Mayor's planning decision GLA Ice Rink and Adjoining land report PDU/0294a/03 22/12/2004

planning report PDU/0294a/03

22 December 2004

ice rink and adjoining land, Streatham

in the London Borough of Lambeth

planning application no.02/02557/FUL

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Act 1999; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 – strategic planning application, reconsideration of direction

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a leisure complex (ice rink, swimming pool, health and fitness facilities and community uses), 250 residential units, including affordable housing, food store (8,650 sq. m. gross floorspace), bus layover, car parking (577 spaces in total) and servicing.

Context

1 On 16 September 2002 Lambeth Council consulted the Mayor of London on an application for planning permission for the above uses at the above site. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1B of the Schedule of the above Order, i.e. “Development outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

2 The Mayor considered planning report PDU/0294a/01 on 18 December 2002 and provided Lambeth Council with his formal comments on the proposal. That report, together with the letter containing his formal comments are given at appendices 1 & 2. The Mayor’s formal response indicated that the referred application was unacceptable in strategic planning terms

3 On 18 February 2003 Lambeth Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the application, and on 25 February 2003 it advised the Mayor of this decision. On 12 March 2003, the Mayor notified Lambeth Council that the referred application was still, in his opinion, contrary to good strategic planning for Greater London and directed Lambeth Council to refuse planning permission under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000. This report and letter is provided at appendices 3 & 4.

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 Mayor of London’s decision this case, and his reasons, will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk.

N:\Planning Decisions - Web pages\2004\Meeting 22 December 2004\ice_rink_streatham_report.rtf page 1

http://www.london.gov.uk/

Relevant History

The Mayor’s comments at the consultation stage

6 When he considered the proposal in December 2002, the Mayor notified Lambeth Council that the proposal was unacceptable in strategic planning terms because of [1] the absence of funding to ensure that the regional and local sporting facilities could be appropriately secured; [2] the overall regeneration package was unconvincing; [3] the level of affordable housing was unacceptable; [4] car parking levels are above published guidance and do not reflect sustainable development principles; [5] inadequate design quality.

Outstanding strategic planning issues at the decision stage

Design quality/public realm

7 Given the strategic leisure importance of this site, it is essential that the development quality should be of the highest standard, as befitting a major new public sports and recreation for London. The proposal, despite some amendment, remains far short of the level of design quality that should be expected at this prominent site.

8 Notwithstanding this, the Mayor agreed he would set aside his design concerns if a viable regeneration package could be secured. This was in the hope that future changes and revisions after granting consent could overcome the objections he raised in his previous comments. This has to be set in the context that Tesco will close the existing ice rink if planning permission is not granted. If consent is granted, Tesco could agree to keep it open until it is demolished in the implementation of the consent.

Wider regeneration benefits

9 In terms of the potential of the development to contribute to the wider regeneration of Streatham, the applicant has offered a £250,000 financial contribution towards environmental works within the town centre and a further £50,000 towards the promotion and marketing of Streatham. Whilst this offer is welcome it is not clear whether the environmental improvements would be to enhance the currently poor link between the new development and the existing town centre to the north and towards improving the town centre itself, or if the money would be spent in the immediate vicinity of the development with rather less regenerative effect. It has nonetheless been accepted by Lambeth Council.

10 Local employment and training initiatives are also proposed, as is the provision of space for community use/activity within the new leisure centre. The food store/leisure car park is to be made available for other users of the town centre, the details of which are outlined in a draft legal agreement.

Affordable housing

11 Following the Mayor’s first comments, the affordable housing offer has been increased from 35% to 40% of the 250 units proposed at the site (102 units – 41 one-bed, 61 two-bed). Of the 102 affordable units, 52 are for rent, 50 for intermediate accommodation. The increase in the number of affordable units was welcomed as being nearer the Mayor’s London Plan target and indeed Lambeth Council policy.

ice_rink_streatham_report page 2

Viability of replacement leisure proposal & continuity of existing facilities

12 The Mayor had clearly stated that his key objective was to secure the provision of a new high-quality regional ice rink facility and local swimming and other sports together with the continuity of the existing swimming and leisure facilities at the site until the new leisure facility is open. This was on the basis that a legal agreement would restrict the development of the food store until after the new leisure facility has been constructed and operational.

13 When he considered the case again in March 2003, he was not convinced that there was an adequate funding strategy in place to deliver the new leisure facilities or worked-up to an extent which would give sufficient comfort on the delivery and then operation of this regional sports facility, which is an absolute essential strategic requirement to justify the substantial retail proposal at the site.

14 At that time, the public private partnership model proposed by the leisure consultant acting on behalf of the Council and Tesco appeared to leave a potentially heavy and unbalanced financial burden on the public sector. This generated substantial concerns about the limited strategic benefit arising from this predominantly food retail-led redevelopment whilst the key public benefit of the ice rink re-provision was not adequately secured.

15 Prior to his second consideration, Tesco had stated that there was a requirement for the swimming pool to be demolished prior to the construction of the replacement leisure facility. This was because of the need to provide Transport for London’s bus facility within the land held by Laws Estates and also because there would have been significant costs keeping the swimming pool shored up while excavation was taking place around it. Because of this, Lambeth Council resolved to allow the pool to be demolished prior to its replacement thus losing continuity of the swimming and dry sports facilities ( the ice rink would be kept open during construction of the new one)

The Mayor’s Direction to refuse

16 On 12 March 2003, the Mayor notified Lambeth Council of his direction to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-

1. That the development would result in the loss of strategically important sport and recreation facilities, without appropriate and robust demonstration of continuity in provision of these facilities on the site including their ultimate replacement within a new centre elsewhere within the proposed redevelopment and as such, would be detrimental to regional and local sport and recreation provision. The design, appearance, nature and size of the proposal, without the replacement leisure facilities, would result in a food retail dominated development and would not be an appropriately mixed-use scheme and so would not sufficiently deliver regeneration benefits to Streatham town centre. As such, the scheme would be contrary to national, regional planning policy guidance, the Mayor’s [then] draft London Plan and the Council’s adopted and deposit draft Unitary Development Plan and therefore, would not be in the interests of good strategic planning in London.

2. In the absence of a robust case for delivering other strategic planning benefits, the development does not make adequate or appropriate provision for affordable housing accommodation, contrary to both established national (PPG3) and [then] regional planning (RPG3) guidance and policies in the Mayor’s [then emerging] London Plan and Lambeth Council’s deposit draft Unitary Development Plan.


17 In his letter, the Mayor indicated he would be minded to lift his Direction on receipt of satisfactory details, including a robust financial appraisal of the cost of providing the replacement ice/leisure facility and the funding available to deliver this at the site. Evidence would need to demonstrate that the replacement and upgraded ice rink/leisure centre will be constructed and opened prior to any other element of the proposed scheme. In addition, I would need to receive sufficient legal and other assurances from Lambeth Council and the applicant that no demolition of any of the existing facilities takes place without the appropriate funding for the replacement facilities being obtained and a contract let for the construction of the new ice rink/leisure centre.

18 Lambeth Council has not refused the planning application since that letter was issuiued but as instead negotiated with the developer to overcome the Mayor’s objections.

Update

Viability of replacement leisure proposal & continuity of existing facilities

19 Following the Mayor’s Direction, Lambeth Council has agreed to allow the demolition of the existing facilities before their replacement provided a contract is let for their replacement. Lambeth members considered a report in February 2004 explaining the outcome of negotiations between Lambeth and Tesco from April 2003 onwards. Members agreed that:[1] continuity of the existing leisure facilities could not be achieved; [2] that Tesco could retain nomination rights on an eighth of the affordable housing units; [3] that the car park should be a town centre car park; and, [4] endorsement of the legal agreement and land transfer proposal from officers.

20 GLA officers wrote to Lambeth Council in March 2004 seeking clarification of the following points:-

1 Details of the financing package and a risk assessment for the proposal together with a valuation showing residential residual values to assess the affordable housing package. Ideally this was to be produced by an independent source.

2 An assessment of the impact of the closure of the pool for 2 years. To refer specifically to existing and projected school swimming lessons.

3 Further assessment of the issues in relation to providing the bus facility with the pool/leisure centre kept open.

21 The following paragraphs discuss these issues in greater detail in light of the new information and Lambeth Council’s agreement of 28 September 2004 to bring forward a fundamental review of its leisure strategy. In addition, Lambeth Council has provided a draft legal agreement and draft land transfer schedule which, again, is referred to below.

