LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST Committee/Date: Planning 5th December 2006 Application reference: Applicant: Location: Proposed development: Wards affected: Appendices: 2006/1330/OUT Mr Z Ahmed Nita Villa & Dellwood, Forest Rise, Walthamstow E17 Outline application for demolition of existing buildings and construction of 22 x 1 bedroom, 3 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom self-contained flats as shown on drawing number 905-03 Rev D received on 4th October 2006. Wood Street None 1 REASONS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE 1.1 This application is being reported to Committee for decision because: a Member of the Council has requested Committee consideration 2 DETAILS OF PROPOSAL AND SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The site fronts Forest Rise, a narrow access road, parallel with Lea Bridge Road in the vicinity of Whipps Cross Roundabout. It is currently occupied by 2 x two-storey semi-detached small dwellings with rear gardens. These have a combined frontage width of 12 metres and a depth of 34 metres. 2.2 The site is immediately adjacent to a Council owned 13-storey tower block at St Georges Court, and its ground and rearparking compound. To the north-east is a large two-storey detached BT building at the end of Woodside Park Avenue, a private street accessed from Wood Street and comprising mainly two storey interwar terraced houses. 2.3 Opposite the site, on the other side of the Lea Bridge Road dual carriageway and greensward areas, is a large tract Of Epping Forest, part of the Hollow Ponds area which is of an open character. 2.4 It is proposed to demolish the two houses and erect a building to provide 22 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed flats. The application is in outline form with all matters reserved, but an indicative plan (No. 905-03D) shows a high-rise block of up to
nine storeys, served by a central core with lift and stair access. A small amenity area is provided at the rear and the development is shown as car free, but with cycle parking. 2.5 This application, in common with a similar previous scheme for the site that was refused (ref. 2006/0418/OUT), was submitted without any pre-application discussion. The previous application was, however, accompanied by a letter from the local Whipps Cross Hospital University NHS Trust, indicating that some provisional agreement had been reached to provide accommodation in the development for key workers at Whipps Cross Hospital. 2.6 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement which refers to a possible key worker development. An Air Quality Impact Assessment and an Energy Statement were also submitted. The former is generally insufficient in content, but does refer to installation of air handing systems in the front flats and the possibility of further mitigation measures following air quality monitoring. The Energy Statement refers to space and water heating and lighting, with a CHP system recommended, but otherwise the statement is deficient in detail. 3 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY 3.1 2006/0418/OUT Construction of a nine storey block to provide 28 x 1 bed flats and 3 x 2 bed flats. Refused under delegated powers on 14th June 2006 for reasons of: a) Adverse impact on nearby residents from bulk, height, scale, overlooking, overshadowing, loss of aspect, and general visual intrusion. b) Site too small to provide a tall building with an appropriate setting. Poor relationship with St Georges Court. c) Detrimental impact on Epping Forest from visual intrusion. d) Not in a recognised area for high-density development. e) Insufficient on-site amenity space for the reasonable needs of the occupiers. f) Site not acceptable for car free since not highly accessible to public transport, or in a CPZ where car free could be enforced. 3.2 That application is the subject of an appeal under the Written Representations procedure. A decision is awaited.
4 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 4.1 The occupiers of all the houses in Woodside Park Avenue and Foresters Drive, and all flats in St George s Court have been consulted. In addition, the application has been the subject of Press and Site Notices. 30 individual letters of objection have been received, including representations from the Foresters Drive Residents Association, the Woodside Park Avenue Owners and Residents Association, and the Waltham Forest Civic Society. Ward Members have also objected. The main grounds of objection are: Impact on Epping Forest General loss of amenity, bulk, and overlooking Exacerbating local parking and servicing problems High density/overdevelopment Inappropriate housing mix Impact on trees/wildlife Poor relationship with St. George s Court Impact on local services Insufficient amenity space Risk of flooding Comment: See Main Issues section of report. 5 OTHER CONSULTATIONS 5.1 At the time of writing this report, no comments had been received from the Conservators of Epping Forest, or from internal consultations with Environment Health (Noise and Air Quality) and Building Consultancy (Renewable Energy). Any representations received before Committee will feature in an Update Report circulated at the meeting. 6 DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 The Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan was adopted on 30th March 2006. The relevant police are: 6.2 Policy SP1: concerned with maintaining and enhancing the natural and built environment.
6.3 Policy BHE1: concerned with new development being compatible with its surroundings. 6.4 Policy BHE2: is concerned with achieving a high standard of design. 6.5 Policy BHE3: in concerned with avoiding harm to the environment or neighbouring property. 6.6 Policy BHE5: is concerned with access for all as regards entry and use of buildings. 6.7 Policy BHE6: is concerned with high buildings including their setting and relationship with their surroundings. 6.8 Policy BHE9: is concerned with lighting and light pollution, including the impact on the night sky and open land, especially green belt land. 6.9 Policy ENV7: is concerned with ensuring development does not have a detrimental impact on Principal Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. 6.10 Policy ENV22: is concerned with the amenity value of trees and ensuring their retention where possible. 6.11 Policy HSG2: supports housing provision from windfall sites to assist in housing supply. 6.12 Policy HSG5: is concerned with maximising housing in the borough and the reuse of brown field sites. 6.13 Policy HSG6/7: is concerned with affordable housing, with 40% required in schemes of 15 or more units. 6.14 Policy HSG9: seeks an appropriate housing mix. 6.15 Policy HSG10: seeks 10% wheelchair housing in schemes with 10 or more units and with all flats to be built to Lifetime Homes standards. 6.16 Policy TSP7: supports reduced car developments in highly accessible locations in terms of PTAL and car free where CPZ controls apply. 6.17 Policy WPM9: is concerned with significant development for sensitive land uses adjacent to main roads where pollution levels are high. 6.18 Policy PSC1: is concerned with urban design considerations. 6.19 Policy PSC2: is concerned with the provision of secure and useable private amenity space. 6.20 Policy PSC3: is concerned with privacy in habitable rooms and private amenity space. 6.21 Policy PSC4: sets out density ranges. In areas outside pedsheds, and where PTAL is not high, the range is 200 250 habitable rooms per hectare.
7 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The London Plan Policy 3A.1: is concerned with housing supply. Policy 3A.2: sets borough housing targets. Policy 3A.4: promotes housing choice and specifically refers to wheelchair accessible housing and all new housing being built to Lifetime Homes standards. Policy 3A.7: sets affordable housing targets. Policy 4B.1: sets out design principles for a compact city. Policy 4B.3: seeks to maximise the potential of housing sites provided there is compatibility with local context, design principles and public transport capacity. 7.2 Government Guidance PPG3 Housing : is concerned with housing supply and a flexible approach to planning standards, including density and parking in appropriate locations. Has a particular emphasis on design quality. 8 SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES 8.1 These are: a) The principle of this form and level of development b) Density c) Parking d) Impact of the local environment/neighbours e) Impact on Epping Forest/wildlife/trees f) Amenity space g) Affordable/Accessible housing h) Flood risk 8.2 The principle of this form and level of development Whilst the submitted plans are indicative only, the small size of the application site and the number of flats proposed indicate that the actual form of the development would be as shown, or similar to, that on the plans. The site itself, on account of the restricted size and location in close proximity to existing housing (including two-storey developments) has very little, if any, development potential. A tall building would need a much larger site to provide an appropriate setting for it and would have to be relatively remote from its neighbours, as set out in policy BHE6
of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. The conclusion must be that both the form and level of development would be fundamentally unacceptable on this site. 8.3 Density The site is not within, or near, a recognised centre or pedshed and has a moderate PTAL. It follows that the density range should be 200 250 habitable rooms per hectare. The number of habitable rooms is the same as the refused scheme, at 65, but with a different mix of units. This gives an extremely high density of 1070 hrph. 8.4 Parking Surrounding streets, including Foresters Drive, cater for overspill parking from Whipps Cross Hospital, due to parking charges and loss of visitor/staff parking because of redevelopment enabling works. There is no mechanism to enforce a car free development, since the site is outside a Controlled Parking Zone. Any parking associated with the development would have to compete for scarce on-street parking space in the area. Forest Rise itself cannot support on-street parking, because it is very narrow. The parking standard applicable to a development in this location is 1 space per unit as set out in Appendix 1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 8.5 Impact on the local environment/neighbours This would be quite dramatic and would compound the problems that arise from the 13-storey St. George s Court in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy, and general visual intrusion from bulk and siting. The development would be generally out of character with its surroundings and would not enhance the local environment. A number of residents in Woodside Park Avenue in particular would be significantly affected. 8.6 Impact on Epping Forest/wildlife/trees The forest opposite is a very sensitive environment - part of the Metropolitan Green Belt, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Principal Site of Nature Conservation Importance, and the Hollow Ponds area is a Special Area of Conservation by European Directive. The site is separated from this area by Lea Bridge Road, which is a dual carriageway with a green sward between the carriageways, so it is most unlikely that nature conservation interests would be prejudiced. However, development along the north side of Lea Bridge Road is the interface between the built and open environments, and a tall building would be intrusive when seen from the forest. There would be a degree of extra light pollution from habitable rooms facing the forest. There are trees adjacent to and on the application site, but it does not appear that these would be directly threatened by the development and, as such, could probably be appropriately safeguarded during construction.
8.7 Amenity Space Whilst the site is close to Epping Forest, the Lea Bridge Road dual carriageway acts as a real barrier and deterrent to easy access to this area for the occupiers of the flats. They would therefore have to rely on the rear amenity area, which on the indicative plan works out at about 4 square metres per habitable room, which is insufficient, particularly with the six family sized units proposed. 8.8 Affordable/Accessible Housing a) In terms of general affordable housing, whilst six family-sized units (including 3 x 3 bed flats) are proposed, there would be a predominance of one-bed units. This would not reflect local affordable housing needs. b) As regards possible key worker housing, officer negotiations with the Whipps Cross University Hospital, NHS Trust, in the context of the hospital redevelopment, have sought accommodation either at the hospital or in recognised centres. Staff living in such centres would have ready access to a range of services and would themselves make a contribution to the local economy of those centres. Higher density schemes appropriate for non-family staff are also appropriate in central locations, rather than a suburban area. Members are aware that there is considerable uncertainty about the future of Whipps Cross Hospital and significant redundancies are occurring. The prospect of bringing forward any off-site staff accommodation must be remote at present. Key workers housing would therefore have to target other public sector workers, which would be acceptable in the context of a S106 Agreement. However, more fundamentally, the site has to be right for the type and level of development proposed, which is not the case here. c) Accessible housing. It would be possible to safeguard 10% of the units for wheelchair housing by condition and require all flats to be built to Lifetime Homes standards. A tall building would have lift access and there would be not insurmountable problems in making the building fully accessible at the detailed planning stage. 8.9 Flood Risk The site is not in an area recognised as prone to flooding, nor is it in a flood plain. However, BT land to the east is at a lower level and may have been a pond. There is also a pond on the opposite site of Woodside Park Avenue. Had it been recommended that permission be granted for the development, it would have been prudent to require some form of risk assessment, including the implications of construction with deep foundations on ground water.
9. HUMAN RIGHTS 9.1 In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the London Borough of Waltham Forest to act in a manner that is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for refusal of permission in this case interferes with applicant's right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of neighbours). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for refusal is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report. 10 CONCLUSION 10.1 The proposed development is very similar to the previous scheme, which was refused and is the subject of an appeal, and is fundamentally unacceptable in planning terms. The likely form of development, given the number of flats proposed and the size of the site, would give rise to a serious loss of amenity to nearby residents in terms of overlooking, overshadowing and general visual intrusion, and would be out of keeping with the character of the area. There would be an unsatisfactory relationship with an existing tower block in townscape terms and an inappropriate setting for the proposed development. The development would be intrusive when seen from Epping Forest to the south-east. In terms of planning standards, the density proposed is significantly higher than the range considered acceptable for this site and there would be a shortfall in the provision of private, useable amenity space. A car free development is indicated in an area outside a CPZ, where such developments would not normally be permissible or enforceable. The proposals have been considered against all relevant policies in the adopted Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006) and a refusal of permission is warranted. 11 RECOMMENDATION 11.1 The Planning Committee is requested to agree that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
Reason(s) for refusing planning permission 1. The likely form of the proposed development, as shown on the indicative plans, would have a significant adverse effect on the amenities of nearby residents by reason of location, bulk, height and scale. In particular, the development would be likely to result in severe overlooking, overshadowing, loss of aspect and general visual intrusion, contrary to policy BHE3 of the adopted Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006.) 2. The site of the proposed development would be of insufficient size to provide an appropriate setting for what is likely to be a tall building, and would not result in an appropriate relationship with the adjacent tall building at St. George s Court. This would be contrary to policy BHE6 of the adopted Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006). 3. The likely form of the proposed development, as shown on the indicative plans, and in particular its height would result in a detrimental impact on Epping Forest land to the east, which is within the Metropolitan Green Belt, by reason of visual intrusion, contrary to policy BHE1 of the adopted Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006). 4. The site is not within an area recognised as acceptable for higher density development, since it is remote from the centres of Leyton, Leytonstone and Walthamstow where there is access to a range of services and a high level of public transport accessibility. The proposed density of development is also well in excess of the maximum permissible in policy PSC4 of the adopted Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006). 5. The likely form of development on the indicative plans would not make sufficient provision for private and useable amenity open space for the reasonable needs of the occupiers, contrary to policy PSC2 of the adopted Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006) and the Council s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1 Residential Development Design Standards (1996). 6. The layout of the development, as shown on the indicative plans, would make no provision for off-street parking. The site is not within an area that is highly accessible to public transport, which might justify a car free or reduced car development. In addition the site is not within a Controlled Parking Zone where a car free/reduced car development could be enforced. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy TSP7 of the adopted Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006).
12 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 12.1 None.