TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (As Amended)
SECTION 78
THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND
PROOF OF
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE
of
DAVID BOARDMAN
ON BEHALF OF
KENNINGTON ASSOCIATION PLANNING FORUM
(KAPF)
In connection with an application by
Vauxhall Bondway Ltd
(a company registered in Jersey )
for planning permission for the development of site at
69 – 71 BONDWAY, VAUXHALL, LONDON , SW8 1SQ
Planning Application No & Planning Inspectorate Reference
APP/N5660/A/10/2123877/NWF
1. A2.2 – MR FILSKOW
1.1 Mr Filskow notes, at para 2.1.4 of his proof, (A2.2) that as regards Vauxhall, “the masterplan design is not sufficiently progressed at this time to precisely prescribe the future context”. This chimes with our concern (KAPF Proof, K1, para 5.2 to 5.3) that there were no urban design studies, of the sort enjoined by the CABE/EH guidance (CD6/1), to help inform the location, density and built form of any developing cluster. None the less, Mr Filskow considers that the design is “compatible with the draft masterplan” (para 2.1.7), that the site provides “a unique opportunity to kick start the regeneration of the area” (para 2.8.1) and urges the Council on to “kick-start the delivery of its masterplan intent” (para 5.5.1, 4) by in effect designating the site of its neighbour’s frontage as public open space.
1.2 Given our concern at the lack of such an urban design study, we made a Freedom of Information request to the GLA for any such unpublished study, with negative result. At GLA suggestion, however, we made a similar request of Lambeth Council, and on 5 July they identified to us their holding of a single colour A3 hard copy of such a study, prepared for them in December 2006 by Building Design Partnership. We have inspected the copy, which Lambeth have been unable to copy for us in full by today’s deadline. Accordingly, we have had black and white extracts made of the key elements, and we exhibit them to this proof as K2.1.
1.3 This 2006 study, which should be given due weight as the only urban design study available to the Inquiry, notes (p3) that
“[The St George’s
1.4 Given the current press of unco-ordinated applications for tall towers, the words are prophetic.
1.5 This extended study of possible configurations of a cluster of tall towers concludes with a preferred option (p41) of a cluster centred on Vauxhall Cross, with a tower of 140m, with other towers, such as one at the Bondway site, subordinate and shorter than it, (heights of the subordinate elements varying between 65 and 110m). It recognises, rightly in our view, that the St Georges Tower, if built, cannot sensibly be the focal point of the cluster, but is rather, in our terms, an outlier, bookmarking the edge of the urban area.
1.6 This considered study reinforces the arguments of English Heritage, (CD2/19) that the scale and massing of the proposed tower are too large (contrary to the views of Mr Filskow and the applicant’s other witnesses).
1.7 Mr Filskow says repeatedly (para 2.8.6, 6.4.7, 7.3.1) that the amenity floor on the 36th floor of the building (in practice only a fraction of the normal floor plate, given the tapering of the building) will be accessible or available to all residents. Such a designation allows the applicant to add this floor space (671 sqm) to the tally of private amenity space (3271 sqm), bringing the apparent total to 3,942 sqm, above the target of 3,760sqm (10sqm per dwelling) (see para 7.1.1, 7.1.2 and 7.4.6). But none of the proofs appear to repeat the revealing statement of the Supporting Planning Statement (CD2/2 para 10.13)
“Communal facilities within the block
10.13 Communal facilities will be provided on the 36th floor of the building (671m2). These uses will include a reading room, nursery/playroom, room for booking for community use and a gym. There will also be access to one of the terraces/winter gardens for the community. All of the residents of the tower will have access to these facilities and therefore these will also be tenure blind. As it is anticipated that an affordable housing provider will not be prepared to entertain a high service charge for the residents of the affordable element, it is expect that these residents will subscribe to use the shared amenity floor.”
1.8 So all residents will be expected to pay extra for the private amenity space the policy says should be part of their ordinary entitlement, and to get it, tenants of affordable housing will need to exit their part of the building (because their lift does not go to the 36th floor), re-enter via the market flats entrance, and in effect subscribe to a private health club. As the law once noted of the doors of the Ritz Hotel, open to rich and poor alike. We do not regard this as first class design.
