retailers in the Leegate Centre, can the Mayor assure residents that the Leegate Centres niche offer will not be reduced through future redevelopment?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6.
I Question I Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 17
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Kate Quarry
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Proposed development at Leegate.
Do you share my concerns about the size of the Asda that is planned? At the moment the Lee Green junction is already quite slow at busy periods. Even during quiet periods, it’svery slow for people wanting to turn right. Presumably Asda is hoping to attract several thousand shoppers a day, most of whom willdrive. This is going to make the queues at the junction extremely long, and large numbers of drivers will use nearby roads as rat runs.
I understand that Lewisham Council has designated Lee High Road, including Lee Green junction, as an ‘AirQuality Management Area’ because it already has pollution levels 66% higher than EU legal limits. Does the Mayor agree that it would be better to rethink the plans and have a smaller supermarket at the site, which would leave space for more small shops and cafes, to encourage locals to shop on foot there and others to travel by bus to shop there. This would then make a reduction in vehicle emissions more attainable.
Reply Please see the answer to Public Question No.6.
I Question I Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 18
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mr Bull
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
The 2014 Silvertunnel Pollution study shows that Lee Green junction has pollution levels 66% higher than EU legal limits (Readings above 40 pg/m3 are in breach of EU air quality regulations).
Lewisham Council has designated Lee High Road including Lee Green Junction as an ‘AirQuality Management Area’ since nitrogen dioxide and particulate levels exceeded the council’s objective levels.
National Government Planning Framework: Page 9 states ‘encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion’
London Plan: 6.38 writes ‘The Mayor wishes to see DPDs and Local Implementation
Plans (LIPS)take a coordinated approach to tackling congestion . . . by promoting local services that reduce the need to travel’
Does the Mayor agree that any developments in Lee Green District Centre should not increase and should preferably decrease pollution and congestion?
Spatial Policy 3 for Lee Green states that plans should ‘Improve Civic Space’. Spatial Strategy 3 C also states that: ‘Connectivity improvements to and throughout each district centre willbe prioritised where development opportunities arise and where the Council can play a lead role. The emphasis within the District town centres will be to protect the existing open spaces from development and to promote environmental improvements which enhance the role of the centre and its attractiveness for those who shop there and use other services. The strategy seeks to create a permeable, memorable and sustainable place’ Does the Mayor agree that the size and quality of the existing civic space in the Leegate Centre must be protected? And can he further explain how the current proposed development under St Modwen conforms to this agreed Civic Space strategy?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6.
Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 19
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: James Stanbury
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Proposals for Leegate Centre
Would plans for a large supermarket be able to ensure that smaller independent businesses would be able to have a role there?
As pollution and congestion are already a problem in Lee Green would a new large supermarket, which people would be driving to, increase the pollution and traffic problems in the area?
We do not need another larger supermarket, we already have competitive supermarket shopping in the area; Lidlon Lee High Road and Tesco in Lewisham. Should other opportunities be considered when redeveloping Leegate to provide amenities that the area does not already have and would be well used by local residents; for example a large soft play area for the young families in the area, something that people could walk to? Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6.
Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 20
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: S Chishtie
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Proposals for Leegate Centre
1. Why are the existing shops not being retained. Do the plans ensure the existing local businesses that people in the area use remain?
2. Are you aware there is a local market that is held on Wednesday and Saturday - this is part of our community and should not be lost in the regeneration and they should not have to pay more to remain there?
3. Do you agree an Asda is neither needed nor wanted by the local community? I understand that you need someone to fund the regeneration but do you agree that this is not the best way to go about it and does not take the community views into account? Can you take a look at Blackheath and the Brunswick centre for what Lee should be like and represent?
4. Do you agree the major issue with the existing Leegate centre is the pub and the type of people this attracts. The proposal is not addressing this fundamental issue. The pub, despite lease agreements should not remain ifyou want to improve the area and increase the safety? 5. Why do we need an incredibly large number of new homes? Do you find it astonishing that the plans are even allowed to include 200 plus new homes on top of the Asda. The height of the proposal is absolutely ridiculous and the number of new flats and people this willattract is not necessary and completely unjustified when you are aiming to improve the area.
6. Are you aware the proposal willincrease the traffic at the junction - this is already terrible as it is? With the changes, this willbe even worse. The proposal does not address this at all.
7. Are you aware that as a result of the ridiculous number of proposed homes, there will be a massive increase in the number of cars on Leyland Road and surrounding roads? We barely have enough spaces as it is - this willonly make it worse unless you significantly reduce the number of fiats and provide a space for each one and ban them from parking on toads. We should not have a CPZ enforced to fix this as we willbe out of pocket for a proposal that we don’t even agree to.
8. Ate you aware that the number of commuters travelling from nearby stations (Lewisham, Lee and Blackheath) as well as on the buses is already over capacity and in actual fact, unbearable? Building such a large number of homes willmake this beyond control. Nowhere in the proposal is there mention of working with Tfl to increase the number/size of trains and the number of buses - this is the only way to address this unless you significantly reduce the number of proposed homes to a more realistic number, e.g. 50.
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6.
I Question PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 21
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Glynis Tomes
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
The 2014 Silvertunnel Pollution study shows that Lee Green junction has pollution levels 66% higher than EU legal limits (Readings above 40 pg/m3 are in breach of EU air quality regulations).
Lewisham Council has designated Lee High Road including Lee Green Junction as an ‘AirQuality Management Area’ since nitrogen dioxide and particulate levels exceeded the council’s objective levels.
National Government Planning Framework: Page 9 states ‘encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion’
London Plan: 6.38 writes ‘The Mayor wishes to see DPDs and Local Implementation
Plans (LIPs) take a coordinated approach to tackling congestion . . . by promoting local services that reduce the need to travel’ Does the Mayor agree that any developments in Lee Green District Centre should not increase and should preferably decrease pollution and congestion? Does the Mayor consider the proposed development at Leegate will help to improve the image of “the worst shopping centre in the country” and does he consider that an Asda Store willenhance the area already blighted by the 3 murders in 3 years?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6.
Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 22
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: E. Kettlewell
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Proposed Lee Green Development
Pollution study shows that Lee Green junction has pollution levels 66% higher than EU legal limits (Readings above 40 pg/m3 are in breach of EU air quality regulations).
Lewisham Council has designated Lee High Road including LeeGreen Junction as an ‘AirQuality Management Area’ since nitrogen dioxide and particulate levels exceeded the council’s objective levels.
National Government Planning Framework: Page 9 states ‘encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion’
London Plan: 6.38 writes ‘The Mayor wishes to see DPDs and Local Implementation
Plans (LIPs) take a coordinated approach to tackling congestion .. . by promoting local services that reduce the need to travel’ Does the Mayor agree that any developments in Lee Green District Centre should not increase and should preferably decrease pollution and congestion? Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6.
Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 23
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Diana Stevenson
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Is the Mayor aware that the plans for the new Asda superstore on the Leegate Centre site propose a single point of entry and exit for both delivery lorries and customers’ vehicles on Burnt Ash Road, in a residential area where children live? Has the Council considered the increase in noise, pollution, congestion and safety levels that this willcause? Immediately opposite the proposed entry/exit site for lorries and customer cars is a block of 6 flats in which live 4 young children, one of whom is autistic. Has the Council considered the detrimental effect on the health of children and adults livingin the immediate vicinity of this proposed entry and exit point for the Asda site? The 2014 Silvertown Pollution Study shows that the Lee Green junction already has pollution levels 66% higher than the EU legal limits, and Lewisham Council has designated Lee High Road including the Lee Green junction as an Air Quality Management Area since nitrogen dioxide and particulate levels exceed the Council’s objective levels. The National Government Planning Framework, Page 9, states “Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.” In what way does this proposed Superstore requiring a huge new lorry delivery and customer vehicle entrance fulfilthese official national and local planning objectives? Is the mayor aware that bus stops on both sides of Burnt Ash Road at the proposed entry and exit point for the Asda superstore are full of school children before and after school, who frequently fillthe pavements? Has the Council carried out an observational assessment of the proposed location of the entry/exit site and its surroundings, to assess the suitability of the site in terms of safety and congestion? Is the Council aware that the once-daily Iceland lorries who deliver to this point on Burnt Ash Road at present sometimes have difficultygetting in and out, and block the traffic in Burnt Ash Road? I cannot believe that any traffic and safety survey would find this site suitable for an entry/exit point for a large superstore. The size of the proposed new store is far too large for this already congested, polluted and unsafe spot. Has the Council considered whether approval of this proposed development in its present form would leave the Council in breach of its own regulations and duty of care to the local community?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 25
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mr Nisbet
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
With reference to Government policy and site-specific local development plan policy which, though not yet adopted, is the most recent and has already been consulted on: The Leegate is a settlement where development proposals should be considered very carefully: overexpansion in capacity could ruin the social character of the area while estate development would overwhelm it, what should be questioned in particular is; 1.Lewisham’s Development Management Local Plan 2.12 states that ‘Planning policies should promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer.
The councils 2009 Retail Capacity Study, upon which its Spatial Strategy for Lee Green is based, states that there is a ‘shortage of comparison, A3/4/5 provision’ and that ‘convenience shopping is well served’As the 8th smallest of Lewisham’s 9 District Centres, Leegate has insufficient space to provide for both another supermarket -sized competitive convenience shopping provision and more choice and diversity in the form of comparison and A3/4/5 shops. Does the mayor consider it more important to provide competition for convenience shopping (which is ‘wellserved’ and already has competition in Lidiin Eltham and Lee High Road and Tesco in Lewisham) or an increase in A3/4/5 shopping, as the council is obliged to do, per its Spatial Strategy, since there is not space for both?
Furthermore, the only identified the priorityfor space is the need is for affordable housing for residents who work locally,. As an alternative to this proposal, we would support the the reduced sizing of retail capacity for the increase in construction of houses built on if it was ensured that these were affordable homes for local people. 2. The 2014 Silvertunnel Pollution study shows that Lee Green junction has pollution levels 66% higher than EU legal limits (Readings above 40 pg/m3 are in breach of EU air quality regulations).
Lewisham Council has designated Lee High Road including Lee Green Junction as an ‘AirQuality Management Area’ since nitrogen dioxide and particulate levels exceeded the council’s objective levels.
National Government Planning Framework: Page 9 states ‘encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion’ London Plan: 6.38 writes ‘The Mayor wishes to see DPDs and Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) take a coordinated approach to tackling congestion .by promoting local services that reduce the need to travel’ Does the mayor agree that any developments in Lee Green District Centre should ii increase and should preferably decrease pollution and congestion? 3. The London Plan and the Councils Retail Capacity Study suggest councils increase their use of Compulsory Purchase Powers to purchase property on the grounds that it is mostly empty as per The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act May 2004. The National Planning Framework also states that ‘CPOs can be used to ensure that ‘needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full’. Lewisham’s Site Allocations Local Plan at 2.3 states: Where comprehensive redevelopment of an area is indicated, the Council may choose to use its compulsory purchase powers’ Does the Mayor believe that ifthe current owners of the (mostly empty) Leegate Centre, which sits at the heart of Lee Green district centre, are unwillingto provide a solution in line with Lewisham’s own planning policies, then the council could use its Compulsory Purchase Order powers to purchase the site for itself or on behalf of a third party who would provide the funds, to achieve a satisfactory outcome for Lee Green?
4. Many residential streets in the Lee Green area experience heavy traffic during rush hour and the school run, exacerbated by rat-running because of congested main roads.
As traffic-calming measures and CPZs have not alleviated the problem, could the
mayor and council reveal ifthey have given attention to this problem , ifthey have considered any steps to deal with it and how they plan to address it in future? Could they confirm commitment to the reduction of traffic congestion and rat-running in residential streets and thus improving road safety including with regards to major developments such as the Leegate regeneration scheme - which willby admission of its developers willincrease significantly out-of-ward and out-of-borough incoming traffic to Lee Green St Modwnes admitted site increased traffic as a negative effect of their plans in their scoping request to Lewisham Council.
What are the responsibilities of the local planning authority to ensure that landlords and developers carry out timely, meaningful and proper consultation with regard to their planning proposals? Are the Mayor and cabinet aware that the statutory public consultation for the Leegate regeneration scheme was limited (in time - as it amounted to no more than a fullworking day, in area - as key affected toads and residents were not notified, in content - due to the formulation of the available responses on the questionnaire, through the fact that the deadline for responses was not clearly advertised until shortly before it expired and consequently, are they satisfied that the consultation has been conducted adequately? Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 26
Priority 1
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Caroline Bray
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Proposed Development at Leegate
1. Willthe people who currently live in the redevelopment area be offered accommodation in the new development at prices they can afford?
2. How many of the employees of the proposed Asda be able to afford to live on the site?
With housing prices rising far beyond the reach of many people in poorly paid jobs I would hope that Lewisham Council willtreat the needs if people already living and working in Lee as a priority ifthe redevelopment is to go ahead.
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 27
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Julie Williams
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
1). What are the responsibilities of the local planning authority to ensure that developers carry out timely, meaningful and proper consultation with regard to their planning proposals? Are the Mayor and Cabinet aware that the statutory public consultation for the Leegate regeneration scheme was limited? The consultation amounted to no more than a full working day. Itwould seem that key affected toads and their residents were not notified of the public consultation. Many of the roads adjacent to Leegate did not receive an invitation including Leyland Road where I live, however, many houses in roads further afield were door dropped. Is this a fair consultation if many of the residents that willbe most affected by this development were not actually informed of this event and can you ask St Modwen to explain this? I was also not entirely happy with the way the event itself was promoted on the days it was running. Very small handwritten signs were on display and I think the majority of people walking through Leegate would not have been aware. Lastly I felt the questionnaire on the website should have stated the deadline for responses. This was not added on until shortly before it expired. Iwould like to know ifthe Mayor and the councillors are completely satisfied that this consultation had been conducted adequately? 2). Do the mayor and councillors believe that in development consultations it is important to inform the affected local community of specific and firm proposals in order to allow for adequate and informed response by interested parties. How would they comment on the proposals for the Leegate centre where in the scope of just over a month, there is significant difference between the information available: the public consultation referred to 7 to 8 small retail units and 250 residential ones while the Screening and Scoping request quotes 6 and 300 respectively?
3). I am very interested in hearing the outcome of the public consultation for the regeneration of the Leegate centre. How can the Mayor and councillors help local residents and users find out what the cumulative public response has been, since to date St Modwen have not publicised any results?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 28
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Bilal Khan
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Lewisham Council commissioned a Retail Capacity Study in 2009 and its findings, in line with National Planning and London Plan requirements for an evidence based approach were included in Lewisham’s Core and Spatial strategies. In regards to Lee Green District Centre it was found that development should:
‘facilitate a more intensive mixed use development on the shopping centre site to strengthen its role and function, in particular strengthen the A31415role to provide a niche offer’
Given that there are currently around 15 independent retailers in the Leegate Centre, can the Mayor assure residents that current niche offer willnot be reduced?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 30
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mark Nightingale
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Would the Mayor and Council consider it important that schemes such as the proposed Leegate Centre should be based on up-to-date retail and consumer research and independent analysis of the needs and concerns of the local community rather than only the assertions of the developer and interested big business? So far residents have been given the choice between a superstore (2012 proposals) and a superstore with housing (2014). Since the store proposal has been supported by no firm quantitative evidence, my experience suggests that the majority of neighbours and users of the Leegate centre oppose it on a number of grounds, including lack of necessity, massing and lack of permeability and negative environmental consequences. Would the Mayor be willingto facilitate more representative and meaningful investigation into a compromise which willsatisfy different stakeholders?
The 2014 Silvertunnel Pollution study shows that Lee Green junction has pollution levels 66% higher than EU legal limits (Readings above 40 pg/m3 are in breach of EU air quality regulations). Lewisham Council has designated Lee High Road including Lee Green Junction as an ‘AirQuality Management Area’ since nitrogen dioxide and particulate levels exceeded the council’s objective levels.
National Government Planning Framework: Page 9 states ‘encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion’
London Plan: 6.38 writes ‘The Mayor wishes to see DPDs and Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) take a coordinated approach to tackling congestion .by promoting local services that reduce the need to travel’
Does the mayor agree that any developments in Lee Green District Centre should not increase and should preferably decrease pollution and congestion?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 34
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: June Jolly
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Is the Mayor aware that St Modwens, owners of the Leegate Centre, are proposing to use funding from Asda to redevelop the centre, with an Asda store at its centre?
Is the Mayor also aware that supermarkets tend to provide fewer net jobs and lower quality jobs than independent stores?
A 1998 study by the National Retailer Planning Forum (NRPF) examining the employment impacts of 93 supetstore openings between 1991 and 1994 found that they resulted in a net loss of more than 25,000 jobs or 276 per store opened.
The Friends of the Earth 2005 Good Neighbours?’ report showed that supermarket chains control more than 80% of the grocery market and yet they employ only 50% more staff than small shops. The conclusion being that small shops are better for employment than a superstore
Is the Mayor also aware that In February 2006 Asda WalMart was found to and fined for having broken trade union laws by offering illegal inducements to workers to quit the GMB union? Does the Mayor think it appropriate that St Modwens used the creation of jobs by Asda as an excuse for their plans not being compliant with Planning Laws at its recent consultation on the Leegate Centre redevelopment?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6.
Question Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 37
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Julia Brundell
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question Are you aware that indisputable empiric evidence, well-known to local residents, shows the Lee Green junction to be very busy on a daily basis and heavily congested at certain hours?
Do you agree that we need less traffic in this area and more attention paid to quality of lifefor local residents.
The plans for the new Asda superstore in the Leegate Centre propose a single point of exit! entry for both deliveries and customers’ vehicles in Burnt Ash Road not far from the main access to the Sainsbury’s via Taunton Road. How would the Council evaluate such proposals in terms of traffic congestion, road safety (three schools and a GP practice in the immediate vicinity)and amenity of the neighbourhood?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 43.
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Patricia Richardson
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
St Modwen personnel admitted that only Asda was interested as the key retailer in the new Leegate development, in spite of overtures to other supermarket retailers. Asda is a wholly owned division, a subsidiary, of the American retail company Walmart. Has the Council taken into account the tax status of this company and its tax contributions to the United Kingdom Exchequer? Does it contribute its fair share through corporation tax?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 47.
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Lewisham Council commissioned a Retail Capacity Study in 2009 and its findings, in line with National Planning and London Plan requirements for an evidence based approach, were included in Lewisham’s Core and Spatial strategies. In regards to Lee Green District Centre is was found that development should: improve the connectivity between the shopping centre and the supermarket sites’
The council is obliged to ensure its District Centres are developed in line with its planning documents. What attempts has the Council made to achieve this increased connectivity, including negotiations with Sainsburys and St Modwens.
