Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and delivery of a new co-living development and affordable workspace, alongside public realm improvements, soft and hard landscaping, cycle parking, servicing and delivery details and refuse and recycling provision.

 

Valerie Okeiyi, Principal Planning Officer introduced the report for demolition of existing buildings and delivery of a new co-living development and affordable workspace, alongside public realm improvements, soft and hard landscaping, cycle parking, servicing and delivery details and refuse and recycling provision.

 

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee:

 

• The principle of doing payment in lieu calculations is the same as it would be for a general residential scheme. This would be through the residual land value calculation. This looks at scheme costs and  revenue.
• Noise would be controlled through Building Control and Building Regulations.
• The HSE was consulted and satisfied that two staircases had been proposed. The fire statement was submitted and received no objections.
• The strategic housing market assessment is one of the evidence-based documents that is informing the emerging new Local Plan. This could be shared with members, and it would be published as part of the new Local Plan. This specifically looks at including a new policy on co-living, officers would take on board feedback from members.
• It is common that there would be viability assessments submitted with major residential planning applications. When a developer submits a viability assessment, there are reasonable costs to meet and a profit to generate , in order to facilitate the redevelopment being delivered.
• The minimum requirement of stay for the students would be three months, as required by the London Plan. Officers were not aware that there was a maximum stay allowable, this would up for negotiation between the applicant and the Council.
• Officers have had extensive discussion with the applicant regarding Section 278 works and as part of that, a  car parking bay would be provided for people with disabilities; along with a servicing bay.
• In terms of refuse collection, a condition requires submission of a Delivery and Servicing Plan, including details of waste management
• Excluding bills rent would be £1050 monthly per person; similar to the cost of renting in a HMO in the area.

 

Sian Roberts, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Services (ERS) attended the committee to speak in objection of the application.  She stated that the electoral reform services staff had not been properly engaged with by the developer. Her second point was around the planning application proposal, saying she felt they had not been properly replied to by planning officers. She proposed that there would be a pause, and that a decision not be made by the Committee until the group had been engaged with. They were also planning on installing solar panels, and her view is that this development would interfere with them.

 

The following was noted in response to questions to the objectors:

 

• The objector had contacted officers from the Council and various councillors on this issue, to no avail. Officers advised that our consultation on the planning application was thorough.
• Officers explained to members that records show that the group were consulted, records of this could be found on the planning website. Officers had spoken to another member of staff (who wasn’t present at the committee) and explained that they were unable to discuss whether the scheme would be approved or refused as the case as the application was still under consideration.
• Site notices were erected around the site, and the proposal was also advertised in the local press.
• In 2017/2018, ERS  responded on the Local Plan consultation. They had employed specialist planning agents to respond on their behalf. They considered mixed use, residential led, development was now inevitable at this location; and that ERS would need to ensure that its own site could be developed in a similar way to its neighbours.  
• A public exhibition was held by the developer for this scheme in May 2024. The applicant submitted a Statement of Community Involvement with their application, detailing their public consultation. Officers also held a Development Management Forum for the proposed development, which is advertised by site notice, inviting anyone interested in the local area, including neighbouring occupiers, to join that meeting. The council go beyond the statutory minimum in terms of planning consultation requirements.

 

Richard Quelch, Sarah Christie and Rob High, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. They had been in discussions with officers regarding these proposals since 2023. They had had a range of pre application discussions with the Council, including meeting with sustainability and transport officers. They had also worked with the Quality Review Panel and met the Planning Committee at the pre application stage last summer. They undertook public consultation on the scheme. In May 2024, they consulted circa 860 surrounding properties and businesses. Feedback from design officers, the Highways Department, the local lead flood authority, sustainability officers, the HSE and TfL was all positive regarding the scheme.

 

This scheme not only met the London plan shared living guidance, it exceeded it in a number of key areas, including the design standards on minimum studio sizes and amount of both internal and external amenity space. This scheme design had incorporated lessons learned from previous co living schemes in terms of studio layouts, amenity design to be ‘best in class’, the studios were well designed and at an average of 21 square metres.

 

The following was noted in response to questions to the applicant:

 

• The applicant met with the Civica Centre on the 25th of January 2023 to discuss bringing forward their site and the relationship of the two sites. Following this, the applicant further developed the plans and there was subsequently the public consultation event, where invites went out to 860 properties and businesses in the area.
• There would be a minimum stay for students of 3 months, there was no reference to  a maximum stay.
• From the applicant’s perspective, they did seek to engage and develop a wider masterplan with neighbouring owners. In terms of moving forward, they would be happy to meet with Civica to discuss the way in which the scheme would be built.
• The applicant could not verify the £10,000 cost for solar panels, their building was also further to the north which would minimise the impact from this scheme. There could be other alternatives, for example air source heat pumps that could possibly assist in terms of achieving the CO2 reduction that was being sought.

 

  

Officers advised that it was important to note that the council have a development plan led system and that a decision must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. The site allocation for this site says a tall building would be acceptable, and the principle of a mixed-use development is already accepted, with the site allocation having been consulted on over seven to eight years ago. Civica wrote to the council and supported the principle. A proposal to install solar panels now is in the knowledge that the area would be coming forward for redevelopment. . The other point that is raised in the September ERS consultation letter was around the ‘right to light’. Officers advised that there is a separate legislative regime for this.

 

The applicant agreed to add a recommendation to consult with electoral services.

 

The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning to sum up the recommendations as set out in the report. The proposal is for demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site for a co living development and affordable workspace; with public realm improvements, soft and hard landscaping cycle parking, servicing and deliveries facilities, and refuse and recycling facilities. The recommendation is for approval, subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement, and Members are also asked to note the addendum in those matters. It is also recommended  that the developer would consult with neighbours on the CMP required under condition 3, which will be amended appropriately to incorporate that requirement. The Chair moved that the recommendation be approved following a unanimous decision.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Committee authorise the Head of Development Management or the

Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability to GRANT

planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out below and

the completion of a section 106 legal agreement satisfactory to the Head of

Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards

& Sustainability that secures the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below.

 

2.2 That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or

the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability to make any

alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended measures and/or

recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power

provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chair (or in their

absence the Vice-Chair) of the Sub-Committee.

 

2.3 That the agreement referred to in resolution (2.1) above is to be completed no later

than 07/03/2025 within such extended time as the Head of Development

Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability

shall in their sole discretion allow; and

 

2.4 That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (2.1) within

the time period provided for in resolution (2.3) above, planning permission be

granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the

conditions.

 

Conditions/Informative Summary - Planning Application HGY/2024/2279 (the full

text of recommended conditions/informative is contained in Appendix 1 of the report.

 

Conditions

1. Time limit

2. Approved Plans and Documents

3. Materials

4. Boundary treatment and access control

5. Landscaping

6. Lighting

7. Site levels

8. Secure by design accreditation

9. Secure by design certification

10. Land contamination

11. Unexpected Contamination

12. NRMM

13. Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plan

14. Arboricultural Impact Assessment

15. Delivery and Servicing Plan and Waste Management

16. Cycle Parking

17. Basement Impact Assessment

18. Surface Water Drainage

19. Management and Maintenance

20. Piling

21. Thames Water Essential Infrastructure

22. Satellite Antenna

23. Restriction to Telecommunications apparatus

24. Architect Retention

25. Accessible Co-Living Accommodation

26. Noise Attenuation – Co-Living Accommodation

27. Restriction to Use Class

28. Energy Strategy

29. Overheating

30. BREEAM Certificate for ‘’Excellent’’

31. Living Roofs

32. Biodiversity Net Gain

33. Water consumption

34. Co-living Management Plan

 

Informatives

1) Co-operation

2) CIL liable

3) Hours of construction

Page 95

4) Party Wall Act

5) Street Numbering

6) Sprinklers

7) Water pressure

8) Asbestos

9) Secure by design