Our ref: APP/G6100/W/19/3233585 Gregory Markes Quod Ltd Ingeni Building 17 Broadwick Street London 3 June 2020 W1F 0DE Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY LEOPARD GUERNSEY ANCHOR PROPCO LTD LAND AT VIP TRADING ESTATE AND THE VIP INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANCHOR AND HOPE LANE, LONDON SE7 7TE APPLICATION REF: 16/4008/F 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Mike Robins MSc BSc(Hons) MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry from 19 November to 3 December 2019 into your client’s appeal against the decision of the Greater London Authority to refuse your client’s application for planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and erection of 11 buildings ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height for Class C3 residential use, with flexible uses comprising Class B1 (Business), Class A1 – A3 (Retail/Restaurant), Class D1 (Community) and Class D2 (Leisure) at ground floor and first floor level, alterations to existing vehicular access and creation of new pedestrian access from Anchor and Hope Lane and the riverside, creation of new areas of open space and landscaping together with the provision of associated car parking, cycle spaces, refuse and recycling storage, plant and all other associated works, in accordance with application ref: 16/4008/F, dated 3 December 2018. 2. On 10 April 2019, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 2853 Phil Barber, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Environmental Statement 5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR5.8-5.10, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Procedural matters 6. The Secretary of State notes that there have been a number of amendments to the proposed scheme since the initial proposal in 2016 (IR3.1). However, as the final proposed scheme (IR3.4) was the one considered at inquiry, the Secretary of State does not consider that the amendments to the scheme raise any matters that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision on this appeal, and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been prejudiced. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 7. In December 2019, the Mayor issued the “Intend to Publish” version of the emerging London Plan. After considering that Plan, on 13 March 2020 the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to the Mayor making a series of eleven Directions to the Plan. The Mayor cannot publish the London Plan until the Directions have been incorporated, or until alternative changes to policy to address identified concerns have been agreed. 8. The 2019 Housing Delivery Test results were published on 13 February 2020. The Council's score was assessed as 90%, requiring an Action Plan to be put into place. The Secretary of State is satisfied that this does not affect his decision, and does not warrant further investigation or a referral back to parties. Policy and statutory considerations 9. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 10. In this case the development plan consists of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (July 2014) and the London Plan (2016) . The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR6.1- 6.4. 11. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’) as well as the Charlton Riverside Supplementary Planning Document 2017 (SPD). The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018 and further revised in February 2019. Unless otherwise specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the 2019 Framework. 12. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or 2 their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 13. In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Emerging plan 14. The emerging plan comprises the draft New London Plan and the emerging Royal Borough of Greenwich Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SAP). Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. The emerging London Plan is at an advanced stage of preparation, and the Secretary of State has directed the areas where changes must be made. The policies which are relevant to this case where changes must be made include policy D3 (Density) and SD1. However, details of the way in which the Plan will deliver the aims set out in the Secretary of State’s directions are not yet finalised. The Secretary of State therefore considers that these policies in the emerging Plan carry moderate weight. Other policies in the emerging Plan which are relevant to this case and where no modifications have been directed include those policies listed in IR6.7 (apart from policies D3 (Density) and SD1). The Secretary of State considers that these policies carry significant weight. 15. The Secretary of State notes that some references in IR6.7 to emerging policies in the draft London Plan are now incorrect. Namely, D1A (now D2); D1B (now D3); D2 (now D4); D4 (now D6); D7 (now D8); D8 (now D9); D12 and D13 (now D13 and D14); ; H5 (now H4) and H6 (now H5). The Secretary of State has inserted the amended references in this letter where relevant. 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the SAP is some considerable way off adoption (IR6.6). The Secretary of State considers that it is still a relatively early stage in the process, that it may still be subject to change and agrees with the Inspector that relevant policies should carry limited weight (IR6.6). Main issues Effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area 17. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis at IR15.4-15.88. For the reasons given at IR15.12-15.25 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector and finds that the SPD to be well considered and robust, and also to be a carefully crafted and well-informed document (IR15.26). For the reasons given at IR15.27-15.55 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that overall, Plot B, built out predominantly at an unrelieved level of 10 storeys, would fail to create a gateway and transitional form required from the Neighbourhood Centre to the rest of Atlas and Hope Lane and the Charlton Park character area. He further agrees that it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area (IR15.38). The Secretary of State has gone on to consider the Inspector’s analysis at IR15.39-15.55. For the reasons given he agrees that the scale of Plot A would be in clear conflict with the SPD (IR15.39). He further agrees that the significant step up in height would be a jarring transition, and engage the 3 metropolitan character that the SPD seeks to avoid (IR13.41). For the reasons set out at IR15.42-15.45 he agrees that the development cannot be assessed as being of human scale, in conflict with policy and guidance. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that the eastern row, proposed at a consistent 10 storeys (IR15.46) would potentially compromise the future opportunities on the western edge of the adjoining site to achieve reasonable living conditions (IR15.52) and would represent further harm to the character and appearance of the area (IR15.55). 18. For the reasons given at IR15.56-15.62, the Secretary of State shares the Inspector’s concern in regard to the provision of open spaces, and agrees that their containment and lack of outlook would fail to achieve the community elements of the design sought by the SPD and that the resulting minimum provision of sunlight would do little to relieve the self-containment and, in places, oppressive nature of the surrounding buildings (IR15.62).