this meeting will be paperless. the agenda is accessible ... · ward: shirley recommendation: grant...
TRANSCRIPT
To: Councillor Paul Scott (Chairman);Councillor Humayun Kabir (Vice-Chairman);Councillors Jamie Audsley, Kathy Bee, Luke Clancy, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Manju Shahul-Hameed, Susan Winborn and Chris Wright
Reserve Members: Jeet Bains, Simon Brew, Richard Chatterjee, Sherwan Chowdhury, Pat Clouder, Steve Hollands, Karen Jewitt, Bernadette Khan and Maggie Mansell
A meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE which you are hereby summoned to attend, will be held on Thursday 14th July 2016 at 6:30pm, in The Council Chamber, The Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX.
GABRIEL MacGREGORActing Council Solicitor and Acting Monitoring OfficerLondon Borough of CroydonBernard Weatherill House8 Mint Walk, Croydon CR0 1EA
MARGOT ROHANSenior Members Services Manager(020) 8726 6000 [email protected]/agenda 5 July 2016
Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting. If you require any assistance, please contact the person detailed above, on the righthand side.
To register a request to speak, please either e-mail [email protected] or call MARGOT ROHAN by 4pm on the Tuesday before the meeting.
This meeting will be paperless. The agenda is accessible online via the mobile app: http://secure.croydon.gov.uk/akscroydon/mobile click on 'Meetings' on the opening page.
AGENDA - PART A
1. Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 30th June 2016 (Page 1)
To approve the minutes as a true and correct record.
2. Apologies for absence
3. Disclosure of Interest
In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutoryprovisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of theCouncil are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosablepecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality in excess of £50. Inaddition, Members and co-opted Members are reminded that unless theirdisclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or isthe subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they arerequired to disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting.This should be done by completing the Disclosure of Interest form andhanding it to the Business Manager at the start of the meeting. TheChairman will then invite Members to make their disclosure orally at thecommencement of Agenda item 3. Completed disclosure forms will beprovided to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’Interests.
4. Urgent Business (if any)
To receive notice from the Chair of any business not on the Agenda whichshould, in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, beconsidered as a matter of urgency.
5. Exempt Items
To confirm the allocation of business between Part A and Part B of theAgenda.
6. Development presentations (Page 5)
To receive the following presentation on a proposed development:
6.1 16/01001/PRE Whitgift Centre, North End, CroydonProposed comprehensive retail-led development to include leisure, offices, community facilities, new residential units (up to1,000) and enhanced public realm and infrastructure improvementsWard: Fairfield
7. Planning applications for decision (Page 23)
To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning &Strategic Transport:
7.1 16/00274/P 393 Wickham Road, Croydon, CR0 8DP
Demolition of the existing dwelling; erection of a three storey building with lower ground floor comprising 7 two bedroom flats with associated access and forecourt parkingWard: ShirleyRecommendation: Grant permission
7.2 16/01723/P 45 Harold Road, London, SE19 3SPDemolition of existing bungalow; erection of single/three storey building comprising 4 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats; formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parkingWard: Upper NorwoodRecommendation: Grant permission
8. Items referred by Planning Sub-Committee
To consider any item(s) referred by a previous meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee to this Committee for consideration and determination:
There are none.
9. Other planning matters
To consider the accompanying report by the Director of Planning &Strategic Transport:
There are none.
10. [The following motion is to be moved and seconded as the “cameraresolution” where it is proposed to move into part B of a meeting]
That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the pressand public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of businesson the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt informationfalling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of theLocal Government Act 1972, as amended.
AGENDA - PART B
None
This page is intentionally blank
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting held on Thursday 30th June 2016 at 7:00pm in The Council Chamber, The Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX
MINUTES - PART A
Present: Councillor Paul Scott (Chairman);Councillor Humayun Kabir (Vice-Chairman);Councillors Jamie Audsley, Kathy Bee, Luke Clancy, Bernadette Khan, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Susan Winborn and Chris Wright
Also present:
Councillors Maggie Mansell and Shafi Khan
Absent: Councillor Manju Shahul-Hameed
Apologies: Councillor Manju Shahul-Hameed
A84/16 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 16TH JUNE 2016
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 16 June 2016 be signed as a correct record.
A85/16 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
There were no disclosures of a pecuniary interest not already registered.
A86/16 URGENT BUSINESS (IF ANY)
There was no urgent business.
A87/16 EXEMPT ITEMS
RESOLVED to that allocation of business between Part A and Part B of the Agenda be confirmed.
A88/16 DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATIONS
There were none.
A89/16 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION
7.2 15/05054/P Crown Point, Beulah Hill, London, SE19 3NFPage 1 of 52
Alterations ; Erection of part three/part four storey building comprising 4 two bedroom and 2 one bedroom flats ; erection of three storey building comprising 2 two bedroom maisonettes ; provision of additional parking spacesWard: Upper Norwood
This application had been deferred from the Committee on 19 May so that Committee Members could make a site visit to better understand the issues.
Ms Shefali Roy (Crown Point resident) registered to speak in objection but did not attend the meetingMr Jay Ashall (Thornmead Securities) spoke as the applicant
Having considered and discussed the officer's report, Councillor Paul Scott proposed and Councillor Joy Prince seconded the officer's recommendation to APPROVE and the Committee voted 7 in favour and 3 against, so permission was GRANTED for development at Crown Point, Beulah Hill, London, SE19 3NF.
7.1 - 15/03367/P Norbury Park, Green Lane, Norbury, London, SW16 3LZFormation of BMX track facility within landscaped grassed mounds with 1.03m fenceWard: Norbury
This application was deferred at the meeting on 17 December 2015, for consultation with park users and residents and for the applicant (the Council) to look again at the proposed siting of the BMX track and the whether the facility should be appropriately fenced.
Ms Jenni Rodgers (Friends of Norbury Park) spoke in objectionMs Alison Plant (LBC) spoke in support, as the applicantCouncillor Maggie Mansell, ward Member for Norbury, spoke on behalf of local residents supporting the applicationCouncillor Shafi Khan, ward Member for Norbury, spoke in objection, on behalf of local residents
After consideration of the officer's report and the addendum, Councillor Jamie Audsley proposed and Councillor Bernadette Khan seconded the officer's recommendation to APPROVE and the Committee vote 9 in favour, with abstentions, so permission was GRANTED for development at Norbury Park, Green Lane, Norbury, London, SW16 3LZ.
7.3 15/05102/P Land And Garages Rear Of 11 To 25, Morland Avenue, Croydon, CR0 6EADemolition of 22 lock up garages; erection of 1 three bedroom chalet bungalow and 2 two storey semi-detached four bedroom house and provision of associated off-street parking spacesWard: Addiscombe
Mr Mark Shearer and Mr Dave Vigor (Alexandra Road residents) Page 2 of 52
spoke in objectionMr Antony Mackintosh (AM Surveying) registered to speak as the agent, supporting the application, but did not attend
After considering the officer's report and the addendum, Councillor Jason Perry proposed and Councillor Paul Scott seconded REFUSAL and the Committee voted unanimously in favour (10), so permission was REFUSED on the grounds of overdevelopment, as a result of poor quality design and layout, for development at Land And Garages Rear Of 11 To 25, Morland Avenue, Croydon, CR0 6EA. 7.4 16/01517/P 12 Woodcote Park Avenue, Purley, CR8 3NJDemolition of existing house; erection of two storey building comprising 8 two bedroom flats; formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parkingWard: Coulsdon West
Mr Peter Coxhill (Planning Officer, South Woodcote Residents' Association) spoke in objection Having considered and discussed the officer's report, Councillor Jason Perry proposed and Councillor Luke Clancy seconded the officer's recommendation to REFUSE and the Committee voted 4 in favour and 6 against, so this motion fell. The Committee then voted on a second motion to DELEGATE AN APPROVAL to the director, subject to reduction in parking spaces to 10 and conditions, particularly about landscaping, proposed by Councillor Paul Scott and seconded by Councillor Joy Prince, 6 in favour and 4 against, so permission was GRANTED for development at 12 Woodcote Park Avenue, Purley, CR8 3NJ, subject to the above conditions being met. The grounds for overturning the officer’s recommendation were that the size and massing of the proposed building was appropriate, given screening from surrounding vegetation and with conditions to require additional planting.
A90/16 ITEMS REFERRED BY PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE
There were none.
A91/16 OTHER PLANNING MATTERS
There were none.
MINUTES - PART B
None
Page 3 of 52
The meeting ended at 9:39pm
Page 4 of 52
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 14 July 2016
PART 6: Development Presentations
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This part of the agenda is for the committee to receive presentations on proposed developments, including when they are at the pre-application stage.
1.2 Although the reports are set out in a particular order on the agenda, the Chair may reorder the agenda on the night. Therefore, if you wish to be present for a particular application, you need to be at the meeting from the beginning.
1.3 The following information and advice applies to all those reports.
2 ADVICE TO MEMBERS
2.1 These proposed developments are being reported to committee to enable members of the committee to view them at an early stage and to comment upon them. They do not constitute applications for planning permission at this stage and any comments made are provisional and subject to full consideration of any subsequent application and the comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification.
2.2 Members will need to pay careful attention to the probity rules around predisposition, predetermination and bias (set out in the Planning Code of Good Practice Part 5.G of the Council’s Constitution). Failure to do so may mean that the Councillor will need to withdraw from the meeting for any subsequent application when it is considered.
3 FURTHER INFORMATION
3.1 Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.
4 PUBLIC SPEAKING
4.1 The Council’s constitution only provides for public speaking rights for those applications being reported to Committee in the “Planning Applications for Decision” part of the agenda. Therefore reports on this part of the agenda do not attract public speaking rights.
5 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
5.1 For further information about the background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 8 contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419).
6 RECOMMENDATION
6.1 The Committee is not required to make any decisions with respect to the reports on this part of the agenda. The attached reports are presented as background information.
Page 5 of 52
Page 6 of 52
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 14 July 2016
PART 6: Development Presentations Item 6.1
1 DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Ref: 16/01001/PRE Location: Whitgift Shopping Centre and Surrounding Land, Croydon Ward: Fairfield Description: Proposed comprehensive retail-led development to include
leisure, offices, community facilities, new residential units (up to 1,100) and enhanced public realm and infrastructure improvements.
Drawing Nos: Pre-application submissions to date. Applicant: Croydon Limited Partnership Agent: Quod Case Officer: Helen Furnell
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The latest draft development plans for the Whitgift Shopping Centre and surrounding land are being reported to Planning Committee to enable Members to view them at an early stage and to comment upon them. These latest development plans do not constitute an application for planning permission at this stage. Comments made upon it at this stage are thus provisional and subject to full consideration of any subsequent application and the comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification.
2.2 These pre-application discussions follow the granting of outline planning permission in February 2014 and a presentation of the pre-application scheme to Members at Planning Committee on 28 April 2016.
2.3 The pre-application discussions in relation to the latest development plans are a result of further scheme development and are detailed below. The scheme continues to evolve and is work in progress. This report has been drafted on the basis of plans presented to officers on 23 June 2016 and this is essentially an update report to that presented to Members on 28 April 2016. A new planning application will be lodged for this scheme once pre-application discussions have been concluded.
2.4 At the meeting on 28 April 2016, the committee raised a wide range of comments and issues for further consideration:
Design and massing:
Generally a positive view about the exciting developments coming forward
Concern about views of the roof car park for residents in the towers - the applicant needs to explore the possibility of improving aspect with some landscaping or other covering
Page 7 of 52
Need for more separation between the towers, in order to avoid coalescence and a 'one block' appearance from some aspects
Acceptance of high towers being appropriate on the Wellesley Road side of the scheme
Importance of the relationship of the towers with the Almshouses, particularly the ability to see sky above the roof and behind the chimneys
Public square and improved treatment in Poplar Walk very well received
Impact of massing on St Michael's Church - importance of seeing sky behind the spires
Concern about ensuring the building to replace the existing Marks & Spencer building is of a high quality to contribute as positively as possible to the Conservation Area
Importance of the towers being interesting and different styles/designs
Architectural development - preference for series of complementary buildings, rather than one mega development
Phasing of building - need to avoid having all retail in place without any residential so no active frontage on Wellesley Road
European boulevard effect on Wellesley Road to be reflected
Innovative leading edge development envisioned
Accessibility:
Considerable dissatisfaction about the east-west route potentially becoming an enclosed environment, with doors and glass screens, rather than a protected open street, linking with other external streets and being light and airy
The need to explore the separation of built form either side of the east-west route to break up the current single block and emphasise the open street character of the east-west route
Positive development with the removal of the step change due to difference in levels between North End and Wellesley Road
The original grammar school entrance will be restored to create a positive environment, with tables and chairs
Name of the new centre - preferably to include Croydon
An outward looking development that actively connects with Old Town and North End, as well as other areas should be emphasised
Affordable housing:
High percentage of viable affordable housing considered very important
Need for sufficient amount of family accommodation and a good residential mix
Would like residential element to come forwards quickly once retail element open. Discouraged having long delays and need for meanwhile uses for later phases
Rapid escalation of land values and given improved viability supports reasonable levels of affordable housing
Amenities:
Strong support for the covering of the car park, to create amenity space on top of the development for residents in the towers and the wider public
Page 8 of 52
Creation of biodiversity on the car park roof
Concern about the apparent lack of adequate external amenity space for residents
The importance of providing dedicated parking for residents, particularly disabled, and for mobility scooters and bicycles
Size of relocated Marks & Spencer store
Inclusion of flexible community space within the centre - possibly within the residential elements - for residents and the wider community
External play space for children in family accommodation
New jobs for local people, particularly benefiting those who have not had the opportunity of working and creating opportunities for training and apprenticeships. Proposed to roll out the model that was developed in Newham, anticipating 5-6000 new jobs and a skills centre
IMAX welcomed but can it be delivered as an architecturally exciting building?
How to ensure day-to-day services and functions of the town centre can continue unimpeded during the development
Traffic:
How will Wellesley Road cope with all the vehicular movements now entrances all located there?
Concern about service entrances and exits all being on Wellesley Road - avoiding large unattractive entrances. Requested more information on the Stockholm example
Possibility of park and ride offer in the south of the borough
Ensuring positive outcomes around air quality with amounts of traffic and parking
Promotion of public transport
Avoid a sea of cycle parking – should be a sensible approach
Positive that the overall number of parking spaces has been reduced
Other Issues:
Requested more detailed information to be presented next time rather than high level information
Suggestion that the developer may wish to consider a hybrid application rather than another entirely outline application
2.5 Informed by the above feedback and following discussions with officers, the
scheme has been further developed through pre-application discussions. The developer has also engaged with Officers regarding commercial factors relevant to design and scheme delivery as explained below.
3 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
3.1 The description of development has not changed since the application was presented to Planning Committee on 28 April 2016, although there has been
Page 9 of 52
some further refinement of the scheme (as detailed in the ‘Material Planning Considerations’ section below).
Site and Surroundings
3.2 Details of the site have not changed since the application was presented to Planning Committee on 28 April 2016.
Planning History
3.3 Since the proposals were presented to Planning Committee, the following planning applications have been submitted/determined and are relevant to this scheme:
Whitgift Centre and land bounded by Poplar Walk, Wellesley Road, George Street and North End, Croydon 16/02968/DT Demolition of existing buildings; erection of a shopping centre,
leisure uses and residential accommodation with ancillary parking (EIA Scoping). Under Consideration
Electric House 15/05761/P Internal alterations and clean external elevations of the existing
buildings, replacement windows and change of use to provide a mixed use conversion including 40 residential units and 2,810m2 (GIA) commercial space (flexible A1/A2/A3/D1/D2 uses) including associated car parking, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and refuse and recycling facilities. Approved subject to a S106 Agreement
15/05762/LB Internal alterations and clean external elevations of the existing buildings, replacement windows and change of use to provide a mixed use conversion including 40 residential units and 2,810m2 (GIA) commercial space (flexible A1/A2/A3/D1/D2 uses) including associated car parking, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and refuse and recycling facilities. Consent Granted
4 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 The report to Planning Committee on 28 April 2016 detailed the relevant policy considerations and the main principles of the proposed development. Those details have not been repeated in this report. This report is essentially an update report, to reflect the changes that have occurred to the scheme since 28 April. The relevant policy considerations have not been rehearsed in this report as they were covered in the report to committee on 28 April and the policy position has not changed. The main planning issues raised by the development that have been refined since the 28th April and the committee should be aware of are:
1. Design and Massing2. Residential Element
Page 10 of 52
3. Impact on Heritage Assets4. 24 Hour East West Route5. Landscaping/Public Realm6. Transport Issues
Design and Massing
4.2 The plans presented on 28 April 2016 showed a significant increase in bulk and massing compared to the approved scheme. Since the meeting, discussions have been ongoing and have resulted in refinements to the massing of the scheme. The developer's position is that the increased massing is principally a result of a reconfigured proposed layout of the retail elements of the scheme to meet the requirements of the eventual retail and leisure occupiers and ensure a successful scheme for the town centre. This is coupled with the ability to increase the number of residential units on Wellesley Road through the acquisition of the Green Park House site.
4.3 Officers have been reviewing draft Parameter Plans and massing models with the developer. Whilst the scheme is still bigger than that in the approved scheme, with the refinements that have taken place in the past few weeks, the bulk and massing that is now being proposed is a marked improvement on that shown on the plans presented on 28 April 2016, although further discussions are needed.
4.4 The bulk and massing in relation to their impact on heritage assets is discussed in the section titled ‘Impact on Heritage Assets’ below.
4.5 The applicant has provided maximum and minimum heights for the residential element of the scheme and these are discussed in the section below.
4.6 Whilst Officers have been discussing various elements of the bulk, massing and design of the proposed development with the developer, there are elements of the proposal that will be subject to additional rules and specification that will be provided by a ‘Design Guidelines’ document. The design guidelines will need to be discussed with Officers and whilst the design guidelines approved as part of the approved planning permission are a good starting point, these will need to be revised and added to, to reflect this new proposal. Officers look forward to receiving a draft to comment on in due course.
Residential Element
4.7 The residential element of the scheme has been redefined and is now proposed as five distinct residential zones (one residential block is proposed to be within each of the five zones). These zones (and the blocks within them) have been numbered 1-5, with four of the residential blocks proposed to be located on Wellesley Road and the fifth block proposed to be located close to the corner of Poplar Walk and North End. The plan below indicates the location of each of the residential zones.
Page 11 of 52
4.8 Block 1 is proposed as residential (which could include student accommodation) above three storeys of commercial use and would be located on Wellesley Road, just to the south of the proposed 24h east-west route. It is proposed to have a maximum height of 35 storeys. However, the committee should be aware that in the proposed minimum parameter scenario, this block has no residential accommodation and consists solely of the commercial element. The developer has stated that the viability and deliverability of this block will be reviewed during the reserved matters stage.
4.9 In this respect, Officers are concerned that the currently proposed minimum parameter and the extent of the parameter range for Block 1 will not be acceptable. In the absence of the residential use, the area to the south of the 24 hour East West route would consist of retailing (3 storeys) on the corner with the southern vehicular access and the service access the only other elements making up this section of frontage with the elevation of the car parking levels set behind. It is considered, both in terms of improving the character of Wellesley Road and ensuring legibility of the 24 hour East West Route from Lansdowne Road and East Croydon Station, that this entrance needs to be better defined through built form of an appropriate scale. Further work is required to test this element and ensure the parameters will deliver an acceptable solution. Officers consider that these parameters need to be more tightly defined, whilst accepting an appropriate level of flexibility for detailed design work.
4.10 Blocks 2 and 3 are proposed to be located to the north of the proposed 24h East West route and to the south of the proposed northern vehicle access. Blocks 2 and 3 have a zone of deviation, which allows the buildings to slide north and south along Wellesley Road to provide flexibility. These buildings are proposed to be between 25 and 45 storeys in height. Final tower locations
Page 12 of 52
within the zones of deviation would be required to maintain appropriate separation distances between the towers to ensure residential privacy. It is intended that this minimum separation distance would work in tandem with deviations in height and location to help in addressing the issue of the potential coalescence of tower forms when viewed from the Almshouses.
4.11 The zone of deviation for the towers within Blocks 2 and 3 is the subject of current discussions with the applicant and options are being considered to see if the zone can be further refined into two separate zones (one for each tower). Further work is required in this area to better define the zones of deviation which, with the application of additional guidelines, will avoid the coalescence of these towers in certain views (particularly those from the courtyard of the Almshouses). In addition, whilst the need for flexibility in commercial terms is appreciated, this needs to be balanced against the application being specific enough to allow certainty of acceptability of impacts.
4.12 Block 4 is proposed to be located on the corner of Wellesley Road and Poplar Walk. This block is also proposed to have a zone of deviation which allows the building to be pulled away from Poplar Walk if future design development necessitates it. This building is proposed to be between 25 and 40 storeys in height. The amount of deviation allowed by the position of this block is considered to be appropriate as it allows the block to move away from the corner if it is determined (through further technical assessment and future design development) that the building needs to be set away from St Michaels Church or set in an alternative position to address any potential for overshadowing to public spaces on Poplar Walk.
4.13 Laminate residential blocks between the towers on Wellesley Road are no longer proposed. These units would have been compromised by limited sunlight/daylight and being single aspect. Whilst the function of these spaces, (likely to be semi-private space for the residential towers) is still to be finally determined, it will be important for them to contribute to enhancing the character of the street edge given the potential extent of these spaces within the frontage to Wellesley Road. Further design work is required in relation to these spaces to establish their suitability for such a use and to ensure that their character as components of the elevation makes a positive contribution. Whilst not strictly a ‘residential element’, the car park ramps sit alongside the residential element in the Wellesley Road streetscene and whilst their positions have been identified, further detail is required regarding their treatment and how they relate to the residential element. Officers consider that they should be made as small as possible and have a high quality elevational treatment.
