Get documents about "abbey road estates report
Shared by: HC121030222115
-
Stats
- views:
- 0
- posted:
- 11/3/2012
- language:
- Unknown
- pages:
- 27
Document Sample
planning report PDU/2658/02
13 June 2012
Land at Abbey Road and Belsize Road known as
Abbey Road car park, Emminster and Hinstock,
Snowman House and Casterbridge, St John’s Wood
in the London Borough of Camden
planning application no. 2012/0096/P
Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers)
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and
2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008
The proposal
Outline application for phased redevelopment of site to provide up to 296 residential (Class
C3) units (including up to 133 affordable units), up to 1,300 sq.m. of commercial floor space
(Class A1-A5), up to 1,055 sq.m. of business floorspace (Class B1), up to 2,500 sq.m.
community and health floorspace (Class D1) and associated space for parking, plant, servicing,
ancillary storage and energy centre, all in five buildings as follows: Block C (up to 2 and 3
storeys of community and health uses), Blocks A, B, D and E (predominantly up to 6 and 7
storeys of residential and commercial uses) and Block A (up to 6 to 12 storeys of residential
and commercial uses); provision of open space and landscaping; alterations to existing
highway layout and creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access routes; all following
demolition of Belsize car park building, Abbey Coop Community Centre and Hinstock and
Emminster blocks (including Belsize Priory Health centre, residential and commercial units),
site-wide walkways and pedestrian railway bridge. Application provides detail for approval of
layout and access only and not scale, appearance or landscaping.
The applicant
The applicant is London Borough of Camden- Estate and Regeneration and the architect is
Levitt Bernstein.
Strategic issues
At Stage I the principle of this residential led mixed use estate renewal scheme was
supported. The issues raised around tenure mix, unit size and viability at Stage I have been
satisfactorily resolved. Further information and commitments have been provided in relation
to appearance and design quality. Further information has been provided on climate change,
transport and noise. As such all issues raised at Stage I have been satisfactorily resolved.
The Council’s decision
In this instance Camden Council has resolved to grant permission.
Recommendation
page 1
That Camden Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself,
subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to
direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.
Context
1 On 12 January 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Camden Council
notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above
site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1A and 1C of the
Schedule to the Order 2008:
“Category 1A: Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses,
flats, or houses and flats;
Category 1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building that is more
than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.
2 On 22 February 2012 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2658/01, and
subsequently advised Camden Council that the application did not comply with the London
Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 92 of the above-mentioned report; but that the
possible remedies set out in paragraph 94 of that report could address these deficiencies.
3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with
regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and
guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the
application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 12 April
2012 Camden Council decided that it was minded to grant planning for the revised application,
and on 16 May 2012 it advised the Mayor of this decision, and the Stage II was accepted as
valid after the receipt of the Section 106 agreement on 29 May 2012. Under the provisions of
Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may
allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Camden Council under Article 6 to refuse
the application or issue a direction to Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local
Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected
application. The Mayor has until 13 June 2012 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue
any direction.
4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken
into account in the consideration of this case.
5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website
www.london.gov.uk.
Update
6 At the consultation stage Camden Council was advised that the application did not
comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 92 of the above-mentioned
report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 94 of that report could address these
deficiencies:
Housing, estate renewal, affordable housing and housing choice: The results of the
independent viability assessment are awaited. Further discussion is needed on tenure
mix and minimum levels of affordable family housing
page 2
Tall buildings and design: the design principles are generally supported however
further discussions is needed on materials and the appearance of the tall building in
particular.
Density: The density should be calculated using the net residential area and the
indicative residential mix.
Child playspace: a play strategy should be submitted and commitments made to
improving the off-site playspaces.
Inclusive access: A gradient plan should be submitted and indicative plans of the units
and wheelchair units should be provided.
Noise: Further noise assessment work is needed and further discussion is needed of the
quality of the units which would be located in NEC D.
Climate change: Details of regulated savings at each tier of the energy hierarchy
should be provided. Further detail is needed of the CHP sizing proposed and load
profiles as well as details of investigations into proposed district heating networks and
confirmation that all uses will be linked into a site wide network. The applicant should
set out whether rainwater harvesting or greywater recycling is proposed and if a
commitment has been made to limit the use of water to 105 litres of water per person
per day through the use of water efficient fittings. The applicant should confirm which
buildings are proposed to have green roofs and commit to a minimum area.
Transport: contributions towards bus infrastructure and Legible London should be
secured. In addition, travel plans and the safeguarding of land for the cycle hire docking
station should be secured within the section 106 agreement. Electric vehicle charging
points, a DSP and a CLP should be secured by condition.
Land use principle
7 The Stage I report set out that further discussion was needed regarding the relocation
of the B1 uses and the reprovision of the community centre and health centre. The report set
out that Camden should be satisfied that the loss of employment uses on the site is acceptable.
8 The Council’s committee report sets out that the constraints of the current car park
building would not easily meet the needs of future businesses in alternative disciplines and that
the building is currently operating under capacity. The application would provide 10% more
employment floorspace than the existing as a minimum and the development as a whole is
estimated to provide 111 jobs (20 more than the existing site). The application is conditioned
such that the health centre and community centre are reprovided and minimum floorspaces are
specified. As such the application is acceptable in this regard.
Housing, estate renewal and housing choice
9 Since the Stage 1 response was issued the applicant has submitted a revised indicative
housing mix as follows:
10 This revised indicative mix includes 38% of social rented units as 3 bed plus which is in
line with London Plan policy.
11 An indicative scheme has also been submitted for the social rented accommodation by
phase and this is as follows:
page 3
Overall Social rented %age of total %age of total
in phase social rented
units
Phase 1
1-b 26 37% 29%
2-b 26 37% 29%
3-b 19 26% 20%
Phase total 71 100%
Phase 3
1-b 1 5% 1%
2-b 4 20% 4%
3-b 8 40% 9%
4-b 7 35% 8%
Phase total 20 100%
Overall total 91 100%
12 This demonstrates provision of 36% family housing across the phases with phase 1,
delivering 26% family housing and phase 3 delivering 75% family housing. Phase 2 delivers the
community, commercial and retail buildings. Phase 1 is skewed significantly towards smaller
units because of the decant strategy from the current stock which is predominantly smaller
units. This approach is acceptable.
13 The Stage I report set out that a minimum level of affordable housing should be
conditioned by the Council together with a minimum level of 3 bed plus affordable homes. The
application is conditioned such that there will be a maximum of 13,897 sq.m. GEA of market
housing and a minimum of 6,498 sq.m. GEA of social rented floorspace in phase 1 and a
minimum of 4,649 sq.m. of social rented floorspace in phase 3. Phase 3 is also conditioned such
that no less than 36% of the social rented units will be 3 bed plus units.
14 The application is also conditioned such that a housing delivery plan has to be
submitted with the reserved matters applications for phase 1 and 3. The phase 1 delivery plan
is required to include evidence of any factors which preclude the phase delivering a minimum of
36% of the social rented units as 3 bed units. The Housing Delivery Plan for phase 3 is required
to include confirmation of how the phase would ensure that a minimum of 36% of the social
rented units across the whole development are 3 bed plus. As such the application is effectively
conditioned such that 36% of all social rented units will be family units.
15 Since the Stage I report was issued the results of the viability assessment have been
verified by an independent assessment. At stage I the applicant was asked to consider including
an element of affordable rent in the proposal. The applicant has provided an additional viability
assessment which sets out that converting the 21 additional social rented units, over and above
the replacement social rented units, to affordable rent would not allow the provision of
additional affordable housing and this is acceptable. In addition the application is conditioned
such that 50% of any additional housing provided over and above the indicative scheme will be
provided as affordable rented housing and this is welcomed. As such the applicant has
demonstrated that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing has been provided.
16 As requested at Stage I the application has been conditioned such that at reserved
matters stage the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the relevant space
standards and housing design standards and that there will be no single aspect units in NEC
C.
page 4
17 All the housing issues raised at Stage I have been satisfactorily resolved.
Tall buildings and design
18 The Stage 1 report set out that further information was needed in relation to the
appearance of the buildings and the materials proposed, particularly in relation to the tall
building. Indicative rendered views have now been submitted and GLA officers are satisfied
that the quality of the proposed buildings are acceptable. The application is conditioned such
that reserved matters applications must be accompanied by an urban design report explaining
the underlying approach of the design and explaining how it addresses the relevant principles
set out in the Design Guide. The condition sets out that the design shall be overseen, prepared
and detailed by an architecture firm that specialises in tall buildings and has experience in
mixed use schemes. The material submitted, and condition secured, resolves the issues raised in
the Stage I report.
Public realm
19 The application has been amended since submission to take greater account of existing
trees. The tree survey sets out that 68 trees have the potential to be affected by the
development. 5 of these are high quality, 27 are moderate quality and 35 are lesser quality. All
of the higher quality trees are retained however 9 moderate grade and 10 lesser grade trees
will be lost. Given the constraints of the site and given that the public realm proposals ensure
that there is no net loss of trees this is acceptable and in line with London Plan policy 7.21.
Density
20 The applicant has assessed the density of the proposal based on the net residential area.
As requested in the Stage I report and the density is 654 habitable rooms per hectare. This is
within the density matrix guidelines for urban sites with a public transport accessibility level of
6.
Child playspace
21 Since issuing the Stage I report the applicant has submitted a play strategy which
demonstrates that it is possible to provide 750 sq.m. of playspace on-site (500 sq.m. doorstep
play for 0-5 year olds and 250 sq.m. 5-12 year olds). The provision of this level of playspace
together with the submission of a play strategy for each phase is conditioned. The application is
also conditioned such that contributions will be made to off-site 5-12 and youth playspace. The
exact nature of this contribution to be determined through the reserved matters applications.
Inclusive access
22 Since issuing the Stage I report the applicant has submitted large scale plans of the
wheelchair accessible units and has demonstrated that the public realm will be fully accessible.
As such the matters raised at Stage I have been satisfactorily resolved.
Noise
23 Since issuing the Stage I report the applicant has submitted further noise assessment
information which addresses the issues raised at Stage I.
24 The whole of the application site is in NEC C, with a small portion of the site being in
NEC D. The Stage I report set out that housing development in NEC C was acceptable but
page 5
that further discussions was needed regarding the provision of housing in NEC D and that
there should be no single aspect units in either noise category. Given the noise condition
included on the decision notice, the constraints of the site and the desirability of regeneration of
the site the provision of housing in NEC D is acceptable. The application is conditioned such
that there will be no single aspect units in NEC D. The indicative layout includes a small
number of single aspect units in NEC C. The applicant has demonstrated that the level of
single aspect units has been minimised and this is, on balance, acceptable.
Climate change
25 Further information on energy has been provided since the Stage I report was issued.
The applicant has confirmed that all uses will be connected in a single heat network and this
has been conditioned. The applicant has confirmed its electricity sales strategy and carbon
savings at each element of the energy hierarchy. A roof plan has been submitted showing the
potential areas for location of photovoltaic panels. The application is conditioned such that a
detailed energy strategy should be submitted with the phase 1 reserved matters application for
approval by the Local Planning Authority and the GLA.
26 The applicant has set out that grey water recycling rather than rainwater harvesting is
proposed and that the details of this system will be subject to approval through the submission
of a water management strategy for each phase at reserved matter stage. A plan has been
submitted showing the potential area of green roof proposed. The final area of green roof will
be determined at reserved matters stage. All matters raised at Stage I have been satisfactorily
resolved.
Transport for London’s comments
27 At Stage 1 consultation, TfL raised issues in relation to the proposed level of car
parking provision, identified the requirements for electric vehicle charging points (EVCP) and
recommended the submission of a detailed design for the changes proposed to the highway
layout. TfL also requested the safeguarding of an area of land to install a London Cycle Hire
docking station and contributions towards the installation of Legible London and ‘Countdown’
facilities at the nearest bus stops. Finally, TfL additionally requested that the Council secure a
travel plan, delivery and servicing plan and a construction logistics plan.
28 The development will have a maximum car parking ratio of 0.2 spaces per residential
unit, which represents a reduction since Stage 1. This is within London Plan standards and
therefore considered acceptable, noting that the development will not have any adverse impact
on the highway network. EVCP’s will however still need to be provided in accordance with
London Plan standards.
29 While a detailed highway layout has not been submitted as requested, it should be noted
that if the highway proposals proceed and the works involve alterations to traffic signal
operations, then TfL will need to be fully briefed at an early stage in order to establish the
acceptability of the proposals.
30 While no funding has been secured towards implementing Legible London wayfinding
which is disappointing, this is accepted on the basis that the potential for a London Cycle Hire
docking station has been supported through the safeguarding of land, and if delivered, will
include Legible London wayfinding for pedestrians.
