RECOMMENDATION:  That Members give delegated authority to Officers to finalise the precise wording of the conditions and the Design Code and subject to referral of the application to the Greater London Authority and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, the Head of Development Management / Planning Decisions Manager in accordance with Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Sharon Davidson, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues.

2.    There are three applications on the agenda this evening and all are interrelated.

Firstly, by way of context it is important to set out what the development plan says about the role of and expectations for Meridian Water.

3.    Meridian Water lies within the boundary of the Edmonton Leeside Area Action Plan (ELAAP) and is a priority area for regeneration, jobs and housing. It is a long-established opportunity area through Enfield’s Core Strategy, the London Plan and the Upper Lee Valley Opportunity Area Framework. The Core Strategy and ELAAP identify the site as being able to accommodate around 5000 homes and 1500 new jobs.  So far planning permission has been granted for 725 homes on the Phase 1 site. The Phase 2 application proposes up to a further 2300 and therefore well within the capacity identified through the plan process for this site.

4.    It is recognised in the ELAAP that additional growth in housing, jobs and supporting services at Meridian Water will lead to higher densities and building heights. To achieve this change, the transport infrastructure of the area must be transformed with a focus on improved public transport accessibility and connectivity. The plan identifies the need for:

·         relocation of the station;

·         a more frequent and comprehensive bus service;

·         a network of walking and cycling routes that enable better connectivity across MW;

·         a transformed road network that includes a new route over the River Lee Navigation.

5.    The ELAAP identifies a Central Spine Corridor within which a new east -west spine road will sit.

6.    ELAAP recognises that at MW there are currently very limited areas of open space with poor public access to recreational spaces and waterways. The Plan therefore recognises that development here must deliver a network of open spaces that can provide visual and leisure amenity. Whilst it is clear that new housing and employment development must be supported by appropriate open space and play space, it is recognised that MW is constrained in terms of accommodating open and green spaces within the development boundary and meeting the housing and job targets, due to the limited availability of land. The development therefore needs to make provision in proportion to the quantum of development proposed and also look to improvements to the accessibility and quality of existing open space. An indicative green network is provided in the ELAAP and this included at p 54 of your report pack.

MW is crossed by two brooks, one canalised river and an overflow channel. Fluvial flood risk is therefore a key consideration to the development of the site – parts of the site are located in Flood Zone 2 and 3. In conjunction with the green infrastructure, waterways must be managed to ensure MW resilience to climate change, bringing benefits to immediate communities and the wider region. The plan requires that all developments must be safe from flooding and must not increase the flood risk elsewhere. Adequate flood risk mitigation measures must be in place for any development prior to the loss of any existing flood storage associated with the development. This may include the early provision of strategic area-wide flood compensation where appropriate, or compensation may be provided on a phased basis, providing no net reduction in flood volumes occurs during or after development.

7.    The Phase 2 application. This is an outline application with all matters reserved. The application however seeks to establish the parameters within which future reserved matters submission would need to fit. These parameters include the maximum quantum of development that is proposed:

·         up to 2300 residential units

·         up to 18,000 sq.m of purpose-built student accommodation or large -scale             purpose built living accommodation

·         up to 16,000sq.m hotel

·         up to 26,500sq.m of commercial floor space

·         up to 2000 sq.m of retail floor space

·         up to 5500 sq.m of social infrastructure floor space

·         and a new up to 3 form entry primary school

8.    The parameter plans which are for approval demonstrate how this might be accommodated on the site by establishing  the extent of building plots, the points of access and siting/layout of internal access roads and public realm, levels to roads and public realm, maximum heights of buildings,  the distribution of uses around the site  and the location of protected frontages where there is a need for activation.

9.    The parameter plans show the maximum extent of the scale of the development and an illustrative scheme has been submitted to demonstrate one form in which the development may be implemented to comply with these parameters. This however only illustrative and is not for approval.

10.The parameter plans provide for buildings heights varying from 2 storeys (the small pavilion buildings identified in the new ‘squares/public realm’ and up to 22 storeys for the plot north of the confluence of the Pymmes and Salmons Brooks.  There are 2x 18 storey building north of Riverside Square and south of the Central Spine Road and a 16-storey building at the southern end of the site. Beyond that buildings range between 5 and 12 storeys across the site.