4.14 Block 5 is proposed to be located in a position set back from the corner of North End and Poplar Walk (where Marks and Spencer is currently located). This building also has a zone of deviation and would have a maximum height of 14 storeys above the retail units that are proposed. In the minimum scenario, this residential block is proposed not to exist. The maximum height proposed would match the shoulder height of the adjacent tower approved as part of the St Michaels development. Given the proximity of the St Michael’s scheme to this proposed block, and its visibility in the Central Croydon Conservation Area, further testing is being undertaken by the developer to confirm whether this
Page 13 of 52
block is acceptable, with officers having expressed concern. The developer states that the massing of the tower form will be governed by design guidelines that follow Council policy to ensure a suitably slender form is proposed within the area of deviation and to ensure an acceptable scale in the context of the conservation area. Officers will review the further work and testing when provided.
4.15 The zones of deviation proposed by the developer are to allow flexibility in terms of the locations of towers 2-5 as the design of the scheme develops through reserved matters. The maximum and minimum parameters also provide an additional layer of flexibility for the developer within the residential element. Whilst the final position and heights of these residential towers can be further controlled by the use of rules within the Design Guidelines, the current iteration of the scheme proposes wide variations between the maximum and minimum scenarios. Officers consider that on the basis of running 2 maximum massing scenarios it will be possible to assess a range of likely significant environmental effects, but will need to be satisfied that there is an appropriate level of certainty of impact assessment from the different scenarios; that such impact will be acceptable; and that a sufficient degree of control will be in place to ensure an appropriate relationship with the streetscene and nearby heritage assets in particular.
Impact on Heritage Assets
4.16 Discussions are ongoing in relation to the impact of the proposed development on adjacent heritage assets. The developer has produced a Heritage Baseline Assessment and this is currently being refined. At application stage a full Heritage Assessment will be required which will need to fully address how the additional bulk and massing of the scheme affects each heritage asset and how any impacts are mitigated.
Almshouses
4.17 Height and massing in relation to the Almshouses has been refined and reduced to ensure that bulk in the foreground of views from the Almshouses Courtyard is not visible and that areas of sky are visible in longer range views.
4.18 Officers and the Planning Committee (in its meeting of 28 April 2016) have been concerned about the coalescence of towers on Wellesley Road and how they appear in views from the Almshouses Courtyard.
4.19 The developer has been looking at ways that this coalescence can be avoided and is considering options in terms of tower heights and locations (as outlined in the ‘Residential Element’ section of this report). The developer has proposed the creation of two separate zones for Blocks 2 and 3 to be defined on the maximum and minimum height parameter plans; each zone is proposed to have a series of rules to be set out in Development Specification and Framework (a document which will enclose the parameter plans) dealing with tower heights, separation distances etc. The parameter plans will therefore form part of the Development Specification and Framework (and will sit alongside and be separate to the Design Guidelines). Should planning
Page 14 of 52
permission be granted it is likely that a condition would be imposed requiring reserved matters to come forward in accordance with the Development Specification and Framework (and therefore the parameter plans); this would mirror the approach adopted with the 2014 planning permission on the Site. A detailed set of Design Guidelines would then add a further layer of control. Officers are considering this proposed approach. Officers wish to ensure that avoidance of coalescence is addressed in the parameter plans and that refinement of this can be achieved through rules in the Design Guidelines. The starting point should be for officers to be comfortable with the maximum parameters.
St Michaels and All Angels Church
4.20 Massing and the positioning of buildings at the northern end of the site has been refined. A set back off the Poplar Walk/North End corner has been confirmed by the developer and this has opened up views of the church from the west. Massing fronting onto Poplar Walk, adjacent to the proposed car park, now steps down adjacent to the church, resulting in an improved relationship compared to that previously proposed. Officers have been presented with views from the north (at West Croydon Bus Station) that indicate that this is an improved relationship and that the top of the spires of St Michaels Church will be visible above the proposed development.
4.21 The section of the proposal that is likely to have the greatest impact on St Michaels Church is the residential tower on the corner of Poplar Walk and Wellesley Road. However, as discussed above, the zone of deviation being proposed by the developer for this tower would allow it to be pulled away from the corner, if further design development determined that the impact would be too great if it was closer to the corner.
Electric House
4.22 The proposal in relation to Electric House has not changed since the scheme was presented to the Planning Committee on 28th April 2016. However, the Council has recently granted planning permission for the conversion of this building to commercial use at ground floor and residential above. The developer should therefore take account of this and ensure that there would not be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of future occupiers of Electric House.
Central Croydon Conservation Area
4.23 The impact on the Conservation Area has two elements: the overall height of the development, and where the development breaks out on to North End and George Street.
4.24 The development has a principle of having the highest elements of the proposal on the Wellesley Road side of the development and being lower on the North End side. With the exception of the residential towers, Officers have the view that additional bulk from the development should not be visible (at eye level) on North End but if and where this is unavoidable further discussions will be
Page 15 of 52
required to ensure that suitable Design Guidelines can control the submission of detail in this respect.
4.25 There are a number of areas where entrances to the development break out on to North End and George Street. In these locations, the development should ensure that there is an appropriate relationship with adjacent buildings. Information that Officers have seen to date indicates that the developer’s work on this is moving in the right direction in terms of these relationships and this can be further refined through the use of rules in the Design Guidelines. The starting point for the Design Guidelines (which to date Officers have not seen) must be the rules contained within the 2014 permission to ensure a suitable transition to the Conservation Area.
Marks and Spencer
4.26 The existing building, which is proposed for demolition is located within the Central Croydon Conservation area and the Central Croydon Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) 2014 identifies that this building is in the North End Character Area and that it makes a positive contribution to the special character of the Central Croydon Conservation Area. This building is considered to be of heritage value and the developer will need to justify why this building needs to be demolished in the interests of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Whitgift Centre. The CAAMP identifies that the demolition of buildings that make a positive contribution to the special character of the Conservation Area should be resisted. Therefore, its replacement must be of sufficient quality alongside the strength of other material planning considerations to outweigh the statutory presumption against its replacement, as the Council must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Whilst the proposed height and location of the replacement building is broadly acceptable, Officers have not seen any design proposals for its replacement. Given the context within the Central Croydon Conservation Area, these must ensure exceptional design quality and have an appropriate relationship with retained buildings on North End. At application stage, further details of the proposed replacement for this building will be required, alongside justification for the loss of the existing building. As highlighted above, Officers are concerned that the currently proposed maximum parameter and the extent of the parameter range for residential Block 5 will not be acceptable and further work is ongoing in this respect.
24 Hour East West Route
4.27 The Council maintains that this route is predicated on a key design principle of a high quality strategic route from East Croydon Station to Old Town and to maintain the ‘street-like’ quality of this space, in keeping with that contained within the previously approved scheme. Whilst considerable work has been undertaken by the developer to this route, which has individually addressed many of the concerns articulated at the previous pre app meeting, this route has evolved as an internal space or galleria at the expense of an open ‘street like’ character.
Page 16 of 52
4.28 The developer has confirmed that they will use quality robust materials to meet the requirements of the 24 hour route and, whilst specific details of materials have not been determined yet, the developer will need to ensure that their architects and landscape architects collaborate to manage any transition of high quality external materials from North End to Wellesley Road, taking account of the requirements of the Public Realm Design Guide. The independent design review panel, Design South East, supported the use of external flooring materials and detailing of shopfronts to give this route and ‘outdoors’, day-lit and public feel. Further design development is required and rules for this must be contained within the Design Guidelines.
4.29 Work has been done to reduce the amount of ‘slab’ covering the roof of the route, and at the western end (adjacent to North End) the solid slab has been removed, to be replaced by bridge links. As a general point, the increase in the proportion of open void to covered areas along the route is supported by Officers. However, the specifics of this need to be captured within the Design Guidelines. The extent of bridges on each level will need to be agreed and the location of the bridges reserved for future approval to ensure visual permeability to the sky.
4.30 One area that still has the potential to block natural daylight coming in from the proposed glazed roof covering is a proposed stage at level 1. Options need to be considered to see if this can be moved to an alternative location within the centre (potentially along the north-south retail mall) to ensure the openness of this section of the 24 hour route. Given that the maximum height to the underside of level 1 would be 6.84 metres, there is concern that the retention of the stage could lead to a sense of enclosure and impact on daylight penetration to the ground floor level of the route.
4.31 The materiality of the bridge links also needs to be further developed and should be differentiated from the retail floors. A lighter structure to the perimeter of the route at higher levels has been suggested to the developer as a way of reducing the visual sense of enclosure of the route.
4.32 At the eastern end of the site, the slab of the car parking levels remains; however, this area would have a height of 20.8 metres and the developer has suggested ways that the underside of the car park can be animated. One suggestion is that there could be suspended ‘pods’ used for food and/or beverage uses. This is considered to be an interesting way of animating the underside of the car park, but further design development is required and this should be captured in the Design Guidelines to support the application to ensure that due consideration is given to both physical separation and material differentiation to achieve the desired result.
4.33 Whilst the increase in the height of this space is supported, there are some concerns that given the length of the space, the width of 12 metres, especially at upper levels, would not be sufficient to prevent a sense of enclosure and the developer should explore options to widen this space and create a feeling of more width at the upper levels.
Page 17 of 52
4.34 The developer is still proposing doors at either end of the 24 hour route. The developer maintains that doors will enable internal climate control within the development, which the developer states is an important practical consideration e.g. for those using the restaurants and food outlets. Comments received from the Metropolitan Police architectural liaison team indicates that they support the use of doors for security reasons, reflecting comments made in relation to the currently consented scheme's absence of doors. The independent design review panel, Design South East, recognises that the occasional need for security operations requires that the centre has lockable doors. However, they also acknowledge that the route needs to be a welcoming, well-lit and legible public walkway. Balanced against this, concerns remain that the doors at either end of the route reduce the extent to which it could knit seamlessly into the surrounding streets and provide an acceptable strategic route in design terms and its ability to break down the existing impermeable block of the Whitgift Centre. Officers are also concerned that the fundamental principle of a 24 hour route could also be lost at a later date by the locking of the doors during certain times, such as the late evening, if the operators perceived there to be management issues. Careful drafting of conditions may be able to address this, however. Whilst it is recognised that improvements have been made to this route, with it having a gently sloping floor plate, robust external materials carrying through the space, and the replacement of solid slab at the western end by a series of bridge links, Council Officers have not been presented with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is sufficient legibility in the route but discussions are continuing. Further information is required to demonstrate that the proposed bridge links and escalators do not impede views from Wellesley Road to North End.
Landscaping/Public Realm
4.35 The developer has a landscape architect working on how the public realm surrounding the site will work post construction and how it will interface with the proposed development. Work is ongoing.
4.36 Initial concepts are being explored for all the streets surrounding the site, but these are work in progress and further discussions are still required. One concept that is fairly well established is the creation of a greater area of public realm on Poplar Walk by pulling the building line further south, particularly at the western end. This is viewed by Officers as a positive element.
4.37 The proposed highway layout for Wellesley Road is unlikely to have an impact on the Council’s public realm improvement works that have now commenced. Officers note that the final street environment will depend heavily on the residential scheme which, as noted above, involves a significant amount of flexibility. Emerging public realm principles for how the public realm responds to building elements such as residential tower entrances, interstitial elevations between towers, retail frontages, etc. are positive but require further discussion, especially with regard to minimum parameter scenarios which reduces mixed use development to Wellesley Road. The design guidelines will need to address these issues in some detail to ensure a high quality environment results from all scenarios, including meanwhile uses during the phased construction period.
Page 18 of 52
4.38 The applicant is now proposing an amenity area on the roof of the proposed car park for use by the residents of the proposed residential towers. This change is supported by Officers in principle. The design of this will now need to be developed and there will need to be some clarity of the relationship of this space and the residential towers to roof plant required by the development. Officers are of the view that the entire car park should be enclosed by a roof. The design guidelines will need to provide rules in relation to how this space will work and how a suitable level of children’s play space will be provided.
4.39 In addition to this further understanding is required in relation to how this space will encourage biodiversity.
Transport Issues
4.40 Discussions regarding the transportation aspects of the scheme have been ongoing since the presentation to Planning Committee on 28th April 2016 and in particular, discussions relating to traffic modelling have been done in conjunction with TfL. Whilst these discussions have not yet been concluded, indications are that this will be done shortly and progress has been made in terms of getting matters agreed. The results of these discussions will need to be fed into the Transport Assessment that will be submitted with the planning application. As with the approved planning permission, highways agreements will be required to undertake highways works on roads outside the application site (the most significant of which will be Wellesley Road and the Park Lane Gyratory) ) and an agreement in respect of access, management and maintenance will again be needed in respect of Dingwall Avenue. Initial discussions on this matter have commenced, but further work and discussions will be required.
4.41 The outcome of the modelling work will provide information regarding the likely impact on traffic flows and on public transport. Any impacts will need to be appropriately mitigated, through highway works and/or other means and a contribution secured through the Section 106 Agreement. Officer’s view is that the starting point for this will be the contribution secured in the approved planning permission and this will need to be considered further in the overall planning balance as the application progresses.
4.42 The changed access arrangements as outlined in the report to Planning Committee on 28th April 2016 are still being proposed and it is on this basis that modelling work is being undertaken. The applicant is now proposing that vehicles from the south be permitted to access the car park via both the southern and northern car park accesses. This is to in part to provide resilience, e.g. if the southern access ramp were to be blocked by a broken down vehicle. The emerging traffic modelling is also suggesting that without allowing some traffic from the south to continue along the Wellesley Road and enter via the northern access, the traffic queue from the southern access would be significant with consequential effects on other traffic. However officers suggest that allowing/encouraging traffic from the south to travel much of the length of the Wellesley Road to access the development runs counter to some of the principles for improving the Wellesley Road set by the Croydon Opportunity Area Planning Framework.
Page 19 of 52
4.43 The developer has indicated that car parking numbers will be capped at 3,140 spaces. Officers remain of the view that the developer should explore options for reducing this number. Disabled car parking spaces for the retail and residential element and cycle parking will be controlled by condition. As expressed by Members of the Planning Committee in the meeting on 28th April, the developer should explore options for accommodating mobility scooters and this view is supported by Officers.
4.44 The developer will need to provide information on servicing arrangements for the residential component and how the service vehicles would access and exit the site. The developer has indicated that it is likely that there will be a separate service area accessed from the northern access. However, Officers have not yet seen any details of this and further discussion is required on this matter. The developer is proposing that (with the exception of refuse) the Poplar Walk component be serviced from the street. The developer will need to demonstrate that this can be achieved (in the light of other future demands for servicing from Poplar Walk) without unacceptable impact on amenity and traffic flow.
4.45 The air quality impacts of traffic accessing the site will need to be fully assessed in the Environmental Statement to be submitted with the planning application and any impacts will need to be appropriately mitigated.
4.46 The developer has provided information on how cycling provision for the retail/leisure element of the scheme might be accommodated within and around the site. Details have been submitted of how 300 cycle parking spaces might be accommodated around the site. These have been proposed as Sheffield style stands and have been clustered in the highway surrounding the site.
4.47 Whilst this may be an appropriate option in some instances, it is suggested that the developer should further consider integrating cycle storage into the building design and investigate the provision of a cycle hub. Variety in the type of provision should be explored and how this could integrate with the public realm.
Other Planning Issues
4.48 Discussions regarding the Section 106 Agreement have commenced, are ongoing and will continue to be pursued over the coming weeks and months. Whilst the starting point for S106 discussions is the mitigation measures that were secured for the approved scheme, any additional or different impacts as a result of the changes to the scheme also need to be considered as part of the overall planning balance as the application progresses.
4.49 As outlined in the report presented to Planning Committee on 28th April 2016 negotiations will need to take place around the delivery and level of affordable housing (taking account of revised viability considerations – details of which are still awaited); employment and training clauses alongside an appropriate level of financial contributions to reflect the Council’s approach to job brokerage – making sure that training and recruitment is directed proactively towards local people seeking work and related training opportunities; and appropriate mitigation of the transport implications of the development. Continuing and
Page 20 of 52
frequent discussion in this respect is strongly encouraged, recognising this is an important scheme for Croydon.
Affordable Housing
4.50 It should be noted that as of 1st May 2016, following detailed consideration of monitoring data, the minimum requirement for affordable housing on developments of ten or more units within the Croydon Opportunity Area (COA) has been increased from 15% to 50% in line with the review required by Policy SP2.4 of Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 (CLP1). This revised requirement will apply to this development.
4.51 For schemes within the COA that do not provide 50% on-site affordable housing, the flexibility arrangements set out in Policy SP2.4 provide for:
10% on-site provision with a donor site for the remaining 40%; or
a commuted sum for the remaining 40%; or
a review mechanism for up to the remaining 40%.
4.52 Given the quantum of residential units proposed by the scheme, the developer should ensure that there is a sufficient level of family size accommodation.
Employment and Training
4.53 The approved scheme secured an employment and training strategy through the Section 106 Agreement. This was included to ensure that the development provides a benefit to the local economy and community at both the construction and operational phases of the development. Whilst many of the objectives of the Employment and Training Strategy that were secured in the approved scheme are still relevant, the provisions will need to be reviewed to reflect that the situation in Croydon has changed, in that the Council now has its own Job Brokerage Service which can provide a number of the employment elements in particular previously envisaged via the Employment and Training Strategy. Further discussions are required with the developer to determine the specifics of this going forwards.
4.54 Linked to this, will be a strategy to ensure that Croydon remains ‘open for business’ during the construction period. Further discussions are required with the developer to define this strategy.
Phasing
4.55 The developer has indicated that in the case of Blocks 1 and 5, if more than the minimum scenario is being built out, these blocks will need to be constructed at the same time as the retail/leisure element; Blocks 2, 3 and 4 are not constrained by the remainder of the development and could come forward separately. Officers are of the view that any time lag between the retail/leisure element being completed and the construction of Blocks 2, 3 and 4 should be as short as possible and sufficient meanwhile uses for the residential land and
Page 21 of 52
strong design of the eastern elevation of the retail/leisure element will need to be provided and secured by planning condition or obligation to ensure an acceptable appearance until the residential phase comes forward. The Design Guidelines should dedicate a section to meanwhile uses to ensure that there is an appropriate frontage to Wellesley Road during construction and until all of the residential elements have been completed. The S106 Agreement and conditions should also look at the timing of elements of the development coming forward.
5 CONCLUSION
5.1 The above provides a summary of the latest draft development plans for the Whitgift Shopping Centre and surrounding land. Members are invited to provide any comments at this stage. As set out above, these latest development plans do not constitute an application for planning permission at this stage. Comments made upon it at this stage are thus provisional and subject to full consideration of any subsequent application and the comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification.
Page 22 of 52
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 14 July 2016
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 In this part of the agenda are reports on planning applications for determination by the committee.
1.2 Although the reports are set out in a particular order on the agenda, the Chair may reorder the agenda on the night. Therefore, if you wish to be present for a particular application, you need to be at the meeting from the beginning.
1.3 Any item that is on the agenda because it has been referred by a Ward Member, GLA Member, MP, Resident Association or Conservation Area Advisory Panel and none of the person(s)/organisation(s) or their representative(s) have registered their attendance at the Town Hall in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (paragraph 3.8 of Part 4K – Planning and Planning Sub-Committee Procedure Rules) the item will be reverted to the Director of Planning to deal with under delegated powers and not be considered by the committee.
1.4 The following information and advice applies to all reports in this part of the agenda.
2 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The Committee is required to consider planning applications against the development plan and other material planning considerations.
2.2 The development plan is:
the London Plan July 2011 (with 2013 Alterations)
the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies April 2013
the Saved Policies of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan April 2013
the South London Waste Plan March 2012
2.3 Decisions must be taken in accordance with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the Committee to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application; any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application; and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Committee to make its determination in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations support a different decision being taken.
2.4 Under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects listed buildings or their settings, the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses.
Page 23 of 52
2.5 Under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a conservation area, the local planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.
2.6 Under Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for any development, the local planning authority must ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees.
2.7 In accordance with Article 31 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010, Members are invited to agree the recommendations set out in the reports, which have been made on the basis of the analysis of the scheme set out in each report. This analysis has been undertaken on the balance of the policies and any other material considerations set out in the individual reports.
2.8 Members are reminded that other areas of legislation covers many aspects of the development process and therefore do not need to be considered as part of determining a planning application. The most common examples are:
Building Regulations deal with structural integrity of buildings, the physical performance of buildings in terms of their consumption of energy, means of escape in case of fire, access to buildings by the Fire Brigade to fight fires etc.
Works within the highway are controlled by Highways Legislation.
Environmental Health covers a range of issues including public nuisance, food safety, licensing, pollution control etc.
Works on or close to the boundary are covered by the Party Wall Act.
Covenants and private rights over land are enforced separately from planning and should not be taken into account.
3 PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 In accordance with Policy 8.3 of the London Plan (2011) the Mayor of London has introduced a London wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to fund Crossrail. Similarly, Croydon CIL is now payable. These would be paid on the commencement of the development. Croydon CIL provides an income stream to the Council to fund the provision of the following types of infrastructure:
Education facilities
Health care facilities
Projects listed in the Connected Croydon Delivery Programme
Public open space
Public sports and leisure
Community facilities
3.2 Other forms of necessary infrastructure (as defined in the CIL Regulations) and any mitigation of the development that is necessary will be secured through A S106 agreement. Where these are necessary, it will be explained and specified in the agenda reports.
Page 24 of 52
4 FURTHER INFORMATION
4.1 Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.
