DRAFTPre-application advice following a site meeting and the submission of revised drawings for
Land at 226 London Road, Mitcham, CR4 3HD. In attendance:
For LBM - Leigh Harrington - Planning Officer.
Agent- Ms Michaela Mercer
Proposal
The revised proposal involves the retention and residential conversion of the existing former Care and Education Centre building on land at 226 London Road, Mitcham and the redevelopment of the site to provide 43new housing units. 10x 1 bedroom maisonettes situated within the existing locally listed building, a set of three new 1 bedroom bungalows and a single block of flats extending up to five storeys in height with a basement accommodating 29 one and two bedroom units and one 4 bedroom unit.
Site & Surroundings:
1)Character of area –The site is a large triangular plot of land (0.2 hectares) located on the west side of London Road opposite the junction with St Mark’s Road in Mitcham town centre and is occupied by a large three storey period building formerly used as a Council Care and Education centre. The site adjoins Eagle House which is a Grade 1 listed building.
2)The site is located within the Mitcham Town Centre as defined on the Merton SPP Proposals map
3)Conservation area – No
4)Locally or statutorily listed buildings – The building itself is locally listed and the Grade 1 listed Eagle Houseis adjoining the site
5)Area at risk of flooding – Low
6)SPP site proposal designation – None
7)Within an Archaeological Priority Zone – Yes
8)Within a Controlled Parking Zone –No but double yellow lineson the surrounding streets
9)Public Transport Accessibility Level – 4with good access to bus services and Mitcham Eastfields railway station
10)Trees – There are a number of mature trees along the front boundary with Eagle House and at the front of the site.
11)Open spaces - The site is within 500m of Figges Marsh.
Planning History
03/P1973 Application for erection of a 5 storey building with basement to provide community facilities in the basement, office accommodation at ground floor level and 65 residential flats above, together with associated car parking facilities and landscaping. ( the proposal involves the demolition of building )Withdrawn
04/P1918 Application for erection of 28 x 2 bedroom flats and 8 x 1 bedroom flats.Withdrawn
07/P3020 Application for the use of the yard to the front of 226 London Road for the sale of motor vehicles (sui generis use) REFUSED because The proposed use of the land, by reason of its siting and nature, would result in a visually intrusive and incongruous form of development, that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and detrimental to the setting of the adjacent Locally Listed and Listed Buildings, contrary to policies ST.17, ST.18, BE.8, BE.11 and BE.22 of the Adopted Merton Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
09/P1235 Application for outline planning permission for the demolition of existing building and erection of new residential care and nursing home.
Withdrawn
13/P3547 Planning permission refused for the redevelopment of site to provide 51 new dwellings (comprising 15 x 1 bed, 31 x 2 bed and 5 x 3 bed flats), involving demolition of existing locally listed building and erection of new 6 storey block above basement level.
Reasons; The demolition of the locally listed building would result in the loss of an important heritage asset for which the applicant has failed to provide evidence that reasonable efforts have been made to find a viable alternative use, or that the costs of repairs or maintenance of the building cannot be justified against its importance or the value derived from its retention or that there will be substantial planning benefits for the community arising from redevelopment that would decisively outweigh the loss from the resulting demolition. The proposals are considered to be contrary to the NPPF paragraph 132, policies 7.4 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2011), CS.14 of the Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy (2011) and policy BE11 of the Merton Unitary Development Plan (2003).
And
The proposed development, by reason of its design, orientation, bulk and scale, would fail to respect or complement the form, design, scale, proportions and setting of the adjacent Grade 1 Listed Building known as Eagle House and would be harmful to the setting of the Listed Building contrary to policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2011), CS.14 of the Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy (2011) and policies BE.8, BE.16 and BE.22 of the Merton Unitary Development Plan (2003).
And
The proposed block of flats by reason of design, siting, mass and bulk would result in a loss of light, privacy and outlook harmful to the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers, contrary to policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2011) policy CS.14 of the Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy (2011), policy BE 15 of the Merton Adopted UDP (2003).
And
The proposed block of flats by reason of design and layout would;
(a) Fail to provide a well designed, safe and secure layout that takes account of crime prevention;
(b) Fail to provide a satisfactory living environment for future residents in terms of poor levels of privacy as well as substandard communal circulation spaces,
contrary to polices CS.9 of the LBM Core Strategy 2011, BE 22 of the Adopted Merton UDP (2003) and the objectives of the London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2012).
And
The application fails to demonstrate that the access and parking arrangements would not have a detrimental impact on road safety and a harmful impact on the amenities of the area arising from an increase in parking pressure contrary to policy CS.20 of the Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy (2011).
And
The proposed development would generate additional pressure on educational facilities locally and, in the absence of a financial contribution to offset the impact of the proposals, would be contrary to policies C.13 of the Merton Unitary Development Plan (2003) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations (2006).
And
The proposed development would fail to contribute to meeting affordable housing targets and in the absence of a legal undertaking securing affordable housing on-site would be contrary to policy 3.12 of the London Plan 2011 and policy CS.8 of the Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy (2011).
Relevant policies
London Plan (2015)
Relevant policies include:
3.3 Increasing housing supply
3.5 Quality and design of housing developments
3.8 Housing choice
5.2 Minimising C02 emissions
5.3 Sustainable design and construction
5.7 Renewable energy
5.15 Water use and supplies
6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity
6.13 Parking
7.2 Inclusive environment
7.4 Local character
7.5 Public realm
7.6 Architecture
7.7 Location and design of tall and large buildings
7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology
London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance 2012.
Merton Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)
Relevant policies include:
CS 2Mitcham Sub Area.
CS7 Centres
CS8 Housing choice.
CS 11 Infrastructure
CS 12 Economic Development
CS 14 Design
CS 15 Climate Change
CS 17 Waste management
CS 18 Active Transport
CS 19 Public Transport
CS 20 Parking servicing and delivery
Merton Sites and Policies Plan (2014)
Relevant policies include:
DM D1 Urban design and the public realm
DM D2 Design considerations
DM D3 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings
DM D4 Managing Heritage Assets
DM EP2 Reducing and mitigating noise
DM H2 Housing mix
DM R1 Location and scale of development in Merton’s town centres
Merton SPDs
Planning Obligations (2006),
Design (2004).
Key Issues for consideration:-
The principle issues for consideration are the impact of the proposed residential use on Mitcham town centre, the impact on heritage assets including the locally listed building and the impact on the adjoining Grade 1 listed Eagle House, the impact of the appearance of the development on the local street scene and the impact of the development on neighbour amenity,as well as issues relating to the standard of accommodation, housing mix, parking and servicing, archaeology, basement development and sustainable design and construction.
Residential use
Policy 3.3 of the London Plan 2015 states that development plan policies should seek to identify new sources of land for residential development including intensification of housing provision through development at higher densities and Core Strategy policies CS8 & CS9 seek to encourage proposals for well-designed and located new housing that will create socially mixed and sustainable neighbourhoods through physical regeneration and effective use of space.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and London Plan policies 3.3 & 3.5 promote sustainable development that encourages the development of additional dwellings locations with good public transport accessibility whilst
London Plan policies 3.3 and 3.8 and LBM Core Strategy policies CS2 and CS 8 all encourage the provision of a mix of new housing types and forms.
The proposal shows a preponderance of 1 bedroom units with a far smaller number of 2 bedroom units and a single 4 bedroom unitalthough the proposed schedule of accommodation is slightly contradictory in terms of exact numbers. SPP policy DM H2 states that residential developments would be looked upon favourably where they contribute to meeting the needs of different households such as families with children, single person households and older people by providing a mix of dwelling sizes. To that end the Council looks to achieve indicative proportions such that 33% of units should be one bedroom, 32% two bedroom and 35% three plus bedrooms. In the event that an application was submitted with the mix shown in this application then the applicant must demonstrate why the site is not suitable for the indicative mix of housing.
This proposal would involve a mixture of affordable and private sector housing but the proposed breakdown of percentages of each have not been indicated at this stage. Core Strategy policy CS 8 sets out the proportions that would be expected to be provided on site and for a development such as this with 10 or more units that proportion would be at least 40% of the total of which 60% should be social rented and 40% intermediate. All new residential properties should be built to Lifetime Homes Standards and 10% of the units should be wheelchair accessible.
Heritage assets
Impact on the locally listed building
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, London Plan policy 7.8, policy DM D4 in the LBM Sites and Policies Planall recognise the importance of protecting heritage assets including locally listed buildings. It is welcomed that the proposals no longer involve the loss of the existing building and now seek to make the building a key feature of the new development. The existing building has not been well cared for and the applicant is advised to heed the previous officer’s recommendation to ensure the building is made weather tight as damage incurred now will add significantly to any remodelling costs. Whilst the drawings suggest that there will be no alterations to the exterior of this building policy DM D4 states that proposals that affect a heritage asset should endeavour to conserve as many original features as possible and in the event an application is submitted then it should be demonstrated through an accompanying Heritage Statement how the conversions works, and in particular the creation of new mezzanine floors, will be sympathetic to the historic building.In the event of an application the Council would expect to be provided with detailed drawings of the layouts of the units, the scale and information on the drawings that have been provided lack sufficient scale and clarity to offer a more informed opinion.
Impact on the Grade 1 Listed Eagle House
These same policiesalso relate to issues surrounding the impact of a development on statutorily listed buildings such as Eagle House.
The proposal would involve the erection of a5 storey building within around 3m of the boundary and three one bedroom bungalows along with cycle storage and refuge storage areaswhich would be provided directly on the boundary with a Grade 1 listed building.
SPP policy DM D4 and London Plan policy 7.8 requires that developments that affect heritage assets and their settings should conserve and enhance their significance by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail and therefore careful consideration needs to be given as to how this will be achieved and this should be demonstrated in the Heritage Statement. The drawings provided did not give any detail of the proposed works and bungalows along the Eagle House boundary which make detailed comments and observations problematical
The Council’s Urban design and conservation section have been consulted on the proposals and even supplied the applicant with a suggested layout. However in terms of what has been provided for comment they were not supportive and reiterated the suggestion that the site should not be subject to one ‘massive overpowering block’ and should instead consider a more suitable mews/town house development set around a communal space at the rear of the site and at a lower density than proposed. With regards to the front of the site they felt that there should be suitable good quality landscaping to enhance the locally listed building and generally enhance this area of Mitcham.
Appearance and impact on the streetscene.
It has been stressed that any proposal would have to have regard to the impact of the appearance of the proposed buildings on the setting of Eagle House and the wider environs of Mitcham Town centre. London Plan policies 7.4 and 7.6, Core Strategy policy CS14 and SPP policies DM D1 and DM D2 require well designed proposals to have regard to, and complement, the character, form, function and structure of an area where the architecture should make a positive contribution to a coherent public realm, streetscape and wider cityscape.London Plan policy 7.7 and Core Strategy policy CS 14
stipulate that tall or large buildings should not have an unacceptably harmful impact on their surroundings. The submitted computer modelled drawings would suggest that the five storey block could be almost totally obscured behind the two storey (albeit with a high roof) locally listed building. An application would benefit from a full and open explanation of how that would be achieved.
The accompanying drawings showed no detail in terms of external appearance of the bungalows, cycle and refuse and therefore it is difficult to offer comment on them other than to say that they should accord with the policy requirements set out above and should be described fully in both plan and CGI form as well as a full written description in the accompanying Heritage statement in the event of an application being submitted. To ensure that the impact was as favourable as possible any application would need to have regard to all of the policies listed above and seek to ensure that the proposal would heed the previous advice of a Council conservation officer who noted “The applicant needs to consider how the scheme connects visually with the surrounding townscape as well as functionally with the adjacent retailarea. The scale of the proposal needs to be justified in terms of relationships with theadjacent heritage assets. “
Design and layout.
In addition to the important design considerations for the appearance of the buildings, the design of the layout of the buildings will be a crucial factor in the success and viability of the scheme.London Plan policies 7.2 & 7.5 and SPP policiesDM D1 & DM D2 identify the need to provide safe, attractive and usable routes to and through developments. Detailed design considerations are set out in some detail within the London Housing SPG and it is recommended that they are incorporated into any design submitted as part of a planning application. Similarlyany application should also give consideration to the design guidance offered through the ‘Safer by Design’ scheme. The Metropolitan Police Safer by Design Officer was consultedon the proposals and she noted that there was a lack of defensible space in front of some of the units and raised the importance of having clearly defined boundaries between public, shared and private areas with doors and windows that cannot be easily targeted. The communal outdoor area should have good natural surveillance to reduce the potential for crime and complaints about noise and disturbance. Access to the site should be secure, both in terms of gates to the block and the actual entrance to the block of flats itself. An application should consider the guidelines established through ‘Safer by design’ which links with the requirements of policy DM D2 to provide safe and secure developments. The Metropolitan Police Service offer advice and guidance on ‘building in’ security and safety into new development and applicants are always advised to liaise with the Police Safer by Design Officer, Pat Simcox at for further advice prior to the submission of an application.
In addition to detailed elevational drawings the situation with the public footpath that runs along the side of the site needs to be clarified, the submitted drawings do not clearly define between it and the site and it is unclear whether that wavy fencing is to be the new boundary or is within the actual site. In relation to that area the submitted artist’s impressions show 4 storey high trees along this boundary. The Council’s arboricultural officer was of the opinion that having such large trees in this location would present issues of root damage, noise from branches hitting the building and loss of light to the new flats whilst providing mature trees of that size would be extremely difficult in reality. Therefore in the event of an application the landscaping should be realistic rather than misleading, indicating what is appropriate and feasible.