Thurston Road Industrial Estate Planning Application Local Meeting Notes

APPENDIX TO ITEM 3 Thurston Road Industrial Estate Planning Application Local Meeting Notes Due to the level of local interest, a local meeting was held on the evening of Monday 27 th June 2011 to discuss the redevelopment of the Thurston Road Industrial Estate. Attendance registers were circulated during the meeting which were signed by 24 people. In addition, seven people attended on behalf of the applicant: Paul Woods planning consultant, esa planning (PW) Andrew Gale planning consultant (AG) Steve Gibbons applicant, Empire Property Group (SG) John Fish applicant, L&Q (JF) Andy Bell EIA specialist (AB) Lucy Rosser EIA specialist (LR) Marcus Dellacroce transport specialist (MD) Representatives from the Council s Planning Service in attendance were: Emma Talbot (ET) Graham Harrington (GH) Lewisham Central ward Councillors in attendance were Cllr Stella Jeffrey and Cllr Michael Harris, who chaired the meeting. Following a short introduction by Cllr Harris, ET explained the planning context of the application and the fact that the scheme for an extension of time limit for implementation of an already approved scheme rather than an application for a new scheme. The Council are therefore limited in their consideration of the scheme to those matters which have changed since the scheme was considered by Members in November 2007 and approved in February 2008. ET explained that this meant that matters such as the design of the scheme and density had already been considered and deemed acceptable in 2007 and that as policies had not changed significantly since that time, these matters could not be reconsidered. The applicant is also unable to amend or revise the scheme and can only reapply for the scheme that was previously approved in 2008. They are able to provide further information to support the application to update environmental and transport data. The Council can impose new conditions and agree new obligations if necessary. The relationship of the scheme with Loampit Vale South does need to be considered as that scheme had not been submitted when Thurston was considered. There were also matters such as energy targets, targets for affordable housing and air quality policies that have changed significantly. ET agreed to provide a note explaining the context that could be appended to the local meeting note and could also be circulated to objectors. PW explained the main elements of the scheme which would remain unchanged from the 2007 application apart from altering a proposed biomass boiler originally secured by condition to a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit plus Photovoltaic (PV) cells. He also explained that the current application was accompanied by an updated Environmental Statement and Transport Assessment and that L&Q were joint applicant and would be responsible for delivering 90 affordable units in a mix of social rented and intermediate. Q. What does mezzanine actually mean

A. PW explained that this was effectively a first floor within the units Q. Are there only 118 car parking spaces for the residential units? If that is the case that is too few to meet the needs of a possible 800+ residents. A. PW confirmed that 118 car parking spaces would serve residents. Q. What is the split of social rented to intermediate units? A. 70/30 split between social rented and intermediate (also known as shared ownership) Comment. The thinking for the scheme and the area is not joined up. There are too many children and not enough infrastructure. There are concerns that residents of schemes surrounding the school site could look into the playground and give rise to safety issues. Q. Who are Empire Property Developments and how and who is financing the scheme? A. SG explained the background to Empire Property and how the scheme would be financed. ET also explained that given the position with school places and Primary School need, should planning permission be granted, the Council could seek a contribution towards schools which would be put towards expanding other schools and providing additional places. Q. Has the applicant considered the option cost for the site? A. SG and PW explained that they did not know of that term and were unable to answer that query. Q. Why isn t the infrastructure in place to deal with Primary School capacity which is overstretched with many local schools having bulge classes. A. GH explained that Lewisham Council was looking at options to expand existing schools and new sites within the two Pupil Place Planning Localities which cover Lewisham Town Centre. Recent reports to Mayor and Cabinet have been seeking ways to address this issue. Comment. The council are allowing too much housing for the infrastructure to cope with. Cllr Harris explained that there is a problem with capacity generally and this has been across London so there is significant pressure on existing schools which the Council are seeking to resolve. Comment. The site is too cramped and too dense. ET explained that in density terms, the policy position on guideline density has not changed since the scheme was considered in 2007. This means that this matter was

considered as part of the last application and would not be reconsidered as part of the current extension of time limit application. Q. Who is the developer? Who owns the land? A. SG explained there is a joint applicant; Empire Property and L&Q but L&Q own the land. Q. How long have the industrial units been vacant? A. SG explained that they ve been vacant for approximately 3 years and that those tenants were on short term leases. L&Q acquired the site in 2009. Q. Why has the scheme been delayed? A. Current market conditions delayed the scheme. SG explained that it is their intention to commence works in Autumn 2011, should permission be granted. Q. Will the units compete with Lewisham Town Centre? Concerns that existing tenants were being lost and that that would affect the vibrancy and economy of the town centre. A. SG did not feel this would be the case because of the type of large format retail units that would be restricted to non-food uses. He explained that previous tenants had been offered relocation packages and declined those offers. Q. The figures within the Transport Assessment are based on the Lewisham Town Centre Transport Capacity Study however, there are concerns that this report is flawed. Statements about over 5,000 spare spaces on rush hour trains were disputed as were the predicted drop in numbers using Lewisham trains services because of DLR, East London Line (now known as Overground) services and Thameslink. If people divert to these services, it is likely that they will make linked trips, first travelling by train to pick up those services. The report relies on transport capacity improvements through additional train carriages serving Lewisham, which are no longer committed. The effects of high density development is therefore overoptimistic and the travel impacts will be worse. A. MD stated that in undertaking the transport assessment they had used the available data in the study. ET explained that the points that had been raised were relevant to the reconsideration of the scheme and needed to be investigated and resolved. Officers would be reviewing these points with Transport colleagues in light of the issues raised. Comment. There were issues raised about the Council s corporate approach to deciding to reduce school capacity at a time when so many new developments were planned for the area. Q. If renewable energy is being updated, why aren t PV panels proposed to reclad the building by positioning them on the south facing side of the building?

A. PW explained that the necessary energy targets could be met using PVs on the roof only. ET added that the repositioning of PVs as a cladding would be likely to go beyond the limits for this type of application and be considered a design change rather than something that could be secured by condition or obligation alone. Q. In the ES addendum the wind impact assessment relies on the Loampit Vale assessment. Why hasn t this scheme carried out its own assessment? PPG13 encourages the use of public transport, walking and cycling so why has the scheme got 118 car parking spaces? Higher than Loampit Vale south. How has the impact of car parking for the retail been assessed for right turns into Jerrard Street? A. LR explained that the approach to wind assessment had been agreed with Council advisors as the Loampit Vale scheme had considered the cumulative impact with Thurston Road and remains valid for this application. It can be therefore be relied upon to understand the cumulative impact. MD explained that the scheme relies on the signalisation of Jerrard Street which would control right turns into Jerrard Street. Q. The Council can hear that people are extremely worried about the impacts of density, the effect on local services, the canyonisation of Loampit Vale, lack of green space and difficult access to the station. How liveable will this area be? What are the grounds for reconsidering this scheme? A. ET committed to circulate a note following the meeting explaining the context of the application and policy changes. Q. Where is Empire Property based and what is their share capital and who is their director? Why should the community be confidents that they can deliver this scheme? Is the scheme speculative? A. SG answered the specific questions about Empire Property Group and explained that as with any development, the scheme is speculative but that they had every intention of building the scheme if permission was granted. Q. Is financial viability a consideration? A. Cllr Harris explained that the financial position of a company and their intention or ability to carry out a development were not planning considerations. ET went on to explain that if planning permission is granted, a developer is under no obligation to implement a development and could not be forced to do so. The Council s involvement in financial viability was limited to understanding the finances of the scheme itself to determine whether it was proposing the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing if it was not meeting policy targets. Q. how can people be confident that the retail units would be occupied rather than be left without tenants like Silkworks?

A. SG explained that in his view, Thurston Road was in a better location than Silkworks being within but at the edge of the town centre and although no occupier was identified yet, he was confident they would be let. Comment. There are a number of schemes that have been submitted over the years for Lewisham Town Centre, each involving large documents. In this case the scheme is very large and involved lots of documents and changes to the scheme as well as tracked changes to documents. This makes the application inaccessible for local people. Reading the Environmental Statement, the documents are all drafted to demonstrate that the meet necessary targets but many of the chapter conclude that the impacts would not be too bad and there are very few chapters that show a good impact and most f this is speculative. There is only a tiny amount of social housing overall. Lewisham has the highest level of youth unemployment in the Borough and this needs to be addressed. The issue of options needs to be considered and alternatives for the site that could be much better than the scheme that is proposed should be included in the ES. The retail units proposed are too big Lewisham is losing small traders which bring money into the community. This scheme is an attack on small businesses. Q. When is the scheme likely to go to Planning Committee A. ET explained that the earliest would be July 21 st otherwise it would be after the August holiday period. Concerns were expressed that given the issues that people had raised at the local meeting, July was too early and people needed more time. ET explained that normally following a local meeting, changes may be expected to a scheme but in this case given the nature of the application the scheme was either going to be acceptable as it is or not. Therefore a potential July committee was an option. While there are concerns that not all issues can be considered and the attendees wished for clarification to make sure they were raising relevant issues, ET explained that the majority of letters were based on the standard letter format, raised relevant issues and were not just being dismissed. Comment. The design of the building is too blocky Q. Who would be the retailers? A. SG answered that that no end user was identified currently. SG also stated that he considered design to be subjective and felt that the scheme would not be a brutalist type design which some attendees had likened it to. Comment. A statement was read out on behalf of Lewisham People Before Profit. It was felt that the planning system is a dictatorship with rule based on force and unmediated by any law. Developers and big businesses are also a dictatorship and they get what they want. Councillors have to be careful about what they say, planning has to be careful how they consider things. Everyone is in a vice apart from a developer who can keep coming back because the market has fallen and planning law allows them to. People in Lewisham have needs for jobs with 25 people for every job. Lewisham is losing small businesses and big retailers coming in squeeze out those jobs. Lewisham needs housing instead what is being built is sold abroad. There are needs for school places the capacity at Lewisham Bridge

Primary School has been reduced which has caused problems. More open space is needed. Lewisham is too crowded and there is too much reliance on Cornmill Gardens. Lewisham is denser than Bromley and areas such as Bombay and Mumbai. Lewisham is being forced to accept poor schemes. Q. If planning permission is refused who do the applicant appeal to? A. ET answered that the Planning Inspectorate would consider any appeal. ET went on to explain that each scheme is considered on its own merits and is considered fairly against planning policies. If a scheme has a negative impact or breaches policy, the Council are able to refuse a scheme but each will have to be judged individually. Q. How are local people meant to defend themselves against bid developers who have greater resources? A. ET and GH explained that the planning system works in the public interest and on behalf of local people. Decisions are made by locally elected Councillors. Comment. There were concerns that because policies were not supported by local people and were taken forward despite local objections, in practice a development would be compliant but would still be objectionable to local people. Q. How does an un-prejudicial mindset [for Councillors] work in practice? This approach is skewed in favour of developers as it means that Councillors are unable to support local people. A. Cllr Harris explained that Councillors have to go to Planning Committees with an open mind about a scheme. He considered that he was able to work in the interests of local people and keep an open mind. Q. Schemes continue to propose 1 and 2 bed flats which are very small rather than large family houses. Why are such small units being allowed? A. ET explained that emerging London Plan policy had increased minimum room sizes for developments and that this scheme would be considered against that new policy. Q. Why hasn t the ES considered cumulative impacts with the scheme at 52-54 Thurston Road? A. ET explained that this scheme did not have planning permission and was therefore not considered to be a committed scheme for the purposes of undertaken an ES review. However, it was explained that the scheme at that site would have to consider cumulative impacts with Thurston Road Industrial Estate as this was a committed scheme. Comment. Recently open space has had a financial value placed on it. Has the value of open space on a price per person basis been taken into account? A. GH explained that research on the value of open space was interesting, but that planning policy did not currently address open space in this way.

Q. How long does Lewisham Gateway have planning permission for? Are they intending to implement the scheme? A. ET explained that the Council understood that Lewisham Gateway Developments Ltd were still committed to the scheme and that commencement had been delayed because of the economic downturn. The length of the permission was longer than the Thurston Road Industrial Estate because it was a mostly outline permission (roads and rivers were fully detailed) with reserved matters which were effectively major application in themselves. Overall the permission was estimated to be for 8 years [post meeting note: the planning permission requires the submission of Reserved Matters applications within 10 years of the grant of planning permission]. GH explained that an outline consent approves the principle of a development, mix and amount of floorspace as well as the overall massing within which individual buildings would be designed. The details of the reserved matters would be fully considered against the relevant policies at that time. Q. Does the transport capacity study take into account development around Creekside both in Lewisham and in Greenwich along the corridor of the DLR that would reduce available capacity? A. GH said that the Council would look into this. Q. With the abolition of the PCT, who is making decisions about healthcare needs? A. GH explained that the details of future healthcare decision making bodies was unknown currently. Cllr Jeffrey explained that the context has not changed yet and that the PCT would still be available but just in smaller numbers. Comment. People want housing and jobs in Lewisham but don t want to live in Croydon. Something needs to happen in the town centre but what is proposed is oppressive and needs to be much more positive. The decision was taken to build to high density despite local people opposing that policy position. Comment. The site should be used for a park or school. Alternatively it should be providing housing for the people of Lewisham and much more social housing. Q. No-one has said anything about the aesthetics of the design from the applicant s side. Lewisham Gateway had a master planner that was retained which gave some comfort. For this scheme, nothing has been said to convince people that there is any design quality. A. SG explained that Empire Property and L&Q were seeking to implement a scheme that had already been designed. ET stated that the design could not be altered given that the application was for an extension of time limit application. Q. At committee, there needs to be more Members in order to make a decision on whether or not to grant planning permission and it can t be left to the chair s casting vote. A. ET stated that the Committee process was a formal process and that as part of this application it would not be possible to change the way Planning Committee s are carried out.