5 PUBLIC SPEAKING
5.1 The Council’s constitution allows for public speaking on these items in accordance with the rules set out in the constitution and the Chair’s discretion.
6 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
6.1 The background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 6 are generally the planning application file containing the application documents and correspondence associated with the application. Contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419) for further information. The submitted planning application documents (but not representations and consultation responses) can be viewed online from the Public Access Planning Register on the Council website at http://publicaccess.croydon.gov.uk/online-applications. Click on the link or copy it into an internet browser and go to the page, then enter the planning application number in the search box to access the application.
7 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 The Committee to take any decisions recommended in the attached reports.
Page 25 of 52
Page 26 of 52
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 14th July 2016
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision Item 7.1
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Ref: 16/00274/P Location: 393 Wickham Road, Croydon, CR0 8DP Ward: Shirley Description: Demolition of the existing dwelling; erection of a three storey building
with lower ground floor comprising 7 two bedroom flats with associated access and forecourt parking
Drawing Nos: 101 E, 102 d, 103 E, 104 d, 105 d, 106 d, 107 d Applicant: Aventier Ltd Agent: Mr Gunne-Jones, Planning & Development Associates Case Officer: Georgina Betts
1.1 This application is being reported to committee because the ward councillor (Cllr Mike Fisher) and a Resident Association made representations in accordance with the Committee Consideration Criteria and requested committee consideration
2.0 SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
• The principle of the development is considered acceptable given the residentialcharacter of the surrounding area
• Character and appearance is appropriate given the context of the site• Living conditions of adjoining occupiers are protected from undue harm• Living standards of future occupiers are considered satisfactory• Highway Safety and parking provision have been addressed and considered
acceptable• Sustainability matters can be adequately addressed via condition
3.0 RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission.
3.2 That the Director of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the following matters:
Conditions
1) Details of appearance and landscaping to be agreed at a later dates2) Reserved matters shall be submitted with 3 years3) The development shall commence within 2 years of the reserved matters
application4) Development shall be carried wholly in accordance with the approved plans5) Window restrictions6) Samples of external facing materials7) Finished floor levels, Sustainable urban Drainage Systems, cycle/waste/recycling
storage to be submitted for approval8) 19% carbon dioxide reduction and water usage of 110L per head per day9) Construction method statement
Page 27 of 52
10) Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning
Informatives
1) Site notice removal2) Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – Granted3) Code of Practice on Construction sites4) Any informative(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning
4.0 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 The applicant seeks outline planning permission for the:
• Demolition of existing dwelling
• Erection of a three storey building with lower ground floor
• Provision of 7 flats
• Associated access and parking
4.2 The application seeks approval for the layout, access and scale at outline stage. Appearance and landscaping would be reserved matters for subsequent approval.
4.3 The footprint of this application is the same as the approved scheme (Ref No: 15/04202/P). The differences between this scheme and that approved are as follows:
• Internal reconfiguration• Internal verandas• Basement changes• Frontage parking and bins• Roof changes (indicative only)• Front bay changes (indicative only)
Site and Surroundings
4.4 The application site lies on the northern side of Wickham Road, and is currently host to a detached single dwellinghouse. The area immediately surrounding the site is mainly residential in character, with the exception of the adjacent property at No. 391 which is used as a dental surgery. The nearby property at No. 377 is Locally Listed. Further to the west of the site is the Shirley Local Centre.
4.5 Wickham Road is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). There are no designations on the site itself. The site has a PTAL rating of 2.
Planning History
4.6 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:
15/01185/P Demolition of existing building; erection of a pair of two storey four bedroom semi-detached houses with basement and accommodation in
Page 28 of 52
roofspace; formation of ingress and egress vehicular access and provision of associated parking Refused on grounds of 1) overdevelopment 2) detrimental impact upon adjoining occupiers Appeal Withdrawn
15/02950/P Demolition of existing building; erection of a pair of two storey 4 bedroom semi-detached houses with basement and accommodation in roofspace; formation of vehicular accesses and provision of associated parking Granted
15/04202/P Demolition of the existing dwelling, erection of a three storey building with lower ground floor, comprising 7 two-bedroom flats with associated parking Refused on grounds of 1) character and appearance of the surrounding area, 2) living conditions of future occupiers Appeal allowed
5.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSE
5.1 The views of the Planning Service are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
5.2 Transport for London was consulted regarding the application given the classification of Wickham Road. No objection was made subject to suitable conditions being attached in the event that planning permission is granted. Such matters are discussed in more detail in the considerations. Conditions would be imposed as requested.
6.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATION
6.1 The application has been publicised by way of one or more site notices displayed in the vicinity of the application site. The number of representations received from neighbours, local groups etc in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual responses: 8 Objecting: 8 Supporting: 0
6.2 The following local groups/societies made representations
• Monks Orchard Residents’ Association [Objecting]
6.3 The following Councillor/MP’s/London Assembly Member made representations:
• Councillor Mike Fisher [objecting]• Councillor Sue Bennett [objecting]• Gavin Barwell MP [objecting]• Steve O’Connell GLAM [objecting]
6.4 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in substance in the next section of this report:
Page 29 of 52
Objections
• Mass of building in appropriate/out of character/dominance of parking area • Loss of privacy, light • Visual intrusion, noise nuisance • Increase in traffic/parking • Oversubscribed local services • Insufficient bin storage, amenity space • Over development/density • No provision for disabled persons • Impact upon heritage assets
7.0 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:
1. the acceptability of the development in principle 2. the design of the development and its effect upon the character and appearance
of the surrounding area 3. the quality of accommodation for future occupiers of the dwellings 4. the effect of the development upon the amenities of the adjoining occupiers 5. the effect of the development on trees 6. highways considerations 7. the environmental performance of the proposed development The acceptability of the development in principle 7.2 Chapter 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) indicates that housing
application should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that it is the role of local planning authorities to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.
7.3 Policy 3.3 of the London Plan (Consolidated with alterations since 2011) recognises
the pressing need for more homes in London and Policy 3.8 states that Londoners should have a genuine choice of homes which meet their requirements for different sizes and types of dwellings in the highest quality environments. Policy SP2 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (CLP1) states that the Council will apply a presumption in favour of new homes provided applications for development meet the requirements of the policy and other applicable policies of the development plan. Policy H2 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan) 2006 Saved Policies (UDP) permits housing development within the existing built up area provided it does not conflict with the Council’s aim of respecting the character of the residential area and there is no loss of protected uses.
7.4 The proposed development would result in the creation of 6 additional dwellings on
the site, which would optimise the use of this previously developed site in a sustainable location. The proposal to provide a flatted development on site is therefore acceptable in principle in land use terms, subject to more detailed consideration of the impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of the
Page 30 of 52
area, the amenities of neighbouring residents, the quality of accommodation for future occupiers, the impact on trees and traffic and highways considerations. Furthermore, the principle of the development has been established and supported on appeal by the Secretary of State (for the 15/04202/P application that was allowed).
The design of the development and its effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area
7.5 The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. One of core planning principles (paragraph 17) in the NPPF is that decisions should ‘always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policies 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan state that development should make a positive contribution to the local character, public realm and streetscape. Policies UD2, UD3 and UD13 of the UDP and CLP1 Policies SP1.2, SP4.1 and SP4.2 of seek to address high standards of design, the layout and siting of new development and the scale and design of new buildings.
7.6 The application seeks outline planning permission for a three storey building with lower ground floor, with matters reserved for subsequent consideration except for the scale of the development (the size, including the height, width and length of the building) layout (the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development) and the access. Therefore matters relating to the detailed appearance and landscaping are not for the determination of this application.
7.7 The indicative plans submitted with the application detail a three story block with basement accommodation, which is identical in scale to the outline scheme which was permitted under ref. 15/02950/P which was for two 4 bedroom dwellings, which would include accommodation within the roofspace and at basement level. The character of the area is predominantly residential comprising mainly semi-detached and detached dwellings, although there are some examples of purpose built flats in the area including retirement properties. There is no objection in character terms to the proposal to provide a flatted development of identical scale to that previously permitted as two semi-detached dwellings, subject to achieving an appropriate detailed design and appearance for the development at the reserved matters approval stage, which is in keeping with local character.
7.8 With regard to site layout on appeal, the Inspector commented that the flats would be set back from the established building line with outline planning permission (15/02950/P) granted for a pair of semi-detached dwelling of the same scale and position. He further commented that, given the fall back option of implementing the existing outline consent for the semi-detached houses, which would result in a development of the same scale, the Council’s concerns related specifically to the harmful visual effect that hard surfacing would have on the character of the area. The Inspector concluded that the hardened forecourt would cause no greater material harm to the character and appearance of this area given the opportunity that exists to require landscaping to the boundary.
Page 31 of 52
7.9 Given the comments of the Inspector above it is considered that the frontage hardstanding for car parking would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and is considered acceptable.
The quality of accommodation for future occupiers of the dwellings 7.10 Policy 7.1 states that in their neighbourhoods, people should have a good quality
environment. The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. One of core planning principles (paragraph 17) in the NPPF is that decisions should ‘always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. London Plan Policy 3.5 taken together with the Mayor’s Housing SPG (March 2016) requires development of the highest quality and places a strong emphasis on the internal quality of new residential development. Of particular relevance here is standard 4.10 which requires a minimum of 5 sq. m private outdoor space for each 1-2 person dwelling and an extra 1 sq. m for each additional occupant, which should have level access from the home. Also of relevance is standard 5.2 which states that developments should avoid single aspect dwellings that are north facing, exposed to noise levels above which significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life occur, or contain three or more bedrooms. UDP Policy UD8 requires residential amenity space to be considered as an integral part of the design of the overall development concept. With particular regard to internal space, the Government’s technical housing standards specify minimum gross internal floor areas for new dwellings.
7.11 All of the proposed flats would meet or exceed the minimum internal space
requirements. 7.12 No concerns were raised by the Inspector in relation to the single aspect of the
lower ground floor flat and as such would provide adequate living conditions. The Inspector further stated that the above ground flats are dual aspect and concerns over outlook could be addressed when governing the appearance of the development. He concluded that adequate living conditions would be provided for future occupiers and as such grounds do not exist in this respect to refuse planning permission.
7.13 In the recent appeal, the Inspector stated that “given this would be a flatted
development, divided horizontally and on four floors, other than the private sunken veranda…it is appropriate that the outside space for the other flats would be provided communally. Measures to secure adequate privacy… would be appropriately addressed as later reserved matters”. Therefore the level of external amenity space is acceptable.
The effect of the development upon the amenities of the adjoining occupiers 7.14 Policy UD8 of the Croydon Plan seeks to ensure that new residential development
does not have an adverse impact on existing residential occupiers. Policy EP1 states that development that may be liable to cause or be affected by pollution of water, air or soil or pollution through noise, dust, vibration, light, heat or radiation will only be permitted if the health, safety and amenity of users of the site or surrounding land are not put at risk and the quality and enjoyment of the environment would not be put at risk. The adjacent building at No. 391 is in use as
Page 32 of 52
a dental surgery and accordingly would not be expected to require the same levels of amenity as a dwelling. The impact on the adjacent dwelling at No. 395, located to the east of the site, will however warrant careful consideration.
