Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

19/02317/PRE Part of College Road Car Park Adjacent Croydon College, College Road, Croydon, CR0 1PF

Erection of part 33 part 48 storey building comprising approximately 836 co-living units (Use Class sui generis) and approx. 120 residential units (Use Class C3), and associated parking, servicing, landscaping and public realm works.

 

Ward: Fairfield

Minutes:

Erection of part 33 part 48 storey building comprising approximately 836 co-living units (Use Class sui generis) and approx. 120 residential units (Use Class C3), and associated parking, servicing, landscaping and public realm works.

 

Ward: Fairfield

 

Simon Bayliss and Simon Toplis from HTA Design attended to give a presentation and respond to Members' questions and issues raised for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application.

 

The main issues raised at this meeting were as follows:

 

Height of buildings:

Members had differing views with regards to the height of the towers.

Some Members raised concern about the heights, clustering and the daylight/sunlight impact on the surrounding area.

Some Members welcomed the height, but only if the two towers had their own identity.

Some Members support a tiered approach, stepping down from 101 George Street to College Green.

 

Affordable Housing:

100% of Tower B proposed as shared ownership; Members welcomed the principle of C3 affordable housing delivery. 

However there is a need for  affordable rented accommodation provision within the scheme, either as affordable rent within Tower B (involving conversion of shared ownership) or consideration of discounted rented accommodation within the co-living Tower A.

Members questioned how the developer will calculate the rental values of the co-living units and whether all services within the building would be included within the rent.

 

Co-Living:

Whilst there was general support for the principle of co-living, Members were clear that they needed further assurance/justification – they requested to visit a co-living scheme to gain a better understanding of how they operate, management and safety of them as a living alternative.

Members challenged what would happen if co-living did not work – would need to be conditioned that the scheme could be retrofitted to C3.

There was general consensus from Members that communal space at top and bottom was appropriate.

The variety of finishes on each floor to give them uniqueness was positively received.

Some Members were concerned that the scheme does not provide accommodation for families.

Members challenged the applicant to demonstrate safety of all users within the scheme, for example in the corridor spaces.

 

Design approach:

There were mixed views on the design of the building.

Members discussed the geometry of the building and the awkward points where the façade is stretched, particularly on the corners – this needs further work.

Members want to see individuality in the towers – not to have the same cladding approach on both which exacerbates the potential for coalescence.

 

Colonnades:

Members reiterated the importance of the link between East Croydon rail station and the Fairfield Halls.

Members indicated the colonnade looked positive, but challenged the applicant to ensure the space was as safe, active and well-lit as possible.

There were further suggestions for the applicant to work further with the neighbouring applicants for elements of Fairfield to be brought through into this scheme.

 

Parking:

Given the sustainable location, there was request for provision of blue badge spaces and mobility scooters.

 

Other Matters:

Daylight and sunlight impact on the surrounding area important and the application assessment to reflect consented and emerging schemes.

Some Members challenged the separation of the scheme from other tall buildings, such as 101 George Street and whether this was too close.

Fire safety given height of the tower is critical and clarity needed with submission.

 

The Chair thanked the applicants for their presentation, and looked forward to their application in the near future.

 

 

At 8:09pm the Committee adjourned the meeting for a short break.

At 8:14pm the Committee reconvened the meeting.

 

Supporting documents: