Full planning application for
development ranging in height from 9 (ground plus 8 levels) to 28
storeys (ground plus 27 levels), containing 199 residential units,
a healthcare facility (Use Class Ee), disabled car parking spaces,
cycle parking, and associated amenity space, hard and soft
landscaping.
Ward: Fairfield
The officer presented details
of the planning application and in response to members’
questions explained that:
- With regard to the
affordable housing financial viability reviews, matters such as
profit levels and the existing use value of the site were assessed
by independent consultants. The details provisions of the financial
viability reviews are included in the section 106 agreement. The
Greater London Authority (GLA) had provided clear guidance on how
section 106 agreements should be written and the way that the early
and late-stage review mechanism were set out. The agreement between
the NHS and landowner on the cost of the site was between them
however the applicant could not claim to give the site to the NHS
for free and then charge them a rate as this money could have been
used to increase the affordable housing provision on the site. The
Financial Review mechanism exists to ensure that any increased
developer profit is fairly apportioned, and if changes (e.g.
finance costs, commercial rates) result in additional developer
profit, this would be reflected in the Financial Viability Reviews.
If there was an uplift in value then it would be split between the
Council and the developer, the GLA’s guidance on the standard
split was 60/40 split in favour of the Council.
- The developer was
required to seek to achieve grant funding however this level of
affordable housing was unlikely to be eligible for any grant
funding.
- The developer was
building a facility suitable for the NHS in line with the site
allocation. Any commercial agreement between the NHS and the
developer would exclude the Local Planning Authority. The NHS have
stated that they had a general need for floor space in the local
area and once the facility had been built then the NHS would decide
what their priority need was in the area and before deciding what
the facility would be used for specifically.
- The NHS had asked for
an ambulance space to be provided and this request had been
met.
- The policy
requirement was that an end user had to be specified, in this case
it was the NHS. However, if the NHS decided that they no longer
wanted to use the facility once it had been built then there was a
requirement that if the space was uninhabited for two years then
the developer would have to provide a basic fit out of the area for
another party to use.
- There was a policy
requirement in the London plan called the urban green factor which
determined a target for the amount of greenery on the site, which
has been complied with.
- The developer had
provided a transport statement which had been reviewed by Council
officers and the TFL. The proposed development included three blue
badge car parking spaces and the traffic movement on the site was
likely to be relatively low.
- The Council had a
list of sustainable transport measures which they allocated money
towards, this included electric vehicle charging, car club spaces,
improvements to public realm and improvements to cycle networks.
The developer was providing a financial contribution of
£199,000 for the Council to spend on improving sustainable
transport and a £110,000 contribution for TFL to fund
improvements to the capacity of their bus, tram and train
networks.
- If there were
patients who could not be transported themselves then there was an
ambulance bay on site which may be able to assist with pick up and
drop off.
- One of the three blue
badge parking spaces on the site was for users of the NHS facility
which could be booked.
- The NHS Head of Asset
Management for south London had been in touch with officers, and
they were assessing the NHS’s needs across south London and
not just the local area.
- The Council did not
currently have a district energy network. The key consideration was
that there were new developments which were ready to connect to a
network if this changed in future so new developments would need to
be future proof and there were clauses in the section 106
agreements to ensure that this was possible.
- The energy strategy
was reviewed by the Council’s sustainable design officer and
they were satisfied with the proposal. Energy was scrutinised by
the GLA during their assessment and there were no issues
highlighted following their stage one review.
- The energy statement
provided detail on the number of solar panels on the building and
the amount of energy that they would be providing.
- The Council did not
have a housing officer who commented on the viability, tenure or
mix of affordable homes proposed within planning
applications. The Councils planning
officers used the GLA and independent viability consultants to
assess the financial viability of housing schemes.
- The local plan set
out the requirements for units and tenure mix, subject to
flexibility .
- The developer
previously had a registered social landlord (RSL) contract, and
advice was provided from the RSL about their requirements for
affordable homes in this location, which supported the tenure and
unit mix which was proposed. The developer had advised that they
had heard from several housing associations who were interested in
taking over their affordable housing units.
- The application had
been to the GLA, stage 1 was where the GLA were consulted on the
application, and they had concerns regarding the amount of
affordable housing which falls short of the target of 50%. Once
officers had a draft section 106 agreement the application would be
referred back to the GLA at Stage 2. The GLA would then have two
weeks to review the comments made on the scheme and see whether
their concerns had been met. They would then make their decision on
whether to allow the Council to make the decision on the
application, to direct the Council to make a different decision, or
to call in the application and make a decision
themselves.
- There were two blocks
on the site which formed one building and the blocks would share
the play space and amenities. The rear block was a mix of
affordable and market housing.
- There was no policy
basis to stop individual homes from overlooking communal spaces,
and passive surveillance is positive in terms of safety. The
building was designed so that the communal lounge overlooks the
communal garden to allow passive surveillance. In terms of the
individual units overlooking the communal gardens, these had been
amended and carefully orientated to allow privacy for residents
whilst maintaining some passive surveillance. There was a landscape
buffer which provided physical separation from the activity spaces
within the communal garden for some units.
- The lower level units
had worse daylight levels that the upper level units.
- BRE guidance
explained that it was appropriate to set alternative target values
in more urban areas. All of the single aspect units were East and
West facing so there are no north-facing single aspect units, and
the sunlight and daylight impacts were all an improvement on the
extant consent.
Councillor Ria Patel spoke
against the application, Jamie MacArthur spoke in support of the
application. After the speakers had finished, the committee began
the deliberation, during which they raised the following
points:
- The scheme was in the
right location for a development of its size, it had a high PTAL of
6b. The development was largely market housing which was acceptable
in this location.
- The NHS provision was welcomed as there was often
an issue with GP provision in schemes in the area.
- Efforts had gone into
minimising the harm to local heritage and to the conservation
area.
- The proposed
development would provide 199 new quality homes which was needed in
the local area. However, the nature of the housing, mainly
1-bedroom units was not suitable for the housing needs of the local
area.
- There was a 50%
target in Croydon for affordable housing and this development only
had 9% affordable housing units.
- There was a strong
wind tunnel on Dingwall Road already due to the number of high rise
buildings along the road.
- The first to third
floor plans showed that the lower units would have a poorer access
to light and would experience privacy issues due to the office
buildings in close proximity and the lack of screening for the
units.
- The viability
assessment of the scheme may have been out of date.
- There will be two
financial reviews over the next two years which may result in more
affordable housing.
- The cladding and fire
escape improvements were essential improvements to the
scheme.
- There were major
issues regarding wind tunnelling but due to the precedent set with
other developments along Dingwall Road made this difficult to
mitigate.
- There had been a
reduction in affordable housing in the scheme and this had been
raised as an issue by the GLA and Council officers.
- The type of housing
provided by the scheme meant that the developers were unlikely to
receive a grant.
- The development did
not meet the levels of affordable housing set out in the new
housing strategy.
- There was an extant
permission.
- The decision would go
the GLA for a stage 2 review.
- The play areas were
suitable for all ages.
- The site was prime
for a significant development.
- There was a planned
through route on the site, the fire safety arrangements had taken
into account new regulations.
- Microclimate impact
was a concern and would need to be looked at closely.
The substantive motion to GRANT
the application based on the officer’s recommendation was
proposed by Councillor Parker. This was seconded by Councillor
Johnson.
The motion to grant the
application was taken to a vote and carried with five Members
voting in favour and five Members voting against. The chair used
his casting vote to vote in favour of the application.
The Committee RESOLVED to GRANT
the application for the development at Development Site, Former
Site Of 17 - 21 Dingwall Road, Croydon, CR0 2NA.