Planning Law and Practice UK - Research Paper Example

Planning Law Report 1. Summary This planning Report is prepared to shed more light on the proposal by Cydonia Holdings to build a mixed housing, commercial and retail development on a site in Cramer Street, Westminster, W1. This report contains an appraisal of the site and its surrounding, an analysis of legal and planning issues affecting the proposal and a recommendation stating whether the reason why the proposal should be approved. 2. Background Information 2.1 The Application Site The application site is a 0.33 hectare (3,300 sq metre) site, currently owned by Westminster Council and comprising a 160 space public car park, and a farmers market of up to 36 stalls held every Sunday (10.00am – 2.00pm). Part of the car park is currently being used as a contractors’ works site for the development of the adjacent School site. 3. The Proposal Terry Williams, the Chief Executive of Cydonia Holdings sent the first proposal on October 11, 2009. But a revised planning application was submitted on November 29, 2009 to reduce the number of residential flats to 174 (96 x 1 bed, 68 x 2 bed and 10 x 3 2 bed), with 136 residential parking spaces. The development will remain as two distinct but physically attached buildings. And the latest proposal comes with the following purposes and benefits for the people and communities in Westminster Council: Affordable Housing 50% affordable housing to be handed over to a Registered Social Landlord Open Space Improvements Payment of £30,000 for improvements to the Playground in Paddington Street Gardens Relocation of Farmers Market Payment of £75,000 to secure new temporary site for up to 30 stalls Relocation of Public Car Park Payment of £140,000 to layout temporary car park on a new site, or improve or extend an existing public car park Traffic and Infrastructure works Payment of £154,000 for widening roads and footways, improving junctions, and for other traffic management measures, including a raised carriageway in St. Vincent Street. Employment & Training Payment of £25,000 into a local retail training scheme. Concisely, the revised planning application is made p of the following facts: A Mixed Use Development Maximum 6 storeys high 174 residential flats (87 Affordable Housing) 3 136 residential parking spaces 7 retail/commercial units 1 leisure/community space ｣424,000 planning obligation offered 4. Consultations Necessary consultations have been made to those whose property and businesses would be affected by this planning. Below are some outcomes of the consultations held with the 4.1 Farmers Market There is vigorously objection to the proposal. A petition from the 42 existing stallholders gives the objection enough weight as they all express grave concern at these proposals destroying local business and increasing unemployment, losing up to 70 jobs. Payment to move to a new location was rejected. 4.2 Mrs. B. Goode (a resident around the planning area) She strongly objects to the planning because the development would have a substantial adverse impact on the quality of life of both herself and her husband, who are both retired and have lived in their property for 16 years. She also worried about the development resulting in unemployment as well as constituting public nuisance. 4 4.3 Mr. O. B. Ject Mr. O. B. Ject strongly kicked against the development because he has just bought a flat on Aybrook Street, wondering that the developer are cramming too many flats on a small land. He worried about traffic congestion and construction noise. He suggested that the Westminster Council should sample residents’ opinions about the proposed development to understand how uncomfortable the construction is going to be. 4.4 ST. Vincent’ RC Primary School The primary school is located opposite the planning site. And the school is pleased that a proposal has come forward to make good use of the site, which has been derelict and under-used for many years. Worries of traffic congestion and noise have been allayed by the developer. The school benefits from this understanding by using the proposed new leisure and community space directly opposite the school. 4.5 Director of Housing The letter written on behalf of the Director of housing supports the development having ironed out some important issues with the developers: These issues include the confirmation of the scheme meeting the requirements 5 of the Council’s housing policies, and helping to make a significant contribution to the boroughs housing targets set out in the London Plan. The Director showed that the developer has agreed to enter into a planning obligation agreement in order that the Department of Housing can secure a 50% affordable housing provision on the site (to comply with policy H4). The housing director is also pleased that the scheme has been revised to remove the second basement level and the public car park provision, because a public car park sited below the residential blocks would have compromised the safe management of the housing units. 4.6 Director of Highways The Director of Highways has not completely supported this development despite the progress recorded in the discussion between the Director and the developer. Though the developer has made some concessions like: (i) proposing to provide £140,000 to fund the relocation of the 80 space public car park to another site; (ii) only providing 136 residential parking spaces to serve 174 flats; (iii) providing for all loading and unloading to retail, commercial and leisure units to take place at basement level; and (iv) offering £154,000 to enable some limited road widening, junction improvement and new one-way traffic measures to be implemented. But the Director of Highways still worried about high level of residential parking, the number of movements of commercial vehicles serving the retail, 6 commercial and leisure units and the developers’ inability to so far identify an alternative site for the public car park. These issues raise some grave concerns about solving future traffic congestions and finding solutions to the effect of slowness in vehicular movements, which could slow business and make life difficult for residents living in the affected areas. 5. Detailed Considerations 1.1 Size & Density of Development: The development would occupy the 0.33 Hectare site owned by Westminster Council and contains: maximum of 6 storeys high; 174 residential flats; 87 affordable Housing; 136 residential parking spaces; 7 retail/commercial units; 1 leisure/community space. 1.2 Appropriate Uses for the Site : For residential and commercial units. 1.3 Housing Mix: Residential flats and Affordable Housing. 1.4 Daylight & Sunlight Impact: The development does not have direct impact on daylight and sunlight. 1.5 Other Impacts on Local Amenity There would be noise from vehicles as many occupants of the flats would move about. 1.6 Open Space Requirements: For 1 community/leisure center. 1.7 Traffic Access, Parking & Deliveries: Adequate arrangements have been made for traffic access in and out of the residential and commercial units. Also, occupants can have access to parking and smooth deliveries 7 1.8 Economic & employment Impacts: Some jobs would be lost due to the closure of markets and shops at the site. The economic impact of these may be felt in the Council as families who are unemployed either suffer harsh economic realities or begin to move out of the area. 1.9 Loss of Public Car Park & Farmers Market: Public Car Park and Farmers Markets would be lost. 1.10 Sustainability of Development: The development is sustainable as the developer has access to money and receiving some supports from people, school etc nearby. 1.11 Planning Obligations - Mitigation Measures: There are many mitigating measures that the developer could adopt. The first is by convincing those who object to the planning with good facts. Second, by offering huge compensation to those affected by the development. 1.12 Unitary Development Plan (opportunity site): This is about opportunity sites; and it is not applicable in this development. 1.13 Planning Policy Statement 3(PP3) Housing: This policy is applicable to the development. The planning involves erecting buildings for people 1.14 Westminster Unitary Development Plan: this is applicable in this case, 1.15 Westminster Portman Conservation: This is not applicable since none of the land required to be conserved or preserved in any way or affected by it. 8 2. Background Papers: These documents/papers are used in this planning report to support the final recommendations that would be made on this development: Planning Policy Statement 3 The London Plan The Westminster UDP Plan adopted January 2007. Unitary Development Plan adopted January 2007. Moxon Street Planning Brief dated November 2009 The Revised Planning Application dated October 2009 Consultation Responses Westminster Portman Conservation Statement 3. Conclusion The planning application appears to contain some interesting projects that would be of utmost significance to the people in Westminster Council. The development also faces some strong objections from Farmers Markets, some individuals living in the areas; it also garner some supports from some quarters. 4. Recommendation: In view of the facts outlined above, it is clear that it would be a great decision if the planning application tendered by Cydonia Holdings is approved. This recommendation is supported by the explanations given below: 9 Less strategic objections: There are less strategic objections to the development, apart from the farmers markets and a few individuals. The development has received strong support from Director of Housing, a Primary School, and partly supported by the Director of Highways. Employment: The number of jobs lost will be minimal compared with the number of service jobs that would be created as many people moved into the residential flats and commercial activities pick up at the commercial units. Conformity with standard policies: This development is conformed to the Housing Policy, Westminster Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 (PP3). Damage to property: The development does not pose any threat of damage to any property in the area, rather it serves to be of great importance to the Primary school, since the students could use the community centre for their own extra-curricular activity. Peaceful consultations: The consultations with all stakeholders seem to be peaceful as none has dragged the developer to court to seek legal injunction against the development. It is possible that the developer could extend further negotiations to iron out the remaining issues on the table. In light of the facts described above, the planning application should be approved. References 1. London Plan (2004): (please write the citation here) 2. Westminster Unitary Development Plan (please write the citation here) 3. Planning Policy Statement 3 (please write the citation here) Read More