planning report PDU/2453/02 10 February 2010 Samas Roneo, Maiden Lane, Crayford in the London Borough of Bexley planning application no. 09/00334 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 Detailed planning application for redevelopment to provide a new gymnasium (Class D2) with associated parking, landscaping and a new access and outline planning permission for up to 247 residential units (comprising 52 x 3 bedroom houses; 35 x 4 bedroom homes and 160 apartments) and associated landscaping areas and green open space. 252 car parking spaces the residential accommodation and 58 spaces for the gymnasium are proposed. The applicant The applicants are Barratt Homes and Europa Gym Club, and the architect is Formation Architects. Strategic issues The proposal will result in the loss of a site designated as Strategic Industrial Land for residential uses and for a replacement gym. The site has been vacant for a long time period and has many constraints that affect not only its employment function, but its alternative use. Issues relating to design, biodiversity, housing, traffic and transport, and sustainable design are also relevant. Recommendation That Bexley Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 6 May 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Bexley Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1A and 3E of the Schedule to the Order 2008. The categories are as follows: • 1A ”Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”; and page 1 • 3E “Development (a) which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and (b) comprises …the provision of more than 2,500 square metres of floorspace for a use falling within …(xii) class D2 (assembly and leisure)”. 2 On 10 June 2009 the Deputy Mayor considered planning report PDU/2453/01, and subsequently advised Bexley Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 161 of the above-mentioned report. Of particular concern was the release of strategic industrial land and the non-plan led approach to its change of use. Although, paragraph 163 of the abovementioned report suggested possible remedies that could address the other deficiencies of the application, the strategic employment land use issue was more difficult to reconcile through the planning application process. 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. Small revisions have been made to the application including the reduction in the number of housing units from 254 to 247; a 29 space reduction in car parking numbers; a decrease in the size of the gym including a significant reduction in seating; design alterations including changing the location and position of the main entrance. On 26 November 2009 Bexley Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, for the revised application, and on 28 January 2010 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Bexley Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Bexley Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 10 February 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update Employment land 5 As mentioned, the issue of the loss of strategic industrial land (SIL) was the most significant problem highlighted within initial consultation response from the Deputy Mayor. Within saved policies of the Bexley UDP and the Bexley Council Crayford Strategy and Action Plan the site is identified as retained employment land and accordingly the proposal is contrary to the development plan, including the London Plan. The Deputy Mayor was clear in his advice, that any change in employment land designation, should only appropriately occur during the plan making process, rather than being progressed on an ad-hoc planning application basis. 6 Between the 1 February 2010 and 12 March 2010, the Bexley Council Core Strategy Preferred Options is open to consultation. This document, although not having full development plan status at this stage, is an up-to-date view of Bexley Council’s policy aspirations. The Core Strategy document is silent on the issue of strategic employment land release, as it states future development plan documents will identify sites that will be safeguarded as Bexley’s key locations for industry and employment. Within the emerging policy CS06 relating to employment in jobs, there is no specific mention of strategic employment land. However, within proposed policy CS14 that specifically covers Crayford mention is made of “supporting improved community services including the provision of.... the relocated Europa Gym facility”. 7 In response to the issue of granting planning permission for housing and a gym on strategic industrial land, the Bexley Council committee report focuses on the GLA’s employment land review page 2 which identified Bexley as a borough subject to ‘managed transfer’ of employment land and that the same research has indicated there is a surplus of 45 hectares of employment land in the borough. It is important to note, that this surplus relates to general employment land, not just strategic industrial land. 8 Within the report, Bexley Council also highlight that, as the release of employment land will happen through their Site Specific Allocations document (which is not due to be adopted until the latter part of 2012), it is not possible to confirm which employment sites will be allowed to be released from employment uses until an in depth analysis of individual sites and their characteristics in terms of long term employment objectives has been undertaken. 9 There is an obvious limitation in the attractiveness of this site for employment uses, namely the restricted access arrangements. Vehicular access to the site is provided off Maiden Lane, which is limited to the south given the presence of a single-lane, height restricted tunnel under the railway lines and the presence of narrow residential streets to the north. Accordingly, the site is quite inaccessible for large lorries or for the frequent traffic movements often associated with industrial sites. 10 It has been an aspiration of Bexley Council planners, the LDA and the GLA for many years that an alternative access into the Samas Roneo site, be created from the west. This would need to involve cooperation with the adjoining owner of the Acorn Industrial Estate. This alternative access has never come to fruition, namely as outlined within the Mayors initial consultation response, it is not in the interests of either of the landowners to do so and, as pointed out by the Bexley Council committee report, there is the potential for a ‘ransom strip’ to be created. Additionally, the estate roads within the Acorn Estate are not currently adopted public roads so significant negotiation would be required to make this arrangement work. 11 It is acknowledged that access arrangements to the site are difficult and do not appear to provide the adequate access for most industrial uses. It is regrettable that an alternative access from the west has never been forthcoming. 12 Within its assessment of the proposal, Bexley Council also focus on the fact the site has been vacant since 2001 and there has been concerted and targeted marketing of the site for industrial purposes. Further information on this marketing has now been provided, although most of this is from the more recent marketing period from 2007 onwards. This sales and marketing approach appears robust. The long-term vacancy of the site is obviously an issue which will continue to impact on the character of the wider area. Within this application and previous planning applications for the site, evidence of the significant stock of vacant, higher quality industrial land in the area has also been provided. 13 In summary, the loss of the site from London’s pool of strategic industrial land through the planning application process does not represent best practice and, in the strictest terms, is contrary to London Plan policy 3B.4. The loss of the employment designation would impact upon the integrity of this wider pocket of strategic industrial land, including the apparently successful Acorn Industrial Estate and the adjoining Crayford Industrial Estate, particularly in light of potential release of strategic industrial land further to the west. It is very unfortunate that Bexley Council has not used the Core Strategy process to provide a clear position on how employment land will be treated and at this stage there is little policy justification for allowing this site to be released from employment use. 14 However, the access problems; long term vacancy and marketing efforts combined with the emerging Bexley Council policy position which indicates there is capacity for the release of approximately 45 hectares of employment land and the policy priority to relocate the Europa Gym within Crayford, are all persuasive, although not robust from a policy perspective.