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 53.
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Patricia Richardson
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Last year I asked the Council a question on the possible impact of increased traffic to the Leegate area ifthe development went ahead. The Council answered that such impacts would be considered at the time of the planning application. We know now that there willbe 250 housing units with underground parking for a proportion of that number. Where willthose without an allocated space and any visitors park? Will this have an impact on local CPZs?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 58.
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Lewisham’s Development Management Local Plan 2.12 states that ‘Planning policies should promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer.
The Council’s 2009 Retail Capacity Study, upon which its Spatial Strategy for Lee Green is based, states that there is a ‘shortage of comparison, A31415provision’ and that ‘convenience shopping is well served’
8th As the smallest of Lewisham’s 9 District Centres, Leegate has insufficient space to provide for both another supermarket —sized competitive convenience shopping provision and more choice and diversity in the form of comparison and A31415shops.
Given that Lewisham’s Retail Capacity Study prioritises diverse retail offer in Lee Green does the mayor consider it more important to provide competition for existing convenience shopping in Lee Green (which is already ‘well served’ for convenience shopping) or to increase provision for comparison, A3/4/5 shopping (of which there is a ‘shortage’)? Reply Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 59.
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Julia Fletcher
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
We were told that gas works at the Tiger’s Head junction in Bromley Road were to be completed this August. Does the Cabinet know whether or not this work has been done? If it has been done what steps are being taken by the Council to ensure the long promised pedestrian safety improvements are implemented?
Reply
TfL have updated Officers and have informed them that they intend to start on site on the 29th September 2014. Officers understanding are that easements were required by Southern Gas Networks (SGN), to establish a right of access through private land for a diverted gas main that is required as a result of TIL realigning a kerb. TfL’sworks in September willcommence in areas where there is no conflict with SGN, before moving on to the remaining areas after SGN have completed their gas mains works. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 60.
Priority 4
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Patricia Richardson
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Asda is set to provide space for 300 cars visiting its store in Lee Green. Has the Council investigated yet how much of an hourly increase in car traffic this willlead to? What might be the estimates of increase for Saturdays and Sundays? The crossroads junction at Lee Green already copes poorly with pedestrian, car, bus, truck and cycling traffic in spite of changes by TFL. Can the Council guarantee that the risk factors willnot be increased by more congestion?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 62.
Priority 4
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
The London Plan and the Councils Retail Capacity Study suggest councils increase their use of Compulsory Purchase Powers to purchase property on the grounds that it is mostly empty as per The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act May 2004. The National Planning Framework also states that ‘CPOs can be used to ensure that ‘needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full’.
Lewisham’s Site Allocations Local Plan at 2.3 states: Where comprehensive redevelopment of an area is indicated, the Council may choose to use its compulsory purchase powers’ Does the Mayor believe that ifthe current owners of the (mostly empty) Leegate Centre, which sits at the heart of Lee Green district centre, are unwillingto provide a solution in line with Lewisham’s own planning policies, then the council could use its Compulsory Purchase Order powers to purchase the site for itself or on behalf of a third party who would provide the funds, to achieve a satisfactory outcome for Lee Green? Reply Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 68.
Priority 6
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Spacial Policy 3 for Lee Green states that plans should ‘Improve Civic Space’.
Spacial Strategy 3 C states that: ‘Connectivity improvements to and throughout each district centre willbe prioritised where development opportunities arise and where the Council can play a lead role. The emphasis within the District town centres will be to protect the existing open spaces from development and to promote environmental improvements which enhance the role of the centre and its attractiveness for those who shop there and use other services. The strategy seeks to create a permeable, memorable and sustainable place’
Does the Mayor agree that the size and quality of the existing civic space in the Leegate Centre must be protected?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6.
Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 71.
Priority 8
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Is the Mayor aware that St Modwens, owners of the Leegate Centre, are proposing to use funding from Asda to redevelop the centre, with an Asda store at its centre?
Is the mayor also aware that it is likelythat the net impact to the area would be harmful as supermarkets retain less expenditure within the local economy than local businesses?
Is the Mayor also aware that supermarkets tend to provide fewer net jobs and lower quality jobs than independent stores? A 1998 study by the National Retailer Planning Forum (NRPF) examining the employment impacts of 93 superstore openings between 1991 and 1994 found that they resulted in a net loss of more than 25,000 jobs or 276 per store opened.
The Friends of the Earth 2005 ‘Good Neighbours?’ report showed that supermarket chains control more than 80% of the grocery market and yet they employ only 50% more staff than small shops. The conclusion being that small shops are better for employment than a superstore Is the mayor also aware that In February 2006 Asda WalMart was found to and fined for having broken trade union laws by offering illegal inducements to workers to quit the GMB union?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 72.
Priority 9
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Section 7.23 of The London Plan states ‘The massing, scale and layout of new buildings should help make public spaces coherent and complement the existing streetscape. They should frame the public realm at a human scale and provide a mix of land uses that enhance permeability in the area’.
London Plan 7.21: Architecture should contribute to the creation of a cohesive built environment that enhances the experience of living,working or visiting in the city. This is often best achieved by ensuring new buildings reference, but not necessarily replicate, the scale, mass and detail of the predominant built form surrounding them, and by using the highest quality materials. All buildings should help create streets and places that are human in scale so that their proportion and composition enhances, activates and appropriately encloses the public realm, as well as allowing them to be easily understood, enjoyed and kept secured. The building form and layout should have regard to the density and character of the surrounding development.
Lewisham’s Core Strategy 6.34 states that new buildings must’ provide a ‘sense of place’ through new buildings and spaces and an enhanced street environment that would raise the overall standard of design and environmental quality and improve the permeability and accessibility of the area’ a. Does the Mayor and his Cabinet believe that current levels of massing at the Leegate Centre should not be increased in any future plans for the site? b. Does the Mayor and his Cabinet believe that, as stated in the London Plan and Lewisham planning documents, levels of permeability at the Leegate Centre should not be decreased in any future plans?
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 73.
Priority 10
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
The National Planning framework says: ‘Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives. This should be a collective enterprise. Local planning authorities have a key role to play’ (Ministerial Foreword). The London Plan and Lewisham’s planning documents are also littered with sections stressing the importance of meaningful community involvement in development.
Does the Mayor believe that the need for meaningful community engagement has been satisfied with regards to proposed plans for the Leegate Centre by St Modwen’s 1.5 day consultation an plans in which residents had had no input, were misinformed on the facts, were not advised of the short cut-off date for response and who’s website response page had an inbuilt bias (allowing for two positive, one neutral and one negative response)?
Reply
Please see the answer to Public Question No. 6. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 9.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Jean Lindsey
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor Question
Are you aware that St Modwen’s ‘Public Exhibition’ current plans include 230 new homes with no mention of other amenities, other than the superstore with 300 parking spaces? An area of landscaping has been designed but this willbe 4 storeys up and only accessible to residents of the development. Do you share our concerns that ifthese proposals for Leegate go ahead, the Council have made no announcements as to how they willprovide additional services for extra residents?
Does the Council have plans to increase the number of local school places, especially sixth-form places, to accommodate these new residents or willall our children increasingly be consigned to long journeys to schools outside the borough? Can the Council consider encouraging St Modwen to introduce a ‘portfolio’of services onto the site which might address this increased need for educational facilities along with, for example, access to nurseries, GP surgeries, health centres, dentists, etc? Do you agree that a strong community cannot be built on large-scale retail alone?
Reply
N. The impact of a development forms a substantial part of the assessment of planning proposals.
Planning permission would only be granted ifany substantial impact from that development could be adequately mitigated.
Given the size of the Leegate site, together with the scale of development being proposed by St. Modwen, an Environmental Statement would have to be submitted with any planning application. An Environmental Statement would consider the cumulative impact of the proposals not just in the context of the application site, and the immediate surrounds, but in the context of other committed (emerging and recently completed) developments in the locality.
Any planning application submitted in respect of the redevelopment of the Leegate shopping centre would need to be submitted with Heads of Terms of a Planning Obligations Agreement. This is a list of measures put forward by the developer setting out how they intend to mitigate the impact of the development.
For a large development such as that proposed by St. Modwen, matters such as health and education would have to be addressed in the Heads of Terms.
The Council’s Planning Obligations SPD sets out the matters that should be mitigated in the context of the scale and kind of a development. This document forms the policy basis when considering any Heads of Terms submitted with an application. Please note that Lewisham is in the process of updating the existing 2011 Planning Obligations SPD. A new revised SPD is being produced. A draft of the revised Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document 2014 for public consultation is now out for public consultation with responses to be submitted by the 21 November 2014. A link to the adopted and revised document can be found here http://www.lewisham .gov.uk/myservices/planninq/policy/LDF/SPDs/Paqes/Planning obliqations.aspx
Depending on the matters to be mitigated, measures can be provided in kind or can be in the form of a financial contribution.
School place planning requires us to take account of new developments in the borough. The plans for this development are being scrutinised carefully in relation to their impact on demand. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 11.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
On the 27th of July I wrote to Lewisham’s planning department and asked them to involve CASE in negotiations with St Modwen to ensure best outcome for the redevelopment of the Leegate Centre because:
• CASE have expressed interest in advising on Leegate and twice offered their services to Lewisham planners.
• The local community is expressing concerns over plans presented to them to date, and the involvement of CASE would help reassure them • It is common practice that councils aske developers to pay for the services of CASE and CASE’s prices start at £3500 plus VAT, a lot less than the over £1 1,000 pounds spent on leafleting alone for the 15th November Exhibition held by St Modwen • CABE can start as early as next week and some of their services can take as little as two weeks to complete
Willthe Council involve CASE from now on? Ifnot, why not?
website
with
The
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/planning/conservation/Pages/Design The
confusion should The
members.
Chair) The
published during developments.
Review-Panel.aspx
Leegate
deliver
important
reason
review
Lewisham
Panel
terms
the
DRP
panel
redevelopment
(DRP)
ate/have
the
development
be
high the
-
help
review
link
has
from means
in
avoided.
assists
Further pre-application
of
Council
Planning
quality
2013
of
reference
is
below.
a
potentially
a
sessions.
CABE
consistent
been
of
group
and
states
details
considers
design
This
meeting
proposals
schemes
Service
CABE
and encourages
and
of
would
that
of
Both
conflicting
process
professional
in
Chair
follows
membership
the
panel
planning
operates
their
high
‘The
at
have
duplicate
Keith
DRP
and
pre-application
development
quality
review
best
with
review
developers
been
advice.’
Williams
Deputy
panel
policy
a
design
Lewisham
practice.
Reply
Design
time
of
design
of
reviewed
members
the
and
a
on
Chair
and
scheme
(Chair)
experts,
and
DRP
high
proposals.
review Review
stages
to
The
effort,
planning
who
their
be
a
as
quality
was
number
and
guidance
of
by
well
process
which
of
have
Panel.
design
and
great
refreshed
more
Ben
the
The
officers.
design
as
introduce
attended
of
meets
planning
many
van
importance.
The
than
advice
teams
can
issued
times
in
Bruggen
in
Design
be
one
regularly
of
new
August
by
to
is
the
by
all
found
the
process.
an
panel
achieve
the
the
CABE,
risk
other
For
Review
(Deputy
DRP
on
2013
to
of
this
the and
decades that
site
The
onto
become levels
provide
St and Other Centre clearly
routes
Could
independent
Question
Member
Modwen’s
in
public
Lewisham
current
these
on Councils
the
Lee
and
worded
from
an
to
run-down,
during
the
asked
Council
town
squares
attractive
roads,
suitable
reply:
consultation
being
shop
main
proposals
enough
Council
are
which
centre
by:
and
please
units
over-developed,
roads
able
to
spaces
with
Deputy
Imogen
shopping
inappropriate
this
the
which
LONDON
to
apparently
will
and
to
very by
in
explain
prevent
internal
private
resist
for
Lee
mean
St
Mayor
community
Solly
is
little
Modwens
markets
experience,
26
are
adequately
COUNCIL
the
whether
BOROUGH
landowner
such
markets,
public
unable
investment
NOVEMBER
with
already
&
loss
Question
unsustainable
and
Question
important
facilities?
the
squares
proposes
of
Time
to
Lewisham’s
MEETING
an
cafes
shielded
known
community
important
damaging
do
has
OF
evening
or
so?
2014
and
allowed will
District
improvement
LEWISHAM
If
the
to
PUBLIC
Priority
so,
from
development.
be
exceed
small
town
loss
irreversible
economy, Local
events.
why?
completely
Centre
traffic
the
of
centre
shops
QUESTION
I
Plan
legal
public
shopping
The
to
and
sites
safe
policies
will
shopping
loss
facilities.
or
Do
lost. air
squares,
air
safe
as
face
pedestrian
of you
pollution
pollution
centre
NO
This
the
the
are
limits,
entirely
agree
areas
13
Leegate
only
follows
not
to
to yet The Local Plan commits to ensuring Lee has a thriving evening economy, with community facilities and a diversity of smaller local shops and workspaces on the site. These willbe vital to the local economy and future quality of lifefor residents. Would you agree that Lewisham planning officers are being allowed to encourage such a damaging proposal behind the scenes, possibly contrary to Local Plan policies and the long term public good?
Reply
The Core Strategy defines Lee Green as a District Hub within which the town centre is designated as a District Centre in the borough’s retail hierarchy. Any level of development would have to accord with the principle objectives set out for the area.
Spatial Policy 3 identifies district hubs as places which willsustain a diversity of uses and activities. Such locations willbe managed to facilitate change that contributes to the economic vitality and viabilityof the District Centre. The policy specifically states that the objectives for Lee Green are to improve civic space and facilitate a more intensive mixed use development on the shopping centre site to strengthen its role and function and to improve connectivity between the shopping centre and the supermarket sites.
The Lewisham Site Allocations Development Plan Document (June 2013) designates Leegate as Site SA23, allocated as mixed use retail-led with housing, offices and hotel. It is noted that this allocation forms a significant part of the Primary Shopping Area within the Lee Green District Centre and willimprove the environmental quality. Its redevelopment would support and enforce the role of the District Centre within the borough’s retail hierarchy The Council’s Retail Capacity Study 2009 is quoted and cites the continued decline of the Leegate Centre as being a threat to the Lee Green District Centre. It identifies the redevelopment or refurbishment of the Centre as an opportunity to provide modern retail units.
Planning policies set out the overall ambitions for Lee Green. It is likelythat there will need to be a degree of flexibilityin respect of the quantum, scale and form of development in order to ensure that the owners of the site can bring forward a financially viable scheme. However such flexibilityis still governed by other planning policies such as those relating to density, design, transport links and other such site specific matters.
When a planning application is submitted, the Council willassess the proposals in light of the ambitions and requirements of the relevant planning policies. Planning officers willmake a recommendation based on a balanced judgement of how the proposals adhere, or otherwise, to the overarching ambitions of the strategic policies.
the
means suitable
and development charges, generations. and
protections Is mislaid Could
is pollution provide
pedestrianised
Question
Does Member
granted
it
Council
the
easements the
the
the
will
by
Council’s
the
main
area
to
and
covenants,
asked
Council
Council
to
the
residents
for reply:
only
can
mull
traffic
for
and
opportunity
local
existing
spaces
relating
give
by:
pedestrianized
market
public
intention
agree
its
clarify
authority? noise?
Sarah
Deputy
public
the
restrictions,
be
and
LONDON
public
to
spaces
consulted
that
stalls,
public
what
to
the
to
These
McMichael
spaces?
public
build
Mayor
the
allow
spaces
If
legal
land?
an
about
26
with
area
COUNCIL
so,
public
wayleaves
a
BOROUGH
pedestrian
attractive
rights
on
NOVEMBER
‘stopping
thriving
does
protections
a Have
of
this?’
and
Question
restrictions,
large
squares
Question
Reply
the
of
this
Time
rights
some
way
MEETING
evening
district
independent
retail
and
up
areas
loss
OF
on
currently
and
orders’
of
of 2014
easements
development?
charges,
LEWISHAM
of
the
way,
centre,
PUBLIC
the
and
Priority
economy
rights
records
Leegate
local
or
public
where
exist
retail
and
similar,
of
covenants,
QUESTION
2
records
of
way
affect
for
for
squares
offer
the
planning
relevance
site,
If
current
these
on
to
sole
so,
what
and
and
for
the
remove
via
wayleaves
offer
haven
the vital
permission civic
any
NO
Leegate
information
and
to
what
site
its
the
23.
other
future
space,
from
future
been
only site Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that proposals should ‘optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments).
Redevelopment proposals for Leegate would have to incorporate an acceptable provision of public realm and/or amenity space in order to be acceptable in planning terms.
Lewisham Council does not own the Leegate shopping centre and does not have specific information regarding covenants and easements. This information would be held with Land Registry. The planning department does however hold a record of planning decisions on the statutory register which you are welcome to view by making an appointment to visit the planning reception at Laurence House. Please call 0208 314 7400.
Any highways works intended with the proposals willbe set out in the planning application documents when submitted.
Private covenants and easements which might impede development are not directly relevant to the grant of planning permission. However, the grant of planning permission does not permit such rights to be overridden. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 39.
Priority 7
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mike Keogh
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
In February 2010 St Modwen sold Cafford Shopping Centre to the Council for
£11 .52M ( http:Hwww.stmodwen . co.uk/med ia-centre/news/view/st-modwen-sells cattord-shopping-centre-to-lewisham-borough-council ). KillianMorris, the Senior Development Manager said “St. Modwen remains committed to Lewisham, most notably the Leegate Centre where plans for its redevelopment are currently being considered”. Has any of the £1 1.52M been seen to be invested in the Leegate centre, is it likelyto be with the involvement of ASDA a preferred partner to St Modwen?
Reply
The purchase of the Cafford Shopping centre did not obligate St. Modwen to use the receipt of the sale in any specified way. The Council has not been advised by St Modwen how it is funding the current work to bring forward a planning application for the redevelopment of the Leegate centre. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 1.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Ray Woolford
Member to reply: Councillor Daby
Question
Depiford community are missing the Anchor which links the area’s Heritage to the High Street. Can the Council confirm when and where it willbe returned to Deptford?
Reply
The Anchor was removed from the southern end of Depiford High Street as part of the regeneration works funded by the Outer London Fund (OLF). The removal formed part of an overall initiative for the street to open up the southern end, to improve site lines into the street highlighting the retail offer and market on market days and to make the area feel safer. “Inground” services have been installed to provide opportunities for future events to happen in this area to further enhance what Depiford has to offer.
The Anchor remains the property of Lewisham and is currently in storage until such time that a suitable location becomes available for it to be reinstated in the Depiford area. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 2.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Rik Andrew
Member to reply: The Mayor
Question
Is the use of helicopters in the middle of the night by the Police really necessary? E.g 2 nights ago after midnight, not for the first time. Residents should be able to get a full night’s sleep uninterrupted by low flying very noisy helicopters.