31 The s106 Heads of Terms include: requirements to produce servicing and construction
management plans, travel plans, a contribution of £20,000 towards the installation of a
‘Countdown’ facility at the bus stop outside the health and community centre, safeguarding of
land for a London Cycle Hire Docking station, £20,000 towards pedestrian and environmental
page 6
improvements in the vicinity of the site and £13,000 towards an on-street EVCP. These
measures are welcomed by TfL and ensure conformity with the London Plan transport policies.
In addition, the developer will meet the costs of all works to the highway relating to parking
spaces, bus stop locations, traffic and stopping up orders.
32 Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in transport terms.
33 This development will be subject to a London-wide community infrastructure levy,
charged at a rate of £50 per square metre for development in Camden. This will contribute
towards the funding of Crossrail and further details are available via the GLA website
www.london.gov.uk. The GLA expect the Council, as the Collecting Authority, to secure the
levy in accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3. This is noted in the Committee Report.
Other comments
34 Thames Water, the Environment Agency and English Heritage (archaeology) has no
objection provided relevant standard conditions are included on the decision notice. These are
included.
35 London Underground set out it had no comments on the proposal and no reply has been
received from Brent Council or the City of Westminster.
36 The Design Council sets out that it broadly welcomes the proposal to redevelop the
estate and commends the consultation process. It supports the aspiration to create a more
welcoming urban space at the junction of Abbey Road and Belsize Road through an improved
relationship to built form and a more connected and pedestrian-friendly public realm. However
it sets out that the quality of the space will be impacted by the buildings fronting it and that it
is not yet convinced that the outline application provides sufficient assurances regarding the
podium block and tall building. It requests that more detail be provided. Further material has
been submitted since the receipt of the letter.
37 The Metropolitan police crime prevention design officer sets out that territoriality,
surveillance, reduced permeability and control measures should be designed in.
38 Cllr Brian Coleman (previous assembly member for Barnet and Camden) objects to the
application setting out that the application is a vast overdevelopment in an area saturated with
new development. It would place further strain on the road network. He also objects to the
height and scale, the impact of the design on the character and design of the area, impact on
residential amenity and loss of mature trees.
39 Cllr Don Williams objects on the basis of impact on Swiss Cottage residents including
disruption and noise, stress on over-subscribed local services, loss of amenity and
overdevelopment.
40 Cllr Bryant requests flexibility as the needs of the health centre may be different when
the application comes forward.
41 The Kilburn Liberal Democrats raise a number of concerns as follows: low level of
family units, impact on school places, not enough affordable housing, phasing is vague, no
commitment from the NHS to the project, reduction in business space, reduction in green
space, height of the tower, concerns over the design of the community centre and health centre,
the location of bus shelters should be considered and bike storage should be taken account of.
42 The Board of Trustees of the Abbey Community Centre support the proposal but
request that the community centre as a minimum is 740 sq.m. and that the size of the private
page 7
open space associated with it should be fixed. A minimum of 740 sq.m. for the community
centre and 100 dq.m. of external space is conditioned.
43 Against Over Developing Abbey group object to the proposals on the grounds of bulk,
loss of greenery and the development does not reflect the character of the conservation area.
44 The GP’s in the health centre have reservations about sharing the space with the
community centre, the current three parking spaces should be replaced, a designated drop-off
facility should be provided, the glazing to the road needs to be carefully thought through, the
space of the current health centre should be reprovided.
Response to consultation
45 669 letters were sent to adjoining occupiers, a newspaper advert was published and a
number of site notices were placed around the site. 89 responses were received by the Council.
85 of these objected to the proposal and four supported the proposal. The Mayor received three
objections directly.
46 Issues raised in support of the application are as follows: More shops are welcomed, the
buildings are environmentally friendly and architecturally attractive and the proposal brings a
much needed face lift to the site.
47 Issues raised in objection are as follows: loss of amenity, overlooking, loss of daylight
and sunlight, construction noise, impacts on structural stability, dust, creation of a wind tunnel,
loss of green/open space, density, impact of increased traffic, loss of council housing, there
should be more family units and houses, guarantees of quality needed, impact on school places,
the community centre should be larger, loss of small businesses, floorspace should be
reprovided for small businesses, proposals not appropriate next to a conservation area and the
tower is too tall.
48 The strategic and local matters raised have been dealt with in the Council’s committee
report, the Stage I report and this report.
Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority
49 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the
policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant
permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the
matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take
over this application.
Legal considerations
50 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor
of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning
authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the
Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local
planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected
application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal
the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the
principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable
development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and
the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant
permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to
page 8
direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue
these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning
authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in
the direction.
Financial considerations
51 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent
appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in
Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses
arising from an appeal.
52 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the
Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning
authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding
whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of
established planning policy.
53 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a
representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible
for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and
determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so).
Conclusion
54 All the issues raised at Stage I have been satisfactorily resolved. As such the Mayor is
content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may
take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning
authority.
page 9
for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit:
Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions
020 7983 4783 email colin.wilson@london.gov.uk
Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions)
020 7983 4895 email justin.carr@london.gov.uk
Emma Williamson Case Officer
020 7983 6590 email emma.williamson@london.gov.uk
planning report PDU/2658/01
22 February 2012
Land at Abbey Road and Belsize Road known as
Abbey Road car park, Emminster and Hinstock,
Snowman House and Casterbridge, St John’s Wood
in the London Borough of Camden
planning application no. 2012/0096/P
Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers)
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and
2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008
The proposal
Outline application for phased redevelopment of site to provide up to 299 residential (Class
C3) units (including up to 133 affordable units), up to 1,300 sq.m. of commercial floor space
(Class A1-A5), up to 1,000 sq.m. of business floorspace (Class B1), up to 2,250 sq.m.
community and health floorspace (Class D1) and associated space for parking, plant, servicing,
ancillary storage and energy centre, all in five buildings as follows: Block C (up to 2 and 3
storeys of community and health uses), Blocks A, B, D and E (predominantly up to 6 and 7
storeys of residential and commercial uses) and Block A (up to 6 to 12 storeys of residential
and commercial uses); provision of open space and landscaping; alterations to existing
highway layout and creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access routes; all following
demolition of Belsize car park building, Abbey Coop Community Centre and Hinstock and
Emminster blocks (including Belsize Priory Health centre, residential and commercial units),
site-wide walkways and pedestrian railway bridge. Application provides detail for approval of
layout and access only and not scale, appearance or landscaping.
The applicant
page 10
The applicant is London Borough of Camden- Estate and Regeneration and the architect is
Levitt Bernstein.
Strategic issues
The principle of this residential led mixed use estate renewal scheme is supported. Further
discussions are needed around tenure mix, unit size and viability. Further information and
commitments are needed in relation to appearance and design quality. Further information is
needed on climate change, transport and noise.
Recommendation
That Camden Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic
planning terms application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in
paragraph 92 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 94 of this
report could address these deficiencies.
Context
1 On 12 January 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Camden Council
notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the
above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning
(Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 22 February 2012 to provide the
Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with
the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other
comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to
make.
2 The application is referable under Category 1A and 1C of the Schedule to the Order
2008:
Category 1A: Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses,
flats, or houses and flats;
Category 1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building that is more
than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.
3 Once Camden Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it
back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own
determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.
4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA
website www.london.gov.uk.
Site description
5 The development site is located at the junction of the B507 Abbey Road and the B509
Belsize Road, which are both borough highways. The site is bounded to the north, east and
west by residential houses and to the south by mainline and suburban train lines in a cutting.
South of Belsize Road is the multi-story car park building. Whilst this is no longer used as a
car park a range of car-related and other businesses are accommodated within it. North of
Belsize Road, the site is currently occupied by two housing blocks, consisting of 74 flats. Small
retail units are available on the ground floor of these housing blocks, in addition to an existing
page 11
local Health Centre and Community Centre. To the north-east of the Abbey Road/Belsize
Road junction, the site contains two residential towers, containing 204 residential units. These
elements are currently part of the Abbey Co-op estate. The site is part of a wider area
comprising the Abbey Estate, Alexandra and Ainsworth Estates, Langtry Walk and Alexandra
Place for which the preparation of a separate masterplan is underway.
6 The nearest section of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is the A41
Finchley Road, 500m to the east. The nearest section of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) is
the A5 Kilburn High Road, 300m to the west.
7 The site records an excellent PTAL level of 6a (where 1 is very low and 6b is the
highest, most accessible). The site is within reasonable walking distance of Kilburn High Road
and South Hampstead Overground stations (providing services on London Overground
between Watford and Euston) and 500 metres from Kilburn Park London Underground station
(Bakerloo Line). Bus routes 139, 189, 31 and 328 operate within a 400m walking distance of the
site.
Details of the proposal
8 Redevelopment to provide a residential led mixed use scheme comprising up to 299
residential units, retail, flexible workspace and community uses along with associated
landscaping and car parking. The building heights proposed are between 4 and 12 stories with
heights rising towards the junction of Abbey Road and Belsize Road. A 12 story landmark
building is sited on the site of the car park. New buildings are proposed around the base of the
retained tower blocks to form a plinth to these blocks to help define the new public space. The
proposal has been the subject of extensive public consultation.
9 The proposed phasing is not submitted as part of the planning application however it is
envisaged that phase 1 would be the redevelopment of the car park building when its lease
expires in 2013 with phase 2 being the development around the plinths of the tower blocks that
will remain. This will allow for the redevelopment of the remaining areas of the site decanting
residents into the new properties that have been built on the car park site.
Case history
10 Pre-application meetings were held with the GLA in November 2010 and May 2011.
Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance
11 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:
Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and
Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, Housing
Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG;
draft Housing SPG
Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; draft Revised
Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG;
page 12
Affordable Rent draft SPG; draft Early Minor Alteration to the
London Plan
Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; draft
Housing SPG
Urban design London Plan; PPS1
Mix of uses London Plan
Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13;
Parking London Plan; Assembly draft Early Minor Alteration to the London
Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13
Retail/town centre uses London Plan; PPG13, PPS4
Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive
environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good
practice guide (ODPM)
Tall buildings/views London Plan; RPG3A, Revised View Management Framework
SPG; revised draft View Management Framework
Historic Environment London Plan; draft World Heritage Sites SPG; PPS5; Circular
07/09
Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24
Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22;
draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing
Climate; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation Strategy; Mayor’s
Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water
Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG
12 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
the development plan in force for the area is the Camden Core Strategy with Development
Control Policies, the saved policies of the Camden Unitary Development Plan and the 2011
London Plan.
13 The following are also relevant material considerations:
The Camden Site Allocations Document which will shortly be at pre-submission
stage
The Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan
Land use principle
14 The principle of a residential led mixed use scheme in this location is supported as is the
principle of the public realm improvements proposed.
15 The car park site is a site in the Council’s Site Allocations Document which will shortly
be consulted on at pre-submission stage. The submission document which has been to the
Council’s Cabinet set out the following for this site:’ A predominantly residential development along
with associated retail, community floorspace and/or employment uses. Development will be expected to:
Make more effective use of the site to provide new housing, including affordable housing;
Replace the existing unsightly car park structure with well designed building(s);
page 13
Make better use of the prominent corner site and ensure that buildings engage better with
adjoining streets and ensure an improved relationship with residential properties to the west on
Belsize Road;
Consider how development of the site could be integrated with wider improvements which may
emerge as part of the Council’s estate regeneration programme;
Incorporate alternative employment generating uses such as shops, workspace, and/or community
uses;
Provide new or extended open space.
16 The car park is no longer used as a car park but does contain some car related and
other employment uses. With regard to the loss of these employment uses and the demolition
of the community centre and health centre further information is needed on the relocation of
these uses. With regard to the loss of employment space Camden Council should ensure that
any net loss of employment space is acceptable in this area in line with its employment policies.
17 The retail statement submitted with the application sets out the retail to be provided
will serve the local catchment area and will have a negligible impact on other local centres.
This approach is supported.
18 The proposal is broadly in line with the site allocations document.
Housing
19 The blocks that are to be demolished as part of this application currently comprise 70
social rented flats of which 60 are 1 bed units and 10 are studios. This amounts to 5,378 sq.m.
of social rented housing. The applicant has submitted the following indicative schedule with the
application:
Estate renewal
20 Policy 3.14 of the London Plan resists the loss of housing, including affordable housing,
unless it is replaced at existing or higher density with equivalent floorspace. Paragraph 3.82 of
the London Plan gives further advice on the Mayor’s approach to estate renewal. More
detailed guidance is set out in Section 20 of the Housing SPG. This clarifies that there should
be no net loss of affordable housing, which can be calculated on a habitable room basis and
should exclude right to buy properties. Replacement affordable housing can be of a different
tenure mix where this achieves a better mix of provision.
21 Private housing that forms part of estate renewal schemes need not provide the normal
level of additional affordable provision, where this is necessary to cross subsidise
redevelopment. This would need to be justified through a financial appraisal.
