planning report PDU/0623a/02 7 March 2012 Thamesmead Industrial Estate/ Veridian Park, Erith in the London Borough of Bexley planning application no. 10/00063/OUTEA 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 Application for an extension for implementation of the previously approved scheme 02/03373/OUTEA; an outline application for the construction of B1/B8 business park in three phases including landscape and ecological work and details of reserved matters of design, external appearance and siting for phase one. The applicant The applicant is Tilfen Land Limited, and the architect is Blue Sky Planning Limited. Strategic issues The Mayor previously raised issues relating climate change and transport. These matters have now been satisfactorily resolved and the proposed application is acceptable in strategic planning policy terms. The Council’s decision In this instance Bexley Council has resolved to grant permission. 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 25 January 2010 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 Category 1B and 3F of the Schedule to the Order 2008: page 1 “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.” “Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the provision of more than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use. 2 On 3 March 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0623a/02, and subsequently advised Bexley Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 48 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 49 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. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 23 February 2012 Bexley Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 27 February 2012 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 11 March 2012 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 5 At the consultation stage Bexley Council was advised that London Plan policies on the principle of the development, design, climate change, biodiversity and transport were relevant to the application and that the application complied with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons: Principle of the development: The proposed development is acceptable in principle and complies with London Plan Policy 3B.4 and draft replacement London Plan Policy 2.17. Design: There is insufficient information to determine whether the application fully complies with London Plan Policies 4B.1–4B.3 and 4B.5. This matter will be dealt with through approval of reserved matters. Climate change adaptation: There are a significant omission of information which is required to determine whether the proposal complies with London Plan Policy 4A.3 – 4A.7. Climate change mitigation: The proposal does not comply with London Plan Policy 4A.6 and 4A.10. The applicant has taken significant measures mitigate flooding and the proposal largely complies with largely complies with London Plan Policies 4A.12 and 4A.14. Further information is required to determine whether the proposal complies with London Plan Policy 4A.16. Biodiversity: The proposal largely complies with London Plan Policy 3D.14. page 2 Transport: Additional information is required to ensure the proposal complies with the London Plan policies 3C.2, 3C.23 and 3C.25, and draft replacement London Plan polices 6.3, 6.13 and 6.14. 6 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan policy. The following changes, however, might remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan: Climate change adaptation: The applicant is required to provide an energy strategy which provides the information set out in paragraphs 25 to 28 of this report. In addition, when an energy strategy is produced it should be secured through the use of a section 106 condition. Climate change mitigation: The applicant should provide the information requested in paragraph 34 of this report. The applicant should consult with the Environment Agency to ensure that risk of flooding is mitigated in the most appropriate way at the detailed design stage. Transport: The applicant should provide additional transport information as set out in paragraphs 37 to 44. Climate change adaptation 7 At the consultation stage, the applicant failed to submit an energy strategy which is required by London Plan Policy. The applicant has now submitted the required strategy and energy officers have provided the comments on the proposed strategy. Energy efficiency 8 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameter will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include low energy lighting and controls. 9 Building regulations modelling has been used to estimate the carbon savings that would be achieved with the measures above. The carbon savings have been estimated to be of 109 tonnes CO2 per annum which is equivalent to a reduction of 40% beyond 2006 building regulations (around 15% beyond 2010 building regulations minimum requirements). District heating 10 There are no heat networks in the vicinity of the development to which the proposed scheme could connect to. 11 A site wide heat network has not been proposed for this development. Due to the nature of the heat load of the proposed development this is accepted. Combined heat and power 12 The use of combined heat and power has been disregarded. Due to the nature of the development loads this is accepted. page 3 Renewable energy 13 The applicant is proposing a combination of air source heat pumps and roof mounted photovoltaics and solar thermal for the office units and a combination of roof mounted solar thermal and photovoltaics for the warehouse units. 14 The combination of the above proposals would reduce carbon emissions by a further 20% beyond the energy efficient scenario. Summary 15 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 129 tonnes of CO2 per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy has been taken into account. This equates to a reduction of 142 tonnes per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2006 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 52% (around 27% beyond 2010 building regulations minimum requirements). 16 Given the outline nature of the proposal and the lack of certainty regarding the end occupier and its energy demands, it is accepted that some degree of flexibility has been built into the energy strategy to allow for different scenarios. This flexibility is reflected within the planning condition securing the implementation of the energy strategy, which provides a range of minimum carbon dioxide reduction for a number of model buildings and this is acceptable in this instance. Climate change mitigation 17 At the consultation stage, concerns were raised regarding the lack of information on the proposed heating and cooling system. Furthermore, the Council were asked to secure the inclusion and design of green/ brown roofs by condition and the applicant was required to consult with the Environment Agency to ensure that risk of flooding is mitigated in the most appropriate way at the detailed design stage. 18 The applicant has now provided additional information regarding the proposed heating and cooling systems within the energy strategy and this has been secured by condition. The Council have also include an appropriate condition regarding the details of the proposed green/brown roofs. The applicant has consulted the Environment Agency and Thames Water (responses summarised below) neither of which have raised any objection to the proposal. 19 The application now largely complies with London Plan climate change adaptation policy. Transport 20 At Stage 1, TfL was satisfied that the application renewal would be unlikely to have any negative impact on the operation of either the strategic highway or the public transport network. Given its strategic nature, the impact on the Eastern Way/ Yarnton Way roundabout needed to be considered, as not previously assessed as part of the submission.