Reply
The Police Helicopter is a London-wide resource used to fight and reduce crime. It provides a good platform for observation and photography and is equipped with infra-red imaging equipment. It is used to assist in vehicle pursuits, where a vehicle can be safely tracked and followed thereby minimising risks of injuryto the public.
It is also used to track missing persons hidden in gardens and undergrowth, particularly across a larger geographical area. Other uses include counter terrorism initiatives and escorting VIP and prisoner journeys across London. The service responds on a prioritised needs basis in response to calls for help from the public and local police.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is always alert to any noise issues generated by the flights, particularly those completed at anti-social hours. It is important to note that the MPS is not the only agency that operates helicopters at night. If individuals are able to record time and dates, the MPS can quickly establish if it was a police helicopter that was responsible for the noise nuisance. The public can follow a synopsis of police helicopter operations on Twitter @MPSINTHESKY which may assist. There is also the option of making a complaint to the CivilAviation Authority.
Council and police officers are happy to advise you, Mt Andrew, on how to take forward your complaints ifthat would be helpful. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 3.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Dan Strange
Member to reply: Councitlor Egan
Question
As the council plans to sell up to 20% of its new housing stock, can the Council confirm whether any caveats willbe included in the sales so that these properties are only for owner-occupiers, and not buy-to-let landlords - the increase of which has led to greater tenancy insecurity and higher rents for tenants.
Reply
At the Labour Council elections, Labour Councillors stood on a manifesto to commitment to build at least 500 new council owned homes. Part of the financing of the scheme is achieved by building up to 125 homes, in addition to the 500, for private sell.
Ifthe Council was to place covenant(s) on the sale of its new homes, this would restrict the potential sell value of that property, which could have implications for the delivery of the Council’s new home programme. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 4.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Ms Patricia Richardson
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
There have been recent reports in the local Press of the problems caused on Lewisham’s roads by large lorries. Some have occurred on TEL roads, some on roads managed by Lewisham Council.
Does Lewisham have any kind of policy governing the use of its roads, especially residential roads, by such traffic? Ifso, what does it contain? Are there any regulations which enable it to restrict or discourage such use in order to ensure health and safety?
Does Lewisham have any influence with TEL on the decisions it makes on its roads which run through Lewisham, in order to represent its residents and ensure safety for all?
Reply
The Council is requited to maintain access for HGVs to all parts of the borough, to enable deliveries and collections to homes and businesses, and to allow large service vehicles such as fire engines and refuse vehicles.
TfL The
are
enforcement vehicle
the
8 them
network public
-7 weight All
Over
notified
In lorry.
Lorry
night enforce
discourage
legally
Night
18.5 Unfortunately
particularly
Nevertheless,
AM.
AM
addition
roads
is
consulted
Borough
Council
tonnes
and
to
Night
the
and
operators
highway
This
&
limit
weight
only
This
of
effectively,
is
run
1PM
highway
in
weekends
Weekend
any
usually
the
HGVs.
restriction
Lorry
and the
the
the
(gross
does
provided
is
allowed restriction
-
on
violations
these
and
by
Midnight
through
overnight.
parking
borough,
lorries
can
use
one
any
Ban.
the
the
authority
exercise
vehicles
and
vehicle
Certain
Lorry
are
obtain
area
with
proposed
of
in
Borough’s
they
is
most
to
of
need
This
does on
(lorry.enforcementlondoncouncils.gov.uk)
defined
for
enforced
residential a
except
which
three
Ban,
HGVs
wide
In
weight).
comply
Saturday
for
some
range
areas
appropriate
with
permits
the
this the
prohibits
not
those
which
changes
or
the
parking
as
restrictions
more
purpose
active
the
on
context
influence
have
by
with
of
affect
more
between
and
permits
from
In
all
routes, &
South
the
prohibits
policy
than
goods
general
all
support weight
the
the
network
contractor.
to
other
axles
overnight
London
moving
day
the
of
their
conditions
with
Circular
streets
12
our
apply
have
9
loading
vehicles
measures,
Sunday.
Department
PM
the restrictions
passenger
exceeds
a
unsuitable
of
road
influence to
TfL
vehicle
Lorry
the
vehicles, during
-
movement
proved
carry
is
in
7
Road
concerning
network.
or
defined
Police.
AM
this
specified
of
Control
18.5
heavy
with
unloading
more
the
the
is
Monday
seats
in
(A205),
Borough
extremely
of
roads
limited.
only
place,
two
tonnes.
prohibited
Transport
as of
However
Council
than
goods
on
System
from
their
goods
between
by
axles
parked are
-
the
where
within
is
Friday,
5
through
roads,
parking
problematic
In
traffic,
limited
subject
permit
tonnes
vehicles
the
does
is
who
times
which
this
ones 6.30
below
HGVs
the
IlL
Midnight
and
context
and can
for
on
by
traffic,
try
within
to
gross
allow
area.
PM
toad
over
and
this
the
the
the
the
are
we
as
be
to to -
very
the
add whole
failure
shower
concerns
rooms approx
consequently panel a
rust
bad
Do Question
Member
Lewisham
bad
you
men’s
that
design
proof
helpful
on
design
of
and in
15%
agree
has
all
to
the
London?
the
about
asked
nuts
swimming
on
outside
reply:
the
and
in
not
of
pumps.
outside
and
all
June
that
their
and
all
staff
worked
the
build
by:
the
the
build,
Ate
since
have
jobs.
bolts
10th
ladies’
that
panels
The
changing measuring
Gerard
Councillor
that
tiles
you
LONDON
since
and
the
2013,
been
I
as
sauna
they
have
had
changing
aware
the
(approx)
opening
had
Ambrose
December
partly
to
replaced
rooms,
its
26
seen
previous
Best
COUNCIL
6”x3”
was
to
be
that
BOROUGH
many
NOVEMBER
be
redesigned
replaced
rooms
90 out
of
since
Question
both
80
completely
fell
Reply
the
Question
faults
were
the
2013. fittings of
lockers
Time
down
June
MEETING
pools
action
new
and
whole
taken
as
make
OF
The
were
the
just
Glass
owing
2013
they
2014
are
are
for
LEWISHAM
rebuilt.
floor
PUBLIC
ED
floors Priority
dance
down
this
missing
closed
nearly
now
only
were
have
Mill
Corn
to
over
one
The
design
and
in
broken
screws
Leisure
classes
incorrectly
been
three
QUESTION
I
the
owing
Servs
a
of
a
gym
fitted
period
young
the
men’s
faults.
professional
and
months
which
centre
to
floor
upstairs.
worst
correctly
of a
lady
the
fitted.
changing
mechanical
There
five
was
rusted. NO
builds
in
disabled
because
weeks,
May
A
5.
such
with
are
and
glass
in
In
I
the
a of We ate very proud of the new flagship Glass Millleisure centre. It is attracting customers in large numbers and has won a London Planning Award for its design. The judges commended the building for its ‘transformational impact on the wider area, benefits to the local community, design and ingenuity’.
There have, however, been a number of building defects with the Glass MillLeisure Centre. As is normal practice, the developers (Barraffs London) have a 12 months liabilityto remedy these defects and then a liabilityto resolve any latent defects that subsequently arise. The Council has been working with Barratts to address these defects in a timely manner whilst trying to minimise the disruption to customers. We hope that the end result is a better facility for all.
It is always regrettable when such defects have to remedied but not at all unusual as part of the handing over process.
I am pleased that you have found the staff helpful. The high usage of Glass Millhas resulted in on going repairs such as broken lockers and the Council continues to work with Fusion to ensure that repairs can be undertaken quickly. I very much hope that with the remedy of building defects, residents willcontinue to enjoy a high quallty, first class leisure centre. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 6.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Clare Griffiths
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Willthe council publish its response to the London 2050 Infrastructure Consultation that closed on 31 October?
Reply
The Council’s response was discussed by Overview and Scrutiny and then by Mayor and Cabinet on the 22 October 2014. This response is not in any way confidential and has therefore been published on the Planning Policy web pages of the Council. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 7
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Ms Cathy Ashley
Member to reply: Councillor Best
Question
In 2012, nationally, the expectation of lifefor women aged 65 fell from 20.9 to 20.7 years. What are the figures for women aged 65 in Lewisham for 2011 and 2012? What ate they expected to be for 2013? What are the comparable figures for men?
Reply
Life expectancy at 65 states how many mote years someone can expect to live, on average, when they are 65 years of age.
The life expectancy for Lewisham has been increasing for females at 65 and is not statistically different from England. Male life expectancy at 65 in Lewisham is also increasing, however it is significantly below England. It is lower than females in Lewisham, England and London.
Life expectancy at 65 for females in 2010-12 is 20.9. In 2009-11 it was 20.8 and in 2008-10 it was 20.3 The last 3 year figures for males and females are provided in the table below with their national and regional comparison. The latest officialfigures published for life expectancy at 65 for males and females is 2010-12.
Female life expectancy at 65 Lewisham London England 2008- 10 20.3 21.3 20.7 2009-11 20.8 21.7 21.1 2010-12 20.9 21.7 21.1
Male life expectancy at 65 Lewisham London England 2008-10 16.8 18.4 18.1 2009-11 17.4 18.7 18.4 2010-12 17.8 18.9 18.6
Source: http:llwww.phoutcomes. info/public-health-outcomes framework#qid/1 000049/pat/6/ati/1 02/paqel4lpar/E 12000007/are/E09000023
The figures for 2011-13 willbe published in the New Year. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 8.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Peter Richardson
Member to reply: Councillor Best
Question
Since the Manor House, Old Road, Lee, reopened following its impressive refurbishment in 2009, it has opened its doors to a variety of different services to function alongside its core Library and Information Service. What was the income achieved from all the services offered at the Manor House, including that of Marriage Ceremonies during the financial year 201 3/2014?
Reply
The total income achieved from all the services offered at the Manor House, including that of Marriage Ceremonies during the financial year 2013/2014 was £45,828. This excludes grants from other funding bodies.
facilities
Are
services especially
dentists, children extra storeys
retail Can
parking Question
Does have Do homes Member
you
you
the
alone?
made
residents?
the
with
share
up
spaces?
aware
increasingly
Council
along
to
onto
etc?
asked
Council
sixth-form
and
reply:
no
no
the
our
Do with,
announcements
that
mention
only
by:
consider
An
site
have
concerns
you
St
for
accessible
Jean
be
Deputy
area
places,
which
agree
Modwen’s
LONDON
example,
plans
of
consigned
encouraging
of
other
Lindsey
that
might
that
to landscaping
Mayor
to
to 26
accommodate
as
increase COUNCIL
amenities,
if
access
a
‘Public
BOROUGH
these
residents
address
NOVEMBER
to
strong
to
how
Question
long
St
Question
Reply
proposals
Exhibition’
to
the
Time
has
Modwen
they
community
journeys
MEETING
this
other
nurseries,
of
number
been
OF
these
the
will
increased
than 2014
LEWISHAM
development.
for
provide
to
PUBLIC
designed Priority
current
to
new
of
introduce
cannot
Leegate the
GP
schools
local
residents
need superstore
surgeries,
additional
plans
QUESTION
I
school
be
but
go
outside
for
a
built
this
include
‘porffolio’
ahead,
educational
or
places,
health
on
with
services
will
will
the
large-scale
NO
230
be
the
all
300
borough?
of
centres,
4
our
9.
Council
new for The impact of a development forms a substantial part of the assessment of planning proposals.
Planning permission would only be granted ifany substantial impact from that development could be adequately mitigated.
Given the size of the Leegate site, together with the scale of development being proposed by St. Modwen, an Environmental Statement would have to be submitted with any planning application. An Environmental Statement would consider the cumulative impact of the proposals not just in the context of the application site, and the immediate surrounds, but in the context of other committed (emerging and recently completed) developments in the locality.
Any planning application submitted in respect of the redevelopment of the Leegate shopping centre would need to be submitted with Heads of Terms of a Planning Obligations Agreement. This is a list of measures put forward by the developer setting out how they intend to mitigate the impact of the development.
For a Largedevelopment such as that proposed by St. Modwen, matters such as health and education would have to be addressed in the Heads of Terms.
The Council’s Planning Obligations SPD sets out the matters that should be mitigated in the context of the scale and kind of a development. This document forms the policy basis when considering any Heads of Terms submitted with an application. Please note that Lewisham is in the process of updating the existing 201 1 Planning Obligations SPD. A new revised SPD is being produced. A draft of the revised Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document 2014 for public consultation is now out for public consultation with responses to be submitted by the 21 November 2014. A link to the adopted and revised document can be found here http://www.lewisham .qov.uk/myservices/planninq/policy/LDF/SPDs/Paqes/Planning obligations.aspx
Depending on the matters to be mitigated, measures can be provided in kind or can be in the form of a financial contribution.
School place planning requires us to take account of new developments in the borough. The plans for this development are being scrutinised carefully in relation to their impact on demand. Question
Time___
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 10.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Andrea Carey Fuller
Member to reply: Councillor Egan
Question
Are you aware that many Lewisham residents are living in sub-standard, overcrowded and often dangerous privately tented accommodation? Will Lewisham Council follow the lead given by the Welsh Assembly and Newham Council by introducing compulsory licensing for private landlords, to improve safety standards and allow background checks on landlords to discover those with a record of criminality or negligence?
Reply
The Council is actively considering the question of whether a scheme to extend private sector housing licensing, which is currently limited to mandatory licensing (covering the small number of most risky properties) should be extended to cover more of the private rented sector. A report setting out the options, legal requirements, timescales and associated costs is being prepared for consideration and scrutiny by Housing Select Committee and I understand that representatives from Newham willbe present in person to talk us there their scheme is greater detail. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 11.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
On the 27th of July I wrote to Lewisham’s planning department and asked them to involve CABE in negotiations with St Modwen to ensure best outcome for the redevelopment of the Leegate Centre because:
• CABE have expressed interest in advising on Leegate and twice offered their services to Lewisham planners.
• The local community is expressing concerns over plans presented to them to date, and the involvement of CABE would help reassure them • It is common practice that councils aske developers to pay for the services of CABE and CABE’s prices start at £3500 plus VAT, a lot less than the over £11,000 pounds spent on leafleting alone for the 15th November Exhibition held by St Modwen • CABE can start as early as next week and some of their services can take as little as two weeks to complete
Wiltthe Council involve CASE from now on? Ifnot, why not? Reply
Lewisham Council considers high quality design to be of great importance. For this reason the Planning Service operates a Design Review Panel. The Design Review Panel (DRP) is a group of professional design experts, which meets regularly to review development schemes at pre-application stages of the planning process. The panel assists and encourages developers and their design teams to achieve and deliver high quality design in their development proposals. The advice is an important means of meeting planning policy on high quality design in new developments.
The redevelopment proposals have been reviewed a number of times by the DRP during the pre-application process with Lewisham planning officers.
The terms of reference and membership of the DRP was refreshed in August 2013 with the help of CABE and follows best practice. The guidance issued by CABE, published in 2013 states that ‘The review of a scheme by more than one panel should be avoided. This would duplicate time and effort, and introduce the risk of confusion from potentially conflicting advice.’
The DRP has a consistent Chair and Deputy Chair who have attended all the Leegate review sessions. Both Keith Williams (Chair) and Ben van Bruggen (Deputy Chair) are/have been CABE panel review members as well as many of the other members. Further details of the DRP panel and review process can be found on the website - link below.
http://www.lewisham .gov.uk/myservices/planning/conservation/Pages/Design Review-Panel.aspx Question
Time
ED Cust Servs PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 12
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: John Keidan
Member to reply: Councillor Onikosi
Question
We understand there has been a reduction in the number of sites in Lewisham where detailed air pollution monitoring is taking place, despite evidence of many parts of the borough exceeding safe or legal limits for air pollutants, and with serious health consequences for residents. Could the Council please update us on its current air pollution monitoring arrangements, including which areas in the borough are regularly exceeding EU safe levels and posing health risks, and the Council’s mitigation plans to ensure a cleaner healthier environment for all local residents in future?
Reply
There has been no reduction in the number of air quality monitoring stations in the Borough. In addition to long established sites at Cafford and New Cross, monitoring commenced at Mercury Way in February 2010 for particulate matter and at Loampit Vale for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter from July 2012. Results are available to view online. The Council also maintains a network of 32 diffusion tubes for nitrogen dioxide monitoring &these are sited in various locations to provide a detailed picture of air quality conditions across the Borough. The last complete year of data (that for 2013) is also available online.
Like other inner London Boroughs, Lewisham has areas with excessive levels of nitrogen dioxide. This has led to the declaration of 6 air quality management areas around the South Circular Road. These are in the north of the Borough and a series of ‘ribbon’ roads in the south.
As required by law we have an air quality action plan in place, again viewable online. The Council submits an annual progress report to central government (Defra) on the action plan. Actions include providing input to planning on proposed developments and control of industrial premises such as petrol stations through Environmental Protection. Environmental Protection has also been successful in securing external funding from sources such as the Mayor of London Air Quality Fund to support progress with the action plan.
The Council has a range of plans in place to enhance parks and open spaces and local biodiversity which help support our overall strategy to reduce and mitigate excessive levels of nitrate dioxide and air pollution.
If contacted directly, Environmental Protection team would be pleased to provide further information. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 13
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Imogen Solly
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Could the Council please explain whether Lewisham’s Local Plan policies are not clearly worded enough to prevent such important District Centre sites as the Leegate Centre from being over-developed, with the damaging loss of public squares, independent shop units and community facilities? Ifso, why? Other Councils are able to resist the loss of important town centre shopping areas and public squares to inappropriate & unsustainable development. Do you agree that Lewisham Council apparently unable to do so?
The current consultation by St Modwens proposes the irreversible loss of the only site in Lee town centre which is adequately shielded from traffic and air pollution to provide an attractive shopping experience, an evening economy, safe pedestrian routes and suitable spaces for markets and community events. The air pollution levels on the main roads in Lee are already known to exceed legal or safe limits, yet St Modwen’s proposals willmean markets, cafes and small shops willface entirety onto these roads, and the internal public squares willbe completely lost. This follows decades during which this private landowner has allowed the shopping centre to become run-down, with very little investment or improvement to facilities. The Local Plan commits to ensuring Lee has a thriving evening economy, with community facilities and a diversity of smaller local shops and workspaces on the site. These willbe vital to the local economy and future quality of lifefor residents. Would you agree that Lewisham planning officers ate being allowed to encourage such a damaging proposal behind the scenes, possibly contrary to Local Plan policies and the long term public good?
Reply
The Core Strategy defines Lee Green as a District Hub within which the town centre is designated as a District Centre in the boroughs retail hierarchy. Any level of development would have to accord with the principle objectives set out for the area.
Spatial Policy 3 identifies district hubs as places which willsustain a diversity of uses and activities. Such locations willbe managed to facilitate change that contributes to the economic vitality and viabilityof the District Centre. The policy specifically states that the objectives for Lee Green are to improve civic space and facilitate a more intensive mixed use development on the shopping centre site to strengthen its role and function and to improve connectivity between the shopping centre and the supermarket sites.
The Lewisham Site Allocations Development Plan Document (June 2013) designates Leegate as Site SA23, allocated as mixed use retail-led with housing, offices and hotel. It is noted that this allocation forms a significant part of the Primary Shopping Area within the Lee Green District Centre and willimprove the environmental quality. Its redevelopment would support and enforce the role of the District Centre within the borough’s retail hierarchy The Council’s Retail Capacity Study 2009 is quoted and cites the continued decline of the Leegate Centre as being a threat to the Lee Green District Centre. It identifies the redevelopment or refurbishment of the Centre as an opportunity to provide modern retail units.
Planning policies set out the overall ambitions for Lee Green. It is likelythat there will need to be a degree of flexibilityin respect of the quantum, scale and form of development in order to ensure that the owners of the site can bring forward a financially viable scheme. However such flexibilityis still governed by other planning policies such as those relating to density, design, transport links and other such site specific matters.
When a planning application is submitted, the Council willassess the proposals in light of the ambitions and requirements of the relevant planning policies. Planning officers willmake a recommendation based on a balanced judgement of how the proposals adhere, or otherwise, to the overarching ambitions of the strategic policies. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 14
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mike Keogh
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
The New Lewisham project promises a high quality Confluence Park. Do you agree that the expected increased volume of rail passengers (from all the local developments) willmean the two North-South routes willbe overcrowded, stressful and possibly dangerous? In the interests of passengers enjoying a less stressed entry or exit and not being challenged by retail outlets, would the Council encourage the developers to use some of their expected surpluses to build a bridge across the ‘mouth’ of the Quaggy?
Reply
The Lewisham Gateway scheme was approved in outline (with infrastructure works approved in full) in May 2009. As a condition of that planning permission all reserved matters applications have to be accompanied by a statement demonstrating how the ground level has been modelled to ensure that a reasonably acceptable walking space is achieved throughout the site.
The reserved mailers application for Block A and Confluence Place which was approved in May 2013 included such an assessment which demonstrated that the pedestrian flows through the scheme, including to Lewisham Station, would be acceptable. An identical study accompanies the current reserved matters application for Block B which is currently being considered by planning officers.
A bridge across the mouth of the Quaggy is not part of the current reserved matters application. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 15.
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Storm Poorun
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Whilst we welcome the provision of temporary accommodation on the Ladywell Leisure Centre site for those in urgent need, we would like to understand the Council’s long term plans for this site, and other publicly-owned land in the borough. What is the Council’s strategy to ensure there is sustainable provision of affordable homes, with security of tenure, on the remaining suitable publicly-owned land in Lewisham? Could the Council please provide a list of all the potential housing sites in Lewisham which are still owned by the Council or public sector bodies? Please could this list contain details of which of these sites are earmarked or likely candidates for: 1) future sale to developers for profit-led housing; 2) affordable housing development (by the Council, co-operatives, Community Land Trusts, or other not-for-profit models of ownership); 3) other public purposes including open space and infrastructure; 4) other private and commercial development?
Reply The use of the Ladywell Pool site for the provision of modular housing for those in housing need and employment/workspace means that this prominent site willhave a meaningful function whilst longer terms plans are considered.
We believe that before a permanent use is found for the site, it is worth investigating how the area to the south of Lewisham town centre might change in the longer term to meet the borough’s needs. The area is already well connected, but the potential for improved public transport connectivity from the Bakerloo Line extension means that the Council wish to investigate options for longer term transformation and enhancement of the area before making a decision on the site’s future.
The Council is continually exploring sites across the borough in order to deliver its Housing Policy Objectives. Proposals are reported through the Mayor and Cabinet process. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 16
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Dan Strange
Member to reply: Councillor Egan
Question
The draft Lewisham Housing Strategy document for 2015 -2020 quotes the South East London Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) as saying that out of the 1,600 new homes per annum, 1,144 (over 70%) will need to be ‘affordable”. Can the Council declare how many new homes in previous years (for example, 2013 -2014 if the data is available) have met the “affordable” criteria in relation to the total new stock? With this in mind, are the Council currently on track to meet the housing need as set out in the SHMA in coming years?
Reply
The Council and its partners have an excellent record in delivering new affordable homes. The Council has exceeded its overall house building targets every year for the past four years. During this time we have delivered the third highest number of new affordable homes in the country, in 2011/12, and then the highest number in London the following year in 2012/1 3. The number of new affordable homes delivered over the periods in question was as follows: • 2011-12:900 • 2012-13:670 • 2013-14:240
The current project for 2014-15 is for a further 338 new completions, estimates for the two following years currently stand at 400 per year, and further schemes ate expected to come forward in the intervening period to increase that number further.
Over the period in question Lewisham’s annual target for new house building in the London Plan was 1,103, and this target was met every year. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment is one of a number of information sources which willinform the Council’s planning documents, such as the Local Plan, when they updated over the coming years. These plans willcontain new targets which will reflect those information sources, and which willguide the delivery of new homes over the relevant period. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 17
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Gerard Ambrose
Member to reply: Councillor Bonavia
Question
What is Lewisham Council’s debt to all external agencies, ie, how much does Lewisham Council owe to Banks, Building Societies, Foreign Banks, etc. and how much per year are the interest payments on all of these debts. This information was always available on line but it has now just disappeared and cannot be found anywhere. Can you explain why that appears to have happened?
Reply
Debt
The Council’s debt as at 3O” March 2014 was £450.755M (197.771M + 252.984M). This figure can be found in the Council’s Statement of Accounts for 2013-14, and is published on our website. A link is provided below: http://www.lewisham.qov. uk/mayorandcouncil/aboutthecouncil/finances/Pages/State ment-of-accounts.aspx. This figure is made up of borrowing (f197.771M (154.718M + 43.053M)) and PFI liability(252.984M (244.703M + 8.281M)). These figures can be found on page 44.
The borrowing figure is split between Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) (f85.025M) and Non-PWLB Debt (1 12.747M). These figures can also be found on page 45.
Non PWLB debt consists of money owed to Foreign banks. These banks are not listed in the Statement of accounts. They are: • Bayerische Landesbank • FMS Wertmanagement • Dexia Bank Belgium • Dexia Public Finance Bank
Lewisham has a number of PFI schemes, the debt is owed to the PFI operators. These are listed below:
Name of Scheme Name of Operator Brockley HRA Regenter B3 Downham Lifestyles Linteum (Lewisham) Limited Grouped Schools By Education (Lewisham) Limited Building Schools for the Future I Lewisham Schools For The Future Spy Limited Building Schools for the Future 2 Lewisham Schools For The Future Spy 2 Limited Building Schools for the Future 3 Lewisham Schools For The Future Spy 3 Limited Building Schools for the Future 4 Lewisham Schools For The Future Spy 4 Limited Streetlighting Croydon and Lewisham Lighting Services Limited Interest
In 201 3/14 the Council paid interest of £35.667M (see p18 of the Statement of Accounts). The calculated notional interest for 2013/14 on the PFI debt was £26.754M (see p64 of the Statement of Accounts). The balance of interest £8.91 3M (35.667M — 26.754M) was on the borrowings of £1 97.771 M. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 18
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Pat Richardson
Member to reply: Councillor Egan
Question
On the corner of Brightfield Road/Lampmead Road S.E.12, there is a boarded up property which has been derelict for some time. How long has this property been unoccupied? Who owns this property? Are there any plans for its future, ifso, what are they?
Reply
The property is owned by the Council and managed by Lewisham Homes, It has suffered from subsidence and other serious structural problems, and requires extensive work and high levels of investment to make it habitable. It was put forward for disposal by Lewisham Homes but then became squatted by an organisation by the name of People Before Profit. Lewisham Homes are currently undertaking works to the property. The long term plan for the future of this property is that it will be redeveloped as housing, and more information about how this will be achieved will be available early in the new year. It has been derelict since 2007. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 19
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Ray Woolford
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Can the Council confirm what monitoring is in place to insure Lewisham Tax Payers get good value from the Skanska Lighting contract?
Can the Council confirm why Skanska lights seem to be on 24 hours a day in streets around Deptford Park and who is paying for this excessive use of energy?
Reply
The PFI Street Lighting contract sets out in detail a number of Performance Standards and Performance indicators required by the service provider to achieve and to report against. The Council monitor and audit against these standards and where service standards are not met these carry a financial adjustment.
In addition to Core investment works there is authority monitoring for Skanska produced designs against compliance. Further to each completed site put forward by Skanska, these are subject to auditing by an independent Certifier to further ensure compliance. The service provider is also required to issue a monthly report to senior authority officers, Stakeholders and Skanska project senior management. The report outlines project programme, performance and standards met for the previous month including financial information and adjustments applicable against each performance standard.
The new lights are linked to a central management system which controls their operation and provides alerts to any faults that may occur. As part of the installation process, the lanterns on the new lighting column may remain in light for a period of time whilst the system synchronises to add the lighting unit to the network. This is a normal part of the installation process and the energy used during the synchronisation is paid for by Skanska. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 20
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Clare Griffiths
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
The Council willbe aware that TfL has launched a new consultation on the proposed
Silvertown Tunnel. Could the Council re-state its position on the proposed tunnel as I understand it is against the tunnel being built? Does the Council feel that the current consultation provides adequate detail in a format that is suitable for citizens to respond to? What can the Council do to reassure its residents who may be worried about the increased traffic and pollution the tunnel willbring to the borough? In particular, Trundleys Road is referred to by TfL, but it is likelythat other roads in the borough, including the already-congested South Circular Road, willbe affected too.
Reply
LB Lewisham supports the principle of increasing capacity across the rivet to unlock economic potential in the southeast region of London. The Council tecognises the serious issues of congestion and air quality around the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel situation, and that new infrastructure is needed to improve the resilience and reliability of the network. However, in response to TfL’s 2012 consultation on river crossings, the Council raised concerns about the Silvertown Tunnel which relies on the same southern approaches as the Blackwall Tunnel. These routes, including the A2 area and the South Circular, already suffer from daily congestion, and the Council is concerned about the impact of additional traffic on these routes. As part of the Council’s response, we requested details of the modelling underpinning the proposals, and urged greater consideration of a major heavy goods crossing further to the east. Both of these points have been taken on board.
TfL’scurrent consultation on the Silvertown Tunnel contains a large amount of supporting information. This includes the Silvertown Tunnel Introductory Transport Assessment, which identifies some of the headline impacts on roads in Lewisham. The Council is currently reviewing the information, and willbe responding to the consultation by 19 December. The proposed impact on traffic is far less than previously predicted, as the models now assume that tolls willbe introduced in order to manage the demand through the tunnels. Therefore, although in theory the new tunnel willdouble the cross-river capacity, the volume of traffic through the tunnels willincrease by a much smaller factor. In addition, the vast majority of the new or displaced traffic using the tunnels would be using the A2 towards Kent, rather than passing through Lewisham. That said, the Council remains concerned about any increase in traffic, given the problems of congestion and air quality that we currently experience on a daily basis.
The Council is of the view that the best solution is to provide new bridge crossings further to the east of London. TfL have recently consulted on further river crossings, and the Council has responded to strongly support the rapid progression of a new bridge further east, and that this should include a careful consideration of traffic, environmental and economic impacts. Of the two bridge options proposed, a new bridge at Gallions Reach could be delivered sooner than at Belvedere, to the benefit of south-east London. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 21.
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Peter Richardson
Member to reply: Councillor Onikosi
Question
Has the Council reviewed the viability of the Car Club scheme operated by Zipcar?
In my journeys around the borough, I have seen several vehicles displaying “ZIP” parked most of the day on ‘Club Car Only’spaces and on the other hand, some empty car parking spaces marked “Car Club Only”which could be taken by people prepared to pay for a parking space but are banned from doing so. Is it a viable system intended to benefit the people of Lewisham or simply a particular minority? Does the Council make a profit or a loss on the system currently in place?
Reply
Transport for London funded the introduction of car club bays from 2007 to enhance and support environmental and sustainable transport policies. The bays were introduced at no cost to the council.
There is strong support for car club membership amongst Lewisham residents with 4,500 current members (2% of the borough’s adult population). Car club vehicles provide a good alternative to individual vehicle ownership especially in place of a second car. The car club vehicles are restricted to using designated parking bays to ensure that resident and business type bays are protected. There are presently 64 car club bays that have been implemented where they provide the least impact on local residents and businesses.
The Council does not charge car clubs to operate within the borough but each vehicle must display a Business Permit. The provision of a car club is seen as a service that provides our residents with an alternative to owning their own vehicle and assists the Council in reducing vehicle ownership and in turn managing limited kerbside parking space.
The car club industry has done a lot of work identifying areas where members or potential members exist to maximise vehicle usage. They would not continue to provide a vehicle at locations where they were underutilised.
The Council is fully supportive of the car club initiative and remain convinced that it works in favour for all eligible residents especially for those that are unable to purchase their own vehicles and/or find it difficultto fund the increasing and fluctuating prices of traditional car rentals. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 22.
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: John Keidan
Member to reply: Councillor Egan
Question
Lewisham desperately needs genuinely affordable housing, both for our residents and to reduce the private landlord subsidy taxpayers currently pay through housing benefit. However, the central Government imposed cap on the Housing Revenue Allowance (HRA) limits councils’ ability to borrow for building, buying and renovating housing. Willthe council follow Enfield and Croydon’s lead by establishing a property company to avoid the borrowing cap, allowing council house building and the return of former council homes to council ownership?
Reply
The Council has committed to providing at least 500 new social homes in the borough through our ‘new homes better places’ programme. As part of that programme we are also considering a variety of new build schemes, acquisitions and refurbishment/renovation projects which willbe delivered in partnership with a range of organisations. Each of these schemes/projects willhave the most appropriate financial models to ensure best value for the Council. The Council is considering a range of funding vehicles in order to provide every opportunity to increase the supply of new homes in Lewisham across all tenures. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 23.
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Does the Council agree that the public squares and rights of way on the Leegate site provide the only pedestrianized area of the district centre, and the sole haven from pollution and traffic noise? These pedestrian areas and public squares offer the only suitable area for market stalls, an attractive independent retail offer and civic space, and the main opportunity to build a thriving evening economy for current and future generations. Could the Council clarify what legal protections currently exist for these vital pedestrianised spaces and public rights of way on the Leegate site, and any other charges, covenants, restrictions, wayleaves and easements of relevance to its future development and its public spaces? Have some of the local records for the site been mislaid by the local authority? Ifso, does this loss of records affect what information the Council can give the public about restrictions, charges, covenants, wayleaves and easements relating to the land?
Is it the Council’s intention to allow ‘stopping up orders’ or similar, to remove protections for existing public spaces and rights of way, where planning permission is granted to infillpublic spaces with a large retail development? Ifso, via what means will residents be consulted on this?’
Reply Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that proposals should ‘optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments).
Redevelopment proposals for Leegate would have to incorporate an acceptable provision of public realm and/or amenity space in order to be acceptable in planning terms.
Lewisham Council does not own the Leegate shopping centre and does not have specific information regarding covenants and easements. This information would be held with Land Registry. The planning department does however hold a record of planning decisions on the statutory register which you are welcome to view by making an appointment to visit the planning reception at Laurence House. Please call 0208 314 7400.
Any highways works intended with the proposals willbe set out in the planning application documents when submitted.
Private covenants and easements which might impede development are not directly relevant to the grant of planning permission. However, the grant of planning permission does not permit such rights to be overridden. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 24.
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mike Keogh
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Iwelcome the Council and the local MP in arguing the case for the opening of the gate on Platform 4 of Lewisham Station to relieve pressure on other points of ingress and egress. Can the Council make the same arguments for building a staircase and (bicycle and wheelchair accessible) liftto Platform I by the Glassmill Centre as the expected increased numbers of rail users crossing the main A20 willslow down the traffic on this TfL route and may be dangerous for all road users.
Reply
The Council and local MP have been making a strong case to open the existing gate and access to Platform 4. This is a very strong common sense argument, as the infrastructure for the access is already in place, and has previously been in use. According to recent press report, the station operator, Southeastern, have agreed to open the gate on a temporary basis. However, opening the access has an operational cost, and the proposal has therefore been met with considerable resistance. A new access to Platform 1 from the south of the A20 is an idea which has some merit. However, the construction of a staircase and accessible liftwould require significant funding. Funding for such measures is through the Department for Transport’s “Access for All”programme, though this proposal would not qualify as the platform already has full step-free access. In addition to fund the improvement works, the new access would also be likelyto similar resistance from the operator, due to the additional operational costs.
The Council acknowledges the difficulties in accessing the rail station from the town centre, and work is now underway on the Lewisham Gateway development, which will remodel the road network and reduce the severance caused by the A20, with a greatly improved pedestrian route to the station. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 25
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: MrAmbrose
Member to reply: The Mayor
Question
The Mayor has asked the public for ideas to save money. Willhe re-examine the need for a three monthly magazine to tell us how wonderful the Council is? Would he agree that we do not need the monthly forums that migrate around the borough and give money away to all and sundry? Reply
I continually keep our communications under review to make sure that we are achieving good value while keeping our citizens well informed. Independent research, carried out by lpsos Mon in 2012, showed that 49% of Lewisham residents get information about what’s happening locally from our Lewisham Life magazine. This compares to 24% for both the News Shopper and the Mercury and 11% for the South London Press. That tells me that the magazine is well used and that there continues to be a need for it.
The Local Assemblies programme provides a platform for residents who care about the area in which they live to work with us and each other to improve Lewisham’s local neighbourhoods. The local assembly fund provides small seed funding to very grass roots projects which have been identified through the assembly. The assembly fund often acts as a catalyst to unlock other funding and volunteer time. Significant reductions have already been made to expenditure on the Local Assemblies programme and we willcontinue to consider the most efficient way to engage with local residents whilst still allowing us to capitalise on the significant amount of social capital in Lewisham.
Question I Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 26
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Ray Woolford
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
On a recent spot check of developments across Lewisham Borough, we were unable to find a single person working on site who lived in Lewisham. What checks and monitoring are in place to insure that council policy on local employment and equalities of opportunity for woman and ethnic minorities are enforced?
Can the Council confirm how many workers on Lewisham sites are (1), Women (2), people of colour and ethnic minorities?
