Former Nicholls & Clarke Site, Shoreditch

planning report PDU/2656 & 2656a/02 24 August 2011 Former Nicholls & Clarke site, Shoreditch in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no.PA/10/02764 & PA/10/02765

Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal A full planning application for the redevelopment of two adjacent sites for commercially-led mixed use purposes, comprising buildings between 4 and 8 storeys (plus plant), to provide B1 (Office); retail and restaurants and public house. The applicant The applicant is City of London Corporation, and the architects are Avanti Architects.

Strategic issues Outstanding issues that were raised at Stage 1 in relation to transport and climate change mitigation & adaptation are now resolved satisfactorily. It is noted that the housing element of the application is removed in the amended scheme.

The Council’s decision In this instance Tower Hamlets Council has resolved to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date.

Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 30 December 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008 “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions…the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.

page 1 2 On 8 February 2011 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2656/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 75 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 76 of that report could address these deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 4 August 2011 Tower Hamlets Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date and on 12 August 2011 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Tower Hamlets Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Tower Hamlets Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 25 August 2011 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 Since this application was referred to the Mayor at Stage I, the Mayor’s London Plan 2011 has been formally published on 22 July 2011. As such, this is now the relevant document for the purposes of the Statutory Development Plan.

5 The decision on this case and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

6 At Stage 1 consultation Tower Hamlets Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 75 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 76 of that report could address these deficiencies:

 Climate change mitigation & adaptation: Provide an estimate of the overall carbon emissions savings, relative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.  Transport: Secure pedestrian and cycling environment, travel plan, delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan and a contribution towards Crossrail.

7 After Stage 1 consultation, the application was recommended for approval by Tower Hamlets officers on 12 May 2011, but the decision was deferred at committee on the following grounds:

 the proposed residential units above the existing public house were considered unacceptable at the location,

 the proposed development fails to provide sufficient regenerative benefits and does not make adequate provision for local employment,

 the application fails to provide sufficient archaeological information,

 the application fails to provide sufficient information relating to refuse storage and collection arrangements,

 the application fails to provide sufficient information relating to the proposed use, treatment and permeability of the proposed ‘Blossom Place’ open space, and

page 2  the detailed design and treatment of the corner building between Norton Folgate and Folgate Street by reason of poor window fenestration would fail to respect the local street scene and in particular views from Norton Folgate north towards the entrance of the Elder Street Conservation Area.

Changes to the application

8 Following the deferral of the decision by the Committee the applicant has sought to address the concerns raised by Council Members through the introduction of a number of amendments. The alterations can be summarised as follows:

 The omission of the eight residential units above the existing public house and the retention of the existing office use of these uppers floors, resulting in an overall increase to the total level of office floor space proposed by approximately 1,000sq.m.

 A re-design of the corner treatment between Norton Folgate and Folgate Street.

 An increase in the employment contribution from £108,840 to £227,094.84.

 An increase in the Crossrail contribution from £1,425,887 to £1,572,477 (£146,590 increase resulting from the omission of the residential units and the subsequent replacement with office floor space).

 A revised energy strategy.

Comments on the revised scheme

9 Whilst as a general principle strategically important office development in the Central Activities Zone is expected to contain other uses including housing in this instance, given the amenity issues of locating residential above a public house, the non-provision of residential in this scheme is acceptable.

10 The design alterations associated with the removal of residential from the scheme are acceptable.

11 The provision of the increased employment contribution is welcomed.

Climate change mitigation & adaptation

12 The applicant has now submitted a report that demonstrates the following points:

 The applicant has provided sufficient information to verify that the proposed energy efficiency measures exceed 2010 building regulations minimum requirements for each of the new build elements of the application.

 Investigations regarding existing heat networks in the area have concluded that no heat networks exist in the vicinity of the development to which the proposed scheme could be connected to.

 The applicant has now confirmed that all buildings will be served from a single energy centre providing heating and hot water to all elements of the development.

 An analysis of the roof space available, bearing in mind roof plant constraints and living roof areas, has now concluded that a total of 150 sq.m. of roof mounted photovoltaic panels could be installed. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 8

page 3 tonnes per annum (2%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy. This is welcomed.

 The development will achieve a reduction of 24 tonnes of regulated carbon dioxide emissions per year compared to a 2010 Building Regulations. This is equivalent to an overall savings of 6.7% carbon dioxide emissions.

13 As a result, although the carbon savings achieved fall short of the carbon reduction targets set out in the policy 5.2 of the London Plan 2011, bearing in mind the technical constraints that exist, the proposals are acceptable.

Transport

14 At Stage 1 consultation, TfL requested further information and discussion on a number of points, namely a financial contribution of £1,425,887 towards Crossrail, financial contribution towards the improvement of the local pedestrian and cycling environment and the need for a revised travel plan, a construction logistics plan and a delivery and servicing plan. It was also requested that London Underground infrastructure be protected by planning condition.

15 Revisions to the scheme resulted in an uplift in office floor space and consequently an increased contribution towards Crossrail of £1,572,477, in line with the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ (July 2010).

16 TfL welcomes that planning conditions are imposed in order to secure the production of a construction logistics plan and a delivery and servicing plan. In addition, the applicant is required to submit details of design and construction method statements, for approval to the local planning authority in consultation with TfL London Underground, to ensure the integrity of the Underground tunnels.

17 TfL welcomes the draft section 106 agreement which secures both the full Crossrail contribution of £1,572,477, which should be payable upon commencement of the development, and an obligation towards the preparation and implementation of a travel plan. TfL also welcomes the contribution of £300,000 towards public realm/street scene improvements on Shoreditch High Street.