7.15 The scale of the building itself is identical to that permitted under ref. 15/02950/P and that allowed on appeal. It is therefore acceptable with regard to the impact on the adjoining property at No. 395 in terms of outlook, light and visual impact. The precise location of windows would be determined at the reserved matters approval stage and will need to be carefully considered given the potential additional overlooking that could arise from the proposed use of the building as flats. Restrictions on the positioning of windows in the flank wall of the building facing No. 395 could be secured by condition. Whilst the proposal would result in an increase in the levels of activity on site as a result of the intensification in the use of the site, it is not considered that any additional impact would be so significant to warrant the refusal of planning permission.
The effect of the development on trees and wildlife
7.16 London Plan policy 7.21 states that existing trees of value should be retained and any loss as the result of development should be replaced. UDP Policy NC4 states that the Council will refuse permission for development that results in the loss of valued tree(s) especially those protected by Tree Preservation Orders. CLP1 Policy SP7.4 states that the Council will enhance biodiversity across the borough, including the protection and enhancement of sites of importance for biological and geological diversity.
7.17 There are a number of small trees on the site, particularly alongside the boundaries, although none are protected and they are not of such significance that protection would be warranted. A suitable landscaping scheme for the site would be agreed at the reserved matters approval stage. The site is not within a designated area which is known to be of wildlife interest. Accordingly the development is acceptable with regard to the impact on trees and wildlife.
Traffic and highways impacts
7.18 The development would be served by 7 off-street parking spaces, providing parking at a 1:1 ratio. The proposals for access into the site show a new single point of access, but with adequate space in the forecourt parking area to allow vehicles to turn negating the need for reversing manoeuvres onto the highway. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy T8 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013.
7.19 In respect of the comments received from TfL and the findings of the previous Inspector conditions and informatives can be recommended to ensure that there is no undue impact on the operation of the TLRN.
The environmental performance of the proposed building
7.20 Policy SP6 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies requires development to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the London Plan energy hierarchy. Policy SP6.3 requires new build residential development to achieve a minimum of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes
Page 33 of 52
or equivalent. Following the withdrawal of the Code earlier this year, the equivalent standard being sought on new build residential development is a 19% reduction in CO2 emissions produced by the development (beyond the 2013 Building Regulations) and a water use target of 110 litres per head per day to be achieved. It is recommended that these matters can be secured by condition in the event that planning permission is granted.
7.21 The front forecourt parking area is capable of providing a disabled parking space
while level access would be provided to the front.
Conclusions
7.22 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out above. The details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION.
Page 34 of 52
This page is intentionally blank
Page 35 of 52
Page 36 of 52
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 14 July 2016
PART 7: Planning Applications for Decision Item 7.2
1 APPLICATION DETAILS
Ref: 16/01723/P (Link to all documents on the Planning Register) Location: 45 Harold Road, London, SE19 3SP Description: Demolition of existing bungalow; erection of single/three storey building comprising 4 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats; formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking Drawing nos: PL/101, PL/002, PL/003, PL/204, PL/205 Rev C, PL/206 Rev C, PL/207 Rev C, PL/208 Rev B, PL/209 Rev B, PL/211 Rev B, PL/212 Rev C, PL/213 Rev B, PL/214 Rev B, PL/215, PL/216, PL/217, PL/220 Rev A, PL/300 Rev B. Applicant: Mr Heath Agent: N/A Case Officer: Toby Gethin
1.1 This application is being reported to committee because: the Chair of the Planning Committee (Cllr Paul Scott) made representations in accordance with the Committee Consideration Criteria and requested committee consideration; and objections above the threshold in the Committee Consideration Criteria have been received.
2 SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
• The proposed replacement building would provide additional housing in anexisting residential area on an already developed plot.
• Its appearance would be of a high quality, would respect the area‟ssurrounding character, reflect the area‟s local vernacular and built form, andwould preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the adjoiningConservation Area.
• There would be no detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers.• The proposal would not harm the safety and efficiency of the adjoining
highway network, and sufficient off-street vehicle and cycle parking would beprovided.
• The loss of two protected trees would not harm the amenity value of theremaining eight protected trees which would be unharmed by thedevelopment.
• Future occupiers would have adequate living conditions.• Adequate refuse storage and collection arrangements are proposed.
3 RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission.
3.2 That the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions [and informatives] to secure the following matters:
Page 37 of 52
Conditions 1. The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved
drawings and other documents submitted with the application 2. Submission and approval of details and samples of external facing materials. 3. Submission and approval of a detailed landscaping plan to include boundary
treatment. 4. Submission and approval of the balcony privacy screens. 5. Provision and retention of the car parking area and access, cycle storage and
refuse storage. 6. Submission and approval of a construction logistics plan. 7. A s278 agreement with the Highway Authority to be entered into prior to
construction. 8. 19% reduction in CO2 emissions beyond 2015 Building Regulations. 9. Water usage limited to 110lts p/person p/day 10. The development shall be built in accordance with the tree protection plan. 11. Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning.
Informatives
1) Removal of site notices 2) Thames Water consent may be required 3) Code of Practice regarding construction 4) Any [other] informative(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning
3.3 That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
4 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
Full planning permission is sought for:
4.1 Demolition of existing bungalow; erection of single/three storey building comprising 4 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats; formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking.
4.2 The existing bungalow would be replaced with a two/three-storey townhouse-type building, with the third-storey accommodating a flat in the roofspace. A total of five flats would be provided by the development.
4.3 The proposed building would be located on a prominent corner site on Harold Road. The site is adjacent to and within the setting of the Harold Road Conservation Area.
4.4 The proposal would provide off-street parking for two vehicles. The applicant has also offered to provide car club membership for new residents for two years. The proposal would also include alterations to the existing access and the provision of refuse and cycle storage.
4.5 The proposal would result in the removal of two existing trees on the site. These trees are included in Tree Preservation Order TPO/003/15 covering the line of trees
Page 38 of 52
on the site fronting Harold Road. Landscaping (including the planting of new trees) is proposed.
4.6 The building would have staggered elevations to respond to the curve in Harold Road at this point and avoid harm to the site‟s existing trees. The proposal has been amended from previous applications on the site (15/00921/P and 15/03898/P). Amendments include: reduction the building‟s appearance, scale, mass and depth; a reduction in the number of flats proposed; incorporation of off-street parking with revised access; and further details regarding the site‟s existing trees and how the development would avoid harm to the trees proposed to remain.
Site and Surroundings
4.7 The site is triangular in shape (with an area of 740sqm) and is currently occupied by a single bungalow with a detached garage. There are a number of trees along the frontage of the site comprising nine Limes and one Yew. These trees are protected under TPO/003/15.
4.8 The surrounding area is entirely residential in character. It comprises a variety of architectural styles and includes a mixture of detached, semi-detached and some terraced houses.
4.9 The application site is not in a Conservation Area and has no statutory designations or local listings.
4.10 Opposite the site, properties in Harold Road and Bedwardine Road are within the Harold Road Conservation Area.
4.11 The site has a PTAL of 3, and Harold Road is not located within a controlled parking zone (CPZ).
Planning History
4.12 88/03811/P - erection of building comprising 6 two-bedroom flats and provision of 9 parking spaces – withdrawn
4.13 90/01512/P - erection of two-storey building with accommodation in roofspace comprising 4 two-bedroom and 1 three-bedroom flats and provision of 6 parking spaces - refused on 16/11/1990 - dismissed on appeal 07/08/1991
4.14 91/02665/P - erection of two-storey building with accommodation in roofspace comprising 2 two-bedroom and 2 three-bedroom flats and provision of 5 parking spaces - not determined -20/05/1992
4.15 15/00921/P - demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of a two/three-storey building comprising 1 one-bedroom, 2 two-bedroom and 3 three-bedroom flats; alterations to existing access and provision of 2 car parking spaces with covered refuse/bike stores and associated landscaping. Permission refused 1/7/2015. There were four reasons for refusal:
1. The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the character of the locality and detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and the adjoining Harold Road Conservation Area by reason of its size, massing, siting and design and would thereby conflict with Policies UD2, UD3,
Page 39 of 52
UC3 and H2 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013; Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011); Policies SP4.1 and SP4.12 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 and the advice given in the Harold Road Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP).
2. The development would be overbearing and detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties by reason of visual intrusion and loss of outlook and would thereby conflict with Policies UD2 and UD8 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013 and Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011).
3. The trees on this site are subject to TPO no. 16, 1989 confirmed on 10 April 1990. The siting of the hard surfaces would be likely to compromise the retention of a number of visually important, preserved trees. The loss of these trees would be detrimental to the character of the area and the proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policy NC4 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (the Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013 and Policy 7.21B of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011).
4. The location and use of the proposed access/egress would be likely to compromise road safety by reason of the lack of pedestrian visibility splays and/or vehicle sight lines and would thereby conflict with Policies UD13 and T2 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013, and Policy 6.12 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011).
4.16 15/03898/P – Permission refused for Demolition of existing bungalow; erection of two/three storey building comprising 3 two bedroom, two three bedroom and 1 one bedroom flats. There were four reasons for refusal:
1. The trees on this site are subject to Tree Preservation Order 3, 2015: 45 Harold Road, confirmed on 01/07/15. The siting of the proposed building is likely to compromise the retention of a number of visually important, preserved trees. The potential loss of these trees would be detrimental to the character of the area and the proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policy NC4 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (the Croydon Plan) 2006 Saved Policies and Policy 3D.15 of the London Plan (as Consolidated 2008), Policies 7.4 and Policy 7.21B of the London Plan.
2. The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the character of the locality and detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and the adjoining Harold Road Conservation Area by reason of its size, massing, siting and design and would thereby conflict with Policies UD2, UD3, UC3 and H2 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013; Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011); Policies SP4.1 and SP4.12 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 and the advice given in the Harold Road Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP).
3. The development would be overbearing and detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties by reason of visual intrusion, loss of outlook and loss of privacy and would thereby conflict with Policies UD2 and UD8 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan
Page 40 of 52
(The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013 and Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011).
4. Inadequate provision is made for car parking within the site and the development would thereby conflict with Policy T8 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan) 2006 Saved Policies, Policy 6.13 of the London Plan (July 2011).
There is a current written reps appeal against this decision, which objectors to 15/03898/P have been informed of.
5 CONSULTATION RESPONSE
5.1 The views of the Planning Service are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
5.2 Given the nature and location of the proposal, no statutory consultees were consulted regarding the application.
6 LOCAL REPRESENTATION
6.1 The application has been publicised by way of one or more site notices displayed in the vicinity of the application site. The number of representations received from neighbours, local groups etc in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual responses: 54 Objecting: 53 Supporting: 0
No of petitions received: 1 (objecting to the application, containing 86 signatures)
6.2 The Council‟s system (Acolaid) indicates that a greater number of responses have been received (70 in total). However, accounting for duplications and errors in recording the received representations, the total number of individual responses is actually 54 (one comment and 53 objections).
6.3 The comment was from Thames Water. They stated stating that the developer will need approval from Thames Water regarding piling/construction works, discharging to the public sewer and building within 3mts of shared pipes, and requesting informatives (which are included in the above section) be attached to any permission granted.
6.4 The following groups/societies made representations: • The North Croydon Conservation Area Advisory Panel (comment).
6.5 The following Councillors made representations: • Councillor Paul Scott (Chair Referral, referring the application to be decided
by the Committee). 6.6 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the
determination of the application, and they are addressed in substance in the next section of this report:
- Potential to meet housing need - Overdevelopment and high density
Page 41 of 52
- Out of character with and harm to the appearance of the streetscene and Conservation Area in relation to its design/massing/size/scale/height, materials, and contradicts the Harold Road Management Plan
- Impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers (privacy/overlooking, noise/disturbance, loss of light/outlook
- On-street parking pressure and inadequate off-street parking - Highway safety - Anti-social behaviour and crime - Loss of/potential harm to protected trees, open space and wildlife - Refuse/recycling collection
6.7 The following issues were raised in representations that are not material to the
determination of the application:
- Effect on house prices (Officer comment: this is not a material planning consideration and is not considered further).
- Pressure on local services (Officer comment: this is not a material planning consideration and is not considered further).
7 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:
1. The principle of the development 2. The impact on the character of the area, the visual amenity of the street scene
and the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area 3. Residential amenities of adjoining occupiers 4. Parking and highway safety 5. Trees, open space and landscaping 6. Ecology 7. Living conditions for future occupiers 8. Refuse/recycling
The principle of the development
7.2 The Council primarily assesses planning applications against policies in the London Plan 2015, the Croydon Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013 (CLP1), the Croydon Replacement Unitary Plan 2006 (2013 Saved Policies, as identified in appendix 4 of the CLP1). For convenience, the plans are respectively referred to as the London Plan, CLP1, and CRUDP in the sections below.
7.3 In principle, new housing is supported by relevant policy in existing residential areas provided: there is no loss of protected uses; the form, siting, design and access arrangements are appropriate and of a high quality; and the development fits within the surrounding context and enhances local character.
7.4 Nationally and locally, there is a recognised need for new housing/accommodation. The London Plan states that “London desperately needs more homes in order to promote opportunity and real choice for all Londoners, with a range of tenures”. Subject to high quality design and a good standard of amenity for occupiers, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports delivery of housing and a wide
Page 42 of 52
choice of homes and states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
7.5 In terms of the need for new housing, two local policies are particularly relevant. Policy SP2.2 of CLP1 requires the provision of a choice of housing for people in Croydon. It sets out that one way of doing this is “concentrating development in the places with the most capacity to accommodate new homes whilst respecting the local distinctiveness of the places and protecting the borough's physical and historic environment”. Saved Policy H2 (Supply of Housing) of CRUDP states that “housing development will be permitted within the existing built-up area provided this does not conflict with its aim of respecting the character of residential areas”. This proposal would assist in meeting housing targets and making provision for additional housing.
7.6 It is clear that there is a need for new homes both nationally and locally, and there is strong national and local policy support for new housing. However, this is subject to proposals not resulting in (amongst other aspects) a net loss of homes/residential land, respecting local character and protecting the amenity of adjoining occupiers.
7.7 The proposal will be considered against relevant Development Plan policies. However, given the recognised need for new housing, the proposal is in principle supported subject to compliance with relevant policies as outlined below.
7.8 Objections have raised concern about over-development of the site. Whilst the proposed building would be higher and have a larger footprint than the existing bungalow, the two/three-storey building would not involve a significant increase in the overall built footprint of the site and there would continue to be a large area of open green space. The proposed footprint is also comparable to other properties in the area. The proposal is therefore not considered over-development in the context of the site and its surroundings.
7.9 Concern was also raised about the proposal‟s density. The Design and Access Statement sets out that the proposal would have a density of 68 dwellings p/ha. This represents a reduction from the previous application (which would have a density of 81 dwellings p/ha) and is within London Plan guidance for sites of this nature (which sets a density range of 55–145 units p/ha for urban areas with a PTAL of 2-3, Table 3.2). The proposal‟s density is therefore considered acceptable.
The impact on the character of the area, the visual amenity of the street scene and the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area
7.10 The site is located adjacent to the Harold Road Conservation Area and as such must have regard to this designation. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on local planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.
7.11 Paragraph 126 of the NPPF recognises the value of “sustaining and enhancing heritage assets” and paragraph 64 states that “permission should be refused for developments of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”.
7.12 Policies 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan state that: design and layout of new buildings and the spaces they create should help reinforce or enhance the
Page 43 of 52
character of an area; new buildings should provide a high quality design response; buildings should be of the highest architectural quality and of a proportion and scale that enhances and defines the public realm; and development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.
7.13 Policy SP4.1 of CLP1 requires development of a high quality which respects and enhances Croydon's varied local character and contributes positively to public realm, landscape and townscape. Policy SP4.12 states the Council will respect and optimise opportunities to enhance Croydon's heritage assets and their setting through high quality new development that respects local character. Saved Policy UD2 of CRUDP requires development proposals to reinforce and respect the existing development pattern where they contribute to local character. Saved Policy UD3 requires development to respect the height and proportions of surrounding buildings in the locality. Saved Policy UC3 states that development will only be permitted if, outside a Conservation Area, the proposal does not affect its setting or views in and out of the conservation area. Saved Policy H2 allows housing development in built-up areas provided that it does not conflict with the aim of respecting the character of residential areas. The Harold Road Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP, 2015) and the Conservation Area General Guidance SPD (2013) are also relevant.
7.14 On a prominent corner, the application site is located adjacent to (and within the setting of) the Harold Road Conservation Area, and is opposite a strong grouping of locally listed buildings. The proposal therefore needs to clearly demonstrate that it respects and positively enhances the setting and character of the Conservation Area.
7.15 Following the two recently refused applications, significant amendments have been made to the proposal‟s design and appearance. The building has also been reduced in size through reduced bulk and mass. Taking cues from nearby semi-detached properties and to better relate the proposal to those properties, the proposed building now incorporates a pitched rather than flat roof. Rather than incorporating an additional storey for the top-floor flat, using the roofspace for accommodation and incorporating a pitch-roof would avoid the building from appearing to dominate the adjoining semi-detached two-storey properties.
7.16 Whilst the proposal would be higher than the immediately neighbouring semi-detached properties, the additional height would not dominate those adjoining properties. The proposal‟s height also helps to link the proposed building to the larger buildings opposite. With its staggered elevations and being stepped back from the highway, the building also responds well to its corner setting on the curve in Harold Road.
7.17 The proposed materials are contemporary, of a high quality, respond to the form of surrounding buildings and are in-line with guidance in the CAAMP (section 5.3). The predominant materials include red brick for the elevations and grey slate for the roof. This reflects surrounding materials, including red brick in the conversation area and slate roofs in many surrounding properties. Architectural detailing and fenestration design, such as the building‟s vertical emphasis and the framing and reveals of windows, enable the building to have a visual but uncluttered interest. The chimney provides further visual (but unfussy) interest and a focus to the building‟s main entrance.
Page 44 of 52
7.18 It is considered that the design, scale and massing of the proposal positively responds and relates to the site‟s local character and the handsome buildings in the Harold Road Conservation Area. The proposal would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the neighbouring Conservation Area and group of locally listed buildings, and would provide a building which would change but enhance the current appearance of the application site. The architectural treatment of the building positively responds to surrounding buildings, both within and outside the Harold Road Conservation Area.
7.19 In keeping with the area‟s surrounding character and protecting and reflecting the area‟s local vernacular and built form, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and would preserve and enhance the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area. Subject to full details of proposed materials being secured by condition (as advised by the Council‟s Place Making team), the proposal is considered to be in accordance with relevant policy and guidance.
Impact on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers
7.20 CRUDP Saved Policy UD8 states the Council will have regard to the form and layout of existing and adjacent buildings and the privacy and amenity of occupiers of surrounding buildings ensuring that both new and existing occupiers are protected from undue visual intrusion and loss of privacy. London Plan Policy 7.6 states that new buildings should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings.
7.21 This application has altered the location of the building and reduced its footprint, further removing it from the boundaries with properties to the west and north compared to the previous application. The location and design of fenestration has also been amended following the recently refused scheme.
7.22 The closest dwelling to the north of the application site is 47 Harold Road. The proposed building would be approx. 1.4-1.7mts from the northern boundary with no. 47, 2.6mts from that property‟s garage and approx. 5.1mts from the gable end wall of the main dwelling house. At approx. 4mts, the proposal‟s projection beyond the rear of no.47 has been reduced (the previous projection was approx. 6mts). With the proposed building‟s stepped approach, the remainder of the two/three-storey element of the building would be approx. 8mts from the boundary and 11mts from the side building line of no. 47.
7.23 Whilst the proposed building is relatively close to no. 47, its revised location and design (with a projection of 4mts and incorporating set-backs and a pitched roof) resolves previous concerns about the impression of a wall of development facing no.47. It is considered that the proposal would not dominate, overbear or result in an loss of light/outlook to the occupiers to the north of the site to an unacceptable degree.
7.24 There would a 45-degree line from the upper floor windows at 47 Harold Road, so there would be no appreciable loss of outlook when viewed from these windows. North facing windows facing 47 Harold Road would be fixed, small opaque windows. The proposal would therefore not result in an unacceptable increase in overlooking or loss of privacy to no. 47.
Page 45 of 52
7.25 Properties to the west of the site run along Orleans Road. At its closest points, the proposal‟s single-storey (rear projecting ground-floor) element would be approx. 5mts from the boundary and approx. 22.5mts from the rear of 39 and 37 Orleans Road. The proposal‟s two/three-storey element would be approx. 7.3mts from the boundary and 24.5mts from the rear of nos. 39 and 37. This separation is considered sufficient to avoid harm to the amenity of adjoining occupiers through loss of light and outlook to these properties.
7.26 The proposal‟s westerly facing ground-floor windows would not result in overlooking/loss of privacy to an unacceptable degree given the proposed 2mt boundary fence and existing soft landscaping along the western boundary. The upper floor windows are either fixed closed and opaque, or behind a privacy screen, or located a further 5mts away from the western boundary. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not harm the amenity of adjoining occupiers through loss of privacy to or increased overlooking of these properties.
7.27 London Plan Policy 7.15 and CRUDP Saved Policy EP1 seek to protect residents from pollution associated with new development, such as increased noise and disturbance. Given the site and surrounding area‟s existing use as residential accommodation and the site‟s built-up/urban nature, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a significant change through increased noise or disturbance from the existing situation.
7.28 Due to its location, design and height, it is not considered that the proposal would result in visual intrusion, loss of privacy, loss of light, overshadowing, loss of outlook or increased disturbance for adjoining occupiers to an unreasonable degree.