Continuity of existing leisure facilities

22 Transport for London (TfL) has a long standing development agreement with Laws Estates, and its successor in title Tesco, in relation to its interest in the existing bus garage. Under the terms of this agreement, TfL will agree to exchange its interest in return for an acceptable permanent bus facility elsewhere on the site. TfL is now satisfied that the arrangements for execution of the land swap are in accordance with the original legal agreement and that a new bus station will be constructed and handed over to TfL, prior to the release of its presently occupied site. There are no costs or operational penalties for TfL associated with this transfer.


23 Tesco claims that the reason that Lambeth’s swimming pool needs to be demolished prematurely is that it had not forecast that there would be a need to shore up its foundations to facilitate the construction of Transport for London’s permanent bus facility. The shoring up would cost in the region of £2.4 million and, as such, TfL was given the option of accepting a smaller temporary facility. This offer was declined as this was deemed to be financially imprudent for TfL because, in the event that the development scheme failed at implementation stage, TfL might be unable to recover the balance of the site owed to it. As a result Lambeth has agreed that the pool can be demolished so that the replacement bus garage can be constructed prior to TfL vacating its present location.

24 To provide solutions to this, the GLA examined the engineering assumptions behind the bus facility including the 10 metre exclusion zone. The possibility of using land acquisition powers voluntary or otherwise was also considered. It was agreed that compulsory acquisition on transport grounds could not be supported if there was a viable alternative transport scheme and that, likewise, the grounds for compulsory purchase on regeneration grounds would be difficult to support. These discussions were not held in light of the most recent legislative changes but Lambeth Council did not support further investigation of options as they would have required the submission of a fresh planning application.

25 It does seem clear, however, that if nos. 374 – 380 Streatham High Road, also in the ownership of Laws Estates, had been included within the application, it would have been more possible to provide a permanent bus facility with the existing swimming pool/leisure centre kept open.

26 Notwithstanding this, as the development is a mega-structure with significant parking and servicing at basement level, it would be highly costly to complete the basement in stages in any event.

27 To address the Mayor’s concerns regarding the availability of local leisure facilities especially for schools, Lambeth’s consultants PMP have established that swimming clubs and schools use Streatham pool for approximately 24 hours per week. It is claimed that there is capacity in within Lambeth’s facility at Brixton and within facilities in adjoining boroughs to accommodate schools and clubs notably: Thornton Heath, Balham, Tooting, Camberwell, and South Norwood.

Financial risk and viability of the proposal

28 The Mayor is clearly concerned to see that there is adequate funding in place for the replacement facilities and the risks have been fully assessed by Lambeth Council so that it can continue to provide services in its other leisure centres. To address this concern, Lambeth Council’s executive considered a report on 28 September 2004 into the Council’s wider leisure provision strategy.

29 Lambeth Council has put together a draft legal agreement that would cover the re-provision of the leisure facilities. Under the terms of the agreement, Tesco will agree to keep the existing ice rink open for a three year period while the bus facility and leisure facilities are constructed and operational. The supermarket building and the flats above would be constructed after that time.

30 Once bids have been agreed between Lambeth Council and the successful design, build and finance operator (DBFO), a complex land swap starts. The draft section 106 Agreement between Lambeth and Tesco involves a series of land transfers the effect of which would mean London Buses moving from its present site on to a new site adjacent to Streatham Station and its present site being utilised for the construction of the new leisure centre/ice rink. The leisure


centre must be completed and open to the public before the existing ice rink is closed and demolished. As stated elsewhere in this report, Lambeth has accepted that the swimming pool must be demolished in order to facilitate the construction of the new bus interchange. Under terms in the agreement, this cannot take place unless a contract is let for the replacement leisure facilities.

31 As part of the land transfer, £1.2 million is paid to Lambeth by Tesco for the land containing its leisure centre. Tesco would then provide £300,000 towards a replacement centre. GLA officers queried the projected cost of the leisure centre. Lambeth has now agreed this should be in the region £15.5 million, to be provided by the successful design, build and finance operator (DBFO).

32 GLA officers requested full details of the assumed income stream for the DBFO contract and how it will the repay capital cost, including what percentage of the annual Lambeth Council subsidy will go towards repaying capital investment. The council responded that at least £1.5 million would be expected from an ice rink operator, £300,000 would come from Tesco and £1.2 million come from the sale of the old site to Tesco for the supermarket and flats. This leaves a funding gap of £12.5 million which potentially would be funded by Council borrowing as this would be by far the cheapest option.

33 In addition, the Council provided a wider leisure accommodation strategy for future leisure provision in Lambeth. Its ambitious plans recommend the establishment of the public private partnership model for Brixton, Streatham and Clapham. Aside from the options considered for Streatham in this referred application, Clapham and Brixton Leisure centres would be replaced at a cost of approximately £8 million each with equivalent facilities. Options currently being considered for Brixton include sharing facilities with the proposed Brixton City Academy. This would be likely to result in an increase of income but the Council modelled the financial risk on the basis that it would be the same.

34 The financial modelling information covered all of the Council’s leisure budget rather than just Streatham and it is therefore difficult to disaggregate from the referred planning application.

35 The information shows that the Council has assessed a ‘worst case scenario’ which accounts for a 20% cost overrun on all three projects. In the event this happens, and provided it is all funded by borrowing, the annual leisure budget might, at the worst, require a further £1.1 million per annum on top of the £2.06 million for 2004/2005. This assumes that Streatham will cost £15.5 million and that replscement facilities for Clapham and Brixton will cost no more than £8 million each. Ferndale and Flaxman centres are not scheduled for future investment at present but would be managed by the same operator as all the other centres.

36 GLA officers also asked for full details of the final ownership of the leisure centre and the arrangements after repayment of the capital. Lambeth has responded that the centre freehold would be owned by Lambeth Council but leased to the design build operator for 25 years. This would apply to Brixton and Clapham also as the Council’s leisure contract would be awarded to a single provider.

37 In addition to the financial risks set out above, the Council has also provided an assessment of the cost of not making substantial investment in its leisure assets. This shows that there are particular costs associated with keeping the existing buildings.

Affordable Housing


38 The proposal would provides 40% of the housing as affordable housing. This amounts to 89 flats 45 of which would be social housing. The remainder would be a mix of key worker and intermediate flats. The London Plan regards key worker housing as intermediate housing.

39 In his previous comments, the Mayor has agreed that the level of affordable housing provision will be acceptable in the circumstances if the wider regeneration benefits of the proposal materialise. Since that time, his London Plan has been published and is now part of Lambeth Council’s development plan and GLA officers have had sight of several drafts of the proposed legal agreement.

40 Following discussions between the GLA , Lambeth and Tesco on 17 December 2004, an agreement has been reached on the draft legal agreement which will ensure that the social rented housing will be let in accordance with the Registered Social Landlord’s lettings policy and that tenancies will not be time limited by the terms of the legal agreement.

41 Agreement has also been reached to the inclusion of London Plan definitions of intermediate and social housing into the terms of the legal agreement. This will ensure that the new housing meets the identified types of need in the Capital. As such, this aspect of the proposed development consent will now be likely to comply with national and regional planning guidance .

Design

42 There would be significant design benefits if the corner buildings at each end of the block could be purchased and incorporated into the proposal. At present, the buildings have a poor appearance and their flank walls will be exposed prominently giving an unattractive appearance. As Tescos has agreed to keep the ice rink open until the new one is complete, there is the possibility that these properties could be incorporated into a redesigned scheme. Grant of consent for the scheme would give Tesco's the confidence to seek to add these properties to the site.

Transport for London Comment

43 TfL confirms that there is no adverse financial or operational impact on the move to the new bus station. The new location will provide better interchange as buses are grouped together and the bus station brings buses closer to the rail station. TfL remains concerned over the level of car parking provision

London Development Agency

44 The potential regeneration and other benefits which could arise from development of this site for a mixed use scheme including re-provision and enhancement of the sports and leisure facilities have been identified in previous reports, as have concerns about some aspects of the proposals and in particular the deliverability of the sports elements. Whilst not all these concerns have been fully addressed in the proposals now put forward the Agency consider that sufficient progress has been made to support a recommendation to lift the direction to refuse.

