Decision details

Redevelopment of the site and erection of a mixed-use development comprising of a maximum of 806 residential units (Use Class C3), coworking and retail space (Use Class E) across two buildings including basement (Building A with a maximum height of 50 storeys and Building B with a maximum height of 31 storeys) with associated communal facilities, landscaping, access, cycle parking, car parking, refuse storage, public realm works and other associated works (amended description).

Ward: Fairfield

The officer presented details of the planning application and in response to members’ questions explained that:

• The co working space and the community spaces were available to all residents in towers A & B. The architectural detailing and vision for the proposed development were based on the colours presented to Committee, and the colours were part of the artistic vision of the project.
• The applicant had provided officers with a justification based on a character analysis of the town centre explaining why they had chosen those specific colours. Officers have recommended   a very detailed discharge condition application  relating to external facing materials because it may be that the materials they had proposed,  may not be available when building commences and so they would need to find a similar or variant material to use. Based on the recommended condition it would be necessary for the applicant to submit for approval the exact materials to be used prior to the development being implemented.
• The applicant and officers worked with the economic development team to see which spaces were needed in Croydon for flexible working space and the co working space proposed was required within Croydon. Officers had worked with the Economic Development team for the type and number of spaces required in the scheme.
• The applicant undertook an office needs assessment, and the market also signalled a move away from large scale office demands.
• Following the COVID-19 pandemic, office demands changed significantly, particularly in Croydon, so the Office needs assessment that the applicant submitted was more reflective of the situation now compared to the situation prior to the pandemic. The needs assessment that had been submitted had been fully assessed by planning policy officers who agreed with the conclusions that the applicant had drawn.
• The GLA comments were from the initial stage 1 report in relation to the proposed scheme back in August 2023. The offer had changed since that time, and now the offer of discount market rent was fully compliant with the GLA requirements in terms of the amount of discount.
• Officers had discussed this application with their colleagues in the housing department and had input from the newly appointed housing enabling officer in relation to the legal agreement and the drafting of this and they had significant input including adding local connections first.
• Discount market rent was wholly acceptable in terms of build to rent schemes and this was in H11 of the London plan. The mayor published benchmark London living rent levels for every neighbourhood in the capital, and this was based on 1/3 of the average of local household incomes and adjusted for the number of bedrooms.
• Officers had reviewed the application in accordance with policy and discount market rent and the affordable housing provision that had been negotiated is in accordance with the housing policy and this was what officers and Members needed to consider the application against.
• The GLA assessment was based on the number of children and the amount of play space required, this was based on the child yield requirement. The under-fives were provided 100% on site through the play on the way internal play spaces and play equipment. The over-fives and older children would be secured via an offsite contribution secured by the Legal Agreement. The building would have additional facilities such as games rooms, cinema rooms, lounges which were available to older children as well.
• In terms of the play space provision, play on the way included boulders and a variety of different play equipment’s including natural features. Officers had also included a detailed condition which would secure those features.. The contribution was worked out on the deficiency in terms of the child yield requirement, and officers had discussions internally and that was likely to be to Parkhill park and that that was sufficient in terms of the requirement required.
• It is recommended that wind mitigation matter are secured via a detailed condition. In terms of the communal spaces on Tower A, the wind mitigation study was carried out in terms of the worst-case scenario and did not include any planters, furniture or landscaping.
• The proposal had been designed to incorporate wind mitigation using measures such as the canopies at the ground floor and architectural treatments had been tested through wind tunnel and computer modelling and the independent wind consultants considered to be acceptable in terms of wind mitigation on Lansdowne Road. There were also proposals for the totem which was public of the art strategy on the corner of Lansdowne and Wellesley Road, this is also part of the wind mitigation strategy.  Landscaping along Wellesley Road is also propoed, which consisted of substantial tree planting as well.
• There were communal facilities at the top of each of the Towers such as lounge areas, cinema rooms, games rooms, which could be used for all ages.
• The public realm was designed to be for all age groups, there was also a detailed condition in relation to seating, the public arts, landscaping and this would be part of the detailed condition as well.
• Officers had a detailed discussion with the metropolitan police secured by the design officer in relation to anti-social behaviour and crime regarding the design and layout of the scheme.. The design was amended and improved in terms of the route through the siteand the visuals of the building and the route through the public realm.  This includes  include the visual permeability through to the  children's place on the corner. The communal space was moved to that corner to have visual permeability of that area. The proposed legal agreement proposed to close the route through to Canterbury House from 10pm to 7am and the boundary treatments with Apollo House had been lowered.
• Officers had discussions with strategic transport officer and TfL regarding the numbers of car parking and blude badge parking spaces. Officers had also looked at the active travel routes and the accessible routes to train stations and wider facilities. Officers had also looked at the car club, which would be secured through the legal agreement.
• There was a proposed condition relating to landscaping. . Officers also were recommending  a clause in the legal agreement in relation to the trees on the street, this would be in addition to any landscaping on site.
• The hotel use was not a protected use in the 2018 local plan. The London plan policy was the most up to date policy (H11) in relation to build to rent schemes. The London plan covered build to rent in some detail and there was various criteria in H11 which the scheme adhered to.
• The proposal included a co working office space of 1047 sqm. The applicant had conducted a detailed needs assessment which had been vigorously assessed also by the policy team and Councillors, economic development and inward investment team who concluded that there was a limited demand for the large-scale office spaces in Croydon. The proposed development would provide the quantum typology of office space that it was required in the town centre.
• There were five car parking spaces that were low impact on the surrounding highway network. An active travel assessment was undertaken by the applicant and agreed with TFL,. It is also proposed that contribution to sustainable transport measures which would be used within the Town Centre as well and included a proposal for the service level crossing across Wellesley Road and there was also a public transport contribution relating to TFL.
• The scheme contained 37% dual aspect units this was a similar percentage to the extant consent. The number of single aspect units was the same as in the extent consent. The corner locations of the building were for the family and the larger units. Officers considered the layout to be satisfactory. The compliance rate for the levels of daylight and sunlight for future occupiers was 71% which was considered good. It was acknowledged that there were rooms that were significantly below target in terms of lounge, kitchen, dining rooms but this was only in relation to 83 units in Tower A and 77 units in Tower B. There were also some studio units that were below the lux levels of BRE guidance as well, but overall, the scheme had a good compliance rate and it was a function of a densely populated site in an urban area, which was part of a regeneration scheme.
• The proposed scheme had been with officers for a several years and had been through the design review panel and been presented to Planning Committee and has had detailed scrutiny from design officers and officers who are supportive of the design and the colour palette of the proposed development.

Matthew Coveney spoke in support of the application.

The Committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

• The proposed development would provide 800 homes which would help the Council to achieve its housing target.
• The scheme took some pressure off Croydon’s district centres where a development of this scale would be inappropriate.
• The transport links for this location were great for this type of development and the development of this site was long overdue.
• The developers consulted with businesses and with residents and the level of objections was minimal.
• The developers responded favourably to the comments that have been made.
• The workspaces in Tower A were appreciated and the fact that they were accessible to occupants in Tower B was welcomed.
• The green public space was appealing and the public realm improvements that will come with it were appreciated.
• It was not ideal that the scheme was a build to rent development, and Members would have liked for there to have been the opportunity for some home ownership.
• The colour of Tower A was not appreciated, Members preferred the colour of Tower B.
• This was a very prominent scheme which did have an impact in terms of historical assets in Croydon and the colour of the building made that impact greater.
• Some Members were disappointed in the land use, as they believed that employment was an important part of Croydon town centre and the approach in the scheme was minimal.
• The layout and design of the scheme was considered an issue.
• There was very minimal open space arising from the scheme.
• Most units were single aspect and whilst it was the same proportion as in the previous scheme, it was still not ideal.
• Reducing the blocks to one on the site would allow greater scope for better daylight, sunlight and dual aspect etc.
• The affordable housing offer was around 15% overall with the majority being discounted market rent.
• The proposed development was unfordable for local people.
• Build to rent allowed developers to work with taller buildings but the affordability assessment argument meant that it would be difficult to provide any social housing.
• Typically, the more units provided on a town centre site, the lower the amount of affordable housing on offer due to the building costs, which made viability almost impossible for developers to provide anything for Croydon residents who either wanted to become a first time buyer or who needed affordable rent.
• An opportunity was missed to have a mixed development on the site that could have provided a reasonable level of employment.
• It was not possible to have a shopping centre without employment surrounding it, the decline in the number of offices would lead to a further decline in the shopping centre.
• Members wanted to see more high-quality offices being developed.
•  
• The housing crisis was among homeowners and among people who wanted social rented opportunities not in the build to rent or private rented sectors.
• The 15% affordable housing units on offer was not appreciated as more affordable units could have been offered due to the scale of the project. However, it was accepted that the 15% affordable housing provision was GLA compliant.
• The terracotta colour of Tower A stood out and did not complement its surroundings.
• The proposed development used the site wisely.
• There was very good public realm which led to apollo house.
• The proposed development would provide the local area with a much-needed lift.
• There was extant planning permission for a much larger scheme with three towers and there was less play space in that proposal.
• The colour scheme, palette and texture of Tower B was more successful than Tower A.

• The design of the space at the top of Tower A was not appreciated.

The substantive motion to GRANT application based on the officer’s recommendation with an amendment that the materials needed to be changed to reflect the wishes of the Planning Committee on the colour scheme of the Tower A to be lighter in tone and more reflective of Tower B was proposed by Councillor Parker. This was seconded by Councillor Shortland.

The motion to grant was taken to a vote and carried with five Members voting in favour, five Members voting against. The Chair used his casting vote to vote in favour of the application.

The Committee RESOLVED to GRANT the application at 1-5 Lansdowne Road and 30-32 Wellesley Road, Croydon, CR0 2BX.