7.29 Objections have raised concern about use of the site‟s garden areas by future occupiers and removal of the yew tree resulting in increased overlooking towards properties on Orleans Road. Such use of garden areas by future occupiers would not be dissimilar to the existing situation. Existing and proposed landscaping and boundary treatment within the adjoining the site would provide additional screening. This, combined with the separation distances and design of windows facing Orleans Road, serves to mitigate concerns about harm to the amenity of adjoining occupiers.
7.30 It is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact on the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers. The proposal is therefore found to be in accordance with relevant policies.
The impact on parking and highway safety
7.31 CLP1 Policy SP8.17 states that outside high PTAL areas the Council will apply the standards as set out in the London Plan. CRUDP Saved Policy UD13 states that car parking must be designed as an integral part of a scheme and should be safe, secure, efficient and well designed. Saved Policy T2 states that planning permission will only be granted where the traffic generated by a development can be satisfactorily accommodated on nearby roads. Saved Policy T4 seeks the provision of cycle parking facilities and Saved Policy T8 compliance with the relevant car parking standards. London Plan 2015 Policy 6.3 (Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity) states that development proposals should ensure that impacts on transport capacity and the transport network, at both a corridor and local level, are fully assessed. It sets out that development should not adversely affect safety on the transport network. Policy 6.13 states that a balance needs to be struck
Page 46 of 52
between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision.
7.32 The site is in area with a PTAL accessibility rating of 3 and is considered to have moderate accessibility to public transport links. As such, a lower car parking provision rather than the maximum standard of 1 space per unit could be sought.
7.33 The Council‟s Strategic Transport team were consulted. They have raised no objection on the application subject to conditions (including the provision of a Construction Logistics Plan and reinstating the footway along the existing vehicular access).
7.34 A speed survey has been undertaken that determines a requirement for sightlines of 31mts for northbound traffic on Harold Road and 28mts for southbound traffic. It has been indicated on the submitted drawings that this can be achieved and the location of the access is therefore considered acceptable with regards to safe vehicular visibility. Pedestrian visibility splays are also provided to either side of the access, demonstrating acceptable safety for pedestrians.
7.35 Two off-street car parking spaces are proposed of which one is designated for disabled use. Given the accessibility of the site and availability of on-street parking in close proximity (as detailed in the access and parking assessment), this is considered acceptable.
7.36 Reference is made in the Design and Access Statement to future occupiers being provided with car club membership for a period of 2 years. Whilst car club membership for future occupiers is a welcome offer, Strategic Transport do not consider it is necessary to make the development acceptable. However, should the committee consider this is necessary, this will need to be written into a legal agreement (to secure its delivery) prior to permission being granted.
7.37 A cycle store is indicated on the proposed site plan that provides six parking spaces and there is also cycle storage provided for the ground floor units in sheds within their garden areas. The standards set out in the London Plan are therefore met.
7.38 Objections have raised the following concerns:
- The number of off-street parking spaces is inadequate and that more off-street parking should be provided, including basement parking: Providing underground parking for a development of this size would be unusual and would unlikely be economically viable. Increasing surface parking would likely result in further harm to the site‟s trees. As detailed above, it is considered that the level of parking provision is acceptable given the site‟s PTAL and its proximity to local services and amenities.
- The disabled parking space is not wide enough and safety issues with delivery vehicles parking on the corner of Harold Road: The disabled parking space is sufficient as the area to the side of disabled space means that 3.6mts is available. The proposed access is sufficient for transit-type delivery vans to safely enter and leave the site (it should also be noted that the proposed would not be significantly different from the existing situation with regards to deliveries).
Page 47 of 52
- The car club bay should be closer than 1km: It is not considered that 1km is a significant distance to walk and there is no set distance for proximity of car club bays to developments. Car club membership is also an additional offer from the applicant and the development is considered to be acceptable even without proposed car club membership.
The parking survey is a year old and the time of day means the parking assessment is unrealistic/unrepresentative: The parking survey used standard accepted methodology (known as the Lambeth Methodology), and the survey covered the peak times when parking in residential areas is likely to be highest. Whilst the data was obtained in 2015, it is not considered that there have been any significant changes in the area (e.g. major developments being occupied) since the survey date. The parking data provided is therefore considered sufficiently robust and representative to be relied upon.
- Assessment times of the speed survey mean that speeds and the number of cars are likely to be lower than if the assessment was done in the am and pm peaks: The speed assessment was carried out between 1000-1200 and 1300-1600 hours. This avoids the peak periods when the movement of more cars will likely result in slower speeds. The data is considered sufficiently robust and representative to be relied upon. The speeds recorded could also be considered „worst case‟.
- The proximity of the nearby school and pupils walking past the site: The details provided in the transport assessments confirm that sufficient and safe vehicular and pedestrian visibility will be provided. It should also be noted that the current situation includes vehicular access on the corner, and the proposal would therefore not result in a significant change from the existing situation for highway access. The relocated access actually provides better sightlines than the existing access, meaning the proposal results in improved highway safety.
7.39 It is considered that additional trip generation from the proposal would be negligible and highway safety would not be harmed. The proposal incorporates sufficient vehicle parking and secure cycle storage. The development is considered to be in accordance with relevant policy.
Trees and landscaping
7.40 CRUDP Saved Policy NC4 states the Council will refuse permission for proposals that result in the loss of valued trees, especially those protected by Tree Preservation Orders, and that landscaping proposals to be considered as an intrinsic part of the design concept. Policy 7.21B of the London Plan states that existing trees of value should be retained and any loss as the result of development should be replaced following the principle of 'right place, right tree'.
7.41 There are a row of nine Lime trees and one Yew tree along the frontage of the site, protected by Tree Preservation Order 003/15. The trees are in a prominent location and offer a good level of visual amenity.
7.42 It is proposed that eight trees will remain along the front boundary of the site. The applicant is proposing to remove a mature yew tree and one of the prominent lime trees along the front boundary of the site. Both of these trees are subject to a TPO. The Council‟s Tree Officer was therefore consulted on the application.
Page 48 of 52
7.43 The previous two applications raised concerns about loss of/harm to protected trees, including future harm to the trees remaining on the site after development. Since refusing those applications, the applicant has amended the proposal, demonstrating that the remaining eight trees (after the proposed loss of one Yew and one Lime) will not be harmed by the development.
7.44 Details in the arboricultural report confirm that the construction (and existence of) the building and parking area will not harm tree roots. The scheme also includes a greater separation distance to the trees and a reduction in the number of habitable windows facing them. These revisions indicate that the proposal is unlikely to result in harm to the trees from the need to e.g. significantly pollard the trees every few years to limit the extent of shade to future occupiers.
7.45 Given the declining vigour of the yew tree (T1) and its restricted prominence, the Council‟s Tree Officer is supportive of the removal T1.
7.46 The lime tree (T7) is one in a row of same species trees along the front boundary. The lime trees offer a good level of visual amenity and provide a screen for the proposed development. The removal of T7, which the Tree Officer does not consider to individually be a great specimen, will not detract from the prominence of the row or lessen the visual amenity offered.
7.47 The applicant has submitted a tree protection plan which includes both protective fencing and robust ground protection for the retained trees. The tree protection plan is to be the subject of a condition.
7.48 Although two trees are to be removed, given the limited space on the site and the additional tree cover, replacement planting is not to be requested. It is however noted that two new trees are proposed within the private gardens of the ground-floor flats. Details of proposed soft landscaping will be secured by condition.
7.49 Whilst policy seeks to avoid loss of protected trees where possible, it is considered for the above reasons that the loss of T1 and Y7 is acceptable in this instance. The application is therefore considered to be acceptable.
Ecology and open space
7.50 Concerns have been raised about the proposal‟s impact on wildlife and ecology. Policy SP7.4 of CLP1 sets out that the Council‟s approach to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity across the borough. London Plan Policy 7.19 is also relevant.
7.51 Containing a bungalow on part of the site, the remainder is predominantly grass, with some hedging and trees running along Harold Road. It is not considered that the site provides important wildlife habitat. It should be noted that no statutory consultees or wildlife groups have raised concerns about the proposal.
7.52 Whilst the proposed building would have a larger footprint than the existing bungalow, the building would not involve a significant increase in the overall built footprint of the site and there would continue to be a large area of open green space. Eight of the existing ten trees would remain. Additional soft landscaping, including two new trees, would also be introduced on the site.
7.53 Given this, it is considered that the proposal would not harm local wildlife and ecology. The proposal therefore complies with relevant policy.
Page 49 of 52
Living conditions of future occupiers
7.54 Policy SP2.6 of CLP1 states: „The Council will seek to ensure that new homes in Croydon meet the needs of residents over a lifetime and contribute to sustainable communities with the borough. The Policy states that all new homes should meet the minimum standards set out in the Mayor of London‟s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG, 2016). London Plan Policy 7.6 states that buildings and structures should provide high quality indoor and outdoor spaces and integrate well with surrounding streets and open spaces. The London Plan 2015 (including Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2016), the Mayor‟s Housing SPG 2016 and the Department for Communities and Local Government‟s Technical Housing Standards (Nationally Described Space Standard, March 2015) set out minimum space standards for dwellings of different sizes.
7.55 All flats exceed the minimum GIA and other applicable standards (in terms of ceiling heights, room sizes etc). Being dual aspect, all flats would receive sufficient natural light and ventilation.
7.56 Sufficient private amenity space (in the form of private gardens for the ground floor units, private balconies/terraces for the upper units, and communal garden space for use by all residents) would be provided, complying with applicable standards.
7.57 Sufficient privacy has been afforded to the ground floor flats through the use of boundary treatment, defensive planting and opaque windows.
7.58 It is considered that future occupiers would have sufficient internal and external space, outlook, natural light and privacy. The ground floor units would be wheelchair accessible/adaptable. The proposal complies with relevant policies.
Refuse/recycling
7.59 Saved Policy UD15 of CRUDP states that “new development…will only be permitted if it provides temporary storage space for refuse which is generated by the development and which is adequately screened and conveniently located.”
7.60 The proposal includes the provision of an internal refuse/recycling store sufficient to provide for the five flats.
7.61 Objections have raised concerns about the collection arrangements and the refuse lorry having to wait on the corner of Harold Road. Being within 20mts of the highway, the store would be accessible for the Council‟s collection team. Whilst the refuse vehicle would remain on the road whilst collecting refuse, this is no different from the existing situation with the refuse vehicle collecting refuse/recycling from the highway for the existing house.
7.62 It is considered that the refuse/recycling store and collection arrangements are sufficient. The proposal is complaint with relevant policy.
Other Planning Issues
7.63 Should permission be granted, conditions requiring a 19% reduction in CO2 emissions beyond 2015 Building Regulations and limiting water usage to 110lts p/person p/day would ensure the proposal would meet current sustainability requirements.
Page 50 of 52
Conclusions
7.64 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out above. The details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION.
Page 51 of 52
This page is intentionally blank
Page 52 of 52