2 A5.2 - MR ABSOLON
2.1 Other colleagues may comment in detail on Mr Absolon’s evidence, but in relation to the Local Policy section of his proof (paras 5.6 to 5.12), I would note in particular that Policy 47(g) of the adopted UDP (CD5/1, Conservation Areas), states explicitly that
“(g) Setting and Views - Development outside conservation areas should not
harm the setting of the area or harm views into or from the area.”
And I note that this is expressly supported by para 8 of the Secretary of State’s letter of 31 March 2005 in relation to the St Georges Tower Appeal. (CD7/12/B)
2.2 Our position, and that of other objectors, is that the scale and massing of the proposed tower do harm both views and setting.
3 A6.2 – MR BILLINGTON
3.1 As Mr Billington notes at para 5.5 of his proof, the GLA Guidance for using the Toolkit says
“the actual amount paid for the site should be considered contextual/comparative only, when negotiating schemes” [our punctuation]
but is otherwise silent on the issue.
3.2 However, the applicant paid £36m +VAT for the site, while willing to proceed with a development that generates a residual value, according to the assumptions fed into the Toolkit of little more than the existing use value of £8m. This makes us think that the assumptions about the proceeds of market sales are highly conservative – and we note that the Council’s assessors raised just this issue. No satisfactory explanation has been tendered to bolster these estimates. A review mechanism is a helpful mitigation – but if it is instituted when any permission is “implemented” – which, by comparison with the St Georges Tower, could even be when groundwork commences in 5 years time, and in any event probably 1 or 2 years before actual sales of flats, the Council will be little wiser as to the actual prices likely to be realised.
3.3 So we think this concern can only be assuaged by the addition of a second review stage, triggered say when 90% of the market flats have been sold/marketed, when the assumptions proferred can be audited effectively, and a further sum made available to the Council, for off site provision, if it turns out that additional affordable housing would have been viable. We therefore propose that the S106 agreement as to affordable housing be amended accordingly
4 A7.2 – MR TAYLOR
4.1 The issues of urban design of the cluster, an alternative configuration of the application design with less scale and massing and design of amenity space arise on Mr Taylor’s proof as they do on Mr Filskow’s, and have been dealt with there.
4.2 As regards conformity to the development plan (section 6 of his proof), Mr Taylor’s best argument seems to be that other developers have got away with departing from the plan as regards employment floor space, so why not this application too. This is undermined by the fact that the development provides less employment floor space than it destroys (5,852 sqm proposed versus 6,317 initially declared). And it now appears that the existing floor space is more like 9,000 sqm (WCDG proof W1 para 5.12).
4.3 In para 7.16 the identified land use for Vauxhall under the draft VNEB OAPF (CD4/3) is said to be “high density mixed use development providing a focal point for offices, retail and housing”, putting these three uses on all fours. In the event, this is a truncation of the true definition, which (VNEB OAPF p26 ) is “High density mixed use centre focal point for office and retail including housing” [my emphasis], a designation covering about 50 hectares of the Opportunity Area, and which is contrasted with “High density mixed use housing-led intensification” . Housing led intensification on sites intended for employment led intensification prejudice the whole balance of the Framework.
4.4 Mr Taylor’s section 9 on Support for a Tall Building
4.5 At Section 12 of his proof, Mr Taylor asserts that the S106 agreement offered is satisfactory. We disagree, first as regards Employment (Item G2 in the Lambeth SPD Annex, CD5/7) and secondly as regards Open Space (Item D1 in the SPD Annex)).
4.6 As regards employment, on the footing that the existing employment floor space is about 9,000 sqm, the loss of employment floorspace now exceeds 500 sqm (on a KIBA redevelopment no less!) and the applicant qualifies to make a “wooden spoon” payment under G2 to mitigate this.
4.7 As regards Open Space, I note that the applicant’s witnesses continue to avoid the issue that the site lies in an Open Space Deficiency Area. And the SPD provides for a two part tariff in Vauxhall, not merely the formula calculation based on past investment in existing parks, but a project based supplement designed to create new open space. We note that extra open space near its site appeals to the applicant (eg A2.2 para 5.5.1 and 4), as it does to CABE (CD2/17), and 0.3 or 0.4 hectares is contemplated. Given the open space deficiency the applicant’s development would exacerbate, we think more is called for, but 0.4 hectares would be a good start, and we think he should up his S106 offer by at least £10m (calculated at the existing use value of his site of about £27m per hectare), to help acquire it.
D J BOARDMAN
Chair
Kennington Association Planning Forum
9 July 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment