Agenda item

Kidbrooke Village, Phase 5, Building A & B and South Cator Park, Kidbrooke, London, SE3 9YG - Ref: 23/3976/F

Ward: Kidbrooke Village and Sutcliffe

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission the erection of residential units, publicly accessible open space and associated access, car parking, cycle parking and landscaping, erection of a new pavilion building within the park.

Decision:

Resolved that full planning permission be granted for the erection of residential units, publicly accessible open space and associated access, car parking, cycle parking and landscaping, erection of a new pavilion building within the park.

 

Consent subject to:

(i)           Referral of the application to the Mayor of London as required under the terms of The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008;

(ii)          The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement (obligations set out in Section 23 of the main report); and

(iii)        Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and the addendum.

 

That the Assistant Director, Planning & Building Control, be authorised to:

(i)           Make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and the addendum and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting, where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the final decision notice

 

(ii)         Finalise the detailed terms of the section 106 agreement (including appended documents) and form of the planning obligations as set out in Section 23 of the main report and the addendum and the minutes of this Planning Board meeting

 

(iii)        Consider, in the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within three (3) months of the date of this Planning Board resolution, whether consent should be refused on the grounds that the agreement has not been completed within the appropriate timescale, and that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of the recommended planning obligations; and if the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, to determine the application with reasons for refusal which will include the following:

·     In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the necessary obligations regarding Affordable Housing, Wheel Chair units, Transportation, Healthcare, Telecommunication and radio signals, Play space, Employment and Training, and Sustainability, the development would fail to mitigate its impact on local housing supply, amenities and infrastructure, environmental sustainability and open space contrary to policies H1, H4, H5, H6, SI 2, SI 5, ad S4 of the London Plan (2021) and H3, H5, H(e), and E1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (Adopted July 2014), and the Planning Obligations (s106) Guidance SPD (July 2015).

Minutes:

Planning Board Members noted a public submission and that of the applicant and an addendum report was produced by Planning Officers which were circulated in advance of the meeting They accepted an illustrative presentation of the application from the Planning Officer.

 

The planning Officer confirmed the onsite trees had been assessed by and arborist, were of mixed variety and quality, which the Council’s Tree Officer was aware of.  The replacement trees would be semi mature and any which died within 5 years would be replaced.  Further, it was confirmed that where the residential units were proposed, was not designated Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and the principle of development in this location had been established by the existing permission.  The developer had also agreed to make a financial payment in line with that requested by the NHS.  Any further road or cycle path improvements would be captured by the s106 agreement.

 

Planning Board accepted an address from 2 residents who, speaking in objection to the proposal raised that the felling of 86 mature trees did not support a healthy air quality or the Councils’ climate change objectives.  That the buildings should be moved back in order to save all the trees.

 

The objectors also flet that theKidbrooke Villagedevelopment wasoverdeveloped and had seen an increase of 30%, on the approved plans. There was insufficient infrastructure and amenities, such as Doctors surgery’s, schools, etc., to support a further 10,000people ina relativelysmall area.  Train services from Kidbrooke Station to central London had been reduced. Alton Road was full of parked cars and congested, by parents taking children to the only primary school, rated high level, in the area.

 

That the design style was different to the existing development and needed to look more organic and be of a lower height.  Consent would make it difficult for the Planning Board to refuse amendments to the plan for the Blackheath Quarter.  The affordable housing offer would not be truly affordable to residents of the Borough on an average income.

 

In response to questions from Members, the speakers stated there was at least one Oak tree on site and several of the trees were substantially mature trees.  Whilst there were other schools in the area, they needed uplifting.

 

Planning Board accepted an address from two representatives from Thomas Tallis School who read a letter from the parent of a child at the school, which raised concerns that the felling of mature trees would add to emissions posing a health for children.  Students felt the area should be retained as common land and not be developed.

 

They said that Berkeley Homes had not contacted Thomas Tallis school about the development. The new trees would not bea satisfactoryexchange, for established trees capable of surviving dry weather.  They felt the removal of green spaces contradicted the LondonPlan andthe Councils’ Greener Greenwich Strategy and no replacement was proposed for loss of wildlife habitats.

 

The poor public transport, including overcrowded busses was leaving children struggling to get on them, in themorning and roadsafety accidents hadaffected the children.

 

In response to Members questions the two speakers confirmed that they were teachers and one was the Community Gardner at Thomas Tallis School, and the Head Teacher had approved their attendance.  They were only made aware of the proposal on the preceding Wednesday.  That there were several play spaces on Kidbrooke Village and the development area should be a communal area, as an extensionof thepark, open to all children. Thomas Tallis ran arboriculture and horticultural courses for pupils, using the Cator area, as well as the Wetland park.

 

Planning Board accepted an address from Ward Councillor David Sullivan, who supported the application, noting the small number of objectors speaking on the application and that the area was identified for development as part of the 2006 Master Plan. That investigation work, with the GLA, was ongoing to mitigate traffic issues and improving cyclists and pedestrians safety.

 

Councillor Sullivan noted that the trees had been left neglected for 50 years and had been assessed by the Council’s Tree Officer and he was not aware of any Oak trees in the area.  He noted that the trees could have been removed anytime in the past 12-15 years as part of the existing permissions. 

 

Planning Board accepted an address from the applicant’s representative who addressed the points raised, advising 9,000 consultation letters were distributed by the developer and having checked could confirm Thomas Tallis was within this consultation area.

 

The trees to be felled had been graded as ofpoor orailing condition and the one Oak Tree in the area was not on the site of the proposal.  one Oak Tree in the area was not on the site of the proposed dwellings.  Where possible the removed trees would be repurposed as naturalfurniture, bordertrails, streetpathways, generalwildlife habitats and allowing some to rot in in the parkland environment.  A mix of round 260 semi-mature native species trees would be planted, each around six to eight metres minimumheight. in enriched soil and covered by afive-year protectedloss program, by conditon.  Further, they noted that re-planted immature trees had a longer life expectancy than re-planted mature trees.  The effectiveness of the tree canopy and thecrown cover had also been evaluated by specialists and, whilst it will take time, the crown cover would exceed that currently existing.

 

Green streets would be created forming a bufferfor pedestrians and residents facing onto theroad from the road.  In addition to street greening the proposed podium gardens, green roofs,and enhancements to the park, including shrub areas and ponds, would provide a quality range of biodiversity gains.  The applicant already had a close working relationships with the Friends of the Park and London Wildlife Trust and would be happy to develop similar relationships with Thomas Tallis.

 

It was noted the proposal was on the area identified by extant planning consent, and it was not possible to relocate the buildings further East as it would then sit on MOL.

 

The proposal would maintain 35% affordable housing across the masterplan and the split of the proposed uplift affordable housing would be 70%/30% affordable andshared ownership.  Some windows would be orientated to support privacy and some homes close to ground level would be slightly elevated to give a greater sense of security. Grey water storage was discussed at it was confirmed that the proposal features two SuDs which would allow rainwater to permeate. The applicant noted that the situation with Kidbrooke Park Road was outside of the applicants’ control due to this being a TfL road.

 

Members moved to consider the application and it was noted that the areawas alwaysdesignated for development and extant planning consent existed for the site and this applicationincreased the affordable housing.

 

The mitigation’s proposed, particularly on transport and move to car free, balanced the development in favour of support.  The amount and the quality of green space would be better than when it formed part of the previous Ferrier Estate. The applicants commitment to work with ThomasTallis School was welcomed and it was requested that any trees that could be saved, were.  

 

The Chair put the recommendation to grant planning consent to the vote with

5 Members in favour

0 Members against

0 Members abstaining

 

Resolved unanimously

 

·        That full planning permission be granted for the erection of residential units, publicly accessible open space and associated access, car parking, cycle parking and landscaping, erection of a new pavilion building within the park.

 

·        That consent subject to:

(i)     Referral of the application to the Mayor of London as required under the terms of The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008;

(ii)    The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement (obligations set out in Section 23 of the main report); and

(iii)  Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and the addendum.

 

·        That the Assistant Director, Planning & Building Control, be authorised to:

(i)   Make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and the addendum and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting, where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the final decision notice

 

(ii)    Finalise the detailed terms of the section 106 agreement (including appended documents) and form of the planning obligations as set out in Section 23 of the main report and the addendum and the minutes of this Planning Board meeting

 

(iii)  Consider, in the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within three (3) months of the date of this Planning Board resolution, whether consent should be refused on the grounds that the agreement has not been completed within the appropriate timescale, and that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of the recommended planning obligations; and if the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, to determine the application with reasons for refusal which will include the following:

·     In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the necessary obligations regarding Affordable Housing, Wheel Chair units, Transportation, Healthcare, Telecommunication and radio signals, Play space, Employment and Training, and Sustainability, the development would fail to mitigate its impact on local housing supply, amenities and infrastructure, environmental sustainability and open space contrary to policies H1, H4, H5, H6, SI 2, SI 5, ad S4 of the London Plan (2021) and H3, H5, H(e), and E1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (Adopted July 2014), and the Planning Obligations (s106) Guidance SPD (July 2015).

Supporting documents: