Lewisham Council - Agenda item - Surrey Canal Triangle design framework draft SPD

The full draft SPD (appendix 1) can be viewed at the link:

Resolved: that the Committee would share its views with Mayor and Cabinet as follows –

· The Committee welcomes the advances in discussions between all parties regarding the future development of Surrey Canal Triangle.

· The Committee is concerned about the lack of any new analysis[1] regarding the needs of existing and potential future communities in Surrey Canal Triangle and it recommends that Mayor and Cabinet should seek assurances that further detailed work will be carried out to assess local need for social and physical infrastructure (for both new and existing communities).

· The Committee broadly welcomes the draft supplementary planning document. However, it believes that the ‘D1’ planning designation for community uses should not at this stage refer to any sub-category of usage.

· The Committee notes that there are a number of issues surrounding any future planning applications that other Council committees will need to address. In addition, the Committee recommends that the Housing Select Committee should consider the developing SPD in relation to issues of affordable and social housing.

The Committee also made a number of general comments about any future development in Surrey Canal Triangle:

· The Committee heard that alternative sources of funding had been secured for the development of a new train station to serve Surrey Canal Triangle – and that developer contributions were no longer required. Therefore, the Committee recommends that proper consideration be given to using this funding for the delivery of additional affordable housing.

· The Committee also believes that any future development in the vicinity of Millwall football club should consider the potential benefits to the local community.

· Members of the Committee highlighted councillors’ previous questions about the viability of Renewal – and urged that consideration should be given to any future due diligence necessary to assure working relationships with developers.

[1]See particularly, the section in the draft design framework on ‘social infrastructure’, page 100.

7.1 Viv Evans (Head of Programmes) introduced the report – the following key points were noted:

· The report and its appendices were part of the new approach to the comprehensive redevelopment of Surrey Canal Triangle.

· Over the past 18 months the Mayor and officers had brought together the two principal parties (Millwall football club and Renewal) to explore how they could work together and collaborate with the Council.

· The Council and the two principal parties had agreed some key objectives in order to: facilitate the delivery of a comprehensive development of high quality; deliver a significant uplift in genuinely affordable housing (from that which was previously agreed through the outline planning permission for Renewal); enable the Millwall football club to have a secure long-term future in the borough; deliver a mixed use community in the Surrey Canal Triangle.

· The report was a key part of achieving these key objectives.

· The Surrey Canal Triangle was currently an allocation in the statutory core strategy for the Council – as strategic site allocation three (SSA3).

· Agreement had been reached between the Council and the principal parties that the best way forward would be for the Council to set out its key objectives and elaborate on the allocation of SA3 in a strategic design framework (which is what the Committee was being asked to consider).

· Mayor and Cabinet had agreed to terminate the previous land sale agreement.

· The SPD had been developed in consultation with the two principal parties.

7.2 Viv Evans and David Syme responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

· The Council granted an outline planning permission in 2011 (which was still in existence and could still be implemented) for Renewal – however – it required the transfer of three pieces of land to facilitate.

· The Council had previously entered into a compulsory purchase indemnity agreement for land in Surrey Canal Triangle to enable the development. This would have ensured that the cost of the compulsory purchase would have been covered by Renewal – should the purchase have been required.

· The Council agreed that it would continue to work with Renewal on a varied compulsory purchase indemnity agreement – in case there was a requirement for other pieces of land to enable the development, which the company could not acquire through negotiation with landowners.

· The Council agreed with principal parties that it would own the strategic objectives for the Surrey Canal triangle and that both parties would be free to submit applications to enable the redevelopment of the area.

· Any planning application would be assessed against the strategic plan for the area.

· If the decision was taken by Mayor and Cabinet to carry out consultation on the plan – then the intention would be to bring a final version to the Committee’s meeting in January 2020 – in advance of formal adoption by Mayor and Cabinet.

· The SPD had to be in line with the existing core strategy allocation – it did not set any targets for affordable housing above those in the core strategy.

· The Council was in advanced discussions with Renewal regarding a new planning application, which was likely to be submitted before the end of the calendar year.

· The existing outline planning application was for 2400 homes – with 12% affordable housing (split approximately 25% social rent and 75% shared ownership) which meant that around 288 affordable housing units (78 social rent 210 intermediate housing) would be provided. The expectation was that the overall quantity of housing would increase to 3500 units (subject to a planning application) with 35% affordable housing ( a 70/30% split in favour of affordable rent) this would increase the number of units for social rent from 78 to 850.

· The train station was still a key part of the proposal (and was included in the SPD). However – at the time of the outline planning permission by Renewal, the company had committed several million pounds towards the delivery of the station. Since that time, however, TfL had secured £23m of housing infrastructure funding from the government to deliver the station.

· The Committee’s comments about the funding for the station were noted – but it was informed that the issue of developer contributions would be considered in any future planning application (rather than the SPD).

· The Council had not committed to a single faith centre in Surrey Canal triangle. The existing planning allocation had proposed that space be set aside for ‘community use’.

· The new outline planning application was a ‘hybrid’ application which included elements of detail and elements in outline. Most of the application would be ‘outline’. It would have to conform with the strategic site allocation – and once the SPD had been adopted – it would be assessed against that document

· The legal parameters of what could be achieved through the design framework were limited. It would not be possible to create new policy.

· Designation of specific uses for the site could not be resolved in the SPD – references to a ‘faith centre’ would be amended in the draft.

· It was not clear what proposals Millwall football club might bring forward for the site (other than improvements to the stadium). It was possible that they would come forward with a mixed use proposal around the stadium – but no discussions were currently taking place.

7.3 In Committee discussions – the following key points were also noted:

· That the Council no longer intended to compulsorily purchase land around Millwall football club – and that the club would be free to submit its own application for development.

· The Committee noted the funding that had been provided by the government for the delivery of the station and it highlighted the importance of securing developer contributions for affordable housing and other infrastructure projects.

· Members were concerned about the development of the proposed ‘faith centre’ for the development in Surrey Canal Triangle and the potential use of community infrastructure levy (CIL) or section 106 (planning obligation) funding for this purpose (Kheng Chau (Senior Planning Lawyer) informed the Committee that the Council’s regulation 123 CIL list stated which infrastructure could benefit from CIL monies and it specifically excluded places of worship).

· Members were uncertain what opportunities and influence they had to ensure that any development in Surrey Canal Triangle would meet the needs of the local community (and any future community) in 2019 (and beyond) rather than 2011.

· The Committee expressed concern about the significant changes that had taken place in Surrey Canal Triangle since 2011, including: the loss of the sports centre; the development of the train station with the use of public funds and the change of the proposed multi-faith centre into a ‘cathedral sized’ church for a single faith group.

· Members reiterated their concerns about the status of the developer ‘Renewal’ – in terms of its corporate set up and its capacity to carry out the development.

7.4 Resolved: that the Committee would share its views with Mayor and Cabinet as follows –