1.0 Which parts of the Local Plan Review do you consider unsound or legally non-compliant?

Transcription

1 1.0 Which parts of the Local Plan Review do you consider unsound or legally non-compliant? 1.1 We consider that the following proposed new wording within Policy DMI 1 is unsound for not complying with the NPPF and legally non-compliant for failing to comply with the London Plan:- c) With the exception of the provision of small scale uses which cater to the local needs of people working in the area which may be appropriate other use classes are considered unacceptable in these areas. 2.0 Which of the soundness criteria does the Local Plan fail to meet? 2.1 Revised Policy DMI 1 (c) is not consistent with the NPPF and London Plan. 2.2 It fails to meet London Plan (FALP 2015) Policy 5.22 (d) which requires LDF preparation to ensure that land use allocations for hazardous installations take account of the need to incentivise and fund decommissioning. 2.3 It fails to meet NPPF paragraph 22, 51 and 173 relating to the rollover of employment land allocations; the need to approve planning applications for change to residential development from commercial buildings where there is an identified need for additional housing provided that there are not strong economic reasons why development would be inappropriate; and the need to ensure that plans are deliverable enabling competitive returns for a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to happen. 2.4 Finally the policy fails to meet paragraph 161 of the NPPF which requires local planning authorities to use an evidence base to assess the existing and future supply of land available for economic development (no updated study is available); and to undertake an economic development review at the same time as or combined with a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. This has not been undertaken. 3.0 Why does it fail? 3.1 Adopted Policy DMI 1 enables a degree of flexibility. It prevents the loss of Class B1(c), B2 and B8 floorspace unless full replacement provision is provided. Subject to re-provision the policy allows for a mix of uses on site including Class C3 residential. The Core Strategy and SSAD 4.6 allocation supports this interpretation. 1

2 3.2 Proposed criterion (c) removes this flexibility by stating that other use classes are considered unacceptable in these areas. This would prevent mixed uses including residential (Class C3). 3.3 The prohibition of other uses would fail to meet London Plan (FALP 2015) Policy 5.22 (d) which requires LDF s to be prepared having cognisance of the need to incentivise and fund decommissioning of gasholders through land use allocations. 3.4 A restrictive land use allocation of Class B1(c), B2 and B8 only across the Gasholder site would not incentivise and fund decommissioning because the associated values would be too low. There would be no incentive and decommissioning would not occur. Experience at SGN redevelopment sites at Kingston; Oval and Sutton indicate that given the limited value of commercial land the costs of demolition, and live gas plant rationalisation cannot be offset. SGN confirm that historic maps for Wandsworth indicate the presence of tar tanks. In addition to simple development economics, the remediation profile of each site requires incentivisation to offset this often unknown risk. 4.0 How can the plan be made sound? 4.1 The following could be undertaken:- Exclude the Gasholder site from criterion (c) With the exception of Wandsworth Gasholder Site and the provision of small scale uses. ; Delete the proposed wording proposed for Policy DMI 1(c); Remove the Gasholder from the DMI 1 allocation as a Locally Significant Industrial Area; and/or Remove the Gasholder (and adjacent land) from the DMI 1 allocation as a Locally Significant Industrial Area; Reallocate the site as a Mixed Use Former Industrial Employment Area (MUFIEA). 5.0 Inspector Issue and Questions 5.1 The first question raised by the Inspector is whether criterion c) is justified and effective. We do not believe so. 5.2 The Council has included the criterion to remove the existing flexibility that the policy offers. Such a generic approach is not sympathetic to the Gasholder site which has specific and bespoke policy recognition within the London Plan. 2

3 5.3 The second question is whether further land should be released from SILs or LSIAs, including Wandsworth Gasholder site? Previously we have only submitted representations on the basis of the revised wording to criterion (c) however we do believe that the Wandsworth Gasholder site should be released from the allocation for the policy reasons detailed above. Indeed under London Plan policy 5.22 it shouldn t have been allocated in the first place. 5.4 Historically throughout London, SGN Gasholder sites attract industrial allocations as they have been in existence for many years and traditionally have contributed to a Council s employment land supply, despite limited or no direct employment activity. Allocations roll over in development plans, and the gas operators have not tested these due active operations. This has now changed as a result of the OFGEM programme to decommission and demolish surface gas storage (putting gas storage underground). 5.5 We do recognise that each gasholder can create its own land use context owing to the HSE PADHI zones around each site. These attract industrial uses, not because of market demand or urban planning, but simply because the HSE do not allow other uses. For the Wandsworth Gasholder these zones are set out at Appendix A. As a result of this land use safety limitation, planning policies often follow. However as soon as the Hazardous Substances Consent in rescinded the HSE land use control falls away, raising the question about the suitability of the planning land use control. In the case of the Wandsworth LSIA it is very clear that no urban planner would promote a belt of industrial land between the River Thames and Wandsworth Town Centre, as it severs permeability and linkages between these two important borough assets. 5.6 It is therefore appropriate to question whether adjacent land within the Wandsworth LSIA should remain allocated, when the Gasholder site comes forward for redevelopment. It is hard for us to comment on wider land parcels, but clearly there is benefit to immediate land parcels being de-allocated to enable more comprehensive development. The SGN site boundary is identified at Appendix B. The wider land parcels are identified with the SSAD Spatial Strategy 3.2 (page 104) and Site Allocation (page 109), document LPR1/ De-allocation to incentivise decommissioning does have wider land use implications. The existence of the Gasholder (and its Hazardous Substances Consent) prevents occupation of a significant part of Wandsworth Town Centre s principal regeneration scheme, The Ram Brewery. Planning permission 2012/5286 proposes a mixed use development comprising alterations and change of use of retained former brewery buildings, demolition of non-listed 3

4 Buildings and the construction of new buildings 2-12 storeys in height and a tower of 36 storeys in height. Provision of 9,506sqm of retail (Class A1-A4), 669 residential units, continued small scale brewery use (Class B2), museum (Class D1), ancillary gym. The creation of public areas and river walkway; new and repositioned vehicular and pedestrian access points and provision of servicing areas, energy centre and basement car and cycle parking. 5.8 Condition 24 of this permission (and subsequent permissions which seek to increase residential floorspace 2014/4143) limits residential and commercial occupation of Blocks 5,6,7,8,9 and 12 as a result of the Gasholder. 24. No residential or commercial unit within blocks 5,6,7,8,9 and 12 as shown on approved plan ref 2126-T Z00 Rev 21 shall be occupied until the Hazardous Substances Consent for the Wandsworth Gasholder Station, Fairfield Street, London for the storage and distribution of natural gas has been revoked in its entirety under the provisions of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 and written confirmation of the necessary revocation or modification has been issued by the Hazardous Substances Authority. The occupation of the above units without the revocation of the gasholder s Hazardous Substances Consent could expose the occupiers/users of this part of the development to unacceptable safety risks. 5.9 Appendix C identifies blocks 5, 6,7,8,9 and 12 and the associated floorspace within each block Continued land use control over the Gasholder site will not incentivise decommissioning and revocation of the Hazardous Substances consent. This will result in continued blight for the Ram Brewery development. 6.0 New Matters that have arisen since the original representations Previous Correspondence 6.1 The Inspector should be aware that on 15th July 2013 SGN wrote to Wandsworth Council stating that:- SGN are currently planning to de-commission the gas holder by 2017 and it is our intention to de-notify the COMAH status and relinquish the hazardous substance consent. 4

5 6.2 This position remains, albeit clearly there is no obligation for SGN to decommission and no incentive should planning policy prevent higher value uses. 6.3 On the 15 th October 2013 Sir Edward Lister (Deputy Mayor) wrote to SGN pressing for an update on the SGN Decommissioning Strategy. The correspondence stated that: From the Mayor s perspective it is important that you prioritise the gasholders in London s Opportunity Areas and other development areas to ensure that the gasholders do not cause delay or limitations to their delivery but instead help to accommodate London s significant growth. 6.4 The letter went onto state that the Deputy Mayor would welcome an update on the Wandsworth Gasholder and the relationship to the delivery of the Ram Brewery development which is a key strategic scheme that unlocks regeneration, homes and jobs. 6.5 Since 2013 there is clear intent from both the Regional Authority and the landowner that decommissioning should progress. The proposed policy wording would prevent this. 7.0 New Matters that have arisen since the original representations London Plan (FALP 2015) 7.1 The London Plan (FALP) contains additional text on Gas Supply within London. SGN is specifically referenced at paragraph 5.31F:- 5.31F Two companies share London s gas distribution network. National Grid serves the area north of the Thames as well as Battersea to Lambeth, and Southern Gas Networks the area south of the Thames. National Grid owns and operates the high-pressure transmission system, which transports gas from terminals to the two distribution networks, which operate at lower pressure. 7.2 The London Plan goes onto discuss the need for a decommissioning strategy at paragraph 5.31H: H There are numerous low-pressure gasholders in London. Only a few are still operational and both gas distribution companies pursue decommissioning strategies, which will result in brownfield land becoming available for development. The Mayor will work with them to prioritise decommissioning of those gasholder sites which have significant potential to contribute to the provision of new homes and jobs on and around them. 5

6 Planning guidance for hazardous installations (see Policy 5.22) will be prepared in cooperation with relevant stakeholders including the Health and Safety Executive to facilitate the de-commissioning process. 7.3 The London plan explicitly references the significant potential that such sites have to contribute to the provision of new homes and jobs both on site and around them. The proposed new text at DMI 1 takes no account of this London Plan objective. 8.0 New Matters that have arisen since the original representations LPR1/ LPR1/12 - Local Plan Review - 2nd Proposed Submission Statement of Consultation (2015) Para 3.6 (page 6) states the following:- Release of industrial land 3.6 A number of representors, including Scotia Gas Networks in relation to the Wandsworth Gasholder Site, suggested that their site should be released for residential led development. Again this is not accepted as the release of industrial land would need to be evidenced by an update to the Council s Employment Land Study. Without such an evidence base, the piecemeal release of sites would undermine the Council s protection of all sites designated for industry throughout the Borough. It is however recognised that in the medium to long term there is potential to redevelop the sites between Wandsworth Town Centre and Wandsworth Riverside and it is therefore proposed to commission an update of the Employment Land Study to inform the next review of the Council s Local Plan which is expected to take place in the next two to three years. 8.2 LPR1/12 - Local Plan Review - 2nd Proposed Submission Statement of Consultation (2015) Appendix 4 Page 149 Reference DMPD69 states something similar:- Objection noted. The Council considers that the text should remain as stated. The wording has been introduced for clarification that other uses which may impact upon existing industrial uses are not acceptable in the industrial area. Other uses do not include the uses identified in DMPD Policy DMI1 as appropriate to the industrial areas. In relation to flexibility in relation to the use of the Wandsworth gasholder site, any release of land allocated for 6

7 industry and waste would need to be evidenced by an update of the Council's Employment Land Study (2010). This will be undertaken as part of the next review of the Local Plan. No changes proposed. 8.3 With regards to these statements, it is incorrect in our view to delay removal of Policy DMI 1(c) or de-allocate pending an updated Council Employment Land Study (which may take two to three years). The exclusion of the Gasholder site from Policy DMI 1 does not need to be evidenced through an updated Employment Land Study as the site allocation is contrary to the 2015 London Plan, and indeed the adopted 2011 London Plan. The Gasholder site is subject to a London Plan policy and supporting text which actively seeks redevelopment to release its significant potential to contribute to the provision of new homes and jobs. The demand and supply of employment land in the borough has limited bearing on the future allocation of the Gasholder site as it is subject to a different and bespoke policy test. 8.4 It would also seem counterproductive to delay decommissioning (and strengthen policy) for a number of years in light of the existing blight across the Ram Brewery site (Promoted by Core Strategy Policies for Places: Policy PL 12) certainly where the Council has stated that redevelopment is likely to take place in any event It is recognised that in the medium to long term there is potential to redevelop the sites between Wandsworth Town Centre and Wandsworth Riverside. 8.5 With regards to a wider release of land around the site not subject to London Plan Policy 5.22, we would again question the response set out in LPR1/12 that the release of industrial land would need to be evidenced by an update to the Council s Employment Land Study. In reducing the flexibility within Policy DMI 1 we would expect the Council to justify that proposal through an objective evidence base. We do not believe this exists, as evidenced by the proposal to commission an update of the Employment Land Study to inform the next review of the Council s Local Plan. If evidence does not exist to remove the site allocation (as argued by the Council) it also does not exist to support the proposed change. 8.6 The Council s Employment Land Study (LPR6/09) is five years old. The latest London SHLAA was published in January 2014 and the Inspector noted the requirement for more housing than is currently planned for (especially on surplus industrial land) and the need for Council s to demonstrate an understanding of the needs of business. The Council s Strategic Housing Market Assessment LPR6/10 is dated October

8 8.7 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF requires each local planning authority to ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals. 8.8 Paragraph 160 requires a clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their. Paragraph 161 states that: Reviews of land available for economic development should be undertaken at the same time as, or combined with, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments and should include a reappraisal of the suitability of previously allocated land. This has not happened. 8.9 Mixed use development will bring forward better employment space sooner, as well as housing, and therefore the lack of up to date evidence means that there cannot be any support for reducing flexibility within Policy DMI 1 as those benefits would be lost. 9.0 Conclusions 9.1 Whilst the London Plan, the Deputy Mayor and the site owner SGN have expressed a desire to decommission the site to enable sustainable development needs to be met, and allow delivery of the remainder of the Ram Brewery site, the Council is now proposing to remove the existing flexibility within Policy DMI1 which would prevent this established objective. We do not consider this to be a sound approach. 8

9 Appendix A The HSE has published the Planning Advice for Development near Hazardous Installations (PADHI) method as a guide to determine whether the HSE would advise against a development in the vicinity of a Control of Major Accident Hazard (COMAH) site or not. A decision matrix is used to indicate either an Advise Against or a Don t Advise Against development response from the HSE. This is based on: The zone the site is located in: Inner Zone, Middle Zone, Outer Zone The sensitivity of the development you are proposing: Levels 1 to 4 (4 being the most sensitive one) The three consultation zones surrounding the gasholder are highlighted within the padhi zone map provided by the HSE. For any development proposed within the inner zone, a 110m radius from the centre of the gasholder, the HSE would only advise approval of schemes with a sensitivity level of 1. This includes workplaces with less than 100 occupants and less than 3 occupied storeys, car parking, dwellings of 1 or 2 units only, hotel accommodation of less than 10 beds or 3 caravan/tent pitches, single carriageway roads or railways. Within the middle zone, a 250m radius, only development with a sensitivity level of 1 or 2 would be supported by the HSE. In addition to the uses above, this includes workplaces providing more than 100 occupants or more than 3 occupied storeys, housing developments of up to 30 dwellings with a density of no more than 40 per hectare, hotel accommodation of up to 100 beds or 33 caravan/tent pitches, major transport links and food, drink, retail, community, adult education and leisure facilities of between 250sqm and 5000sqm. Within the outer zone, a 340m radius, development with a sensitivity level of 1, 2 or 3 would be supported by the HSE. This expands the uses to allow for vulnerable members of the public (children, those with mobility difficulties or those unable to recognise physical danger) to be catered for. With regards to residential schemes this allows for larger housing developments. 9

10 10

11 Appendix B - SGN Land 11

12 Appendix C Ram Brewery Restrictions Storey Tower - Base 432m2 A1 - First/second (Part) - Residents only café and gym - Above residential units 6. 6 Storey building - Ground 538m2 of A3 use - Above 30 residential units 7. Single Storey building - A1/A3 use (1230m2 8. Single storey building - A1/A3 use (1230m2 9. Part 5/Part 10/ Part 12 storey buildings - Ground 585m2 of A1 (2 units) - Above 66 residential units (100% affordable) Storey building - Ground 238m2 of A1/A3 - Above 12 residential units 12