Agenda item

Application No: 2014/1617/P Officer: David Fowler

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and redevelopment for a 24 storey building and a part 7 part 5 storey building comprising a total of 184 residential units (Class C3) and up to 1,041sqm of flexible retail/financial or professional or café/restaurant floorspace (Classes A1/A2/A3) inclusive of part sui generis floorspace for potential new London Underground station access fronting Avenue Road and up to 1,350sqm for community use (class D1) with associated works including enlargement of existing basement level to contain disabled car parking spaces and cycle parking, landscaping and access improvements.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant conditional permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and referral to the Mayor of London for his direction.

Consideration was also given to the additional information contained in the supplementary report and Members examined a model of the proposed development and its surroundings.

In response to questions from Members, Andrew Jones of BPS, the Council’s viability advisers, stated that there were three basic components of overall viability: development value of the scheme, minus the costs of the delivery of it, which gave the residual value which was then compared to the benchmark site value.  A high existing use value was always a constraint on viability.  When looking at the value of the scheme itself the developer used a proxy based on private sales values so was starting at an artificially high level.  The scheme was showing a deficit of £3m and was in fact proposing to deliver more than might reasonably be expected.  The units which were at a discounted market rent for 15 years were offered to ameliorate concerns over the low level of affordable housing and the reversion back to market rent after that period had been reflected in the calculations.  In relation to the proxy valuation, the developer had initially used a blended rate for all the units but it had been pointed out to them that units higher up in the block would have a greater value and so they had subsequently provided a graded valuation which was considered acceptable.  The community space was in a block that was otherwise made up of affordable housing and so there was a different cost plan attached to it.  As it was not designed as housing it could not really be accurately evaluated.  The Section 106 agreement would ensure that viability would be reviewed if actual rents exceeded expectations and an extra contribution to affordable housing could then be sought.  Similarly, if the top floors were reassigned to value generating uses, that extra value would trigger an extra contribution to affordable housing.  The Planning Officer added that the top floors would be amenity space for the private rented sector units and any change of use to residential would require planning permission.  The community space was also secured by the Section 106 agreement and any change of use to that would trigger a reappraisal of viability.

Members then considered the deputations and written submissions referred to in Item 4 above.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee during the course of the discussion, officers made the following additional comments:-

·         The development would result in some loss of light to neighbouring properties and gardens and for about one hour a day the impact would be substantially different to the existing situation - this was considered acceptable.  The daylight/sunlight study had concluded that the impact would not be noticeable to the nearest residential properties on Finchley Road.

·         The Density Matrix was a guideline and the density range was a broad one.  Other issues, such as streetscape, design and amenity, also needed to be taken into account when determining whether a density was acceptable.

·         The London Plan considered this location to be ‘central’ and it was considered to be a town centre, as defined in the Local Development Framework, due to the land use mix and the high level of accessibility via public transport.

·         Transport for London were supportive of the proposal and did not envisage it causing any problems in relation to public transport.

·         A construction management plan and delivery servicing plan would be required by the Section 106 agreement and would be subject to approval by the planning authority.  The servicing road existed at present and there was likely to be less servicing to the proposed building than to the existing one.

·         A number of tall buildings had gone up in London over recent years and it was considered that this site could accommodate such a building.

·         If the development resulted in pressure on local education and health services this would be looked at, and there were significant contributions to health and education required under the terms of the Section 106 agreement to help mitigate any such impacts.

·         Vehicle access would be via Winchester Road and Eton Avenue, as it was currently.  Emergency vehicle access would be from Avenue Road or Eton Avenue, using rising bollards or a similar mechanism.

·         It was difficult to predict the number of vehicle movement during the construction phase, but it could be 40 to 45 construction vehicles a day, of which around 5 might be large articulated vehicles.

·         There were 49 parking spaces under the existing building.  There would be 13 disabled spaces under the new building.  It was therefore anticipated that there would be fewer vehicle movements than there were at present.  It was also considered that residential buildings received fewer service deliveries in areas with a high PTAL rating than did office buildings.

·         The Greater London Authority considered the design to be of high quality and to integrate well with its surroundings.

·         It was considered that 8 views, of the 27 that were looked at, would suffer varying degrees of harm as a result of the proposed development but there was not considered to be any substantial harm overall and, when such harm was balanced against planning gain, the proposal was considered acceptable.

·         There would be no long term effect on Swiss Cottage Market from traffic, as that area was pedestrianized, and the short term effect would be managed by the construction management plan.  There would be some increase in wind around the market at certain times of the year but this was not considered significant.

·         There would be 184 residential units in total, of which 36 would be affordable housing (25% of the floorspace).  In the tower there would be 130 private rented sector units and in the lower block there would be 18 private rented sector units which would be at a discounted market rent for 15 years.  This meant that 34.4% of the floorspace would be either affordable or at discounted market rent for 15 years.

The applicant confirmed that the building was designed to modern fire safety standards, with an integrated sprinkler system, and would be serviced in a similar way to the existing building.  It was also confirmed that the affordable housing would be managed by a registered provider.  The units subject to a discounted market rent would be let on ordinary tenancies.  The 15 year discounted period reflected the guidance in the Mayor’s housing strategy.

Members of the Committee made the following comments on the application:-

·         Concern was expressed about the degree of overshadowing of the surrounding area that would result from this development and the impact that this would have on living conditions and the quality of the Swiss Cottage Open Space.

·         The density of the proposed development significantly exceeded the London Plan Density Matrix.  Whilst such a density might be considered suitable for a central London location, this was not such a location.

·         This area should not be considered a ‘town centre’ – it had some excellent facilities but was predominantly residential, with shopping facilities located further north along Finchley Road.

·         The impact of a high density development on issues such as access, how people would get their shopping deliveries and how people would move in and out of building was not satisfactorily addressed.

·         The potential impact of this development on local health and education services was a matter of concern.

·         The high level of construction traffic in the area during the development phase could cause congestion on local roads.

·         There was concern regarding the impact of the proposal on views from the surrounding conservation areas, which in some cases were considered significant.

·         The test applied in relation to the impact on views from a conservation area should have been whether the proposal was harmful to the conservation area, not whether it was acceptable when balanced against planning benefits.

·         It would have been helpful if the report had contained all the key views and had explained in more detail how the eight views were harmed.

·         This area did not require another ‘landmark’ building and the contribution to public open space in the area would not be needed if this proposal were not going to harm the existing public open space.

·         It was very important that a new home was found for the Winchester Project.

On being put to the vote, with 2 in favour of the officer recommendation, 5 against and 2 abstentions, it was

RESOLVED –

THAT the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1          The proposed development by reason of its height, bulk, mass, design and density represents overdevelopment of the site which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of surrounding conservation areas and the local area generally, contrary to policies CS5 and CS14 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and DP24 and DP25 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

2          The proposed development by reason of its height, bulk and mass would result in loss of amenity, especially overshadowing to the adjacent Swiss Cottage Open Space and surrounding areas contrary to policies CS5, CS14 and CS15 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and DP26 and DP31 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

                        ACTION BY:             Director of Culture and Environment