22 In this instance there is a net gain of 21 social rented units with an overall gain of 57
affordable units when taking account of the intermediate units. Given that the units that are
currently provided on site are small units the increase in floorspace of affordable provision on
the site is more significant being an increase of 6,730 sq.m. GEA.
23 The applicant has set out that profits from this development will be used to fund Decent
Homes works on other estates in Camden. In this instance the viability appraisal and
supporting information sets out that Camden Council, as applicant, is accepting a lower profit
page 14
than a private developer would and has not accounted for a land receipt. As such the Council is
providing more than a private developer would be able to on this site in terms of affordable
housing and profits that would usually go back to the developer are being recycled into the
Council’s Decent Homes programme.
24 A financial appraisal has been provided with the application and this is currently
being independently assessed by consultants appointed by the Council. The results of this
are awaited. As such it is not possible to say whether the affordable housing provision has
been maximised is acceptable at this stage.
25 Following receipt of the independent appraisal of the viability assessment this level
should be the subject of further discussion between the Council and the GLA. A minimum
level of affordable housing should be conditioned by the Council.
Tenure mix
26 London Plan Policy 3.11 sets a strategic target that 60% of new affordable housing
should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. The Mayor has published an
early minor alteration to the London Plan to address the introduction of affordable rent, with
further guidance set out in a draft Affordable Rent SPG. With regard to tenure split the
Mayor’s position is that both social rent and affordable rent should be included within the 60%.
27 While the Mayor has set a strategic investment benchmark that across the affordable
rent programme as a whole rents should average 65% of market rents, this is an average
investment output benchmark for this spending round and not a planning policy target to be
applied to negotiations on individual schemes.
28 The indicative mix submitted is split 78% social rented to 24% intermediate. The
applicant should submit justification for this mix based on local need.
29 The indicative mix that has been submitted suggests that no affordable rent is proposed.
Whilst this is appropriate for tenants that are being decanted from the current blocks further
discussion is needed regarding whether any affordable rent should be included in the mix.
Housing choice
30 London Plan Policy 3.8 sets out that the provision of affordable family housing is a
strategic priority. The London Housing Strategy sets out strategic housing requirements and
Policy 1.1C of the Strategy includes a target for 42% of social rented homes to have three or
more bedrooms. The revised London Housing Strategy, currently out for consultation, sets out
that 36% of affordable rented homes allocated funding in 2011-15 will have three or more
bedrooms.
31 38% of the indicative mix proposed are 3 bed plus and this is welcomed. The planning
statement indicates a range for unit sizes and in this table 33%-50% of social rented units could
be 3 bed plus. A minimum level of 3 bed plus homes should be secured as part of the
application. This level should not be below 36%.
Housing quality
32 London Plan Policy 3.5 promotes quality in new housing provision and sets out
minimum space standards at Table 3.3. The Mayor will produce a new Housing SPG (a draft
of which was put before the London Plan EIP), on the implementation of Policy 3.5 for all
page 15
housing tenures, drawing on his London Housing Design Guide, paragraphs 3.37 –3.39
provides further guidance on indicators of quality that the proposed SPG will cover.
33 The indicative design guide, submitted with the application, demonstrates that the
development would be able to comply with both the space standards as required by the London
Plan, and the design guidelines set out within the draft replacement Housing SPG. Although
detailed design is yet to occur, the indicative layouts and parameter plans demonstrate that
internal layouts, active frontages and the frequency of residential cores, and the overall
percentage of dual-aspect units would be appropriate.
34 The application should be conditioned such that all units will meet the London Plan
space standards and will meet the other London Housing Design Guide Standards as far as is
practicable.
Density
35 London Plan Policy 3.4 seeks to optimise the potential of sites having regard to local
context, design principles and public transport accessibility. The site has a public transport
accessibility level of 6a, and its immediate setting is urban in character. The London Plan
density matrix therefore suggests a residential density of between 450 and 700 habitable rooms
per hectare.
36 The applicant sets out that the density of the proposal is in the region of 605 habitable
rooms per hectare. However the density of the proposal should be calculated using the net
residential site area in accordance with paragraph 3.34 of the interim Housing SPG which
states that any non-residential floorspace should be deducted from the total floorspace for the
purposes of calculating density.
Children’s play space
37 Policy 3.6 of the London Plan sets out that “development proposals that include housing
should make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population
generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” Using the methodology within
the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s
Play and Informal Recreation’ and calculated using the indicative mix in the planning
statement the applicant sets out that it is anticipated that there will be approximately 73
children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child
playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the
development should make provision for 730 sq.m. of playspace.
38 The planning statement sets out that is it possible to provide 730 sq.m. of playspace and
provision of playspace on-site and the the provision of 650 sq.m. on-site is illustrated in the
design and access statement including the upgrade of the existing play area for the tower
blocks which is outside of the red line boundary. The design and access statement also sets out
that youth provision would be provided on the adjacent estates. A play strategy should be
submitted which sets out the quality and capacity of the current provision which is intended to
be upgraded. A minimum level of playspace on-site should be committed to as well as
commitments made to off-site upgrades.
Tall Buildings/views
page 16
39 London Plan (2011) policy 7.7, which relates to the specific design issues associated
with tall and large-scale buildings, is of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. This
policy sets out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which
are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a
significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of
planning applications to the Mayor.
40 A tall building is proposed. The site is not within any strategic viewing corridors, and
therefore the general tall building advice offered within the London Plan and the replacement
London View Management Framework supplementary planning guidance prevails. Although
the applicant’s design guide provides indicative information on the scale and impact of the
proposed tall building from locally important viewpoints, there is no information within these
views on proposed materiality or appearance to assist the Mayor in making a balanced
judgement on the impact of the building. This information is especially important with regard
to the impact on views from areas of heritage value, such as the nearby Alexandra Road estate.
Visualisations from key viewing points, demonstrating indicative massing and appearance
(such as that shown at the conclusion of the design guide) for comparison against the
appearance of existing buildings should be provided.
41 From the information that has been provided (see illustrations above), it is apparent that
in terms of scale, the new tall building would be appropriately located in order to signify the
local centre and create a tall building cluster in conjunction with the two existing tall
buildings, while avoiding an overbearing cumulative impact. Importantly, the building would
appear as an independent element within the main approaches to the site.
Urban design
42 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan (2011) and is specifically
promoted by the policies contained within chapter seven which address both general design
principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 7.1 sets out a series of overarching
design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and
elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the
potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built
heritage and World Heritage Sites, views, the public realm and the Blue Ribbon Network.
New development is also required to have regard to its context, and make a positive
contribution to local character within its neighbourhood (policy 7.4).
43 The applicant engaged in detailed pre-application discussions with GLA and Council
officers and the scheme has evolved to take account of concerns and comments raised during
the process. As a result the design is generally satisfactory, and the principles of the outline
application are appropriate. The parameter plans submitted in conjunction with a design guide
are generally tight and there is some, but not excessive, flexibility in terms of building
footprints, while uses and heights are firmly set. The greatest opportunity for variation and
further development is with regards to landscaping and the appearance of the proposed
buildings.
44 The development forms part of a larger masterplan for the area, which has been
developed by the applicant and incorporates the listed and other estates to the south of the
railway. The removal of existing unsympathetic buildings will improve the area and is
supported. The new buildings would enhance the local centre, and provide better definition
and character to the local street scenes.
page 17
45 It is acknowledged that the current layout does not promote a sense of place, and that
the proposals seek to remedy this. The proposal has been designed in recognition of local
residents’ wishes for the development to provide new homes rather than refurbishment of
existing stock, and the applicant’s aspirations to upgrade the public realm are welcomed. The
proposal would intensify the current focus at the road intersection and potentially improve the
sense of place at the base of the existing towers and renewed shopping parade. While earlier
proposals focussed on the creation of a square, the application proposals rely more on the
relationship between the uses and the architecture to achieve this. The parameter plans allow
for the potential increase of this space on the eastern side of the square to allow for a more civic
scale of entrance adjacent to the health and community uses, and the design at the detailed
stage should ensure that both the scale of this space, and the treatment of the entrance, would
provide an appropriate response.
46 The concept of a single, controlled entrance to the ground level public uses is welcomed.
However as discussed at the pre-application meeting, there are concerns regarding the
attractiveness of the park to visitors. Although the design of the lobby space would seek to
maximise the visual connection from the street entrance, through the space to the park beyond,
the fact that visitors would need to cross a controlled threshold to access the park may affect its
attractiveness to these users. The design code should be refined to specify legibility measures
to ensure that this space maximises the intended open access design, which could include
facade/glazing proportions and integrated signage requirements.
47 The reintroduction of a clear route hierarchy around the junction is supported, as is the
introduction of strong building edges. Throughout the scheme, there would be a clear division
between public and the private spaces. GLA officers are aware that the redesign of the park at
the rear of the two towers is a potentially controversial issue among residents of the existing
tower blocks, but the enclosure of the space between the park and the new square will help to
resolve issues of ownership, while providing a direct route and visibility between public spaces.
The relocation of the car park to the north of the towers is also supported given the
opportunity to create a park threshold that will better relate to the new uses at ground and first
floor levels.
48 The proposed layout of the smaller courtyard spaces in the Emminster/Hinstock
blocks, and the deletion of the previously proposed parking spaces is supported in design terms.
This deletion will assist in ensuring that the ground floor of the building has a clear street-
facing function, rather than sharing the active commercial frontages between the front and the
rear of the building.
Scale and massing
49 The proposed scale of buildings is appropriate, although as discussed elsewhere in this
report, additional information is required for the Mayor to be able to judge the appropriateness
of the tall building. Heights would be subject to some variation within parameter plans, with
tolerances of one or two storeys, which is normal in a scheme of this nature.
50 The buildings around the Abbey Road centre are appropriately scaled to provide a
setting for the new open space in front of the retail parade, and provide a marker for the parade
itself. Likewise, the new buildings along Belsize Road provide an appropriate scale for the
width of the street, and replicate historical building frontage lines and heights/enclosure found
nearby. At the same time the proposal would ‘lead up’ to the corner, helping to define it as a
place with an appropriate scale that is complementary to the existing towers. The heights
around other parts of the proposed scheme are appropriate, including the ‘stepping down’ of the
page 18
edges of the new Emminster/Hinstock replacement blocks and the new podium blocks
underneath the existing towers.
Appearance
52 Instead of providing a design code, the applicant has provided a set of guidelines
intended to influence the form of development at the detailed design stages. While the content
of the guide is welcomed, there is some concern regarding the ‘weight’ offered by the guide at
the detailed stage, especially given the lack of detailing of the taller elements of the scheme.
The information offered within the guide is indicative only, and unlike a code, is not adoptable.
The applicant should clarify the role of the guide within the approval process, and provide
assurance to the Mayor that the high standard of design advocated by the guide would be
applied within the detailed design stage. Given the visibility of the tall building element and its
potential to be viewed from areas close to heritage assets, a design code should be set for at
least this element, in order to provide the level of assurance set out in London Plan policies 7.6
and 7.7.
53 Elsewhere within the design guide and the design and access statement, the indicative
information suggests that the materials and form of elevations could be appropriate within the
local context, using brick as the primary material.
Summary
54 The design approach is generally supported however further information is needed on
materials and appearance, particularly in relation to the tall building. Indicative elevations of
the tall building should be provided and design quality for this element and ideally the entire
development should be secured within a design code.
Inclusive design
55 Inclusive design principles if embedded into the development and design process from
the outset help to ensure that all of us, including older people, disabled and Deaf people,
children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with
dignity. The aim of London Plan Policy 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest
standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum).
56 The design and access statement sets out that all units will be designed to comply with
Lifetime Homes Standards and 10% will be wheelchair accessible or designed to be wheelchair
accessible. This should be conditioned and typical flat layouts should be submitted in order to
demonstrate this. In addition further information should be provided in the form of a gradient
plan which demonstrates that all the public realm will be accessible.
Noise
57 Policy 7.15 (Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes) of the London Plan states that
development proposals should seek to reduce noise by minimising the existing and potential
adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals as well as
separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources wherever practicable
through the use of distance, screening or internal layout in preference to sole reliance on sound
insulation. The Mayor will also support new technologies and improved practices to reduce
noise at source, especially in road, rail and air transport. In addition standard 5.2.1 of the
page 19
Mayor’s Draft Housing SPG states that developments should avoid single aspect dwellings
that are north facing, exposed to NEC C or D or contain three or more bedrooms.
58 There are a number of noise sources that may have an impact on this development and
these include the adjacent railway line. The noise assessment submitted with the planning
applications sets out that all of the site is in NEC C and the blocks adjacent to the railway line
will be likely to be in NEC D on the lower levels. PPG24 advises that permission should be
normally be refused for residential development that falls within NEC D and not normally
granted for residential development in NEC C unless there are no alternative quieter sites, in
which case permission could be given with suitable conditions. Residents could be adequately
protected within the dwellings by suitable sound attenuation measures (to be specified by
condition). In addition standard 5.2.1 of the Mayor’s Draft Housing SPG states that
developments should avoid single aspect dwellings that are north facing, exposed to NEC C or
D or contain three or more bedrooms. Given the high need for housing in the area development
in NEC C with appropriate mitigation measures is acceptable. Further discussion is needed
over the suitability of the lower floors of the site adjacent to the railway line and the mitigation
proposed.
59 GLA noise consultants have identified that in any case further work and information is
needed regarding the maximum noise levels arising from the railway line, the ground borne
noise levels and the effects of vibration caused by passing trains. In addition the application
should be conditioned such that there are no single aspect units in NEC C or D.
Climate change
60 The London Plan climate change policies set out in Chapter 5 collectively require
developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate
change, and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. London Plan Policy 5.2 ‘minimising carbon
dioxide emissions’ sets out an energy hierarchy for assessing applications, London Plan Policy 5.3
‘Sustainable design and construction’ ensures future developments meet the highest standards of
sustainable design and construction, and London Plan Policies 5.9-5.15 promote and support
effective adaptation to climate change. Further detailed policies on climate change mitigation
and adaptation are found throughout Chapter 5 and supplementary guidance is also given in
the London Plan sustainable design and construction SPG.
Climate change mitigation
Energy efficiency standards
61 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to
reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss
parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building
regulations. Other features include maximising natural lighting and the use of mechanical
ventilation with heat recovery. The demand for cooling will be minimised through the use of
high performance glazing and free cooling.
62 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 109 tonnes per annum (8%) in
regulated carbon dioxide emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant
development.
page 20
District heating
63 No information on district heating networks has been provided. The applicant should
investigate if there are any existing or planned district heating networks within the vicinity of
the proposed development. Where none exist, the applicant should provide a commitment to
ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating
network should one become available.
64 The site heat network will be supplied from a single energy centre. This will be 500
sq.m. in size and located in the basement. The applicant should confirm that all uses will be
connected to the heat network. A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all
buildings on the site should be provided.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
65 Gas fired CHP is proposed to provide the domestic hot water load, as well as a
proportion of the space heating. However no further details on the proposed CHP sizing have
been provided. This should be submitted as well as details of the load profiles to support the
proposed CHP sizing. Based on the information provided, a reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions of 228 tonnes per annum (21%) will be achieved through this second part of the
energy hierarchy. It is unclear whether or not these are regulated or unregulated savings. This
should be clarified.
Renewable energy technologies
66 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy
technologies and is proposing to install 2,500 sq.m. of pholtovoltaic panels on most of the
larger buildings. The applicant states that there is the potential to add another 750 sq.m. on the
south facing vertical side of block A or B. This would result in a reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions of 160 tonnes per annum (13%) will be achieved through this third element of the
energy hierarchy.
Summary
67 Taking into account the comments above, details of regulated savings at each tier of the
energy hierarchy (as per Table 1 and 2 in the GLA energy assessment guidance, September
2011) should be provided before this level of carbon savings can be verified. In addition further
detail is needed of the CHP sizing proposed and load profiles as well as details of investigations
into proposed district heating networks and confirmation that all uses will be linked into a site
wide network.
Climate change adaptation
68 London Plan policy 4A.3 seeks to ensure future developments meet the highest
standards of sustainable design and construction, and policy 4A.9 identifies five principles to
promote and support the most effective adaptation to climate change. These are to minimise
overheating and urban heat island effects; minimise solar gain in summer; incorporate
sustainable drainage systems; minimise water use; and protect and enhance green
infrastructure. Specific policies relate to overheating (4A.10), living roofs and walls (4A.11)
and sustainable drainage (4A.14). Further guidance is provided in the London Plan
Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. Policies 5.3, 5.9 to 5.13, 5.15 of the draft
replacement London Plan are also relevant.
page 21
69 The applicant should set out whether rainwater harvesting or greywater recycling
is proposed and if a commitment has been made to limit the use of water to 105 litres of
water per person per day through the use of water efficient fittings. Green roofs are
proposed and this is welcomed. The applicant should confirm which buildings are proposed
to have green roofs and commit to a minimum area.
Transport
Car Parking
70 100 car parking spaces are proposed for the residential part of the development; 34
off-street permit parking bays and 66 additional spaces. This equates to a car parking ratio of
0.33 spaces per dwelling. TfL acknowledge the overall level of car parking will be reduced,
as a result of the proposals, but considering the excellent PTAL, TfL recommends this
development is car free, apart from disabled provision. London Plan policy 6.13 ‘parking’
clearly states that on-site car parking at new developments should be the minimum
necessary and that there should be no-overprovision that could undermine use of more
sustainable non-car modes. Furthermore, TfL recommends that future residents of the
development be excluded from eligibility for parking permits through an obligation in the
s106 agreement.
71 For any car parking that is ultimately provided, 20% (13 spaces) of all spaces
(creation of 66 off-street spaces) must be for electric vehicles with an additional 20% (16
spaces) passive provision for electric vehicles in the future, notwithstanding the suggestion
of car free development.
72 2 car club bays are proposed, which TfL supports. 13 disabled parking spaces are
proposed for the residential element, which is also acceptable.
Highway alterations
73 TfL notes that several highway alterations are proposed for the local area. In order
to assess the impact of traffic capacity at the junction of Abbey Road with Belsize Road,
detailed highway layout drawings are requested. Items include the installation of a flush
median strip, reduction of crossing widths and adjustments to the radii.
74 The methodology used to calculate the trip rates and modal splits are accepted.
Cycling
75 A total of 338 covered and secure cycle parking spaces will be provided for the
residential units and a further 30 visitor spaces. Six covered and secure cycle parking spaces
will be provided for the office development and 2 visitor spaces. This provision is in
accordance with London Plan policy 6.9 ‘cycling’. Cycle parking for the remaining land uses
will be outlined in the detailed planning application, but is also expected to accord with
London Plan standards.
76 As requested by TfL, land has been safeguarded for the installation of a 20 space
cycle hire docking station on the north-east corner of the Belsize Road/ Abbey Road
junction. If this area of land is not already part of the highway, it will need to be adopted by
the local highway authority, via a section 38 agreement.
page 22
Pedestrians
77 The proposals include several improvements to pedestrian routes which are
welcomed in accordance with London Plan policy 6.10 ‘walking’. TfL therefore recommends
that these improvements are secured by the local planning authority via the section 106
agreement or a section 278 agreement.
