The property developer and landlord Freshwater group is proposing to demolish 96 (Norwich Union House) and 98 (St Matthews House) George St and build an 11 storey office block, with café/restaurant use on part of the ground and mezzanine floor, a roof terrace on the top floor. Public realm and landscaping works are also proposed for College Square, the area separating the site from Suffolk House to the west of the building.
Do we really need more new office space given the reassessment going on about the future of working in offices as a result of COVID?
Do we really need another restaurant COVID crisis and likely collapse of restaurants in the Town Centre aggravated by the delay in progressing the Westfield scheme?
The Planning Committee will consider the proposals at pre-application stage tomorrow. The Officers are asking the members to focus on:
1. The principle of a commercial development in this location and the loss of 6 residential units
2. The height and massing of the building
3. The ground floor uses and site layout, including public realm proposals
4. The proposed design approach to the façade and elevation details including materiality
5. The likely impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of daylight, sunlight and outlook
6. The level and location of car and cycle parking proposed
7. The importance of green infrastructure and urban greening, both on the roof and in College Square
Inadequate Information
The discussion may be premature because the report on the Place Review Panel is not on the agenda to ensure that the officer summary is accurate, and because the Mayor of London’s review write-up has not yet been published. It is important that the members have the full information. Despite the Panel’s views during pre-consultation the officers do not report what consultation has been carried out by Freshwater.
This should be a line of robust questioning by members, with a view to deferring taking a view on the basis that:
- The Place Review Panel report should be publicly available
- To enable the Mayor’s detailed review is taken into account
- To insist that there be consultation before the Committee re-looks at the pre-application
It may also want to consider additional requirements for action during the period of deferment.
- A review of the provision of flats linked to work units within the office block.
- As assessment of the demand for different sizes and rental costs of office spaces in Croydon.
- A 100% zero carbon strategy.
- Discussion with Croydon College and South Bank University as to whether they will need additional floor space for staff and students study needs.
- The inclusion of student accommodation.
- A ground floor hall for the community and for officer tenant functions.
- An exhibition space.
- A combined heat and power scheme that will generate surplus energy to sell into the grid.
The Farce of Consultation
The problem with pre-application consideration is that the public are excluded from speaking to the Committee. They can email comments in but these do not become part of the official record. Therefore residents and businesses concerned about the emerging details have no influence. It also means that as the scheme becomes more and more acceptable to the Planners the formal consultation when the final planning application is submitted is tokenistic, because it becomes almost impossible for residents and businesses to have the planning grounds to justify rejection of the scheme.
Pre-Application Discussions To-Date
The officers report that their discussions ‘so far have primarily focused on the existing and proposed uses, height and massing, design and façade treatment of the building, ground floor activation, public realm and impact on neighbouring occupiers.’
The Residential Units
‘The applicant has provided evidence that these units are of poor quality in terms of fabric and layout, with a refurbishment up to lettable standard not viable.’
‘Officers support the principle of a tall building in this location. Subject to views testing, and balanced against the constraints including the neighbouring amenity impact and need for larger floorplates for an office typology, officers consider that the proposed massing could be appropriate, if the façade and materiality continue to develop positively.
Place Review Panel (PRP)
The scheme was first presented to PRP on 21st May 2020. The Panel were generally supportive of the proposal but thought different options should be tested to see how the building could better relate to its context. Key comments were made as follows:
· Good starting point for the design, however the social aspirations of the project should be brought to the fore and the scheme should respond to the significance of its location within the Cultural Quarter.
· More community engagement with local stakeholders (including the College). The applicant was encouraged to explore opportunities to program events and activities with the College to make the scheme more richly integrated with its context. Important that the scheme seeks to break down some of the existing social barriers and creates a positive relationship with the College.
· Testing of different options for the massing and volume to explain rationale of how the applicant has arrived at the current design. A solution with a smaller footprint and taller mass would potentially work better to alleviate some concerns regarding townscape, microclimate and impact on adjoining occupier amenity, subject to testing.
· A more slender orthogonal footprint could be more appropriate.
· Microclimate testing should be undertaken as a priority.
· Concern about the close proximity of the massing to existing residential windows within 101 George Street and the impact on daylight/sunlight and outlook – the applicant should consider pulling the footprint further away from the boundary.
· Proposal needs to respond to the character of this part of Croydon more convincingly.
· Further consideration should be given to the material treatment and architectural expression – more material studies and contextual analysis should be undertaken to inform this and define a set of guiding design principles for the scheme.
· More variety in the elevations would be welcomed, e.g. treating the north and south elevations differently and adding architectural interest to the east.
· Site offers great opportunities to improve the landscape of College Square which should tie into the wider vision for the Fair Field Masterplan Area (and should connect the different spaces e.g. through common materials). Landscape architect should be appointed to develop this further.
· The notional public realm should extend into the building footprint and invite the public inside to dwell – the glazed ground floor café and semi-public coworking space on the corner could work well.
· The terrace should be more public-spirited. It will benefit from excellent views towards the Fair Field Cultural Quarter and this should be celebrated.
‘The scheme is continuing to develop since the PRP review’.
Changes Made
The changes made include:
· Different massing options tested and further justification for current approach
· Further contextual analysis carried out including nearby heritage assets
· Development of architectural approach and materiality
· Cycle store development
· Landscape architect appointed and public realm proposals for College Square starting to develop
· Initial qualitative assessment of microclimate impacts provided
· Initial daylight/sunlight impact assessment on nearby occupiers undertaken
Environmental impact and sustainability
‘A detailed sustainability strategy has not yet been confirmed, but the applicant has been made aware of the relevant policy requirements, including the forthcoming requirements in the Intend to Publish version of the London Plan for major non-domestic development to achieve zero carbon. Full discussions relating to air quality, overheating, surface water drainage, microclimate and lighting impacts are yet to be held.’
‘The applicant has been advised that a full flood risk assessment and drainage strategy would be required to support a planning application. Green field run-off discharge rates are the policy requirement.
Possible Planning Obligations
The officers suggest that planning obligations could be:
· Employment and training (contributions and obligations)
· Air Quality contribution
· Zero carbon offset (if required)
· Future connect to District Heating Network
· Car parking permit restrictions
· Car club provision and membership to occupiers · Travel Plan
· Transport for London contributions
· Delivery and servicing plan with financial bond
· Contribution to improvements to the public transport network/sustainable travel improvements/highway improvements/restrictions
· TV signal mitigation
· Wind mitigation measures
· Public realm delivery and maintenance
· Highway works to facilitate access and servicing requirements including potential loading bay/loss of on-street parking spaces, upgrades to footway and College Square
- Retention of scheme architects
· Affordable work space
Mayor of London
‘A planning application for the proposed development would be referable to the Mayor of London under the Mayor of London Order 2008.’ ‘The applicant has submitted a pre-application to the Greater London Authority (including consideration by Transport for London) for an opinion. A meeting was held on 6th October. Their main feedback focussed on the loss of the existing residential units, the height and massing of the development and the impact on residential amenity of the adjoining occupiers. The formal written response has yet to be issued.’
Freshwater in Croydon
In 2016 the Council list of private rented landlords and included 31A Elmfield Way and 11 Windsor Rd owned by Daejan Investments and Daejan Estates Ltds at Freshwater House at 158- Shaftesbury Ave, and managed by Freshwater Property Management based in Suffolk House. They were both on the Valuation Office list of regulated rents. The Daejans were part of the Daejan Holdings group in which the Freshwater family were the largest shareholder. In May 2020 they bought out the rest of the shareholders and made Daejan Holdings a private company.
Has Freshwater Lost The Plot?
The property developer and landlord Freshwater group is proposing to demolish 96 (Norwich Union House) and 98 (St Matthews House) George St and build an 11 storey office block, with café/restaurant use on part of the ground and mezzanine floor, a roof terrace on the top floor. Public realm and landscaping works are also proposed for College Square, the area separating the site from Suffolk House to the west of the building.
Do we really need more new office space given the reassessment going on about the future of working in offices as a result of COVID?
Do we really need another restaurant COVID crisis and likely collapse of restaurants in the Town Centre aggravated by the delay in progressing the Westfield scheme?
The Planning Committee will consider the proposals at pre-application stage tomorrow. The Officers are asking the members to focus on:
1. The principle of a commercial development in this location and the loss of 6 residential units
2. The height and massing of the building
3. The ground floor uses and site layout, including public realm proposals
4. The proposed design approach to the façade and elevation details including materiality
5. The likely impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of daylight, sunlight and outlook
6. The level and location of car and cycle parking proposed
7. The importance of green infrastructure and urban greening, both on the roof and in College Square
Inadequate Information
The discussion may be premature because the report on the Place Review Panel is not on the agenda to ensure that the officer summary is accurate, and because the Mayor of London’s review write-up has not yet been published. It is important that the members have the full information. Despite the Panel’s views during pre-consultation the officers do not report what consultation has been carried out by Freshwater.
This should be a line of robust questioning by members, with a view to deferring taking a view on the basis that:
- The Place Review Panel report should be publicly available
- To enable the Mayor’s detailed review is taken into account
- To insist that there be consultation before the Committee re-looks at the pre-application
It may also want to consider additional requirements for action during the period of deferment.
- A review of the provision of flats linked to work units within the office block.
- As assessment of the demand for different sizes and rental costs of office spaces in Croydon.
- A 100% zero carbon strategy.
- Discussion with Croydon College and South Bank University as to whether they will need additional floor space for staff and students study needs.
- The inclusion of student accommodation.
- A ground floor hall for the community and for officer tenant functions.
- An exhibition space.
- A combined heat and power scheme that will generate surplus energy to sell into the grid.
The Farce of Consultation
The problem with pre-application consideration is that the public are excluded from speaking to the Committee. They can email comments in but these do not become part of the official record. Therefore residents and businesses concerned about the emerging details have no influence. It also means that as the scheme becomes more and more acceptable to the Planners the formal consultation when the final planning application is submitted is tokenistic, because it becomes almost impossible for residents and businesses to have the planning grounds to justify rejection of the scheme.