Legal considerations

45 Under the arrangements set out in article 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, the Mayor directed Lambeth Council to refuse planning permission for this application. Under article 5(5) of the Order, the Mayor may, at any time before the local


planning authority has determined the application, by further direction cancel a direction given under paragraph 5(1) of the Order.

Financial considerations

46 In the event that Lambeth Council issues a decision letter refusing permission and an appeal is lodged by the applicant, the Mayor would be the principal party at any subsequent public inquiry.

47 Government guidance in Circular 8/93 (‘Award of Costs in Planning and Other (including Compulsory Purchase Order) Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal. In the present case it is anticipated that a public inquiry would last for three weeks. The Mayor’s own costs may exceed £50,000 for counsel and £90,000 for specialist research, advice and expert witnesses. Other costs can be absorbed within already agreed budgets provided that additional cover is not required for the Planning Decisions Unit.

48 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.

Conclusion

49 Clearly the delivery of the local and regional leisure facilities will be the principal strategic planning objective for the Mayor to consider in deciding whether to lift his Direction to refuse planning permission.

50 The design of the proposal still falls far short of the quality required for new public buildings. This shortcoming is amplified by the relationship of the new buildings with the corner blocks. In his previous statements, the Mayor set these considerations aside because of the likelihood that the ice rink would close if the application was rejected. Should this proposal be revised after planning permission has been granted, there will be opportunities to overcome the design comments made by the Mayor at his first consideration in December 2002.

51 The evidence now provided by Lambeth Council shows that it has explored a variety of options that could be employed to fund the finance gap which will be created by implementing this proposed development consent. The Council has reviewed its wider accommodation strategy and specifically as it relates to its leisure assets. Members have agreed an ambitious proposal that would see Brixton, Clapham and Streatham leisure centres re-provided and leased over a 25 year period to a single leisure operator which is also the DBFO contractor. At the end of the 25 year period, the lease on these assets will return to the Council. As the financing of all three centres has been rolled together in terms of the Council’s risk assessment, it is difficult to disaggregate Streatham from the others. Nonetheless, the Council’s worst case scenario shows that its annual £2.06 million subsidy would only need to increase by £1.1 million per annum to accommodate a 20% cost overrun. Lambeth Council’s spending priorities cannot be a material planning consideration for the Mayor.

52 The land transfer deal and the legal agreement heads of terms show that there is a legally safe mechanism by which Lambeth Council would be able to secure the delivery of the leisure facilities. Once a bid has been agreed by the DBFO and the land transfer starts, the swimming pool can be demolished. If the procurement process subsequently fails, Tesco would be prevented from building the supermarket and flats. The fact that the supermarket and flats


cannot be constructed until the leisure facility ready for use will provide reassurance that the promised regeneration benefits associated with the new supermarket will materialise.

53 The proposed legal agreement is now acceptable in terms of the definition of affordable housing and the proposed tenure types.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Planning Decisions Manager 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Team Leader Development Control 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Scott Bailey, Senior Strategic Planner/Urban Design 020 7983 4266 email [email protected]


APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX A


18 December 2002

Ice rink and adjoining land, Streatham



Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Act 1999; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 – strategic planning application stage 1 referral

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a leisure complex (ice rink, swimming pool, health and fitness facilities and community uses), 250 residential units, including affordable housing, food store (8,650 gross floorspace), bus layover, car parking (581 spaces in total) and servicing.

Context

1 On 16 September 2002 Lambeth Council consulted the Mayor of London on a proposal to develop the above site for the above uses. Subsequent revisions to the scheme were submitted and Lambeth Council re-consulted the Mayor of 25 November 2002. Under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 the Mayor has the same opportunity as other statutory consultees to comment on the proposal. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what comments to make. 2 The application is referrable under Category 1B of the Schedule of the Order 2000: “Development outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

3 If Lambeth Council subsequently decides that it is minded to grant planning permission, it must first allow the Mayor an opportunity to decide whether to direct the Council to refuse permission.



5 The Mayor of London’s comments on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk.

Site description

6 The site comprises 2.4 hectares (5.9 acres) acres of currently developed land to the south of Streatham station, extending to Natal Road, and to the west of the A23 Streatham High Road. The application site wraps around but excludes the grade II listed United Reform Church, though includes the neighbouring Sunday school building. The application site incorporates a range of land uses, many arranged in large single use blocks, including the existing ice rink, a swimming pool and leisure centre, a former bus garage (currently used for go-karting) and commercial uses. Two storey residential housing is located to the west of the site. The site is within the designated Streatham High Road Conservation Area. Streatham is identified as a major retail centre in the adopted Unitary Development Plan. In the deposit draft UDP of 2002, the site is identified as being part of a Major Development Opportunity. Redevelopment within this MDO should develop a landmark, mixed use scheme based upon new leisure (ice skating/swimming) facilities, and maximises the opportunity of creating a high quality transport hub.

7 The site currently has good public transport access (public transport accessibility level of 6). This is due to improve with the proposed East London Line extension, the upgrading of Thameslink 2000 and enhanced bus services (route 109 is designated a London Bus Initiative 2 route).

Details of the proposal

8 The application has been submitted by Cushman & Wakefield, Healey & Baker planning consultants on behalf of Tesco stores Ltd. The scheme comprises the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a new food retail store of 8650 sq.m gross, residential accommodation comprising 250 flats, of which 89 (37 one bed and 52 two bed) are proposed as affordable housing (35%), a new multi-purpose leisure centre which incorporates a swimming pool, ice rink (to regional standard) and community facilities totalling 7,985 sq.m, a new bus standing area/interchange and a new public square adjoining the listed United Reform Church. Car parking provision of 438 spaces is proposed for the retail and leisure elements of the scheme, with 143 spaces (0.57 per unit) for the residential accommodation. All of the retail/leisure parking and 75 spaces of the residential is accommodated in a basement, with the remainder of the residential parking allocation (68 spaces) at surface level.

9 The arrangement of the uses across the site creates a ‘C’ shaped block set around the retained grade II listed church. The Tesco food store is the largest single element in plan form and is located at the northern part of the application site and is adjoined by its service yard and the proposed provision for bus standing/interchange. Two ‘L’ shaped blocks of residential units are proposed on top of the retail store, set around a central visual/residential amenity area. The residential blocks vary in height from four storey at the High Road frontage, to five and six storey at the towards the back (west) of the store. The affordable housing is proposed within these rear blocks. Further residential accommodation is provided with a six storey linear block which is set behind the listed church and effectively acts as a townscape link between the store and the leisure building which is located to the south of the site. The leisure building accommodates a swimming pool, an ice rink (combining these facilities in one building makes for


best use of heat/energy exchange), health and fitness, community uses and ancillary retail/café accommodation.

10 Vehicular access and egress to the commercial development is proposed via an access ramp (7m in width) located between the listed church and the Tesco store. This area is proposed as part of a new public realm/town square set around the listed church. A residents parking access/egress and servicing for the leisure building is via a new ramped entrance from Natal Road. Part of the residential car parking provision is provided at decked surface level to the rear of the linear residential block.

Case history

11 In March 2002 the Mayor considered a report on a consultation paper produced by Lambeth Council for Streatham Hub. The development proposals in the consultation document proposed a leisure-based, though mixed use, redevelopment of the area around and including Streatham station. Other than new ice rink and swimming pool provision, housing (300 units), an improved retail store of 2,500 sq.m, an hotel and community facilities, together with up to 500 car parking spaces formed the basis of the consultation proposals. In response, the Mayor generally welcomed the principle of a comprehensive, leisure-led, mixed-use, redevelopment as envisaged in the consultation paper. The Mayor did, however, highlight a number of issues which required further consideration, including overall provision for affordable housing provision, maximising the opportunity potential of this identified site in terms of the amount of development, exploring the possibility of for tall/landmark buildings, appropriately preserving and enhancing the site’s heritage character and ensuring that the transport proposals for the site are appropriately integrated and sustainable.

Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

12 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

• Affordable housing draft London Plan; Three Dragons Report; PPG3 • Density draft London Plan; PPG3 • Urban design draft London Plan: PPG1 • Mix of uses draft London Plan • Regeneration draft London Plan; London’s Economic Development Strategy

(LDA) • Town Centres draft London Plan; PPG6 • Transport draft London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13 • Parking draft London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13 • Retail/Leisure draft London Plan; PPG6; PPG13; RPG3 Town Centres/mix of uses/retail

13 Streatham is designated as a Major Centre in the draft London Plan hierarchy of retail centres. Smaller in scale than Metropolitan Centres, they are characterised as having a mix of both comparison and convenience shopping with a borough-wide catchments area. Some Major Centres like Streatham also have key leisure and entertainment functions which adds to their vitality. Policy 3D.1 in the draft London Plan gives the Mayor’s support to the strengthening of the role of London’s town centres by, amongst other issues, encouraging new retail, leisure, housing and other consumer services in these locations. In addition, the draft London Plan identifies Streatham as a Major Centre with surplus capacity and the potential for growth to assist regeneration.


14 The Mayor has previously stated his general support for the draft comprehensive regeneration proposals contained within Lambeth Council’s Streatham Hub vision document. The application site covers only part of the Streatham Hub area, and in terms of the arrangement of uses across the site is at odds with the Hub work. Whilst in strategic planning terms this is disappointing, nevertheless, the mixed-use scheme proposed in this case would in principle, accord with the provisions of draft London Plan policy 3D.1 on town centres and with Mayor’s sustainable development policy at 2A.6, in that this is a brownfield redevelopment at a reasonably high density. The scheme would also accord with policy 3D.5 in the draft London Plan in that major new leisure facilities would be located within a town centre location with a high public transport accessibility level.

15 Both the Council and the developer have provided assurances that the scheme would not be piecemeal in nature and would not detract from work on sites within the rest of the Hub. Of clear benefit would be that the layout of uses proposed would allow for the retention and on-going operation of the existing ice rink whilst the new leisure centre is constructed, so enabling a continuity of leisure use at the site (the retail store would be erected following the demolition of the existing ice rink). The issue of the appropriate delivery of the leisure element of the scheme is considered further in paragraph 18 below.

16 In terms of new retail and leisure development, policy 3D.2 in the draft London Plan states that boroughs should assess retail capacity and need and accommodate new developments through the sequential approach; that the scale of new schemes should be appropriate to the size and role of town centres, and that if no town centre sites exist, then edge of centres should be utilised. In this case, the applicant has undertaken a retail impact assessment which reasonably and robustly demonstrates both the qualitative and quantative need for a large food retail store, given the projected increase in population and expenditure growth. The applicant has also undertaken a sequential approach to alternative sites as whilst the development is within a designated retail centre in the adopted UDP, given the linear nature of Streatham town centre the application site is effectively an edge of centre scheme. This concludes that there are no alternative sites available within Streatham town centre which are suitable, viable and available. In strategic terms, the case for a new retail store of this size, at this location, is reasonable, although the accompanying car parking proposals remain an outstanding matter (see car parking section below).

Regeneration/delivery of ice rink

17 The key strategic objective of this mixed-use scheme is the securing of a high quality regional ice rink facility to assist London’ world city and sporting facilities and which benefit the regeneration of the Streatham area. Whilst it is acknowledged that the development proposed would represent a considerable level of investment in this part of Streatham, there is concern about how best to maximise the regeneration benefit which would result. In particular, further details regarding how the scheme could become an integral element of the town centre and how it could generate and contribute to its lasting improvement should be submitted. This should include details of better links between the site and the rest of the town centre and adjoining communities, environmental improvements, local employment and training initiatives and a town centre parking strategy. The inclusion of the community use accommodation within the scheme is welcomed.

18 The delivery of a major new leisure facility at this site has previously been supported by the Mayor in his response to the Streatham Hub proposals. Lambeth Council has confirmed that it would seek to ensure either by condition or legal agreement, that the leisure use is constructed and operational prior to the opening of the Tesco store. This approach is supported at a strategic level. In terms of delivery, the applicant has confirmed that the funding strategy


for the leisure development is based on the public private partnership model, comprising capital contribution from the private sector (leisure operator/developer), section 106 contribution form the main developer (Tesco), Sport Lottery funding and revenue funding form the Council. The Council and Tesco have employed a leisure consultant to prepare and test funding packages for this scheme, but no details have been submitted to date to enable a reasonable assessment of the options. The overall estimated cost of delivery of the leisure element is some £12million. Tesco’s proposed contribution is subject to further discussion, but currently is of concern as it would leave the public sector, in particular Sport Lottery funding, with a somewhat heavy and rather imbalanced (compared to the developer contribution) cost burden and potentially undermining the viability of the ice rink project the credibility of the mixed-use package. Without further details of the funding package strategy it is difficult to be definitive. In strategic planning terms, it is essential that the delivery and sustainability of the leisure element of the scheme be fully resolved prior to the consideration of the application by the Council and that sufficient and reasonable contribution is appropriately secured from the applicant.

Affordable housing

19 The draft London Plan affordable housing target for Lambeth is 50%. Policy 3A.8 in the draft London Plan states that such targets should be applied sensitively in negotiating affordable housing accommodation in mixed-use schemes taking into account site specific development costs. Lambeth’s deposit draft UDP policies on affordable housing reflect the draft London Plan target. Whilst the 35% provision proposed by the developer is a welcome initial offer, a contribution which better reflects the Mayor’s and Lambeth Council’s target should be secured in this case which takes into account and appropriately balances other extraneous community obligations. Further details of the affordable housing offer (the balance between rented and intermediate housing and the availability of public subsidy) and the development costs and value of the scheme (within a full financial appraisal) should be submitted to enable a reasonable and robust consideration of this element of the scheme.

Transport/parking Impact on the TLRN (A23)

20 The application proposes the introduction of a new signalised access junction, positioned centrally in the site, providing access to a large basement car park serving the retail and leisure components of the scheme. It should be noted that the location of the proposed signalised access junction is the applicant’s preferred design option. TfL have assisted the applicant in progressing this decision, but, in the absence of a thorough assessment of alternative options, are not assured that this is the optimal location for ensuring the safe and efficient operation of the A23.

21 In consultation with TfL, the developer has assessed the impact of the development on the operation of the A23 by forecasting and modelling traffic generation. Based on the traffic generation assumptions contained in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis and Supplementary editions, TfL consider the development to have a potentially adverse impact on the operation of the A23 by causing excessive queuing at the proposed signalised access junction. TfL is particularly concerned by predicted excessive queuing of vehicles travelling southbound on the A23, in addition to the safety implications of drivers attempting to exit the car park and entering the A23 after excessive queuing.

22 TfL is disappointed that the Third Supplementary Traffic Impact Analysis does not accurately assess the peak hour traffic conditions for Sundays (as requested), and do not accept the justifications provided for its omission. As the Highway Authority for the A23, TfL is


concerned about Sunday traffic patterns and volumes, and how they differ from Friday and Saturday peaks, and require a robust assessment of forecast traffic generation and its impact on the operation of the A23.

Car parking

23 The application proposes 398 car parking spaces for the combined retail and leisure uses, with a further 40 spaces allocated to the health and fitness centre. The car parking provision for the residential element of the scheme has been reduced to provide a ratio of 0.57 spaces per unit and a total of 143 spaces. TfL support this reduction, but, given the site’s high PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) score and the aspirations to provide a high quality interchange facility with the arrival of the tramlink extension, consider this allocation as generous and poorly reflecting the site’s location.

24 In the context of the draft London Plan standards, TfL consider the combined provision for the retail and leisure uses to be excessive given the site’s high PTAL score. The maximum car parking guidelines for retail uses recommends provision based on 1 space per 38m² retail floor area, which allocates a total of 93 spaces to the food store. In relation to the leisure uses the draft London Plan recommends parking provision to be set at a ratio of 1 space per 22m² for swimming pools and health and fitness clubs, and 1 space per 5 seats for uses comparable to an ice rink. This provision is encouraged to be halved in areas of high public transport accessibility. These maximum guidelines would therefore provide policy support for approximately 128 car parking spaces, to give a total allocation for the retail and leisure uses of 221 spaces compared with the proposed total of 398 spaces. A degree of flexibility could be applied to the commercial parking provision on the basis that these are draft standards and that ultimately the provision for car parking at the scheme should be reasonably based upon a number of factors, including highway capacity, linked retail and leisure trips, the operational need of the retailer, the adopted Lambeth UDP standards (which would allow some 250 parking spaces for the retail element with no set standard for leisure use), a parking management strategy (use as a town centre car park) and the potential for modal shift changes in the future via Green Travel Plan initiatives.