78 In addition, TfL considers the developer should make a contribution of £15,000 for
a pair of Legible London signs to enhance the way finding capability for pedestrians in this
area.
Buses
79 The development is forecast to generate 36 and 37 net additional two-way bus trips
in the morning and evening peak hours respectively, which is expected to be accommodated
by the local bus network. Therefore TfL is not seeking mitigation for additional bus trips.
80 Surrounding bus stops should nevertheless be reviewed for compliance with TfL
accessibility standards and where alterations to bus stops are proposed these should be
agreed with TfL and secured through section 278 agreements. In addition the opportunity to
relocate or add new stops closer to the development should be considered in consultation
with TfL. If there is a desire to implement ‘Countdown’ signs at shelters they should be fully
funded by the developer. Provision of associated bus infrastructure and real time information
near to the development site should be considered. In addition, the costs associated with
securing further advertisement consent for any relocated bus shelter will also need to be
borne by the developer.
Travel Plan
81 The travel plan has been reviewed and is considered acceptable. It could be
improved nevertheless by the inclusion of a table with a modal split for the baseline and 1, 3
and 5 year targets.
Freight
82 TfL welcomes the submission of a framework construction logistics plan (CLP). A
detailed CLP should be secured by planning condition, which should seek to minimise
highway and traffic impact during construction.
83 A delivery and servicing plan (DSP) should also be secured by planning condition,
which should demonstrate how to reduce the number of trips, particularly during peak hours
and identify where safe and legal loading can take place.
Traffic Management Act
84 Should this application be granted planning permission, the developer and its
representatives are reminded that this does not discharge the requirements under the Traffic
Management Act 2004. Formal notifications and approval may be needed for both the
permanent highway scheme and any temporary highway works required during the
construction phase of the development.
page 23
Summary
85 To summarise, in order to ensure that the proposed development complies with the
transport policies in the London Plan, contributions towards bus infrastructure and Legible
London should be secured. In addition, travel plans and the safeguarding of land for the
cycle hire docking station should be secured within the section 106 agreement. Electric
vehicle charging points, a DSP and a CLP should be secured by condition.
Community Infrastructure Levy
86 In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3, the Mayor of London proposes to introduce
a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that will be paid by most new
development in Greater London. The Inspector’s report following the EiP has been received by
the GLA. The Mayor intends to start charging on 1 April 2012. Any development that
receives planning permission after that date will have to pay, including:
Cases where a planning application was submitted before 1 April 2012, but not
approved by then.
Cases where a borough makes a resolution to grant planning permission before 1
April 2012 but does not formally issue the decision notice until after that date (to
allow a section 106 agreement to be signed or referral to the Secretary of State or the
Mayor, for example),.
87 The Mayor is proposing to arrange boroughs into three charging bands with rates of
£50 / £35 / £20 per square metre of net increase in floor space respectively (see table,
below). The proposed development is within the London Borough of Camden where the
proposed Mayoral charge is £50 per square metre. More details are available via the GLA
website http://london.gov.uk/ .
88 Within London both the Mayor and boroughs are able to introduce CIL charges and
therefore two distinct CIL charges may be applied to development in future. At the present
time, borough CIL charges for Redbridge and Wandsworth are the most advanced. The
Mayor’s CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail.
Mayoral CIL London boroughs Rates
charging zones (£/sq. m.)
Zone
1 Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, £50
Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and
Chelsea, Richmond-upon-Thames, Wandsworth
page 24
2 Barnet, Brent, Bromley, Ealing, Greenwich, Hackney, £35
Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston upon
Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Redbridge,
Southwark, Tower Hamlets
3 Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Croydon, Enfield, £20
Havering, Newham, Sutton, Waltham Forest
Local planning authority’s position
89 The local planning authority is yet to come to a view on this application.
Legal considerations
90 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor
of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a
statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan,
and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must
consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft
decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft
decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the
application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local
planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected
application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his
intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the
Mayor’s statement and comments.
Financial considerations
91 There are no financial considerations at this stage.
Conclusion
92 London Plan policies on land use, housing, estate renewal, affordable housing, housing
choice, density, child playspace, tall buildings, design, inclusive access, noise, climate change
and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these
policies but not with others, for the following reasons:
Land use: The principle of this residential led estate renewal scheme is supported
Housing, estate renewal, affordable housing and housing choice: Further
discussion is needed on viability, tenure mix and minimum levels of affordable family
housing
Density: the density should be calculated using the indicative scheme and in line with
London plan guidance.
Child playspace: a playspace strategy should be submitted and off-site improvements
committed to
page 25
Tall buildings and design: the design principles are generally supported however
further discussions is needed on materials and the appearance of the tall building in
particular
Inclusive access: Further information and commitments are needed.
Noise: Further information and commitments are needed.
Climate change: Further information and commitments are needed.
Transport: Further information and commitments are needed.
93 Whilst the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms. On balance, the
application does not comply with the London Plan.
94 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and
could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:
Housing, estate renewal, affordable housing and housing choice: The results of the
independent viability assessment are awaited. Further discussion is needed on tenure
mix and minimum levels of affordable family housing
Tall buildings and design: the design principles are generally supported however
further discussions is needed on materials and the appearance of the tall building in
particular.
Density: The density should be calculated using the net residential area and the
indicative residential mix.
Child playspace: a play strategy should be submitted and commitments made to
improving the off-site playspaces.
Inclusive access: A gradient plan should be submitted and indicative plans of the units
and wheelchair units should be provided.
Noise: Further noise assessment work is needed and further discussion is needed of the
quality of the units which would be located in NEC D.
Climate change: Details of regulated savings at each tier of the energy hierarchy
should be provided. Further detail is needed of the CHP sizing proposed and load
profiles as well as details of investigations into proposed district heating networks and
confirmation that all uses will be linked into a site wide network. The applicant should
set out whether rainwater harvesting or greywater recycling is proposed and if a
commitment has been made to limit the use of water to 105 litres of water per person
per day through the use of water efficient fittings. The applicant should confirm which
buildings are proposed to have green roofs and commit to a minimum area.
Transport: contributions towards bus infrastructure and Legible London should be
secured. In addition, travel plans and the safeguarding of land for the cycle hire docking
station should be secured within the section 106 agreement. Electric vehicle charging
points, a DSP and a CLP should be secured by condition.
page 26
for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit:
Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions
020 7983 4783 email colin.wilson@london.gov.uk
Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions)
020 7983 4895 email justin.carr@london.gov.uk
Emma Williamson, Case Officer
020 7983 6590 email emma.williamson@london.gov.uk
page 27