Pre-Application Discussions To-Date
The officers report that their discussions ‘so far have primarily focused on the existing and proposed uses, height and massing, design and façade treatment of the building, ground floor activation, public realm and impact on neighbouring occupiers.’
The Residential Units
‘The applicant has provided evidence that these units are of poor quality in terms of fabric and layout, with a refurbishment up to lettable standard not viable.’
‘Officers support the principle of a tall building in this location. Subject to views testing, and balanced against the constraints including the neighbouring amenity impact and need for larger floorplates for an office typology, officers consider that the proposed massing could be appropriate, if the façade and materiality continue to develop positively.
Place Review Panel (PRP)
The scheme was first presented to PRP on 21st May 2020. The Panel were generally supportive of the proposal but thought different options should be tested to see how the building could better relate to its context. Key comments were made as follows:
· Good starting point for the design, however the social aspirations of the project should be brought to the fore and the scheme should respond to the significance of its location within the Cultural Quarter.
· More community engagement with local stakeholders (including the College). The applicant was encouraged to explore opportunities to program events and activities with the College to make the scheme more richly integrated with its context. Important that the scheme seeks to break down some of the existing social barriers and creates a positive relationship with the College.
· Testing of different options for the massing and volume to explain rationale of how the applicant has arrived at the current design. A solution with a smaller footprint and taller mass would potentially work better to alleviate some concerns regarding townscape, microclimate and impact on adjoining occupier amenity, subject to testing.
· A more slender orthogonal footprint could be more appropriate.
· Microclimate testing should be undertaken as a priority.
· Concern about the close proximity of the massing to existing residential windows within 101 George Street and the impact on daylight/sunlight and outlook – the applicant should consider pulling the footprint further away from the boundary.
· Proposal needs to respond to the character of this part of Croydon more convincingly.
· Further consideration should be given to the material treatment and architectural expression – more material studies and contextual analysis should be undertaken to inform this and define a set of guiding design principles for the scheme.
· More variety in the elevations would be welcomed, e.g. treating the north and south elevations differently and adding architectural interest to the east.
· Site offers great opportunities to improve the landscape of College Square which should tie into the wider vision for the Fair Field Masterplan Area (and should connect the different spaces e.g. through common materials). Landscape architect should be appointed to develop this further.
· The notional public realm should extend into the building footprint and invite the public inside to dwell – the glazed ground floor café and semi-public coworking space on the corner could work well.
· The terrace should be more public-spirited. It will benefit from excellent views towards the Fair Field Cultural Quarter and this should be celebrated.
‘The scheme is continuing to develop since the PRP review’.
Changes Made
The changes made include:
· Different massing options tested and further justification for current approach
· Further contextual analysis carried out including nearby heritage assets
· Development of architectural approach and materiality
· Cycle store development
· Landscape architect appointed and public realm proposals for College Square starting to develop
· Initial qualitative assessment of microclimate impacts provided
· Initial daylight/sunlight impact assessment on nearby occupiers undertaken
Environmental impact and sustainability
‘A detailed sustainability strategy has not yet been confirmed, but the applicant has been made aware of the relevant policy requirements, including the forthcoming requirements in the Intend to Publish version of the London Plan for major non-domestic development to achieve zero carbon. Full discussions relating to air quality, overheating, surface water drainage, microclimate and lighting impacts are yet to be held.’
‘The applicant has been advised that a full flood risk assessment and drainage strategy would be required to support a planning application. Green field run-off discharge rates are the policy requirement.
Possible Planning Obligations
The officers suggest that planning obligations could be:
· Employment and training (contributions and obligations)
· Air Quality contribution
· Zero carbon offset (if required)
· Future connect to District Heating Network
· Car parking permit restrictions
· Car club provision and membership to occupiers · Travel Plan
· Transport for London contributions
· Delivery and servicing plan with financial bond
· Contribution to improvements to the public transport network/sustainable travel improvements/highway improvements/restrictions
· TV signal mitigation
· Wind mitigation measures
· Public realm delivery and maintenance
· Highway works to facilitate access and servicing requirements including potential loading bay/loss of on-street parking spaces, upgrades to footway and College Square
- Retention of scheme architects
· Affordable work space
Mayor of London
‘A planning application for the proposed development would be referable to the Mayor of London under the Mayor of London Order 2008.’ ‘The applicant has submitted a pre-application to the Greater London Authority (including consideration by Transport for London) for an opinion. A meeting was held on 6th October. Their main feedback focussed on the loss of the existing residential units, the height and massing of the development and the impact on residential amenity of the adjoining occupiers. The formal written response has yet to be issued.’
Freshwater in Croydon
In 2016 the Council list of private rented landlords and included 31A Elmfield Way and 11 Windsor Rd owned by Daejan Investments and Daejan Estates Ltds at Freshwater House at 158- Shaftesbury Ave, and managed by Freshwater Property Management based in Suffolk House. They were both on the Valuation Office list of regulated rents. The Daejans were part of the Daejan Holdings group in which the Freshwater family were the largest shareholder. In May 2020 they bought out the rest of the shareholders and made Daejan Holdings a private company.
The report to the Planning Committee is:
