NOTES AND REPORT OF PRE-APP MEETING HELD 25thFebruary 2015
LBM Civic Centre
Re Land to the rear of 8 Preshaw Crescent, Lower Green West, Mitcham, CR4 3GA.
In attendance:
For LBM - Leigh Harrington - Planning Officer.
Agent& Architect – Mr Michael Betts
Proposal
Erection of a block of 15affordable homes linked to the existing properties of Beadle Court and Vine Cottages with associated car parking.
Site & Surroundings:
1)Character of area –The existing site comprises an open area of land that has its southern boundary with 8 Preshaw Crescent. To the east and most of the north of the site it is bordered by houses on Russell Road with access out to the road that is currently blocked. The west of the site faces the car park area of beadle Court and Vine Cottage and the main vehicle access to the site would be via Harwood Avenue. The land would appear to have never been built on.
2)The site is not adjacent to a Green Corridor
3)Conservation area – Yes - Mitcham Cricket Green
4)Locally or statutorily listed buildings – none on site or adjoining
5)Area at risk of flooding – Low
6)Sites and PolicesPlan site proposal designation – Nil
7)Within an Archaeological Priority Zone – Yes
8)Within a Controlled Parking Zone –No
9)Public Transport Accessibility Level – 2 with low accessibility to public transport.
10)Trees – The site is within a conservation area and therefore all trees with a diameter of 7.5cm when measured 1.5m above ground level are protected.Their removal is the subject of further investigation by the Council’s trees officer.
11)Open spaces - The Mitcham Cricket Green is within 200mm of the site.
Planning History
Nil
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
3.11 Affordable housing targets
3.13 Affordable housing thresholds
5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions
5.3 Sustainable design and construction
7.3 Designing out crime
7.4 Local character
7.5 Public realm
7.6 Architecture
7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology
London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance 2012.
Merton Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)
Relevant policies include:
CS8 Housing choice.
CS 11 Infrastructure
CS12 Economic Development
CS 13 Open space and leisure
CS 14 Design
CS 15 Climate Change
CS 18 Transport
CS 20 Parking servicing and delivery
Merton Sites and Policies Plan (2014)
Relevant policies include:
DM D1 Urban Design
DM D2 Design considerations
DM D4 Managing Heritage assets
DM H3 support for affordable housing
DM O2 Nature conservation
Key Issues for consideration:-
The principle of theuse of the site for the provision of dwellings, the standard of accommodation provided, the impact of the development on the conservation area, the amenity of local residents and parking and servicing.
Provision of housing.
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.The London Plan 2015, published since the meeting took place, has increased the local housing target for Merton from 320 units per year to 411.
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 2012and London Plan policies 3.3& 3.5 promote sustainable development that encourages the development of additional dwellings locations with good public transport accessibilityhowever this proposal site would not be well provided for in terms of public transport as it has a low PTAL rating of 2.
The site is in effect an undeveloped back garden.Notwithstanding the need to assess against other planning policies, LDF policy CS13 requires that any new dwellings in back gardens must be justified against the:
- Local context and character of the site;
- Biodiversity value of the site;
- Value in terms of green corridors and green islands.
- Flood risk and climate change impacts.
In the event an application is submitted the applicant is advised to address such issues within the accompanying Design and Access Statement.
Impact on the Conservation Area.
London Plan policy 7.8 and SPP policy DM D4 seek to ensure that developments within Conservation Areas should conserve and enhance such areas whilst Sites and Policies Plan policies DM D1 (Urban design), DM D2: (Design considerations) and DM D3: (Alterations and Extensions to existing Buildings) as well as LBM Core Strategy Policy CS14 are all policies designed to ensure that proposals are well designed and in keeping with the character of the local area. At the meeting a number of drawings were discussed and commentary on these is set out below.
Design/Appearance/Layout/Massing.
Option 3 was the applicants preferred choice and was also the preferred choice of the Council’s Conservation and Design Officer who commented
that “the options that improve the setting of Beadle Court from Harwood Avenue are the preferable options. These schemes have the potential to make the most improvements to this part of the conservation area. The creation of a “square” at the end of Harwood Avenue could improve the setting of the existing buildings surrounding the parking area.
The massing of the schemes is broadly acceptable with the exception of the dormer windows forming the third floor. This element raises the height of the development to a level that would make the site appear cramped. Surrounding development is of two and three storeys and to avoid the new scheme having an overbearing impact on the surrounding, predominantly two storey development, new development should be no higher than three storeys.
The design of the proposed Option 3 has potentially attractive elements. It is considered that improvement could be achieved by simplifying the elevation fronting Beadle Court. A strong design rationale for the proposed elevations needs to be developed indicating why materials have been chosen and how this has have resulted in the proposed design.Given the context of the site, a distinctive design that raises design standards in this areaand enhances its immediate surroundings is to be encouraged.The opportunity should also be taken to improve the hard landscaping around Beadle Court and to improve the view from Harwood Avenue into the site.
The character of the area in which the site is located is generally suburban being some distance from Mitcham Town Centre. The design and detailing of the independent design option(Option 01) has what might be described as an overly town centre/urban feel to it which does not really suit the characteristics of this suburban infill site.”
With regards to the massing of the development the existing area is open space that until recently was given predominantly to trees and vegetation. Therefore the impression of the impact of development on the site might be exacerbated for neighbouring residents, this being especially sensitive on the boundary with the property at 26 Russell Road. The plans, and in particular ‘View 03’, would suggest that the intention would be to build two substantial flank walls within a couple of metres of the site boundary. This would have an impact on the outlook form the rear of this property and may well lead to a sense of overshadowing from an unduly dominant building in such close proximity to the boundary. Therefore an application would benefit from further consideration as to how this can be reduced and or mitigated with drawings demonstrating how the impact of the proposals may be softened so as not have a negative impact on that neighbour’s amenity.
Additional matters discussed at the meeting related to the choice of facing materials. Officers raised concerns regarding the use of render and its propensity to crack, weather and discolour badly thereby degrading the appearance for the building. In the event of an application the applicant is advised to provide indicative material details that will allow the building to blend in with its surroundings. If details of the materials are known at the application stage then it would enable an opinion to be offered on their suitability at that stage and negate the need for them to be approved later as a condition.
The plans indicated that on the ground floor there would be direct access out to the external amenity areas. Boundary treatment and landscaping need to be designed so as to reduce the risk of burglary. Similarly, careful consideration should be given to the design of balustrading/balconies so as not to offer climbing aids that would allow unauthorised access to the upper floors. As there will be residential accommodation at ground floor level the design should incorporate elements of defensible space around these units to improve privacy and security for occupiers. The applicant should consider the guidelines established through ‘Safer by Design’ which links with the requirements of London Plan policy 7.3 and SPP 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.
Site constraints
Given the confined space of the site a construction method statement would be required, preferably at the application stage. This would deal with how the construction would be managed in relation to vehicle access for the site and the existing residents of Beadle Court, site offices and the storage of materials. Access to the site was discussed and the applicant is advised to consider carefully how the building would be constructed because the access to the site via Harwood Avenue is restricted by the narrow width of the surrounding roads and limited turning capacity at the junctions such that articulated and other very large lorries would not be able to readily access the site.
Neighbour Amenity.
Any future application would be assessed against adopted planning policies London Plan policy 7.6 and SPP policyDM D2 which requirethat proposals will not have a negative impact on neighbour amenity in terms of loss of light, privacy visual intrusion or noise and disturbance.
At the meeting amenity impact issues were discussed and an application would benefit from providing block plans to show the habitable windows on neighbouring properties to allow for a better and more accurate assessment of the impact of the proposals on loss of lightand privacy to those neighbours.
Issues raised under the topic of bulk and massing above would also relate to neighbour amenity.
Standard of accommodation.
SPP Policy DM D2, Core Strategy 2011 policies CS 9 Housing Provision and CS 14 Design and London Plan policies 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply, 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential, 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments are all policies that seek to provide additional good quality residential accommodation.
The London Plan policy 3.8 and LDF Core Strategy policy CS.8 require all new residential properties to be to Lifetime Homes Standards.
The Gross Internal Areas of the flats are required to comply with the minimum standards required by policy 3.5 of the 2015 London Plan. The London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance 2012 establishes minimum room size standards and the minimum Gross Internal Area that a new property should achieve in order to provide a satisfactory standard of occupier amenity. These sizes are more fully demonstrated in Annex 4 of that document and the applicant is advised that any habitable rooms such as studies would be included as bedrooms for the purposes of calculating the GIA requirements. Any application should similarly ensure these standards are met. The SPG also explains in depth a number of specific requirements for issues such as circulation spaces, individual room sizes, children’s play areas, cycle spaces, storage provision, wheelchair and mobility impaired access etc and the adoption of these standards into the final design is recommended.
The SPG also requires the provision of private amenity space for residents with 5sqm for a 1-2 person unit and an additional 1sqm per person for larger units.
Parking, servicing and deliveries.
The applicant is advised to consider the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS 20 in particular pedestrian movement, safety, serving and loading facilities for local businesses and manoeuvring for emergency vehicles as well as refuse storage and collection.
The Council’s transport planning section has advised as follows in respect of Option 3.
Car Parking Standards:
Option 3 proposes 15 flats (3x 1bed and 12x 2bed) with 16 car parking spaces provided.
The London Plan (2015) sets standards for 1 and 2 bed development at less than 1 space per unit. In order for officers to understand the rationale for this, it is important to see the amended parking layout for Beadle Court. In addition, an overnight parking survey should be carried out in accordance with the Council’s methodology to demonstrate how the existing parking arrangement is used.
It is noted that the plans provided are not to scale. It is important that all parking spaces comply with the London Plan requirements of 2.4m x 4.8m.
Car Parking Layout:
The plans provided are not to scale. As part of a full submission, scaled plans should be provided which demonstrate that suitable manoeuvrability and turning would be possible between the two rows of parking spaces. Additionally, the reconfigured layout for Beadle Court parking should be shown in a similar way.
Cycle Parking: Cycle storage should preferably be located internally. If external, as shown on the plans, the provision should be covered and secure. No details of numbers of provision have been provided but 1 space per unit would be the minimum (a minimum of 16 spaces). The location of the store as shown on the plans provided is of some concern. Ideally, this should be more integral to the site – its current location appears somewhat isolated and vulnerable.
Access:
Access will be through an existing private car park associated with Beadle Court, off of Harwood Avenue. The accompanying report makes mention of a reconfigured courtyard parking area. More detail is required as to the proposed reconfigured layout in order to ensure that the new arrangement is acceptable, including both number and layout of spaces. This should be shown on a site plan.
Consideration should be given to the physical relationship with Harwood Avenue. The existing boundary treatment could be significantly improved to make access for pedestrians and cyclists greatly improved.
Servicing/deliveries:
Servicing would need to be accessed from the existing private car park associated with Beadle Court, off of Harwood Avenue.Details of the revised parking arrangement in Beadle Court will be needed to ascertain suitability of proposed access point. In addition, scaled plans demonstrating suitable access/turning circles for the collection of refuse/recycling storage is required in order to ascertain the suitability of the proposal.
Details of the existing servicing arrangements and the potential implications of the proposal on these should be provided.
Other:
All of the spaces provided fall, wholly or partially, outside of the red line site. This needs further explanation. Clarification regarding the impact of the proposal on the existing Beadle Court parking layout is required - and this should be shown on plan form.
The report makes mention of the site being part of the Beadle Court development. With this in mind, and the amended parking arrangement to this development, the red line site may need to be altered. Alternatively, the provision of refuse facilities and parking outside the red line site but still on land in the applicant’s ownership would need to be subject of Grampianconditions.
In addition to these considerations other aspects that will need to be addressed include what measures can be taken to ensure that the lights from parking cars do not cause light pollution issues for the occupiers of the ground floor units which face the car park.
The layout should be designed to ensure pedestrians do not come into conflict with vehicular traffic with the access being visually open, direct and lit to standard BS 5489-1;2013.
Refuse and Recycling
The Council have published an Waste Storage Guidance Note for Architects which offers advice on refuse and recycling requirements which includes the fact that the space allocated for waste storage should be able to accommodate containers with at least the minimum volume recommended by British Standard 5906 based on a maximum collection frequency of once per week. This is 100 litres volume for a single bedroom dwelling, with a further 70 litres volume for each additional bedroom. Full details of proposed refuse and recycling management should be submitted with the application to enable early consultation with the Council’s Waste Services section.