25 In terms of ready comparison, however, the J. Sainsbury store at Streatham Common, which offers a similar retail floorpsace, operates with 340 car parking spaces despite occupying an out of town location that is less well served by public transport.

Pedestrian/cycle

26 TfL is concerned about the proximity of the loading bays located within the southbound bus priority lanes to the proposed signalised access junction. This arrangement is considered to potentially cause a hazard for all users of the junction if delivery vehicles are obstructing clear sightlines for drivers and pedestrians. TfL believes the southbound loading bay and bus stop facilities require reconfiguration in order to secure their safe operation.

27 TfL request additional information on the level of cycle parking provided within the scheme and expect to see cycle priority measures incorporated within the revised highway layout.

Impact on bus operations

28 In principle, TfL is satisfied with the location and design of the bus layover and the segregation achieved between bus and servicing movements entering this area. TfL welcome the restriction of servicing movements to left in and left out only, thus reducing conflict with bus movements and improving the movement of traffic on the A23.


29 Subject to detailed design, TfL is satisfied with the opportunities provided for linear bus set down and pick up facilities, secured by safeguarding the northbound double bus lane, which, despite narrowing to a single lane, extends beyond the bridge to the north of the site. In relation to southbound bus movements, TfL welcome safeguarding a continuous bus priority lane with the opportunity for sufficient set down and pick up facilities.

30 In relation to protecting the movement of north and southbound buses from the additional traffic generated by the development TfL welcome proposals to incorporate bus priority lanes as part of the bridge widening proposals.

Future tram link

31 TfL is satisfied that the development proposals incorporate the potential to accommodate the proposed tramlink extension and terminus facility at Streatham, and welcomes the proposed land use arrangement which creates the opportunity for a future quality interchange between bus, tram and rail services.

Contributions to transport enhancements

32 TfL expect the applicant to contribute towards mitigating the impact of the development as part of a S106 agreement. In addition to funding extensive road layout alterations and site specific public realm enhancement works, TfL expect the applicant to make a significant contribution towards bus priority measures and bridge widening work.

33 TfL consider that without the implementation of the bridge widening works, the existing bottleneck of the two-way single lane carriageway will, as a result of the development, aggravate congestion and delays for all modes. In order to promote bus patronage, the applicant is expected to contribute towards the provision of real time/countdown facilities and in-store bus information. TfL also expect a redevelopment of this size to develop and implement a Green Travel Plan to encourage employees to utilise alternative modes of transport to the private car.


34 Policy 4B.1 in the draft London Plan on design for a compact city, states that the Mayor will require development to, amongst other issues, maximise the potential of sites, create or enhance the public realm, provide a mix of uses, be permeable for all users and be inspiring, exciting, practical and legible. Whilst the scheme does seek to maximise the opportunity of the site and is appropriately mixed in land use, there nevertheless, remain a number of fundamental urban design and development quality issues which are of concern or remain unresolved at this stage.

35 The revised proposal shows a two lane ramp (reduced from four lane in the original scheme) to the proposed undercroft parking in the space currently occupied by the Sunday School annexe. The purpose of setting the Tesco store back from the building line is to reveal some of the church tower in long western views. The set back is a major benefit which will neaten the building edge against the road and common and has the potential to restore visual interest and rhythm in the street scene from the core town centre. The ramp would diminish the benefit of the set back and effectively sever the new public realm which is proposed between the church and the retail store. It would also restrict pedestrian flows and potentially detract from the setting of the church. The reduction of the ramp to a single lane ( and hence the use of natal Road for egressing traffic) and/or the provision of mitigating landscape works around it would serve to reduce the visual harshness of this engineering feature. A public realm strategy should be submitted which considers this element and that of the setting of the church in detail


(including the area to the rear of the church, for use as either it’s garden or as private amenity space for the flats).

36 It is acknowledged that the architectural appearance of the scheme has been revised to include a more detail and some variation in the elevations. However, given prominence of the site, a higher quality of scheme should be achieved. Whilst a modern aesthetic is welcomed in principle, the appearance of the revised scheme remains uniform in approach and generally uninspiring. There is a lack of animation, variety and interest in the elevations, particularly of the housing units. It is acknowledged that more has been done to relieve the mass and bulk of the large floorplate buildings (retail and leisure) but further design work is required on these and the housing in particular to ensure that the scheme suitable preserves or enhances the setting of the listed church, whilst at the same time providing greater architectural and visual expression appropriate to this strategically important location. The introduction of taller buildings at the northern end of the site would be consistent with the transport hub location, with appropriate setting back to allow for the setting and longer ground level views of the listed church.

Local planning authority’s position

37 It is understood that the Council will consider the proposed development in mid-late January 2003. Whilst the principle of the scheme is generally acceptable to Lambeth planning officers, they share some of the concerns stated in this report regarding transport and car parking, design and regeneration.


38 Under the arrangements set out in article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 the Mayor has an opportunity to make representations to Lambeth Council at this stage. If the Council subsequently resolves to grant planning permission, it must allow the Mayor an opportunity to decide whether to direct it to refuse planning permission. 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 comments unless specifically stated.


39 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion

40 This scheme is welcomed as one which potentially could secure the strategic objectives of delivering a mixed-use leisure, retail and housing scheme, including a regional ice facility, that appropriately accords with the Mayor’s draft London Plan policies on town centre developments and would suitably assist the regeneration of Streatham. The scheme has the potential to deliver continuity of ice rink provision at this site. Whilst the scheme would represent a departure from the Streatham Hub draft proposals previously endorsed by the Mayor, the applicant and the Council have given appropriate assurances that this scheme would not restrict the comprehensive redevelopment of the Hub area.

41 There are, however, a number of strategic planning issues which are of concern or are unresolved to date. These include the strategy and funding to deliver the leisure element of the scheme, the contribution of the proposal to the wider regeneration of the area, an affordable housing provision which is below the Mayor’s draft London Plan target, the excessive provision for car parking and the impact on the operation and capacity of A23, the visual impact of


proposed means of access/egress to the basement car park and the general poor design quality of the scheme. These are issues which need to be resolved prior to the Council’s consideration of the application.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Planning Decisions Manager 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Stewart Murray, Team Leader Development Control 020 7983 4493 email [email protected] Anthony Hollingsworth, Case Officer 020 7983 5750 email [email protected]


APPENDIX 2

Our ref: PDU/0294aAH05 Your ref: 02/02557 Date: 23 December 2002

MATLA1L F

r L Brown ssistant Director own Planning ambeth Council cre House 0 Acre Lane ONDON SW2 5SG

or the attention of Hayley Ellison
Dear Mr Brown , Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Act 1999; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 Ice rink and adjoining land, Streatham – planning application 02/02557 I refer to your letter of 16 September 2002 consulting the Mayor of London on the above planning application. On 18 December 2002 the Mayor considered a report on this proposal, reference PDU/0249a/01. A copy of the report is attached, in full.
Having considered the report, the Mayor has concluded that the scheme is welcomed as one which potentially could secure his strategic objectives of delivering a high density, mixed-use leisure, retail and housing scheme, including a regional ice facility, that would accord with his draft London Plan policies on town centre developments and would suitably assist the regeneration of Streatham. The scheme has the potential to deliver continuity of ice rink provision at this site.

The Mayor has, however, stated that there are a number of strategic planning issues, which are of concern to him and should be resolved before your authority determines the application and refers it back to him at Stage 2. These are as follows:

• In terms of the strategy and necessary funding to deliver the leisure element of the scheme it is noted that the applicant has submitted information on these issues on the day that the Mayor considered the proposal at Stage 1. But this needs to be secured appropriately without which the package of planning benefits would not adequately justify strategic support for the retail element of the proposals;

• The contribution of the proposal to the wider regeneration of the area needs to be firmly demonstrated and secured as part of any Section 106 planning agreement. It is noted that this was also referred to in the developer’s submission;

• The improved affordable housing provision from 35% to 40% is welcomed but this is below the Mayor’s draft London Plan figure of 50% across the borough. The Mayor is prepared to consider such level of provision as part of the total planning obligations package if other contributions are reached at appropriate levels and secured, particularly in respect of the ice rink.


• Car parking levels are above published standards and any agreed final figure needs to jointly reflect the impact on the operation and capacity of A23, sustainable development principles, and operational requirements of the various commercial uses as part of an overall town centre car parking strategy for Streatham;

• The visual impact of proposed means of access/egress to the basement car park needs to be fully addressed as the Mayor does not consider this the ideal location for such a major street scene and highway breakage;

• The design of the overall development fails to reflect the strategic importance and location of this high profile site opposite Stratham Common and adjoining the station. The scheme should be improved in terms of the design and to appropriately reflect the status of what should become London’s premier regional ice rink facility location.

The Mayor has stated that the above issues should be resolved prior to the Council’s consideration of the application.

The application represents EIA development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The Mayor has taken the environmental information made available to date into consideration in formulating his comments.

If Lambeth Council decides in due course that it is minded to approve the application, it should allow the Mayor fourteen days to decide whether or not to direct the Council to refuse planning permission (under article 4(1)(b)(i) of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000). You should therefore send me a copy of any officer’s report on this case to your planning committee (or its equivalent), together with a statement of the permission your authority proposes to grant and of any conditions the authority proposes to impose, and a copy of any representations made in respect of the application (article 4(1)(a) of the Order).

Yours sincerely, Giles Dolphin Planning Decisions Manager cc Valerie Shawcross, London Assembly Constituency Member, Lambeth & Southwark Bob Neill, Chair of London Assembly Planning and Spatial Development Committee Andrew Melville, GoL Sam Richards, TfL Anne Crane, LDA

Alastair Crowdy, Cushman & Wakefield, Healey & Baker

APPENDIX 3



12 March 2003

Ice rink and adjoining land, Streatham



Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Act 1999; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 – strategic planning application stage II referral

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a leisure complex (ice rink, swimming pool, health and fitness facilities and community uses), 250 residential units, including affordable housing, food store (8,650 sq.m gross floorspace), bus layover, car parking (577 spaces in total) and servicing.

Context

1 On 16 September 2002 Lambeth Council consulted the Mayor of London on an application for planning permission for the above uses at the above site. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1B of the Schedule of the above Order, i.e. “Development outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.” 2 On 18 December 2002 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0294a/01, and subsequently advised Lambeth Council that the proposal was one which potentially could secure his strategic objectives of delivering a high density, mixed-use leisure, retail and housing scheme, including a regional ice facility, that would accord with his draft London Plan policies on town centre developments and would suitably assist the regeneration of Streatham. The scheme has the potential to deliver continuity of ice rink provision at this site .

3 The Mayor also stated, however, that there were a number of strategic planning issues which were of concern and should be resolved prior to Lambeth’s determination of the application and referral of the application back to the Mayor at stage II. These issues were:

• The strategy and necessary funding to deliver the leisure element of the scheme. The regional ice and local leisure facilities should be appropriately secured and without this the package of planning benefits proposed would not adequately justify strategic support for the scheme.

• The contribution of the proposal to the wider regeneration of the area needs to be firmly demonstrated and secured as part of any Section 106 planning agreement.


• The provision for affordable housing is below the Mayor’s draft London Plan figure of 50% across the borough. It was acknowledged that the Mayor would be prepared to consider a lower level of provision as part of the total planning obligations package if other contributions are reached at appropriate levels and secured, particularly in respect of the ice rink.

• Car parking levels are above published standards and any agreed final figure needs to jointly reflect the impact on the operation and capacity of A23, sustainable development principles, and operational requirements of the various commercial uses as part of an overall town centre car parking strategy for Streatham.

• The design of the overall development fails to reflect the strategic importance and location of this high profile site opposite Stratham Common and adjoining the station. The scheme should be improved in terms of the design and to appropriately reflect the status of what should become London’s premier regional ice rink facility location. The visual impact of the proposed means of access/egress to the basement car park should be fully addressed.

4 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.

5 On 18 February 2003 Lambeth Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the application, and on 25 February 2003 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 the Mayor may direct Lambeth Council to refuse planning permission, and has until 12 March 2003 to notify the Council of such a direction. This report sets out the information needed by the Mayor in deciding whether to direct refusal.


7 The Mayor of London’s decision this case, and his reasons, will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

Delivery of the ice rink

8 The Mayor has clearly stated in his initial comments to Lambeth Council, that his key objective from this development is to secure the provision of a new high-quality regional ice rink facility, and the related swimming and other sports uses which would be within the single leisure building. The Mayor generally supported the layout of the proposed development on the basis that it would provide a continuity of the swimming and leisure facilities at the site until the new leisure facility is open. The Mayor also confirmed his support for Lambeth Council’s use of a section 106 legal agreement to restrict the development of the food store until after the new leisure facility has been constructed and is operational.

9 At the time of his initial comments the Mayor was not, however, convinced that the funding strategy to deliver the new ice rink was in place or worked-up to an extent which would give sufficient comfort on the delivery and then operation of this regional sports facility, which is an absolute essential strategic requirement to justify the substantial retail proposal at the site.


In particular, the public private partnership model proposed by the leisure consultant acting on behalf of the Council and the developer appears to leave a potentially heavy and imbalanced financial burden on the public sector. Only limited details of the general approach to the funding model/package have been provided since the Mayor’s initial comments in December 2002. The Mayor requested that this be fully resolved prior to the consideration of the application by Lambeth Council and this has not been done. Without further robust details of the proposed delivery mechanism and funding package, the Mayor cannot be satisfied that the regional ice rink will be delivered and therefore, this generates substantial concerns about the limited strategic benefit arising from this predominantly food retail-led redevelopment. Therefore unless or until the matter is resolved and clarified either the future of this site will remain uncertain and its contribution to the regeneration of Streatham delayed or alternatively the regional and/or local leisure facilities will not be delivered as part of this redevelopment. The package submitted currently fails to justify allowing the substantial retail element of the proposals whilst the key public benefit of the ice rink re-provision is not adequately secured.

10 Since the Mayor’s stage I consideration of the scheme, and only just prior to consideration of the application by Lambeth members, the applicant has stated that the existing swimming pool would have to be demolished prior to the opening of the replacement facility, in order to accommodate the new bus layover area and associated highway access works (the current bus garage at the site is to be demolished to make way for the new ice rink). TfL is currently investigating with London Buses means of avoiding early demolition of the centre, so avoiding the loss of continuity of leisure use at this site.

11 Whilst it is acknowledged that Lambeth Council is proposing to ensure through planning and land ownership controls that the existing swimming pool is demolished only once the financing of the replacement leisure centre has been secured and a contract for the works is in place, the scheme does not now guarantee the continuity of all of the existing leisure uses at the site. In itself, with appropriate legal safeguards, the temporary loss of the existing swimming pool, gym and community space may not be objectionable, but at this time, it does add weight to the strategic concern that the delivery strategy proposed to date does not sufficiently guarantee the provision of a replacement high-quality leisure facilities and their subsequent operation.

Regeneration

12 In terms of the potential of the development to contribute to the wider regeneration of Streatham, the applicant has offered £250,000 financial contribution towards environmental works within the town centre and a further £50,000 towards the promotion and marketing of Streatham. Whilst this offer is welcome it is not clear whether the environmental improvements would be to enhance the currently poor link between the new development and the existing town centre to the north and towards improving the town centre itself or if the money would be spent in the immediate vicinity of the development with rather less regenerative effect

13 Local employment and training initiatives are also proposed, as is the provision of space for community use/activity within the new leisure centre. The food store/leisure car park is to be made available for other users of the town centre, though the details of whether this is to be managed as a town centre car park are to be submitted at a later date as part of the proposed s.106 legal agreement.

14 Therefore, whilst the Mayor’s initial comments on the wider regeneration benefit of the scheme have been addressed to an extent, the absence of details makes it less certain that there is a real commitment to the wider regeneration and lasting improvement of Streatham town centre.


Affordable housing

15 The affordable housing offer has been increased from 35% to 40% of the 250 units proposed at the site (102 units – 41 one-bed, 61 two-bed). Of the 102 affordable units, 52 are for rent, 50 for intermediate accommodation. The increase in the number of affordable units is welcomed as it is nearer the Mayor’s 50% draft London Plan target for average for Lambeth. The Council’s review of its Unitary Development Plan also seeks 50% affordable housing. In accordance with policy 3A.8 of the draft London Plan, provision less than the Mayor’s target would be acceptable only if the shortfall is balanced against the delivery of other strategic planning objectives. In this case, the principal strategic objective is the delivery and operation of the replacement and upgraded leisure facility at this site. If this were not forthcoming then prima facie the affordable housing offer would not be acceptable as it has not been reasonably demonstrated why the Mayor’s target and that of Lambeth Council cannot be met in this case

Transport

16 TfL welcomes redevelopment of the site with a mixed use development that secures long term leisure provision, but remain concerned about issues identified at Stage 1 in connection with the proposed level of car parking and associated traffic generation.

Impact on the A23 (TLRN)

17 TfL has remained in close consultation with the developer to accurately assess the impact of the development on the operation of the A23, and has encouraged consideration of all road layout options. Despite the absence of any thorough assessment of alternative options by the developer as requested by TfL, the proposed signalised access junction, which is positioned centrally in the site to provide access to a large basement car park serving the retail and leisure components of the scheme, is considered operationally acceptable but not necessarily the access solution TfL would have preferred.

18 TfL recognises that the level of traffic generated by the development will restrict capacity on this section of the TLRN. This impact will primarily be of queuing southbound vehicles waiting to turn right into the development at the proposed signalised access junction, which is not considered by TfL as justifying a formal objection. It should be noted, however, that this impact is fundamentally linked to the proposed level of on site car parking and the access/egress arrangements to the basement car park. In the event of a reduction in car parking levels, TfL would expect to see traffic flows on the TLRN reduce to a more efficient level.

19 As a consequence of the traffic generated by the development, TfL places additional importance on the need to implement the planned bridge widening works to the north of the site to facilitate highway capacity improvements on the A23. Without the creation of two additional lanes, the development would further aggravate congestion and prevent the introduction of bus priority measures.

Car parking

20 The proposed level of car parking does not reflect the Mayor’s draft London Plan or Lambeth’s adopted and emerging UDP standards, nor relates well to the site’s immediacy to a transport hub and the current policy emphasis of car restraint. The site boasts a PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) score of 6 (where 6 is the highest), and there are existing aspirations to provide a high quality interchange facility in conjunction with the potential extension of the Croydon Tramlink to Streatham.


21 The application proposes a total of 577 car parking spaces. TfL accepts the level of car parking allocated to the residential element of the scheme (0.56 spaces per unit) but have reservations about the level of provision proposed for the combined retail and leisure uses. Table 1 provides a summary comparison of the proposed level of retail and leisure use parking against what would be supported by the relevant policy documents.

Policy document/land use Retail Leisure Total Development Proposals 438 (inc. 40 health and fitness) 438 Draft London Plan 93 128 221 LB Lambeth deposit UDP 173 159 332 LB Lambeth adopted UDP 247 No policy guidance 247(exc. Leisure use)

Table 1: Leisure and retail car parking levels as proposed and supported by adopted/draft planning policy

22 The combined retail and leisure components of the scheme are allocated 398 spaces, with a further 40 spaces reserved for the health and fitness centre to give a total of 438 spaces. When assessed in relation to draft London Plan and draft UDP standards this provision is considered excessive and contrary to the aim of promoting sustainable travel patterns. The draft London Plan endorses a maximum car parking guideline of 1 space per 38m² (for stores in excess of 2,500m² rfa) to allocate a maximum of 93 spaces to the proposed foodstore. In relation to leisure uses the draft London Plan recommends provision to be set at a ratio of 1 space per 22m² for swimming pools and health and fitness clubs, and 1 space per 5 seats for uses comparable to an ice rink. It should be noted that this provision is encouraged to be halved in areas of high public transport accessibility. These maximum guidelines therefore offer policy support for approximately 128 car parking spaces, to give a total allocation for the retail and leisure uses of 221 spaces compared with the proposed total of 438 spaces.

23 TfL remains sympathetic to the view that a degree of flexibility could be applied to the retail and leisure car parking provision on the basis that these are draft standards, and that ultimately, the provision for car parking should be reasonably based upon a number of factors. These factors comprise accessibility by public transport, highway capacity, linked retail and leisure trips, the operational needs of the retailer, the adopted and draft Lambeth UDP standards (which would allow 250 spaces for the retail element with no set standard for leisure uses), a parking management strategy and the potential for achieving modal shift targets via Green Travel initiatives. TfL is unsatisfied that the current proposals adequately reflect the factors outlined above.

Draft section 106 agreement

24 In principle, TfL welcomes the total public transport/local environmental improvements contribution of nearly £1m made up of the points below. Clearly the detailed provisions will be important in terms of their impact in addressing issues arising from the scheme and TfL would expect to continue discussion with Lambeth Council on some of these matters.

• £100k Streatham High Road bridge strengthening • £250k environmental improvements on Streatham High Road north of the site • £50k Streatham station improvements • £50k in-store real time bus information • £50k promotion and marketing of Streatham town centre • £124k improved street lighting on surrounding road • £140k consultation on and implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone • £220k area wide traffic management scheme.


25 TfL welcomes planning conditions requiring the developer to implement a Green Travel Plan and provide details of a car parking management strategy for the retail and leisure uses. TfL expects the Section 278 agreement reworded to: ‘All works to Streatham High Road required by TfL to include, but not exclusively, pedestrian facilities, new bus stops including shelters and Countdown, footways, landscaping, signalled controlled junction, cycle crossing facilities, road widening, carriageway edges, bus lanes, loading bays, access ways to URC church, road markings and all associated works including alterations to statutory undertakers equipment.’


26 Given the strategic leisure importance of this site, it is essential that the development quality should be of the highest standard, as befitting a major new sports and recreation for London. The proposal, despite some amendment remains short of the level of design quality that should be expected at this prominent site. The applicant has responded in part to the Mayor’s stated concerns about the poor quality of design and public realm proposals. Further work has been undertaken on the design proposals for the area of public realm around the Grade II Listed church and up to the proposed Tesco store. Further revisions to the external appearance of the new buildings have also been proposed, although the elevations, particularly of the leisure centre, remain far from finalised. The latter it is assumed would only be worked up in more detail once a development partner and operator for the leisure centre was found. It is to be hoped that the Council is able to negotiate for a quality scheme as befits the opportunity at this site and to contribute towards the regenerative effects of this scheme on Streatham town centre.

27 Whilst the public realm proposals provide further comfort regarding the potential quality of the immediate setting of the listed church, the scheme has still not incorporated the changes to the space between the church and the proposed housing previously raised by the Mayor. Furthermore, the ramp to the basement car park and the proposed treatment of this part of the public realm is far from convincing (there remain concerns about a plethora of engineering structures which would detract from the exposed longer views of the church from Streatham High Road).

28 In responding to the concerns of English Heritage, the applicant has agreed to submit further detailed drawings of the elevations of the proposed buildings. It is disappointing that such detail has not been submitted prior to the determination of the application by the Council, particularly given the strategic importance of the scheme and that this is a detailed planning application. The changes to the elevations undertaken since the Mayor’s stage I comments have added a level of articulation, but the previously expressed concerns about the uniformity of the scheme and uninspiring nature of the design generally remain. It is acknowledged that English Heritage has indicated that the appearance of the scheme would not be detrimental to the setting of the listed church, though they express concerns about the impact of the scheme on the wider character and appearance of the conservation area.

29 With, however, relatively minor modifications to the public realm proposals and the external appearance of the buildings, the scheme could be capable of receiving strategic planning support in design terms, particularly if the wider regenerative benefits of the scheme are delivered.

London Development Agency

30 The LDA supports schemes that would contribute towards the maintenance and enhancement of a strong network of town centres across London. It also considers that London’s sports and leisure provision should be developed to meet the full range of demand


from local, regional and national, for residents and visitors alike. Appropriately located and designed shopping and leisure facilities of the right scale and type can make a significant contribution to the London economy and to employment and training opportunities. The current redevelopment proposal has the potential to make such a contribution if it can be implemented as a complete package.

31 The site is key to the regeneration of Streatham. It is the only one of substantial size in the town centre, albeit at the edge. There are significant opportunities, as recognised by the Council to create a transport hub, combining a range of public transport modes. In addition the scheme can address the need for town centre car parking provision. This hub would not only serve the site but also benefit the town centre as a whole. Hence the relevance of a much enhanced link between the site and the main part of the town centre, joint promotion and the shared use of car parking.

32 The leisure centre and the proposed new ice rink in particular, could make a significant and indeed, unique addition to Streatham’s offer as a town centre as opposed to just a shopping centre. The rink would act as a regional attractor and raise the profile of the town with benefits to the rest of the centre. If the leisure centre was not to be delivered as part of the scheme then the Agency considers that there is a risk that there will be few linked trips and thus the food retail store will effectively be an isolated element which has little regeneration benefit for Streatham town centre.

33 A prolonged period of uncertainty about the site and the development whilst funding for the leisure centre is secured would not be of benefit to the regeneration of Streatham. Other investment would at best, be delayed and the site and the buildings on it would continue to decline. This would be exacerbated if the swimming pool or ice rink were to be closed prematurely or if there were demolition of the leisure facilities prior to the funding and delivery of replacement facilities being secured and in-place. Therefore, the LDA considers it essential that the funding issue is reasonably resolved prior to the Mayor giving his full support for this proposal. This is far from the case at present.

English Heritage’s comments

34 English Heritage has not objected to the scheme, but has expressed concerns about the impact of the scheme on the character and appearance of the conservation area. It is acknowledged that the proposed redevelopment offers substantial benefits to the Streatham area and also that these regeneration benefits should be weighed-up against the loss of significant buildings within the conservation area and the overall impact on the listed church building and the conservation area. English Heritage has requested that any planning permission and listed building consent needs to be adequately conditioned to ensure approval of all detailed design elements of the proposed new buildings and the new public space between the listed church and the Tesco store, residential and leisure buildings.

CABE’s comments

35 The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment has expressed its support for the proposal, commenting that this is ‘a well-considered scheme which will help revitalise Streatham High Road.’


Sport England

36 Sport England has confirmed that it strongly supports the scheme. It welcomes the proposed siting and phasing of the scheme which enables continuity of swimming and ice skating at the site as it would retain existing users pending the opening of the new facilities. Sport England confirms that by placing the new ice rink and swimming pool in one building the sustainability of the scheme is enhanced through energy savings, reduced running costs and an overall enhanced leisure experience. A number of detailed design comments on the proposed sports facilities are recommended in order for the scheme to meet relevant Sport England guidelines.

Other comments

37 The Council received 287 letters from local residents and businesses in response to consultation on the planning application. Of the letter responses, 136 are in support of the scheme and 124 object, with the remainder raising general observations. Community groups and residents’ associations also commented on the scheme and in summary, whilst many indicate their support in principal, concerns are expressed in particular about the traffic impact, poor design quality and residential amenity impact, retail impact on the rest of Streatham and increased parking on surrounding residential streets.


38 Under the arrangements set out in article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 the Mayor has the power to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under article 3 of the Order. In doing so the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in article 5(2) of the Order, including the principle 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 direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice.


39 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 8/93 (‘Award of Costs in Planning and Other (including Compulsory Purchase Order) Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal. In the present case it is anticipated that a public inquiry would last for three weeks. The Mayor’s own costs may exceed £50,000 for counsel and £80,000 for specialist research, advice and expert witnesses. Other costs can be absorbed within already agreed budgets provided that additional cover is not required for the Planning Decisions Unit.

40 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.


Conclusion

41 Neither the applicant nor the local planning authority have provided sufficient detail on the issue of the delivery of the strategically important replacement and upgraded leisure facilities. Without such detail, there is serious doubt that the replacement and upgraded leisure facilities would be delivered as part of the redevelopment of this site. The scheme submitted has the potential to meet the strategic planning objectives of delivering a mixed-use leisure, including a regional ice facility, retail and housing scheme that could accord with the Mayor’s draft London Plan policies on town centre developments, and would suitably assist the regeneration of Streatham. Fundamentally, the delivery of the regional ice and associated leisure facility is a strategic priority, above all other planning considerations in this case. The retail store is large with significant impact on the area both in transport and planning and regeneration terms. To justify this scale of retail development in strategic terms, the overall package of planning obligations regarding the delivery of the new ice rink and swimming pool should be clear and robust, which is currently not the case.

42 Unfortunately, the strategic planning concerns expressed by the Mayor in his initial comments and the necessary changes to the scheme and assurances regarding the delivery and operation of the replacement leisure facilities have not been fully and robustly addressed prior to Lambeth Council’s consideration of and resolution on, the application. When considered individually, a number of the strategic planning issues which remain of concern, such as design, and affordable housing, could well be unobjectionable, but when considered cumulatively, alongside the threat to the regional ice and leisure uses, the deficiencies are such that the scheme at present would not be in the interests of good strategic planning in London.

43 Should, however, the principal strategic concerns be addressed by the applicant, in particular if satisfactory details, including a robust financial appraisal of the cost of providing the replacement and upgraded ice/leisure facility and the funding available to deliver this at the site, and which demonstrates that the new ice/leisure centre will be constructed and opened prior to any other element of the proposed scheme (and that the existing leisure facilities are not demolished without the appropriate funding for the replacement facilities being obtained and a contract let for the construction of the new leisure centre), then this may be sufficient to outweigh the strategic concerns about the planning application expressed in this report.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Planning Decisions Manager 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Stewart Murray, Team Leader Development Control 020 7983 4493 email [email protected] Anthony Hollingsworth, Case Officer 020 7983 5750 email [email protected]


APPENDIX 4

Our ref: PDU/0294a Your ref: 02/02557/FUL Date:

MA LA1L F

r L Brown ssistant Director Community Renewal (Planning)ambeth Council cre House 0 Acre Lane ONDON SW2 5LL

or the attention of: Hayley Ellison
Dear Mr Brown, Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Act 1999; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 Re: Ice rink and adjoining land, Streatham – planning application number 02/02557/FUL
I refer to your letter of 25 February 2003 informing me that Lambeth Council is minded to grant planning permission for the above planning application. I refer you also to the notice that I issued on 27 February 2003 under the provisions of article 4(1)(b)(I) of the above Order.

Having now considered a report on this case, reference PDU/0294a/02 (copy enclosed), I direct you to refuse planning permission, under the powers conferred on me by article 5 of the above Order. My reasons are as follows:

3. That the development would result in the loss of strategically important sport and recreation facilities, without appropriate and robust demonstration of continuity in provision of these facilities on the site including their ultimate replacement within a new centre elsewhere within the proposed redevelopment and as such, would be detrimental to regional and local sport and recreation provision. The design, appearance, nature and size of the proposal, without the replacement leisure facilities, would result in a food retail dominated development and would not be an appropriately mixed-use scheme and so would not sufficiently deliver regeneration benefits to Streatham town centre. As such, the scheme would be contrary to national, regional planning policy guidance, the Mayor’s draft London Plan and the Council’s adopted and deposit draft Unitary Development Plan and therefore, would not be in the interests of good strategic planning in London.

4. In the absence of a robust case for delivering other strategic planning benefits, the development does not make adequate or appropriate provision for affordable housing accommodation, contrary to both established national (PPG3) and regional planning (RPG3) guidance and policies in the Mayor’s draft London Plan and Lambeth Council’s deposit draft Unitary Development Plan.


Whilst not a reason for refusal, I note that the provision for car parking in the development exceeds the relevant adopted local standards contained in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan and the guidance contained within my draft London Plan. This adds to my concerns that the development overall is not in the interests of good strategic planning in London.

I would be prepared to reconsider my direction to refuse planning permission in this case on receipt of satisfactory details, including a robust financial appraisal of the cost of providing the replacement ice/leisure facility and the funding available to deliver this at the site, and which demonstrates that the replacement and upgraded ice rink/leisure centre will be constructed and opened prior to any other element of the proposed scheme. In addition, I would need to receive sufficient legal and other assurances from the Council and the applicant that no demolition of any of the existing facilities takes place without the appropriate funding for the replacement facilities being obtained and a contract let for the construction of the new ice rink/leisure centre.

The application represents EIA development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. I have taken the environmental information made available to date into consideration in formulating my decision.

Yours sincerely, Ken Livingstone Mayor of London cc Valerie Shawcross, GLA Assembly Constituency Member, Lambeth & Southwark Bob Neill, Chair of London Assembly Planning and Spatial Development Committee Andrew Melville, GoL Sam Richards, TfL Anne Crane, LDA

Alastair Crowdy, Cushman & Wakefield, Healey & Baker, 43-45 Portman Square, London W1A 3BG


Date post:	27-Jul-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kevin-rye
View:	39 times
Download:	3 times

Mayor's planning decision GLA Ice Rink and Adjoining land report PDU/0294a/03 22/12/2004

Documents