Thurston Road Industrial Estate Extension of time Limit Planning Application DC/10/76005 - Overview The present application seeks to extend the time limit for implementation of a scheme that, having already been granted planning permission at an earlier date, has by definition been judged to be acceptable in principle. The local planning authority therefore has to make a decision focusing on national or local policies which may have changed significantly since the original grant of planning permission and any other relevant material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of planning permission. Government guidance in the form of Greater flexibility for planning permissions (October 2010) states that authorities should take a positive and constructive approach towards applications which improve the prospect of sustainable development being taken forward more quickly. In this context, the main planning considerations are whether the scheme complies with relevant development plan policies (London Plan and Development Plan Documents (DPDs) included in Lewisham s Local Development Framework (LDF)), national policies and London-wide and Lewisham guidance which have changed since permission was originally grated. It is also important for the Council to take account of other significant changes that have taken place. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan at the time of the Council s consideration of the previous application in November 2007 comprised the London Plan (2004) and the saved policies of the Lewisham UDP (2004, saved 2007) although proposed revisions to the London Plan were at an advanced stage of preparation and were taken into account. Since November 2007, the Mayor of London has published the London Plan consolidated with alterations (February 2008) and the Council is very close to adopting its Core Strategy (which replaces some but not all UDP policies). The statutory development plan now comprises the London Plan (2008), Core Strategy (2011) and saved policies of the UDP (2004, saved 2007). In addition, the Mayor of London is at an advanced stage of adopting the Draft Replacement London Plan and the Council has prepared a Further Options Report for the proposed Lewisham Town Centre AAP. This note, whilst not exhaustive, sets out the key changes to the policy position since 2007 that are relevant to this scheme as well as material changes that also need to be considered in order to assess whether it would be appropriate to extend the time limit within which this permitted scheme could be implemented. Key policy changes since 2007: The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations (2010) puts the Government tests on the use of planning obligations set out in Circular 5/05 on a statutory basis. PPS3 Planning for Housing (June 2010) which updates the 2006 version and proposed Technical change to Annex B (February 2011), which proposes changes to the definition of affordable housing

PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009), which subsumed and updated previous guidance in PPG 4 and PPS6 PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010) replaced PPG15 & 16 PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (March 2011) PPG13 Transport (updated January 2011) PPS25 Development and Floodrisk (March 2010). London Plan Industrial Capacity SPG (March 2008) London Plan Providing for Children + Young People s Play etc. SPG (March 2008) Mayor of London Interim London Housing Design Guide (August 2010) London Plan Housing SPG EiP Draft (August 2010) Lewisham Planning Obligations SPD (January 2011). In addition to changes in the planning framework, the following key relevant changes in context have taken place since the previous application was determined: * Lewisham Bridge Primary School was listed in April 2009 * Loampit Vale and Prendergast Vale School are under construction and Lewisham Gateway has been approved * the Environment Agency has published updated flood projections for this part of the town centre * The national economy is in recession (or at least has been). As a result of these changes to policy and guidance and other material considerations, the main changes of relevance to this application are: The proposed relationship with Loampit Vale South and Prendergast Vale school and cumulative impact with those schemes and a consented Lewisham Gateway Scheme The percentage policy target for affordable housing has increased from 35% to 50% Policies have been re-structured with greater emphasis on carbon dioxide emissions (as opposed to energy), clearer targets on such emissions, greater emphasis on decentralised energy and less emphasis on renewable energy LBL policy calls for a minimum of Code for Sustainable Home Level 4 (rather than 3) and for non-residential development to meet BREEAM Excellent Draft Replacement London Plan and the Mayor of London s Interim Housing Design Guide include minimum housing size standards (which are in some cases more demanding than those in LBL s Residential Standards SPD) Residential cycle parking standards have increased Draft Replacement London Plan calls for the inclusion of some Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) TfL guidance has changed on travel planning, servicing and construction logistics

Draft London Plan calls for the smoothing of traffic flows and takes a tougher stance on the introduction of signal controlled junctions Minimum play space size guidance has been adopted Increased need for school places (particularly Primary) has been identified Air quality policies have been strengthened Flood modeling has been updated Guidance on appropriate planning obligations has been adopted to identify potential Section 106 contributions Those matters where policy objectives and guidance have not changed significantly since 2007 are: LBL policies/guidance relating to residential quality LBL policies relating to loss of business uses Indicative density guidelines within the London Plan policy LBL policies relating to the suitability of tall buildings in Lewisham Town Centre and the need for development to be of high quality design The need for mixed used development The suitability of the site for retail development