11.The application is supported by a design code. This will inform the future reserved matters applications and will establish design parameters for the site.  The Design Code breaks the site down into a number of character areas – for example Bridge Street (the CSR), the riverside, the community streets etc. The code then seeks to establish approaches to design in these character areas that will help create their identity. A design code seeks to deal with matters such as the material palette for the character areas, the approach to balconies, how frontages can be broken up, how cycle and bin stores are to be dealt with etc. Officers have spent a considerable amount of time working with the applicant to produce a code which is clear, legible and robust. Discussions are still on-going to refine the detailed wording within the code and therefore we are seeking delegated authority to allow us to continue these discussions and agree the final design code before any decision is issued.

12.This application seeks to provide 43% affordable housing by habitable room. This is in accordance with local policy which presently seeks 40% provision. It is recognised that the draft London Plan policy seeks 50% provision on industrial land but the GLA themselves have reviewed the viability report submitted with this application and have that this is not deliverable at the present time and have accepted that the level of affordable housing proposed is the maximum that can currently be supported.  Nevertheless, and in the context of the timescale for this development the S106 will include review mechanisms to provide the opportunity to update the viability position as development progresses with a view to securing additional affordable housing.

13.In terms of tenure mix, the Core Strategy requires a split of 70% social rent and 30% intermediate. The draft London Plan seeks to secure a minimum of 30% low cost rent homes as either London Affordable Rent or Social Rent, a minimum of 30% intermediate products,  which meet the definition of genuinely affordable housing including London Living Rent and London Shared Ownership, with the remaining 30% to be determined by the borough as low cost rented homes or intermediate products.

14.The applicant is proposing 70% in the form of low cost rented housing and 30% as Discounted Market Rent/Intermediate Housing. Notwithstanding the objector’s position on the affordability of the housing products proposed, the proposals meets the requirements of planning policy.

15.One objector has raised questions regarding the loss of existing businesses on the site and what this means for jobs.

It should be noted that this site has been identified for regeneration to provide up to 5000 new homes and 1500 jobs since the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2010. Therefore, businesses within MW have been aware of the likelihood of development for some time. Indeed, the Council has now acquired the industrial land within the application site and the existing businesses have occupied in the knowledge of short leases that facilitate regeneration going forward. It is estimated that there are 205 full time equivalent jobs on the site at present. The Phase 2 application makes provision for 26,500sq.m of new workspace which will provide the opportunity for new job creation. Excluding construction, it is estimated that this quantum of floorspace would generate approximately 1000 jobs.

16.Sports provision is another issue raised by an objector. Sport England have indeed raised an objection to the development as set out on p.97 of the report. As already stated, the development is only capable of making provision for a certain quantum of open space if the site as a whole is going to be able to deliver the homes and jobs needed. There is only a finite amount of land. However, within the space available the SIW application does provide an opportunity for a sports pitch on Edmonton Marshes, there would be a MUGA associated with the school and sports clubs could come forward to take up some of the social infrastructure space.  In addition, a contribution of £150k will be made to enhance existing local facilities.

17.Additional items to report -

Members were again reminded that written deputations had been submitted and these had been circulated and the applicant’s response has been read out in full. Recommendation clarification as per the note circulated Monday.

18.In conclusion, regional and local policy is supportive of the delivery of a new community at MW. This application will bring forward much needed new housing, central to the Council’s aspirations for the delivery of around 5000 new homes in the wider area. The application, whilst in outline form has demonstrated the ambition to provide high-quality development, supported by workspace, retail and community facilities and is supported by officers.

19. Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.

20.Councillor Rye raised several points responded to by officers:

·         That the decision should not be delegated to officers but agreed by the committee.

·         Why there was student accommodation included in the application. To perhaps reduce this and increase affordable housing.

·         Tall buildings issue and concern.

·         The Police objection to increased crime opportunities within the development.

·         Sewage problems linked to foul water network.

·         The significant objection relating to Sport England.

·         The requirement for a good mixed development.

21. The support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 4 votes for and 1 vote against.

AGREED the new Recommendation as follows:

·         That Members give delegated authority to Head of Development Management / Planning Decisions Manager to finalise the conditions, the Design Code and the s106 agreement heads of terms.

·         That the application be referred to the Greater London Authority (“GLA”) and that authority be given for the Council to enter into a section 106 legal agreement with any subsequent/non-Council landowner.

·         The Head of Development Management / Planning Decisions Manager be given delegated authority to grant conditional planning permission subject to:

i)              the inclusion of any changes requested by the GLA in their Stage 2 referral and/or government body.

ii)            prior to the decision being issued consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition lead on the materiality of any changes arising from the adoption of the Draft London Plan or any other development plan document or any new / altered other material planning consideration.