planning report PDU/1445a/02 17 November, 2008 Putney Place, 84-88 Upper Richmond Road in the London Borough of Wandsworth Planning application no. 2008/3321 Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal A detailed application for demolition of the existing office buildings and a redevelopment of the site to provide a residential-led mixed-use scheme comprising 300 residential units, 3,439 sq.m. of office space, 114 sq.m. of retail (Class A1) space, 443 sq.m. of flexible retail/restaurant/office (Classes A1, A3 and B1) space, 2,862 sq.m. of public amenity space, 32 car parking spaces, 213 sq.m. of cycle storage in excavated basement, associated plant and new public art, accommodated in two separate 26-storey (84m) and 21-storey (67.5m) buildings; and the erection of a single-storey building to contain 84 sq.m. of retail/cafe (Class A1/A3) space and landscaped public realm. The applicant The applicant is Oracle Residential Ltd and the architects are SMC Alsop. Strategic issues Wandsworth Council has resolved to refuse permission for this application. The Mayor must consider whether the application warrants a direction to take over determination of the application under Article 7 of the Mayor of London Order 2008. Having regard to the Council’s draft decision notice there are no sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case and, therefore, no basis to issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order 2008. Recommendation That Wandsworth Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 16 September 2008, the Mayor of London received documents from Wandsworth Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1A, 1B(c), and 1C(c), of the Schedule to the Order 2008: 1A-”Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or page 1 houses and flats. ” 1B- “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings— (c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.” 1C- “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions—(c) the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.” 2 On 22 October 2008, the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1445a/01, and subsequently advised Wandsworth Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 110 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 111 of that report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. 4 On 6 November 2008, Wandsworth Council resolved to refuse planning permission for the development, and on 10 November 2008 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 23 November 2008 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 5 The Council’s draft decision notice includes the following five reasons for refusal: i) The proposal would create an overbearing and incongruous form of development of inappropriate form, size, height, design, materials and appearance- out of character with the built form of the surrounding area, and of an inappropriate layout and design which would be to the detriment of visual amenity, to the detriment of the amenity of users of the development, and would form an overdevelopment of the site with inappropriate environmental conditions, to the detriment of the area and surrounding infrastructure, with insufficient benefits to the quality of the townscape, the quality of the public realm and funding contributions toward off-site improvements- contrary to UDP policies GEN7,TBE1, TBE2, TBE4,TBE5 and T1, and the Core Strategy Proposed Submission policies PL4, PL14 and IS3. ii) The proposal by reason of its height, layout and proximity to residential properties, would form an overbearing and dominant feature, having adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers, contrary to UDP policies GEN12 and H3, and Core Strategy Proposed Submission Policy PL6. iii) The loss of office space, which would lead to the loss of employment accommodation within the town centre and which is not considered adequately justified, has been put forward to take a contrary approach to UDP policy BIN3 and Core Strategy Proposed Submission Policies PL6, PL8, and PL14. iv) The proposal comprises below standard proportion affordable housing and an inappropriate split between shared ownership and social rented accommodation with no justification, contrary to the requirements of GEN 13, Core Strategy Proposed Submission policy IS5 and London Plan policy 3A.9. page 2 v) The proposal fails to provide satisfactory information to demonstrate acceptable levels of energy efficiency, measures to minimise environmental impact and to ensure an optimum sustainable form of development in accordance with the requirements of UDP policy GEN1 and Core Strategy Proposed Submission policy IS2. 6 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case. 7 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority Policy test guidance Circular GOL Circular 1/2008 8 The initial policy test regarding the Mayor’s power to take over and determine applications referred under parts 1 and 2 of the schedule to the Order is a decision about who should have jurisdiction over the application rather than whether planning permission should ultimately be granted or refused. 9 The policy test consists of the following three parts, all of which must usually be met in order for the Mayor to take over the application: a) significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan; b) significant effects on one or more borough (except applications under Category 1A); and c) sound planning reasons for his intervention. 10 Parts (a) and (b) of the test identify the impact an application would have on the Mayor’s policies and the geographical extent of the impact, whilst part (c) deals with the reasons for the Mayor’s intervention, having regard to the Council’s draft decision on the application. These tests are intended to ensure that the Mayor can only intervene in the most important cases. 11 This report considers the extent to which the policy tests under Article 7(1) apply in this case and whether, therefore, the Mayor should direct that he is to be the local planning authority and apply the tests set out under Article 7(3) of the Order 2008. Policy test 7(1)(c): Sound planning reasons for intervening 12 Notwithstanding parts (a) and (b), part (c) of the policy test is whether the Mayor considers there to be sound planning reasons to intervene. Having regard to the details of the proposal and the Council’s draft reasons for refusal, together with the outstanding issues from stage one described in paragraphs 14 to 22 below, there are no sound planning reasons to intervene in this case. 13 In order for the Mayor to issue a direction that he is to be the local planning authority, relevant policy tests a) and c) must be met. Given policy test (c) has not been met, there is no basis to issue a direction under Article 7. 14 Notwithstanding the above, should the scheme be considered at appeal or a revised application submitted the applicant should have regard to the following matters considered below. • The submission of a housing toolkit appraisal to assess the financial viability of the scheme and to justify the low provision of affordable housing. page 3 • Confirmation as to whether a registered social landlord has been secured, how the proposed sheltered housing would be managed, whether a housing grant has been sought and if not, the reasons for that stance. • Confirmation of firm proposals to meet the shortfall in children’s playspace required as part of this development. • Further discussions with GLA officers, the Council and the applicant on the scale and design of the tower buildings. • Addressing the energy issues raised in paragraphs 44 to 57 of the attached planning report. • The submission of a noise assessment report to address the issues raised in paragraphs 70 to 75 of the attached report report. • The submission of further details in respect of the access provisions for disabled people (e.g. secure storage or charging facilities for residents who use a mobility scooter, and the provisions made for people with sensory impairments) as described in paragraphs 76-82 of the attached report.