Can the Council confirm how many skilled and un-skilled Lewisham Borough workers are working on the huge number of developments across the borough and were present prior to this job starting?
Reply
The Council seeks to maximise the number of local employees on construction sites through its local labour programme. The s106 legal agreements which are attached to the planning permissions for major schemes provide for both funding and clauses requiring developers to make endeavours to employ local residents. All projects which are subject to si 06 local labour obligations are required to submit monthly reports providing workforce data. Below is a list of percentages of hours worked by Lewisham residents on a selection of projects currently on site during 2014/2015 in Lewisham;
Site Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Lewisham N/A N/A N/A Awaiting Awaiting 23% 15% Gateway report report (Sisk) Lewisham N/A N/A 5% 2% 1% 2% Awaiting Gateway report (Volker Fitzpatrick) Heathside 4% 3% 2% 0% 8% 8% Awaiting and report Lethbridge Thurston 2% 1% 5% 5% 6% Awaiting Awaiting Road report report Industrial Estate Mercator N/A 0% 11% 33% 18% 24% Awaiting Road report
The Lewisham Council reporting template is designed to capture demographics of those residents which have secured work as a result of the project, this includes gender and ethnicity. Unfortunately, most beneficiaries choose the ‘Prefer Not to Say” option therefore we have very little data in this respect.
The projects are not required to report whether the workforce is skilled or unskilled; therefore, we do not have any data regarding the skills level of the on-site workforce.
Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 27
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Clare Griffiths
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Is the Council aware of the recent petition to TfLfor safer crossings on Brownhill Road, particularly at Torridon and Stainton Roads? Would the Council support such developments? What willthe Council be doing to lobby TfLto make these happen?
Reply
The Council is aware of the petition to TfLfor safer crossings on Brownhill Road. In responding to the petition, TfLwilllead on any research into the data and investigate the location and types of collisions that are occurring. We willwork with TEL and the police to support the introduction of any feasible improvements measures.
The Council willoffer further support in liaising with local schools, highlighting the need to be aware of the dangers of crossing main roads, and to concentrate and avoid distractions when crossing the road.
Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 28.
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Peter Richardson
Member to reply: Councillor Onikosi
Question
A recent review of car parking in Lee Green Ward parking zones F, P and V showed a majority in favour of a two-hour car parking ban rather than an all-day restriction from 9:00am thru 6:30pm or 7:OOpm.whichever applies at present. In addition a consultation as to whether or not a new zone, Lee Green West - a much greater area than zones F, P and V, proved that residents would in fact prefer the introduction of a CPZ and a preference for similar time restrictions to that produced by zones F, P and V. Clearly a majority in favour of a change and likelyto occur in April 2015. With this in mind, is it likelyall the remaining wards in the borough willbe offered a similar review for a possible change in the timing of their zones or for areas, which are not yet included in any zone to be offered a CPZ, with a variable timing ban of their choice, rather than an all-day ban?
Reply The Council’s Parking Policy Review, agreed by Mayor and Cabinet on 10 April 2013, sets out that 2 hour controlled parking zones are an option for consultation where appropriate. For more information please refer to the full report at: http://councilmeetinqs.lewisham.qov.uk/documents/s21 863/Parkinq%2OPolicy%20R eview. pdf
The Council’s Annual Parking Report, agreed by Mayor and Cabinet on 23 October 2013, sets out how the Council willdetermine when controlled parking zones should be reviewed or new ones considered. The report includes the prioritised controlled parking zone review programme. For more information please refer to the full report at: http://councilmeetinqs.lewisham .qov.ukldocuments/s25050/Parkinq%2OAnnual%20R eport.pdf
The CPZ review programme is reassessed annually and willtake into account any new requests received during the year. To make a request for a controlled parking zone to be reviewed or implemented please refer to the Council’s web site: http:Ilwww.lewisham .qov.uk/myservices/parki nq/permits/Paqes/Reg uest-or-review-a CPZ.aspx
I Question I Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 29.
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Patricia Richardson
Member to reply: Councillor Bonavia
Question
As the Council now outsources some of its services, e.g. Glendale, Skanska, when writing the necessary contracts does the Council ensure that a “get out clause”, or something similar, is included on either side? Are provisions for penalties included, should the contract malfunction or not be satisfactorily delivered on behalf of residents? On the other hand are such details considered to be commercial in confidence and therefore not available to the public?
Reply
Where the Council outsources its services, the contract normally provides for termination by either party where it is commercially prudent for the Council to do so. Some service contracts, such as those offering services to vulnerable residents, would not permit the service provider to unilaterally terminate (even on notice) to ensure continuity of service. In the absence of fault by the party in receipt of a termination notice, provision has to be made for fair compensation for the loss of the contract and willinclude breakage costs, such as redundancy, the cost of cancellation of sub-contracts and an agreed limited sum to cover loss of profits. Termination in the event of default by a party in most cases removes the right to any termination compensation, although the employees may be protected by law and may transfer back to the Council or to a new provider.
AllCouncil contracts provide for monitoring of the service provider’s performance during the contractual term and, unless any poor performance is remedied, can lead to termination of the contract. Short of termination, the Council has a variety of remedies, including the power to: make deductions from payment; requite rectification within a fixed timescale and step in to undertake the services itself e.g. in the case of an emergency or health and safety concerns.
Although commercially sensitive information, such as price, may be protected from disclosure, the mechanisms in the contract to ensure compliance and the service provider’s performance can be disclosed together with the contractual terms governing the same.
Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 30.
Priority 3
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mike Keogh
Member to reply: Councillor Egan
Question
Feedback from canvassing during the run up to the local elections included some East Ladywell Ward residents’ concerns over possible social housing tenants in the new Loampit Vale buildings subletting their flats (presumably against their T&C) to (presumably commuting) tenants, as the rewards are high. Itwas suggested the evidence was the flytipping of household waste by the gate to the bins as the subtenants were not given the gate codes. Can the relevant department ask the RSL to check up on the actual occupiers of these relatively desirable residences and take to task any social tenants flouting the rules for their own profit.
Reply
Thank you for the information. A member of the Council’s Housing Delivery Team will liaise with London and Quadrant and raise this issue with them.
Question Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 31
Priority 4
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: MrAmbrose
Member to reply: Councillor Onikosi
Question
Time and time and time again the traders that use St Stephen Church to sell their wares, block the road by parking outside the Church. Half on the pavement and half on the road; by parking on the pavement this is an offence in itself and I have actually seen the cars parked there for nearly three hours. I have complained to the police but they said it was nothing to do with them. I have called at the parking office (which is not open to the public) just up the road but they said they are allowed to stop for loading and I said for nearly three hours? The Council employ these wardens via a multinational company and they should make sure that they obey all parking restrictions. Can you tell me what action the Council is prepared to take against pavement parking and how can local residents ensure actions are carried out.
Reply
The Council is aware of the issues caused at times by traders selling goods from the church forecourt. The Council’s parking contractor NSL has made contact with the church who are keen to work with the traders to try and resolve the situation. Vehicles are permitted to load/unload their goods in this area. To establish whether loading or unloading is taking place the Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) must allow a 5 minute observation period before they can commence the issue of a parking penalty. This observation period is also allowed for vehicles parked on the footway.
In many cases the traders move their vehicle as soon as the CEO arrives. However, ifa clear obstruction to the footway or road is observed the CEO willadvise the driver to move the vehicle immediately.
The Council and NSL willcontinue to work with the church in an attempt to resolve these issues and willincrease CEO patrols in the area where staff resources permit. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 32
Priority 4
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Clare Griffiths
Member to reply: Councillor Maslin
Question
Has the Council seen a fall in applications for free school meals since the introduction of universal free school meals for children up to and including year 2? Could the Council publish the number of applications received by academic year from 2006/7 until 2013/14?
Reply
The total number of eligibilityapplications in relation to free school meals (FSM) and pupil premium is set out below.
The total breakdown is as follows: 2006/07 5,608 2007/08 5,750 2008/09 5,785 2009/10 5,586 2010/11 3,127 2011/12 2,433 2012/13 2,706 2013/14 1,971 2014/15 3,280
In 2010 families were no longer required to apply annually to renew their application. As a result data from 201 1/12 onwards is not comparable with that for previous years. In 2014/15 applications have increased due to applications for the two year old free entitlement to child care, the implementation of the universal infant free school meal programme (UIFSM) for children in key stage one and the campaign to encourage parents to apply for eligibilityto secure pupil premium allocations to schools.
The data is not recorded by year group. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 33
Priority 4
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Ray Woolford
Member to reply: Councillor Onikosi
Question
Residents of Rollins Street New Cross Ward SEI5 ate having sleepless nights due to the number of MiniCab companies and Waste Business trading on the commercial sites adjacent to local resident’s homes. Can the Council please investigate and ensure that commercial units adjacent to residential homes are only used during usual office hours as part of any planning consents and that if operators are using the site without planning consent, they are Investigated as a matter of urgency?
Does the Council have an expected time frame for officers to respond to public concerns? Emails and calls on this matter have not been replied to.
Reply
The area on the north side of Rollins Street forms part of the large scale Surrey Canal Triangle redevelopment site for which outline planning permission was granted in March 2012. Prior to implementation of the various future phases of the scheme permission is being sought for a number of temporary uses within the overall site area. The Planning Service has no record of any planning permission for mini cab use being granted for any premises in Rollins Street. However, a cab provider is currently believed to be using a unit at Rollins Street SEJ5 and the owners of the site are aware that this use willrequire planning permission. Officers are monitoring the situation and ifan application is submitted local residents willbe notified and have an opportunity to comment. Enforcement action willbe used ifan application is not forthcoming.
Waste businesses fall within the definition of either general industrial or sui generis uses and most of the sites in the Surrey Canal Area used for this purpose are long standing. However, an application has recently been received for the: ‘temporary change of use to import and process waste wood and store plasterboard at Rollins Street 5E15, together with external parking of HGV’sand contained skips with front end open storage units (non waste use) and the provision of art studios’.
The waste wood business is understood to be already operational. The Council is currently in the process of dealing with this application and letters were sent to local residents inviting comments on 24th October 2014. To date no objections to the application have been received. However, it is not too late for residents to comment ifthey wish to do so. Details of the application can be found on the Planning area of the Council’s Website by entering the registered number of the application (14/89094) in ‘Search and Comment on Applications’. Ifthe application is refused legal action to secure the cessation of the use can be considered ifthe Council considers it expedient to do so. It is also possible that the Council may decide that planning permission should be granted subject to appropriate conditions to protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers.
The Council has received one complaint about early morning industrial activates occurring on Rollins Street. The complainant was contacted the same day and supplied with information on the service and has been issued with diary sheets to help identify any further patterns of disturbance. The Planning Enforcement team has been alerted as they willbe able to take action ifany operational hours specified in the planning permissions are breached.
Officers have also contacted a number of companies in the area to advise them that residents are being disturbed. Early morning visits to site have been programmed to identify any companies operating inappropriately at this time.
Ifa statutory nuisance is witnessed noise abatement notices willbe served on the companies responsible. Officers willalso be arranging night visits to monitor noise levels at these times.
Question I Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 34.
Priority 4
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Peter Richardson
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor Question
Under the new lighting contract it is clear only certain streets in the borough were chosen for the attractive lamp posts. What were the criteria used to make these decisions? Were they more costly than what most residents have seen installed? When willthe new lighting have been fitted throughout the borough as some of the first went in at the beginning of 2013? When does the contract for this, with Skanska, finish?
Reply
The Heritage style lighting is more costly than the standard street lighting kit which is why a study was undertaken to identify roads which would most benefit from enhanced lighting.
Because there were not the funds available in the lighting programme to covet the costs of special lighting throughout all of Lewisham’s conservation areas, the Council took steps to identify those streets where contemporary lighting would have the least impact on the character of the particular conservation area. Conservation consultants were commissioned to carry out an independent study of the borough’s conservation areas. The study considered criteria such as intrinsic townscape merit, degree of preservation, architectural character, contribution to and impact of lighting columns on the street scene (for example streets with strong tree cover) and the coherence of the area as a whole.
The report provided an objective assessment to help identify those streets where special lighting is needed most. Whilst the majority of the new street lighting is a contemporary design, care has been taken to ensure that it is simple and discreet and that columns and lamps are black rather than a galvanised steel finish so they fit more harmoniously into the street scene.
The borough wide re-lighting project began in August 201 1 and the core investment programme is a four year project and due to complete 2015. Moreover the project is for a total 25 years which includes maintenance and the above core investment. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 35.
Priority 4
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mike Keogh
Member to reply: Councillor Onikosi
Question
I hear that the Council is not recycling street litter or street bin contents at present. What were the reasons for stopping this initiative which led the way in similar boroughs? Is parks litter still being recycled? Can street and park litter be recycled at the earliest opportunity when finances and common sense prevail?
Reply
The Council stopped the Street Litter Recycling Service in 2011/12 as part of the budget savings proposals for 2011-2014. This made a saving of £168k which was considered the best option in comparison to a range of other savings options that may have had a more detrimental impact on frontline waste services. The parks litter continues to be recycled as this is arranged by the Parks contractor.
The Council is currently reviewing the services that it provides for waste and recycling to be more cost efficient at the same time as improving the current recycling rate. Through the London Waste & Recycling Board’s (LWARB) Efficiencies Programme, this review has proposed a series of options which will now be considered fully in terms of the way in which Lewisham Council may run its future services. It may be that there is an opportunity for the street litter recycling service to be resumed but this willbe considered in light of current and future budget pressures.
about
behaviour
neighbourhood. staff this
However,
threatened
asked.
I
Glass establishment
much police
Member Question
Is
am
it
facility?
true
in
afraid
groups
more
Mills
seem
the
Do
that
to
asked
it
have
you
leisure
that
with
reply:
is
is
to
very
a
of
a
the
protect
at
agree
manager
I
public
been
young
a
by:
I
am
night?
reluctant
case
knife
have
centre.
Mr
unable
Councillor
that
raised
this
right
people
that
Ambrose
LONDON
by
spoken
Despite
at
the
new
a
to
the
of
concerns
to
group
by
do
police
way,
who
comment
Glass
building
the
to
26
Daby
COUNCIL
having
much
BOROUGH
the
NOVEMBER
of
and
congregate
public
are
teenagers
Mills
about
Question
police
at
and
Reply that the
Question
a
on
all
and
Time
paid
Leisure
MEETING
largest
any
the
anti-social
they
regarding
and
leisure
OF
public
in
staff
who
action
will
council
2014
the
LEWISHAM
Centre
police
PUBLIC
Priority
and
not
regularly
centre
centre
body
these
and
by
remove
officers
public
station
an
left
potential and
QUESTION
and
5
staff.
gangs,
individual
because
frequent
that
should
regarding
these
surrounding
in
The
Europe,
work
as
threatening
gangs
be
she
member
they
this
concern
NO
and
doing
this
was
the
say
36
unless
use
and
of
is
that a
to
effective.
centre
security
continued
presence,
I
number
multi-agency
am
assist.
assured
staff
of
guard
following
CCW
initiatives
and
problem
that
was
council
monitoring,
the
introduced
a
have
successful
police
solving
residents
been
and
and
group
to
introduced
council
pilot.
manage
to
complaint
ensure
has
Secondary
officers
been
the
including
that
surgeries
public
established
these
will
schools
continue
foyer
increased
in
actions
the
and
to
are
leisure
tackle
to
are
this
also
visible
work
deemed
initiative
centre.
the
being
with
police
issue.
contacted
the
to
is
A
be
to
leisure
A be Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 37.
Priority 5
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mike Keogh
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Regarding the Loampit Vale/Renaissance development is it true that Barratt was offered a hefty financial incentive to kickstart the development off. Now that the private apartments have been sold at a far higher price than expected has the Council any chance of recovering the loan or gift from Barratt?
Reply
The development agreement with Barraff was negotiated by the Council with the aim of benefiting the wider regeneration of Lewisham Town Centre and in accordance with legal requirements. It included, for example, the reprovision of the Ladywell Leisure Centre facilities at the new Glassmill Swimming Pool.
In the context of land sales, an overage (also called “claw back”) is used to describe a sum of money in addition to the original sale price which a seller of land may be entitled to receive following completion ifand when the buyer complies with agreed conditions. Overage has been written into the development agreement to protect the Councils interest with regard to the development.
The Council willreceive the payment due on the completion of the development in 2015. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 38.
Priority 6
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mike Keogh
Member to reply: Chair of the Council
Question
I hear that the usual monthly full Council meetings are now quarterly. I cannot find any minutes which record this process, discussion or decision. I cannot trace it in the constitution either. Why was this decision made? I expect full and accurate attendance records to be kept and published (as they are on the Council Website).
Reply
The Council AGM each year agrees a programme of Council meetings for the forthcoming year. Council meetings are currently fixed for January, February, March,
June, September and November. I am afraid the information you have been supplied with relating to Council meetings is erroneous. Council meetings have never been held monthly in this century and are not quarterly.
I can confirm attendance records are published and willcontinue to be displayed on the Council’s website.
the
The
Modwen considered”.
receipt centre. Lii
Modwen? notably
cafford-shopping-centre-to-lewisham-borough-council
Development
Member
Question
In
February
redevelopment
.52
purchase
M
of
is
the
to
how
(
the
asked
it
http:Hwww.
reply:
likely
Leegate
2010
Has
sale
it
Manager
of
is
by:
the
to
any
funding
St
in
of
be
Deputy
Centre
Mike
Cafford
any
Modwen
the
of
stmodwen.co.
with
LONDON
said
the
specified
Leegate
the
Keogh
the
where
Li
Mayor
Shopping
“St.
current
sold
1
involvement
26
COUNCIL
.52M
Modwen
BOROUGH
centre.
way.
Cafford
plans
NOVEMBER
u
work
Question
been
k/med
centre
Reply
Question
The
for
Time
remains
Shopping
to
MEETING
seen
of
its ia-centre/news/view/st-modwen-sells
Council
bring
did
OF
ASDA
redevelopment
2014
to
not
LEWISHAM
forward
PUBLIC
committed
be
Priority
has
Centre
obligate
a
invested
).
preferred
Killian
not
a
QUESTION
7
to
been
planning
St.
to
are
the
Morris,
in
Lewisham,
partner
Modwen
the
advised
currently
Council
Leegate
application
the
NO
to
to
for
by
Senior
St
being
most
39.
use
St
the for
the
What
The
complete places
have
having report
Sydenham? Question
Member
existing
Council’s
been
is
to
an
taken
the
to
Mayor
the
asked
obligation,
approved
reply:
Council’s
legal
legal
Restoration
strategy
and
by:
agreement
advice,
Cabinet
Barry
Deputy
by
amongst
strategy
for
LONDON
the
and
rebuilding
Milton
the
Council.’
Mayor
on
on
Refurbishment
for
Council
others,
26
the
the
COUNCIL
securing
BOROUGH
NOVEMBER
22nd
site,
the
Question
on
intends
Question
Reply
Greyhound
which
the
October
Time
rebuilding
MEETING
Owner
Works,
OF
to
in
2014
enforce
Schedule
LEWISHAM
2014.
PUBLIC
Priority
of
Public
of
in
the
accordance
the
This
the
land
House
10 Greyhound
QUESTION
7
provisions
report
of
to
the
‘construct
is
with states
set
Agreement
pub
of
out
NO
details
that
in
in
and
40.
the that
the
construction
building, and
information
addresses
Detailed
Council
Refurbishment
and
plans
changes
by
to
works.
suitable
consider
3
have
December
Works,
to
now
measures
the
whether
been
2010
the
2014,
formally
landowner
consented
or
that
including
not
will
to
submitted
be
grant
has
scheme.
a
undertaken
structural
been
approval
by
requested
In
way
addition,
survey
to
for
of
safeguard
the
a
S96
of
to
proposed
in
the
provide
order
application
it
existing
during
to
further
Restoration
enable that
to
borough.
School
be the
obliqations.aspx 21
Depending consultation 2011 forms
The
http://www.lewisham application.
mitigated Any
the with
health setting shopping
For
Obligations
cumulative
recently
proposed development
Given
The
Planning proposals.
their
in
November
revised
immediate
a
Council’s
planning
any
impact
the
Planning
large
the
the
and
impact place
out
completed)
form
planning
permission
in
centre
policy
by
The
size
education
how
on
development
Planning
impact
Agreement.
the
of
is
Please
St.
planning
application
could
2014.
of
Planning
the
on
a
now
surrounds,
Obligations
plans
of
they
context
basis
development
would
Modwen,
a
the
demand.
application.
matters
financial
of
out
be
note
developments
.qov.uk/myservices/planninq/policy/LDF/SPDs/Paqes/Planninq
intend
A
for Obligations
would
the
would
Leegate
when
requires
adequately
link
for
need
Obligations
of
this
This
that
such
proposals
submitted
the
but
to
an
public
SPD.
to
to
contribution.
only
have
considering
development
to
be
the
Lewisham
Environmental
is
forms
scale in
mitigate
site,
as
An
us
be
mitigated,
a
the
be
A
Supplementary
consultation
adopted
that
to
list
to
Environmental
submitted
mitigated.
new
together
in
in not
granted
SPD
and
be context
a
take
of
the
proposed
respect
substantial
the
just
addressed
revised
measures
is kind
any
sets
locality.
account
are
and
impact
measures
in
in
with
if
of
Statement
Heads
the
with
of
out
any
with
the
being
of
revised other
SPD
a
by
the the
Planning
process
the
Statement
development.
of context
Heads part
substantial
of
put
responses
in
St.
of
scrutinised
the
scale
committed
redevelopment
new the
is
can
matters
forward
of
Terms
document
Modwen,
being
would
development.
the
Heads
of
be
of
developments
of
Document
of
Terms
updating
the
would
provided
assessment
development
that
produced.
submitted
to
impact
have
by
(emerging
carefully
of
application
be
matters
This
can
the
should
Terms.
of
consider
submitted
to
of
from
a
2014 the
developer
document
be
in
be
the
Planning
with
kind
in
found
such
A
in
existing
be
of
submitted
that
and
Leegate
being
the
for
draft
relation
site,
planning
the
an
or
by
as
public
here
can
of
and the
to
On
redevelopment
Question
Member
involve
•
•
•
•
the
Will
£71,000
CAGE The
little CAGE services
held
date,
CAGE
It
27th
is
to
asked
CAGE
the common
local
as
reply:
by
and
of
can
and
have
two
St
Council
July
pounds
to
of
by:
community
the
in
Modwen
start
CAGE’s
the
Lewisham
weeks
expressed
negotiations
I
practice
involvement
wrote
Sarah
Deputy
Leegate
as
involve
LONDON
spent
to
early
prices
to
McMichael
complete is
that
Mayor
planners.
Lewisham’s
on
interest
expressing
CABE
Centre
as
26
COUNCIL
with
leafleting
start
councils
of
BOROUGH
next
NOVEMBER
CAGE
St
from
Question
at
because:
in
week
Question
Modwen
£3500
advising
Time
concerns
aske
planning
would
now
alone
MEETING
and
OF
on?
developers
plus
for
to
2014
help
on
some
LEWISHAM
PUBLIC
department
ensure
Priority
If over
the
VAT,
Leegate
not,
reassure of
75th
plans
why
a
their
best
to
lot
QUESTION
I
November
and
pay
not?
less presented
and
services
them
outcome
for
twice
than
asked
the
Exhibition
offered
can
the
NO
services
for
to
them
them
over
the
take
11.
their
as
to of Reply
Lewisham Council considers high quality design to be of great importance. For this reason the Planning Service operates a Design Review Panel. The Design Review Panel (DRP) is a group of professional design experts, which meets regularly to review development schemes at pre-application stages of the planning process. The panel assists and encourages developers and their design teams to achieve and deliver high quality design in their development proposals. The advice is an important means of meeting planning policy on high quality design in new developments.
The redevelopment proposals have been reviewed a number of times by the DRP during the pre-application process with Lewisham planning officers.
The terms of reference and membership of the DRP was refreshed in August 2013 with the help of CABE and follows best practice. The guidance issued by CABE, published in 2013 states that The review of a scheme by more than one panel should be avoided. This would duplicate time and effort, and introduce the risk of confusion from potentially conflicting advice.’
The DRP has a consistent Chair and Deputy Chair who have attended all the Leegate review sessions. Both Keith Williams (Chair) and Ben van Bruggen (Deputy Chair) are/have been CABE panel review members as well as many of the other members. Further details of the DRP panel and review process can be found on the website - link below.
http:/Iwww.lewisham .gov.uk/myservices/planning/conservation/Pages/Desig n Review-Panel.aspx Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 13
Priority I
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Imogen Solly
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Could the Council please explain whether Lewisham’s Local Plan policies are not clearly worded enough to prevent such important District Centre sites as the Leegate Centre from being over-developed, with the damaging loss of public squares, independent shop units and community facilities? Ifso, why? Other Councils are able to resist the loss of important town centre shopping areas and public squares to inappropriate & unsustainable development. Do you agree that Lewisham Council apparently unable to do so? The current consultation by St Modwens proposes the irreversible loss of the only site in Lee town centre which is adequately shielded from traffic and air pollution to provide an attractive shopping experience, an evening economy, safe pedestrian routes and suitable spaces for markets and community events. The air pollution levels on the main roads in Lee are already known to exceed legal or safe limits, yet St Modwen’s proposals willmean markets, cafes and small shops willface entirely onto these roads, and the internal public squares willbe completely lost. This follows decades during which this private landowner has allowed the shopping centre to become run-down, with very little investment or improvement to facilities. The Local Plan commits to ensuring Lee has a thriving evening economy, with community facilities and a diversity of smaller local shops and workspaces on the site. These willbe vital to the local economy and future quality of life for residents. Would you agree that Lewisham planning officers are being allowed to encourage such a damaging proposal behind the scenes, possibly contrary to Local Plan policies and the long term public good?
Reply
The Core Strategy defines Lee Green as a District Hub within which the town centre is designated as a District Centre in the borough’s retail hierarchy. Any level of development would have to accord with the principle objectives set out for the area.
Spatial Policy 3 identifies district hubs as places which willsustain a diversity of uses and activities. Such locations willbe managed to facilitate change that contributes to the economic vitality and viability of the District Centre. The policy specifically states that the objectives for Lee Green are to improve civic space and facilitate a more intensive mixed use development on the shopping centre site to strengthen its role and function and to improve connectivity between the shopping centre and the supermarket sites.
The Lewisham Site Allocations Development Plan Document (June 2013) designates Leegate as Site SA23, allocated as mixed use retail-led with housing, offices and hotel. It is noted that this allocation forms a significant part of the Primary Shopping Area within the Lee Green District Centre and willimprove the environmental quality. Its redevelopment would support and enforce the role of the District Centre within the borough’s retail hierarchy The Council’s Retail Capacity Study 2009 is quoted and cites the continued decline of the Leegate Centre as being a threat to the Lee Green District Centre. It identifies the redevelopment or refurbishment of the Centre as an opportunity to provide modern retail units.
Planning policies set out the overall ambitions for Lee Green. It is likelythat there will need to be a degree of flexibilityin respect of the quantum, scale and form of development in order to ensure that the owners of the site can bring forward a financially viable scheme. However such flexibilityis still governed by other planning policies such as those relating to density, design, transport links and other such site specific matters.
When a planning application is submitted, the Council willassess the proposals in light of the ambitions and requirements of the relevant planning policies. Planning officers willmake a recommendation based on a balanced judgement of how the proposals adhere, or otherwise, to the overarching ambitions of the strategic policies. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 23.
Priority 2
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Sarah McMichael
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor
Question
Does the Council agree that the public squares and rights of way on the Leegate site provide the only pedestrianized area of the district centre, and the sole haven from pollution and traffic noise? These pedestrian areas and public squares offer the only suitable area for market stalls, an attractive independent retail offer and civic space, and the main opportunity to build a thriving evening economy for current and future generations. Could the Council clarify what legal protections currently exist for these vital pedestrianised spaces and public rights of way on the Leegate site, and any other charges, covenants, restrictions, wayleaves and easements of relevance to its future development and its public spaces? Have some of the local records for the site been mislaid by the local authority? If so, does this loss of records affect what information the Council can give the public about restrictions, charges, covenants, wayleaves and easements relating to the land?
Is it the Council’s intention to allow ‘stopping up orders’ or similar, to remove protections for existing public spaces and rights of way, where planning permission is granted to infillpublic spaces with a large retail development? Ifso, via what means willresidents be consulted on this?’
Reply Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that proposals should ‘optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments).
Redevelopment proposals for Leegate would have to incorporate an acceptable provision of public realm and/or amenity space in order to be acceptable in planning terms.
Lewisham Council does not own the Leegate shopping centre and does not have specific information regarding covenants and easements. This information would be held with Land Registry. The planning department does however hold a record of planning decisions on the statutory register which you are welcome to view by making an appointment to visit the planning reception at Laurence House. Please call 0208 314 7400.
Any highways works intended with the proposals willbe set out in the planning application documents when submitted.
Private covenants and easements which might impede development are not directly relevant to the grant of planning permission. However, the grant of planning permission does not permit such rights to be overridden. Question
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO 39.
Priority 7
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
26 NOVEMBER 2014
Question asked by: Mike Keogh
Member to reply: Deputy Mayor Question
In February 2010 St Modwen sold Cafford Shopping Centre to the Council for £1 1.52M ( http://www.stmodwen.co. uk/med ia-centre/news/view/st-modwen-sells catford-shopping-centre-to-lewisham-borough-council ). KillianMorris, the Senior Development Manager said “St. Modwen remains committed to Lewisham, most notably the Leegate Centre where plans for its redevelopment are currently being considered”. Has any of the £1 1.52M been seen to be invested in the Leegate centre. is it likelyto be with the involvement of ASDA a preferred partner to St Modwen?
Reply
The purchase of the Cafford Shopping centre did not obligate St. Modwen to use the receipt of the sale in any specified way. The Council has not been advised by St Modwen how it is funding the current work to bring forward a planning application for the redevelopment of the Leegate centre. Appendix 4
Urban Delivery report o
Private and Confidential
Leegate Shopping Centre Lee Green, Lewisham SE12 London Borough of Lewisham
Viability Report | May 2015
urbandelivery
Private and Confidential
Contents Page
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Project Details 3
3.0 Approach to Viability Appraisal 6
4.0 Market Analysis 9
5.0 Viability Assessment 21
6.0 Viability Outputs 26
7.0 Conclusions 28
Private and Confidential
1.0 Introduction
Background
1.1 Urban Delivery was instructed by the London Borough of Lewisham (the “Council”) to assess the viability of a proposal by St Modwen Developments (the “Applicant”) to redevelop the property known as Leegate Shopping Centre in Lee, SE12 (the “Property”).
1.2 The Applicant seeks permission to demolish the existing building and replace it with a retail led mixed-use development including a food store (Use Class A1), retail units (Use Classes A1 – A4), assembly and leisure (Use Class D2), non-residential institutions (Use Class D1), public realm, associated car parking, cycle parking, highway works, landscaping and access. As part of the proposal, the development will include a mix of 229 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units of which it is proposed that 36 units will be for affordable housing (15.7%).
1.3 On behalf of the Council, Urban Delivery has carried out its own assessment to consider what would be a reasonable level of affordable housing for the proposed scheme to deliver.
1.4 The purpose of this report is to provide guidance on the viability of the development proposed by the Applicant. This report does not constitute a valuation and reference to any values, sales values and costs are provided as broad estimates only in order to assess whether the Applicant has offered a reasonable number of on-site affordable homes and any other planning obligations that may be required to support a development of this nature.
Conflict of Interests
1.5 We confirm that in providing this advice to the Council there is no conflict of interest between Urban Delivery and St Modwen Developments. The advice provided in this report does not represent a Valuation in accordance with the RICS Valuation Standards (The Red Book) 2014, published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and should not be regarded as such. The advice provided herein must only be regarded as an indication of potential value, on the basis that all assumptions are satisfied.
1.6 In undertaking this review Urban Delivery has collected evidence from a number of third party sources. Urban Delivery cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of this data.
1.7 This report must not be used by any other person other than for whom it has been commissioned, without Urban Delivery’s expressed permission. Urban Delivery accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses as a result of the use of, or reliance upon, the contents of this report by any other person other than the commissioner for planning purposes.
Information Provided
1.8 In undertaking this viability review Urban Delivery has reviewed copies of the planning application submission documents including proposed floor plans, Planning Statement and
1 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
Design and Access Statement, which were downloaded from the LB Lewisham planning web site.
1.9 We have also been advised by the Council that additional highway improvements, originally intended to be completed by TfL, may need to be undertaken by the Applicant and as such an allowance of £500,000 has been included to cover the cost of these works.
2 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
2.0 Project Details
Location
2.1 The Property is situated on the corner of Burnt Ash Road and Eltham Road, located in Lee in south east London within the London Borough of Lewisham. The Property is approximately 0.8km north of Lee railway station which provides regular services into central London.
2.2 The surrounding area currently comprises a mix of commercial uses along Lee High Road including an existing Sainsbury’s supermarket opposite the Property. The areas set back from Lee High Road / Eltham Road (A20) are mainly in residential use with a mix of apartment blocks and houses.
The Site
2.3 The Property comprises a site approximately 1.92 hectares (4.74 acres) and comprises an existing shopping centre including a mix of office and residential units on the upper floors, which extend to seven storeys. The southern area of the site is currently occupied by a multi-level car park and a hand car-wash premises.
2.4 We have only inspected the Property from the road and have not undertaken an internal inspection or carried out a measured survey.
Development Overview
2.5 The Applicant proposes the development of 229 new apartments, totalling 16,817 sq m (181,023 sq ft) of Net Sales Area over eight blocks up to a height of eight storeys and 13,260 sq m (142,738 sq ft) (GIA) of commercial floor space.
2.6 The development will provide the following residential units:
Unit Type Private Sale Affordable Rent Intermediate 1 Bedroom 69 0 11 2 Bedroom 116 0 12 3 Bedroom 8 0 1 3 Bedroom House 0 12 0 Total 193 12 24
2.7 In addition to the above residential accommodation the proposed development will include:
A new food store 10 retail units, food store café, public house and a gym A proposed community facility and education centre
3 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
Communal private gardens and play space Vehicle and cycle parking New improved access for vehicles and pedestrians; and New, high quality public realm including new trees.
2.8 The development will offer a total of 36 units for a mix of affordable rent and shared ownership tenure with the remaining 193 units offered as private sale homes. The proposed commercial space is to be offered at market value.
Planning
2.9 The Applicant has entered into a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) with the Council and has held a number of pre-application consultations and informal discussions in connection with this proposal. The Applicant submitted its planning application on the 20 February 2015 (Ref: DC/14/90032).
2.10 There has been a limited planning history associated with this Property over the past 20 years. A joint Screening and Scoping request was submitted to the Council on 9th June 2014. A formal response from the Council was received on 14th August 2014, where the Council confirmed the proposed development is considered to be an EIA development. An EIA has been undertaken and an Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared by the Applicant as the development proposals have the potential to give rise to significant effects on the environment.
2.11 In line with adopted planning policy LB Lewisham currently requires 50% of all proposed dwellings to be provided as affordable housing unless it can be demonstrated through viability that a lower provision is appropriate. In exceptional circumstances it is possible for the applicant to offer a payment in lieu of on-site affordable homes. In either circumstance an assessment must demonstrate that the maximum level of affordable housing has been secured or that an equivalent sum is paid to provide the equivalent number of affordable homes off-site.
Section 106 and CIL Proposals
2.12 A review of the Applicant’s development proposals and supporting planning application documents suggest that the CIL liability and S106 contributions could be as set out below:
Mayoral and LBL CIL: £3,225,861 £3,225,861 S106: £257,000 £257,000
TOTAL MCIL & CIL/S106 COST: £3,482,861
4 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
2.13 This calculation will need to be verified by the Council to confirm the application of additional floor space, types of use and any assumptions regarding relief and off-setting existing lawful uses. Should the above estimates prove to be incorrect this may impact on the viability of the proposed development and the ability for the Applicant to offer any additional affordable housing or other planning obligations.
5 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
3.0 Approach to Viability Appraisal
Limitation of residual development appraisals
3.1 Please note the following;
Development appraisals are highly sensitive to their inputs (i.e. small changes in inputs can lead to a marked change in outputs).
Development appraisals are required to assess viability as at today’s date, which is reinforced in the RICS Financial Viability in Planning guidance note. They are permitted to factor in historic costs and also potential future market and cost inflation. However this all needs to be considered as at today’s date.
Approach to Appraisal
3.2 In undertaking a viability assessment for planning purposes Urban Delivery gives full consideration of the RICS Guidance Note 94/2012 (GN94) – Financial Viability in Planning. GN94 provides an objective methodology framework to support Affordable Housing viability assessment. The GN94 highlights that it is grounded in the statutory and regulatory planning regime that currently operates in England. It is consistent with the Localism Act 2011, the NPPF and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010. GN94 concludes that the fundamental issue in considering viability assessments in a town planning context is whether an otherwise viable development is made unviable by the extent of planning obligations or other requirements.
3.3 GN94 defines financial viability for planning purposes as follows:
“An objective financial viability test of the ability of a development project to meet its costs including the cost of planning obligations, while ensuring an appropriate Site Value for the landowner and a market risk adjusted return to the developer in delivering that project”.
3.4 GN94 proposes the use of a residual appraisal methodology for financial viability testing and that such a methodology is normally used, where either the level of return or site value can be an input and the consequential output (either a residual land value or return respectively) can be compared to a benchmark having regard to the market in order to assess the impact of planning obligations or policy implications on viability. GN94 defines site value as follows:
“Site Value should equate to the market value subject to the following assumption: that the value has regard to development plan policies and all other material planning considerations and disregards that which is contrary to the development plan”.
6 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
3.5 It is accepted however that any assessment of site value will have regard to potential planning obligations, and the purpose of the viability appraisal is to assess the extent of these obligations while also having regard to the prevailing property market.
3.6 This principle is demonstrated by the diagram found in GN94. The costs and necessary returns of Development 1 are such that policy can be met in delivering all planning obligations while meeting a site value for the land, all other development costs and a market risk adjusted return. In contrast, Development 2 indicates that an increase in costs results in an inability of that development to absorb the original planning obligations and is therefore unviable. A financial viability assessment would be required to ascertain what could viably be delivered in the way of planning obligations while ensuring that the proposed development was viable and deliverable.
Source: RICS Guidance Note 94/2012.
3.7 Urban Delivery adopts the RICS definition of Market Value as the appropriate basis to assess site value.
3.8 This is consistent with the NPPF, which acknowledges that ‘willing sellers’ of land should receive ‘competitive returns’. Competitive returns can only be achieved in a market context (i.e. Market Value) not one which is hypothetically based on an arbitrary mark-up applied, as in the case of Existing Use Value (or Current Use Value) plus a premium.
3.9 In the absence of any definitive guidance, a variety of practitioners have evolved approaches to assess a reasonable Benchmark Land Value. One approach has been to adopt Current Use Value (CUV) plus a margin or a variant of this, i.e. Existing Use Value (EUV) plus a premium. GN94 states that the problem with this singular approach is that it does not reflect the workings of the market as land may not be released at CUV or CUV plus a margin (EUV plus). It is however, possible that its current use represents the Market Value if the CUV is in excess of the residual value produced by a proposed development.
7 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
3.10 This viability assessment has been undertaken in the light of the LB Lewisham’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Planning Obligations, adopted on the 25th February 2015. This includes guidance on financial viability assessments (paragraphs 4.31 to 4.38). In respect of land value the SPD notes that the analysis should be based on land values as set by the application of planning policy in determining the permissible scope of development rather than the price actually paid for the land.
3.11 The site value adopted in this viability review has been assessed against our view of a risk adjusted Market Value. The risk adjustment allows for the fact that the subject Property does not yet have a planning permission for the proposed use whereas evidence of similar land sales may reflect land sold with the benefit of a planning permission or a sale agreed on a ‘subject to planning’ basis. As such, the site value will normally be less than current market prices for development land for which planning permission has been secured and planning obligation requirements are known.
3.12 In determining the site value Urban Delivery gives regard to both Existing Use Value and transactional evidence of other residential land sales and all other material considerations that might impact on site value.
Residual Development Appraisal Assumptions
3.13 Our residual development appraisal is based on costs and values adopted by the appraiser and can then be applied to a bespoke timeframe with assumptions on cost breakdown throughout the life of the project. This assumption on costs, revenues and the timing of such is then used to calculate finance costs.
3.14 In our residual development appraisal we have adopted our own assumptions on the amount and timing of income and expenditure.
3.15 We have appraised the development scheme as a single phase.
8 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
4.0 Market Analysis
Local Property Market
4.1 We have undertaken a review of the local property market to identify a range of comparables relating to development land sales, new build residential unit sales and lettings and the letting and sale of commercial premises.
4.2 In considering evidence of land sales transactions where the land is sold with the benefit of planning permission we have sought to discount the achieved price by 40% to make an allowance for the time, cost and associated planning risk that a purchaser is likely to incur if purchasing a parcel of land unconditionally and without a planning permission for the proposed land use or scale of development they are seeking. This level of discount has been chosen to reflect the cost of making a planning application, an allowance for adverse changes in property market conditions as well as the uncertainty over agreeing S106 contributions and the viable number of affordable homes that may be provided on-site.
Land Sales
4.3 In forming an opinion on the land value for the Property we have sought to identify land sales evidence from around the local area. Where this is in limited supply we have extended our search area and applied value adjustments in order to form an opinion as to an appropriate Benchmark Land Value.
The Grove, 60 High Street, Eltham, SE9 4.4 This site, comprising 0.49 hectares (1.21 acres) of development land, is situated approximately 2.9km to the east of the Property and included a mixed-use residential scheme comprising 144 apartments (of which only 20% are affordable) and a 313 sq m (3,370 sq ft retail unit fronting Eltham High Street. A review of the planning documents connected with this development confirm that the scheme provided 68No. one bed flats, 70No. 2 bed flats and 6No. three bed flats, translating into approximately 370 habitable rooms.
4.5 We understand that the site was acquired with the benefit of planning permission in July 2014 for a sum in the order of £8,200,000.
4.6 We would note that this development opportunity is not directly comparable with that of Leegate Shopping Centre, which proposes a greater proportion of non-residential land uses. On a comparison of value by site area we would discount the value achieved for the Grove by around 40% to reflect the fact that planning permission was in place and that this was agreed with a proportion of affordable housing below the Local Panning Authority’s own policy compliance. On this basis, the Grove would suggest a development land value in the region of £9,880,000 per hectare (£4,000,000 per acre). On a value per habitable room basis this would equate to approximately £13,300 although is not easily applicable to the subject Property due to a much greater proportion of commercial land uses at Leegate.
9 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
120-122 Tanners Hill, Lewisham, SE8 4.7 This land, situated approximately 3.3km to the northwest of the Property and located in a more valuable area closer to central London, comprises an area of approximately 0.44 ha (1.09 acres) and was sold in September 2014 with the benefit of a planning permission for 58 residential units. We understand the sale price was in the order of £7,600,000.
4.8 In applying this comparable to the subject Property on an area basis we would allow for a discount of circa 40% to reflect the cost and risk of achieving a suitable planning permission. This discounted price would reflect a land value of circa £10,900,000 per hectare (£4,180,000 per acre). On the basis that the consented scheme included 176 habitable rooms, the discounted price reflects approximately £23,700 per habitable room.
Land Value Summary
4.9 Based on this evidence it is suggestable that the value of residential development land could be in the region of £9,880,000 per hectare (£4,000,000 per acre). We set out further analysis and how this could be applied to our assessment in section five of this report.
Residential Sales
4.10 We have undertaken an independent investigation into private residential sale values in the vicinity of the proposed development, as set out in the tables below.
Kidbrooke Village, Kidbrooke 4.11 Located approximately 1km to the north east of the subject Property, the development at Kidbrooke Village is well underway. Once complete, the development will offer a mix of 4,000 new homes and community facilities.
4.12 The developer is currently marketing units at Meridian Gate, Merlin Court and the Blackheath Quarter. We set out below a schedule of 1, 2 and 3 bed units which provides an indication of the prices being achieved for these units over the past six months.
10 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
4.13 It has been confirmed that the units are selling well and have sold at asking price. We would comment that the units at Meridian Gate and Merlin Court are slightly smaller on average than the equivalent units at the subject Property and this has the effect of increasing the average sales value.
4.14 The units at Kidbrooke Village are built around areas of open space and parkland with the completed development aiming to create a new sense of place on the outskirts of Blackheath. As such, it is possible that purchasers would be prepared to pay a premium for new homes on this development above that which could be achieved at Leegate.
The Grove, High Street, Eltham SE9
4.15 The development of this site, situated approximately 2.9km to the east of the Property, is now underway, currently marketing a range of one and two bedroom apartments expected to be completed in 2016.
11 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
4.16 This development, although a smaller scheme than the proposed development at Leegate, and comprising mainly residential uses without the scale of commercial uses proposed by the Applicant, offers a good comparable in terms of residential values for locations sufficiently distant from larger town centres and outside of large scale regeneration projects.
4.17 We set out below a selection of units and asking prices for the new homes at the Grove in Eltham:
4.18 As can be seen, the unit sizes are slightly smaller than the average units proposed at Leegate although the individual unit prices offer a good comparable. As such, the average value per sq ft may be slightly greater at the Grove than could be expected within the Leegate development.
Riverdale House, Molesworth Street, Lewisham SE13
4.19 This is a conversion of a former office building to provide a mix of studios, one and two bedroom apartments. The site is located approximately 1.8km to the west of Leegate, closer to the centre of Lewisham. Marketing of the units began in the second half of 2014.
12 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
4.20 We set out in the table below indicative details of the units that have sold to date as well as those that are currently available.
Indicative Sales from 2014
Sales and availability in 2015
4.21 As can be seen from the evidence above, the units are significantly smaller than those proposed at Leegate with the average values showing in excess of £6,350 per sq m (£590 per sq ft). We would also comment that the location of this development is superior to the subject Property, being within walking distance of Lewisham railway station and the DLR.
4.22 As such, we would not expect the units at Leegate to achieve average values as high as at Riverdale House.
Re-sales Evidence
4.23 Due to the lack of new development in close proximity to the subject Property, we have also had regard to the resale of existing housing stock in the Lee area.
4.24 We set out in the table below a selection of one and two bedroom apartments and three bedroom houses that have recently been sold within the Lee area.
13 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
4.25 As can be seen from this selection of evidence, the range of unit prices can vary considerably depending on unit type, building style and location. We would also comment that many of these units are slightly smaller than those proposed by the Applicant which has the effect of increasing the average value per sq ft.
Summary
4.26 In determining an average sales value we would have regard to the evidence for new build schemes as well as evidence for ceiling unit pricing within the local area.
4.27 As can be identified from the evidence above, the range of asking prices and sales values for individual units within schemes in the surrounding areas can vary significantly from £5,380 and £7,855 per sq m (£500 and £730 per sq ft). The developments at Kidbrooke Village and Riverdale House are both considered to be superior locations, albeit for different reasons. Riverdale House is closer to the centre of Lewisham with the benefit of good rail links to central London while Kidbrooke Village offers a less densely populated development with access to parkland that may be more appealing to families. We are of the opinion that the indicative price ranges for the units at the Grove in Eltham provide a
14 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
good base for pricing the units at Leegate. Sales values at Leegate could potentially exceed sale values at the Grove as units are slightly larger on average and location-wise, Leegate is more accessible to Lewisham town centre.
4.28 In determining an appropriate average sales value we have had regard to both the average unit sizes and the ceiling pricing for each unit type. We set out our assumptions in the table below:
Unit Type No. of Average Size Average Unit £ per Sq M Units Sq M (Sq Ft) Pricing (£ per Sq Ft) 57.5 £300,000 to £5,220 (£485) to 1 Bed Flat 80 (619) £355,000 £6,170 (£573) 76.7 £410,000 to £5,340 (£496) to 2 Bed Flat 128 (826) £450,000 £5,865 (£545) 107.7 £485,000 to £4,500 (£418) to 3 Bed Flat 9 (1,159) £550,000 £5,105 (£475) 118.9 £750,000 to £6,300 (£585) to 3 Bed House* 12 (1,280) £795,000 £6,680 (£621) £5,270 (£490) to Weighted Average Sales Value £5,920 (£550) *Excluded from calculation as all provided as Affordable Rented units
4.29 Based on the evidence available and unit pricing from local developments we are of the opinion that the average sale values for the units at Leegate could be in the range of £5,270 to £5,920 per sq m (£490 to £550 per sq ft). For the purpose of completing our review we have adopted an average value that reflects £5,595 per sq m (£520 per sq ft).
Residential Rental Values
4.30 We have reviewed the local property market and identified that rental values for one to three bedroom apartments are in the region of:
1 bed @ £215 per week (@ 70% = £150 per week) 2 bed @ £345 per week (@ 70% = £242 per week) 3 bed @ £360 per week (@ 70% = £250 per week)
4.31 We have adopted these average rental values in order to assess the potential price that a Registered Provider may pay for these rented affordable homes now proposed as part of the planning application. These figures have been adopted and applied to the on-site affordable homes to test the impact on viability and the total number and mix of tenures that could be provided by the Applicant.
4.32 The rental value per sq ft adopted in the relevant appraisals for the affordable rented units is a blended rate for the one, two and three bedroom units at £1,755 per sq m (£163 per sq ft).
4.33 With regard to the shared ownership units we have adopted market values and made an assumption on the initial sale of equity to the purchaser. This is typically 25%. The annual
15 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
rental payments on the interest retained by a Registered Provider are then calculated based on a maximum of 2.75% of the interest retained by the Registered Provider. We have however adjusted these rental figures to comply with maximum thresholds and affordability levels adopted by LB Lewisham.
4.34 We have based the rental revenue receivable from the shared ownership units on the current household income thresholds, which are as follows: (The figures in brackets represent the maximum housing cost as per paragraph 4.35)
1 bed @ £36,795 per annum (£12,252 per annum) 2 bed @ £42,663 per annum (£14,206 per annum) 3 bed @ £59,810 per annum (£19,916 per annum)
4.35 Current policy requires that total housing costs are limited to no greater than 45% of net household income (Net housing income is assumed to be 74% of gross household income). This should include mortgage payment, rent and service charge.
4.36 In preparing our assessment we have ensured that total housing costs are kept below the figures in brackets above. In doing so, we have assumed that purchasers will acquire a 25% share of equity with an average mortgage rate of 5% per annum and an allowance for annual service charge of between £750 and £1,250.
4.37 The sales value per sq ft adopted in the relevant appraisals is a blended rate for the one, two and three bedroom units at £2,315 per sq m (£215 per sq ft).
Commercial Uses
Supermarket Use
4.38 We have undertaken a review of market transactions in order to identify the potential value of the proposed supermarket unit within the Applicant’s development. We would comment that there is very little evidence for the letting and sale of supermarkets in the locality and we have therefore considered investment sales from further afield.
4.39 Wallington, Sainsbury’s: This store provides circa 5,610 sq m (60,400 sq ft) GIA, with decked and undercroft parking, a number of unit shops, and a residential tower over the rear part of the store. Sainsbury’s have a 35 year lease on the store from 1999, so at the point of sale earlier this year had approximately 20 years left to run. The lease has recently been restructured to provide 5 yearly rent reviews on an RPI basis with a collar and cap of 1% and 4% per annum. The property sold at a Net Initial Yield of 4.25%. The store is however dominant to the local catchment with no other supermarkets to be found within a 5 minute drive time.
4.40 Hounslow West, Morrisons: This store was sold in August 2014 and is comparable in so much as it is based in Greater London and has a car park utilised by shoppers for use at local shops adjoining the premises as well as in store. However the lease terms are far less
16 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
attractive to investors with circa 11 years left on the lease and open market rent reviews, whilst the store is in an inferior location. The transaction reflected a yield of 5.86%.
4.41 Barnet, Sainsbury’s: Extending to 6,465 sq m (69,587 sq ft) (but with a high office content of over 14,400 sq ft on 2 upper floors), and both surface level and decked parking, this store was sold in 2013 at a Net Initial Yield of 4.30%. With approximately 24 years left on the lease, and 5 yearly RPI compounded uplifts collared and capped at 2.5% - 3.5%, the store offered an attractive investment with a number of asset management and development prospects.
4.42 Cross Quarter in Abbey Wood, Sainsbury’s: We are aware that Sainsbury’s has agreed to take a 7,530 sq m (81,000 sq ft) store at this regeneration scheme in Abbey Wood. We understand that this investment opportunity was sold in January 2014 for a price in the order of £38.1m and reflecting an investment yield of 4.41%. Although there are no large food stores in the immediate area there is a large Asda, Morrison’s and a Lidl within 2km of the proposed Sainsbury’s.
4.43 It has been well publicised over the past year that the big four supermarkets have been experiencing operational difficulties, faced with increased competition from value operators such as Aldi and Lidl in addition to a change in the scale and frequency of average shopping visits to supermarkets. This has resulted in falling sales growth and large losses by Tesco in particular, which has embarked on a programme of store closures and cancelling certain development schemes. This has impacted on the perceived value of supermarket investment property.
4.44 We have applied a yield of 4.75% to the proposed foodstore at Leegate to reflect its close proximity to an existing Sainsbury’s store and the reservations this may present from potential investors.
Retail Use
4.45 We have undertaken a review of market transactions in order to identify the likely rent that could be achieved for retail units within the Applicant’s development as well as the investment yields that would be sought from investors.
4.46 282 Lee High Road: A ground floor retail unit comprising 94.67 sq m (1,019 sq ft) of space was let on a new lease in April 2015 at £15,000 per annum, reflecting a rental value of £158 per sq m (£14.72 per sq ft).
4.47 3 Blackheath Village: This property is located north of the subject Property in Blackheath Village and was let in July 2014 at a rent of £65,000 pa. The unit extends to 178 sq m (1,918 sq ft) which reflects an agreed rental value of £365 per sq m (£33.89 per sq ft).
4.48 101-103 Rushey Green, SE6: The retail unit of 140 sq m (1,506 sq ft) of ground-floor retail space was let on a 15-year lease from September 2014 at £25,000 pa, rising to £27,000 pa in year three, subject to a five yearly rent review and a tenant option to break in years five and ten. An initial six-month rent free period was agreed, with additional six months rent
17 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
free in year two. The initial agreed rent reflects a value in the order of £179 per sq m (£16.63 per sq ft) rising to £193 per sq m (£17.90 per sq ft).
4.49 224 Hither Green Lane, SE13: The unit of 36 sq m (385 sq ft) of ground-floor retail space was let on a three-year lease from July 2014 at an initial rent of £7,800 pa, equating to £217 per sq m (£20.26 per sq ft), rising to £8,500 pa, equating to £236 per sq m (£22.07 per sq ft) after eighteen months, subject to a tenant option to break also after eighteen months.
4.50 While the freehold interests in a number of retail properties have been transacted in recent months, with regard to investment transactions, there have not been many deals reported locally. As such, we have considered evidence from further afield and taken into account the quality of occupier likely to lease the proposed retail units within this scheme.
4.51 1 and 1a Brownhill Road, SE6: These units were recently leased on a 15 year term on rents ranging between £160 per sq m (£14.80 per sq ft) and £236 per sq m (£22 per sq ft). Both units are now being marketed as an investment opportunity seeking offers in the region of £850,000, reflecting a net initial yield of circa 7.5%.
4.52 In consideration of the transaction information available we would conclude that there is limited evidence locally upon which to form a robust opinion on rental values. The agreed rents from deals in the wider area range from £118 to £387 per sq m (£11 to £36 per sq ft) and are subject to size of unit, use class, lease terms and location. Given the proposed sizes of the 10 retail units proposed by the Applicant, we would expect these to appeal to retailers with a sound trading history and reasonably strong covenant. It is expected that units with an A3 use class will command a premium to those units to be occupied for A1 use.
4.53 It is our opinion that these retail units could be leased to a variety of retailers and that the rental levels could be in the range of £161 to £215 per sq m (£15 to £20 per sq ft).
4.54 With regard to the investment yield, for the purpose of this viability assessment we have adopted a yield of 7.5%. We believe this reflects letting strategy referred to in the Retail Statement submitted as part of the planning application which suggests that most of the proposed retail units will serve as a local service function.
Public House
4.55 We have undertaken a review of the local property market and would comment that there is limited evidence for the letting and sale of public houses in the locality in order to form a robust opinion on the rent that the proposed pub could achieve. In addition to the information that is available in the locality we have also considered investment sales from further afield.
4.56 The Lord Clyde, 9 Wootton Road, Deptford, SE8: We understand that this public house was sold for the sum of £735,000 in July 2014. The reported sale price reflects a capital value of circa £1,920 per sq m (£180 per sq ft). Our research of the property indicates that
18 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
while the ground floor remains as a public house, the owner has extended the building and converted the upper floors for residential use.
4.57 Albertines, 237 Lewisham Way, London SE4: We understand that this public house was sold for the sum of £660,000 in June 2013. The reported sale price reflects a capital value of circa £1,290 per sq m (£120 per sq ft).
4.58 The William Stanley, 7-8 High Street, London SE25: A private investor purchased the freehold interest in this public house accommodation and nine self-contained residential flats. The property was purchased at auction in December 2013 for £1.41m, reflecting a net initial yield of 6.60%. The public house is let on a 40 year lease from 13th July 1998 with a rent review in 2013 (outstanding) and five-yearly thereafter, subject to a tenant break option in July 2018. Seven of the nine flats are held on Assured Shorthold Tenancies and two are sold off long leasehold. The property provides a total current rental income of £93,640 pa.
4.59 With regard to rental values, public houses and other licensed leisure uses often base the rental levels on turnover or a proportion of EBITDA. As such, evidence that indicates a value per sq ft can be misleading. Based on certain private equity led deals in the early 2000’s we have seen evidence in the past of tenanted pubs paying rents equivalent to 30% to 60% of turnover as rental payments. A number of these experienced financial difficulties during the recession which led to restructuring.
4.60 Fox and Firkin, 316 Lewisham High Street, London SE13: We understand that this public house in Lewisham was subject to an annual rent of £50,000. This property was marketed as a going concern in 2013 and was reported to have achieved net sales of circa £367,000 in year end 2010. We have been unable to verify this information or confirm what is included or deducted from the net sales figure but a rent of £50,000 indicates a proportion of circa 14% of ‘net sales’, which may be considered towards the lower end of the potential rental range.
4.61 Based on information available we estimate that a rent in the order of £70,000 is achievable for the proposed public house. Based on a good covenant strength and the evidence above, we have adopted a yield of 6.5% in our appraisal. This would result in a capital value in the order of £1,610 per sq m (£150 per sq ft).
Gym Use
4.62 We have undertaken a review of the wider London market to identify letting and sales evidence for gym uses. Our review has identified a number of transactions.
4.63 Virgin Active, 108-110 Cricklewood Lane, NW2: This property was sold for £13,200,000 in February 2014. The property comprises 5,329 sq m (57,341 sq ft) of health and fitness club accommodation. The property is let for a thirty five year term, expiring 26 March 2035 at a current rent of £668,416 which breaks back to circa £125 per sq m (£11.65 per sq ft). The sale price equates to net initial yield of 4.93%.
19 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
4.64 Virgin Active, Unit 13, Smugglers Way, SW18: This property was sold for £9,425,000 in July 2013. The property comprises 3,734 sq m (40,192 sq ft) of health and fitness club accommodation. The property is let on a lease expiring December 2036 at a current rent of £610,836 which breaks back to circa £163 per sq m (£15.19 per sq ft). The sale price equates to net initial yield of 6.13%.
4.65 Meridian South, Hither Green Lane, SE13: This property was let in August 2014 for a rental of £55,000. The unit extends to 483.09 sq m (5,200 sq ft) of ground floor D2 space within Unit B. The rent reflects a value in the order of £114 per sq m (£10.58 per sq ft).
4.66 Based on this evidence we would conclude that a rent of £150 per sq m (£14 per sq ft) is achievable. While this unit remains unlet and lease terms would need to be negotiated with an occupier an investor would apportion greater caution to the unit value and seek a higher return. As such, a yield of between 7.00% and 7.50% is appropriate at the current time.
Community Use
4.67 Our review of the local property market has not revealed any community uses let recently in the surrounding area. In order to form an opinion of the level of rent that such uses could achieve we have therefore considered other D1/D2 uses.
4.68 61-63 Bondway, SW8: In May 2014 306.58 sq m (3,300 sq ft) of basement floor D1 medical space was let on a new 20-year FRI lease at £34,250 pa, equating to £112 per sq m (£10.38 per sq ft) subject to a rent review and option to break every five years. The unit was let in shell condition and an 18 month rent free period was agreed.
4.69 A private occupier has taken 1,298 sq m (13,967 sq ft) of first and second-floor D2 assembly and leisure space directly from the landlord on confidential terms. The property had previously been marketed with a quoting rent of £180,000 pa, equating to £139 per sq m (£12.89 per sq ft). While not directly comparable with the community space proposed within the Applicant’s scheme, the level of rent suggests that £129 per sq m (£12 per sq ft) should be adopted within the viability appraisal.
20 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
5.0 Viability Assessment
Land Value
5.1 In order to ascertain a reasonable land cost Urban Delivery has investigated an estimate of Market Value.
5.2 We understand that the Applicant owns the majority of the interest at Leegate Shopping Centre although there remain 18 apartments in separate ownership, a number of leasehold interests and the rights of way along Carston Close for which separate costs have been included within the appraisal.
Market Value
5.3 In order to adopt a preferred Market Value approach to assessing the land value we have reviewed the local property market for evidence of land sales or the sale of premises that are suitable for residential development.
5.4 Based on the limited evidence available as referred to in the previous section (The Grove, Eltham), we believe it is reasonable to assume that larger residential led sites with the benefit of a residential planning consent in the local area could achieve around £10,000,000 per ha (£4,000,000 per acre). However, where there is a high proportion of commercial land uses which may be deemed to be less valuable in this location than residential use, and where there is still some work to be completed in assembling a deliverable development site, this would be expected to have a detrimental impact on land value.
5.5 Applying a discount to reflect the higher proportion of non-residential land uses proposed and the potentially greater level of infrastructure and highways costs understood to be necessary to develop this site we calculate that a Benchmark Land Value of circa £5,670,000 to £5,800,000 per hectare (£2,300,000 to £2,350,000 per acre) is appropriate, resulting in a land value of between approximately £10,800,000 and £11,100,000.
Appraisal Inputs
Residential Revenue
5.6 Based on the evidence of recent sales in the local vicinity and having considered the prices likely to be achievable for the proposed units, we have adopted an average sales value for the private units of £5,595 per sq m (£520 per sq ft).
5.7 The most recent new build comparable evidence we have of sales close to the Lee Green area are located at Kidbrooke Village and the Grove in Eltham which have experienced average sales reflecting values in the range of £5,860 to £6,460 per sq m (£545 to £600 per sq ft). However, the units at these two comparable developments are slightly smaller which would have the effect of inflating the value per sq ft. In adopting this evidence we
21 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
have also had to make an allowance for the fact that property at Kidbrooke Village is likely to command a premium due to access to on-site leisure facilities for the benefit of residents.
Commercial Revenue
Supermarket Use
5.8 We understand that a deal has been agreed with an operator and the level of rent and premium to be paid has been agreed, therefore reflecting the best level achievable in the current market. Our review of other supermarket deals and knowledge of the current market would suggest that the terms reported are reasonable.
5.9 With regard to the investment yield, while we have adopted a yield of 4.75% we would be cautious that prime assets within the supermarket sector continue to offer secure investment opportunities to institutional investors with average yields on supermarket property in the region of 4.50% as at the end of 2014. However, we are mindful that his store is located opposite an existing Sainsbury’s supermarket and forms part of a mixed- use development rather than a stand-alone asset. This could therefore have an impact on potential alternative uses should the lease be terminated. As such, we are of the view that the a yield of 4.75% is appropriate in the current market although there could be scope for improved investment value over the next few years as the supermarket sector consolidates and recovers from its current problems.
Retail Uses
5.10 Lee Green is not a prime retail location and the availability of retail rental evidence is limited. Having considered evidence from further afield the range of values achievable can appear relatively wide. However, we would conclude that an average rent of around £183 per sq m (£17 per sq ft), assuming a greater mix of A1 uses with some A3 uses included, reflects the current market levels of rent.
5.11 In terms of the investment yield, based on the information available we have adopted a yield of 7.50%. However, the yield will be dependent on the quality of the occupiers and the lease terms and were a higher proportion of the retail units to be let to national occupiers on longer lease terms it could be anticipated that an investor would be prepared to pay a higher price for the opportunity and this would be reflected in a lower yield, potentially as low as 6.50%.
Public House
5.12 There is limited information available at the current time to verify the value to be attributed to the public house use. Based on the information that is available it is assumed that the pub will generate a rental income in the order of £70,000 per annum.
5.13 Based on the sale of other public houses referred to in the previous section, we would conclude that a yield of 6.50% should be adopted within the appraisal. This level of rent
22 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
and yield would generate a capital value in the order of £1,660 per sq m (£154 per sq ft), in line with the comparable evidence set out in section 4.
Gym Use
5.14 Based on the rental evidence available from other gyms in the area and in Greater London, we would adopt a rent of £150 per sq m (£14 per sq ft) per annum.
5.15 The yield will be dependent on the covenant of the tenant and the lease terms. We note that sales of gyms leased to well-known operators have achieved higher sales values and if such a letting could be achieved at Leegate we would anticipate that this would be reflected in a lower yield, potentially as low as 6.50%. For the purpose of our assessment we have adopted a yield of 7.00%.
Community Use
5.16 Based on market evidence and potential alternative uses for this space we are of the opinion that the rental level for this use could be in the order of £129 per sq m (£12 per sq ft).
5.17 With regard to the first floor space, we have applied a yield of 7.50%. We are currently unaware who this space will be leased to and their covenant strength. Should this space be leased to the Council or backed by a public sector body, it is possible that the yield could be reduced to reflect this added security of income to the investor.
Cost Advice
5.18 In order to assess construction costs we have taken advice from Trident Building Consultancy. Trident’s advice is based on cost benchmarks for other similar residential developments.
5.19 This cost benchmark evidence includes costs for items such as site clearance, substructure, superstructure, internal finishes, fittings and furnishings, M&E installations, external works and other items. An overall cost of circa £73,750,000 has been adopted, inclusive of preliminaries and contractors overheads and profits.
Contingency Cost
5.20 We have included a contingency of 5% within the viability appraisal and is applied to the main construction costs including demolition, build costs, external works, earthworks and remediation. It is not uncommon for developers to include a developer’s contingency of between 5% to 7.5% to cover unforeseen costs and delays.
S106 and CIL Contributions
5.21 We have applied the Mayoral CIL and S106 financial contributions to our appraisal as set out in paragraph 2.12. These total £3,482,861. This figure is based on the initial estimate
23 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
of total CIL and S106 contributions that would be due for the proposed development should it be granted planning permission.
Professional Fees
5.22 We have applied an average cost for professional fees reflecting 10% of construction costs. Development appraisals for new schemes typically allow for fees in the order of 10% to 12% of build costs.
Legal Fees
5.23 In addition to the professional fees referred to above, we have allowed for legal fees to cover the cost of acquiring the site at £20,000 and for agreeing the construction contract at a sum of £100,000.
5.24 As an objective assessment it is necessary to allow a cost for a developer to acquire the site in order to deliver the proposed development. On the basis that the site is in the region of £11,000,000 a fee of £20,000 to cover due diligence and conveyancing work is considered appropriate.
5.25 The legal fee for agreeing the construction contract at £100,000 would typically cover the negotiation of the contract with the client team, agreement on performance, contractors warranties and bonds, dispute handling, penalty clauses etc. We have discussed this element with Trident which has advised that this level of fee is reasonable.
5.26 At this stage we have not included an additional legal fee for negotiating the S106 agreement which depending on the extent of the S106 requirements and time required to reach agreement could amount to a sum in the order of £20,000 to £50,000+.
Additional Acquisition Costs
5.27 In order to complete the land acquisitions and secure clean title we have assessed an initial range of £3,400,000 to £3,800,000 and for the purpose of this assessment we have applied a figure in the order of £3,650,000.
Marketing Costs
5.28 We have allowed for a combination of marketing costs. These include letting costs of up to 10% of the first years annual rent in respect to the retail, pub, gym and community uses with a fixed letting fee of £80,000 attributed to the foodstore letting. A sales agent fee of 1% has been applied to all commercial uses.
5.29 We have allowed for marketing costs of 3% in respect to the sale of the private residential units. We are aware that different developers attribute different marketing rates and that such rates typically range from a relatively notional rate up to 5%. This cost would usually be expected to cover the preparation of a show apartment, production of brochures and
24 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
website, running the marketing suite and paying marketing staff salaries and/or commission to achieve sales.
Sale Legal Costs
5.30 We have included a rate of 0.5% of residential sales values to cover legal fees and the conveyancing of each private residential unit.
5.31 A sale legal cost of 0.5% of sales value has been applied to the commercial uses including the sale of the affordable housing units.
Finance Costs
5.32 We have adopted a finance rate of 7.0%. While large developers may be able to achieve more preferential rates, we have assumed that this will also cover separate banking fees for arrangement costs or loan exit fees which typically range from 1% to 2% of the funds borrowed.
5.33 It is also likely that in practice, in order to limit loan to value ratios to no more than 60% to 70%, a proportion of the development funds will be drawn from internal reserves which can attract a higher ‘cost of money’ where opportunity costs require a internal rate of return in excess of finance rates offered by financial institutions. We are therefore of the opinion that this finance rate is appropriate in these circumstances.
Developer Profit
5.34 In the light of recent guidance and to fairly reflect the risk of the proposed development, a return of 20% of Gross Development Value has been adopted.
5.35 With regard to a suitable development return we consider the GLA Toolkit’s default allowance of 20% of Gross Residential Development Value a reasonable benchmark. However we are aware that other viability toolkits permit a range of profit levels to suit the phasing and perceived risk of the project.
5.36 We have also had regard to recent appeal cases where the Planning Inspectorate has passed judgement on the acceptability of certain profit levels within viability assessments. One particularly prominent case being The University of Reading Vs Wokingham BC in which the Inspector accepted a developer return of 20% profit on Gross Development Value.
25 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
6.0 Viability Outputs
Viability Findings
6.1 Based on our opinion of Gross Development Value for the proposed development, the development costs and the Land Value Benchmark, we are of the opinion that the Applicant has offered the maximum number of affordable homes that can be provided at the current time. This offer comprises 36 affordable homes which are to be provided as 12 affordable rented units and 24 shared ownership units, which equates to 15.7% of the total number of units proposed by the Applicant.
6.2 Based on our assessment the Applicant will receive a developer profit of circa 18.50% based on Gross Development Value. While this profit level achieves the Applicants target return, it should be noted that the residual land value of circa £3,500,000 is approximately £7,600,000 lower than the appropriate Land Value Benchmark referred to above, the upper range being in the order of £11,100,000. Despite this deficit, we understand that the Applicant is committed to delivering this number of affordable homes within this development scheme.
6.3 As part of the Applicant’s proposal however, it is also gifting 100 sq m (1,073 sq ft) of community space to a local community user.
6.4 In order for the proposed development to generate the required level of developer return and a residual land value of £11,100,000, we estimate that the average sales value of the private residential units would need to increase by approximately 15.7% above our base value of £5,595 per sq m (£520 per sq ft) to £6,470 per sq m (£601 per sq ft) to achieve a financially viable proposal able to support an offer of 15.7% affordable homes based on the proposed tenure split.
6.5 Alternatively, if residential sales values were to remain static, the development would require investment yields to reduce by over 100 basis points (1.00%) to have the effect of increasing the Gross Development Value for the commercial uses and generating a financially viable scheme. While there may be scope for the yields of the retail units and gym to reduce once lettings are achieved, it should be noted that a large proportion of commercial value is linked to the supermarket which currently has less potential for a yield reduction of this magnitude.
Sensitivity Testing
6.6 We have run a series of sensitivity tests in order to understand the impact of changes to the assumptions on the viability of the scheme.
26 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
Private Sales Value Sensitivity
6.7 The sensitivity analysis is based on a change to the average sales value and the build costs by a factor of 8% and 16%. The development would need to experience an increase in the average sales value of just under 16% or a reduction in build costs of around 12% to achieve a residual land value that would be equal to or in excess of the Benchmark Land Value.
Commercial Value Sensitivity
6.8 In order to generate a Benchmark Land Value in excess of £11,100,000 the average yield would need to reduce by around 1.06%. Alternatively, construction costs would need to be reduced by almost 12% to achieve the same viability outcome.
6.9 A combination of these sensitivity analyses suggests that to achieve a viable scheme to support the offer of 15.7% affordable homes it would be necessary for private residential sales values to increase by around 9% while yields on the commercial uses reduce by 50 basis points (0.50%).
Review Mechanism
6.10 Given the scope for sales values to continue to improve over the proposed duration of this development we would recommend that the Council seeks a review mechanism within a Planning Agreement to ensure that where viability permits any future uplift in value can be captured and, additional affordable housing can be provided.
27 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015 Private and Confidential
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 Having undertaken a viability assessment for the proposed redevelopment of Leegate Shopping Centre we are of the opinion that the offer for 15.7% affordable housing is reasonable.
7.2 Our appraisal indicates that the level and mix of tenure of affordable housing, based on costs and values adopted as at the date of this report, while generating the required level of developer profit, will potentially produce a deficit against the Benchmark Land Value by a sum in the order of £7,600,000.
7.3 In light of this review, it is evident that based on the costs and sales values arrived at as at the date of this report the proposal does not generate a sufficient return or surplus to provide any additional affordable housing other than the units currently proposed by the Applicant.
7.4 However given the results of the sensitivity testing and the anticipation that sales values will increase, albeit potentially more gently over the next 24 months, the Council should incorporate a clause in the Section 106 Agreement which enables a review of this scheme at pre-determined scenarios to ensure that the Applicant provides a fair contribution towards affordable housing in the Borough.
28 Leegate Shopping Centre | Viability Report, May 2015