18 In summary, TfL is now satisfied that the issues raised at Stage 1 consultation have been adequately dealt with and considers the development to be in accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan. Response to consultation

19 A total of 125 properties together with all individuals and bodies that made representations on the previous (original) application, have been notified about the revised application and invited to comment. The application has also been publicised in East End Life and six site notices were erected around the site.

Local representations

20 A total of four representations were received from local residents, three of these were from the same local resident responding to the different iterations of the proposal. The outstanding objections can be summarised as follows:

 Concerns regarding the facade design and window treatment of the proposed building on the corner of Folgate Street and Bishopsgate;

page 4  Traffic concerns along Blossom Street;  Potential light pollution from the main element of the proposal. Suggested condition to ensure windows are shuttered at night and lights turned off when not needed;  The residential units should remain in the development otherwise there is too much commercial space in a residential area.

21 The Spitalfields Trust: Acknowledged that the current application is a considerable improvement, however objections raised in relation to: proposed scheme containing elements that are too high and bulky; retention of late 19th Century shops/houses applauded but facadism is not supported, they should be restored in their entirety and uppers floors restored to residential; oppose the wrap around window design of the corner building at Norton Folgate and Folgate Street, more traditional window shapes preferred; high rise components of the scheme remain too high to the detriment of the character of the conservation area; retention of the first floor wash houses along Norton Folgate applauded, however, object to the treatment of the proposed shop unit openings, suggests that brick arches should be considered instead of cat-nick lintels; unhappy with proposed cascade of cantilevering balconies, more traditional balconies suggested; Excessive demolition proposed to the Blossom Street warehouses.

22 The London Society raised concerns regarding the appearance of the new development and stating that it will look out of keeping with the character of the conservation area, particularly the element fronting onto Norton Folgate. It also opposes the demolition of the art deco building at Shoreditch High Street.

23 Matters relating to amenities are not in this instance strategic planning matters and have been assessed by Tower Hamlets in its committee report. In relation to objections raised in relation to design and heritage these have been dealt with in this and previous reports.

24 Spitalfield Bars Company Ltd, which operates the public house on site, submitted two representations. These set out a number of concerns whilst expressing that it was on the whole supportive of the scheme. These concerns are as follows: need for proposed piazza/terrace area between rear of public house and the square to have a designated smoking area and the need for the square to be closed to through pedestrian traffic in the evening; potential impact of construction on functioning of the Water Poet pub; the relationship with pub use and proposed residential uses above. (Note: the residential units have now been removed from the proposal); the need to ensure the pub use continues to have access to an external courtyard in order for it to operate. Objection was also raised to any potential conditions limiting hours of opening. The Council’s committee report sets out that the square will be closed to through pedestrian traffic after 7pm and no conditions are imposed in relation to opening and closing times of the public house.

Statutory Consultees

25 Statutory consultees responded as follows:

 CABE/Design Council: Design strategy and the proposed integration of retained building commended. Scale and massing acceptable in context. Composition of building volumes work well. Linkages through to the site and access to Blossom Place welcomed. Success of the scheme will be dependant on materials and detailing and should be conditioned. This is conditioned. The following comments were also received regarding the revised scheme: The revised scheme is not substantially different to the original scheme. Design Council has no further comments to their original submission made last year.

 English Heritage: has no comments.

page 5  English Heritage Archaeology: Confirms that the site falls within a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), being part of the Priory of St Mary Spital. Works which involve excavation below ground level will require SAM consent. Programme of historic building recording and analysis recommended and this is conditioned.

 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority: Ground floor plan indicates that the existing water supplies are to be maintained and the provision of water supplies for the fire service should be adequate. Fire brigade access should not be problematic.

 Thames Water: No objections to the application however an informative relating to minimum water pressure should be attached to any decision. An informative is attached.

 The Environment Agency had no comments.

 London Borough of Hackney has no objections to the proposal.

 National Air Traffic Services: has no safeguarding objections to this proposal.

 City of London Department of Planning and Transportation: the proposed development would not detract from the locality on terms of townscape. The City welcomes developments within the City Fringe that would maintain or enhance the townscape and generate improved opportunities for leisure and employment.

 London City Airport: has no safeguarding objection to the proposal at the heights outlined in the application. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

26 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

27 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. The Mayor must also have regard to the guidance set out in GOL circular 1/2008 when deciding whether or not to issue a direction under Articles 6 or 7. Financial considerations

28 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and

page 6 Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

29 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy. Conclusion

30 The proposed development represents a marked improvement to the previously refused scheme. This application will bring substantial regenerative benefits to the immediate area and the wider Borough through the regeneration of this site with a commercially led mixed-use development.

31 Outstanding strategic issues in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation and transport are now resolved satisfactorily and all other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Overall, the scheme is supported in strategic planning terms and it complies with the London Plan 2011.

page 7

planning report PDU/2656/01 8 February 2011 Former Nicholls & Clarke site, Shoreditch in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no.PA/10/02764

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal A full planning application for the redevelopment of two adjacent sites for commercially-led mixed use purposes, comprising buildings between 4 and 8 storeys (plus plant), to provide B1 (Office); retail and restaurants, public house and 8 residential apartments. The applicant The applicant is City Corporation of London, and the architects are Avanti Architects.

Strategic issues Mixed use, heritage, urban design, housing, access, climate change mitigation & adaptation, employment & training, transport, crossrail & parking are the key strategic issues considered for this application.

Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 75 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 76 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 30 December 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 9 February 2011 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008 “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions…the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.

page 8 3 Once Tower Hamlets Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The proposed development affects two sites, as shown in Figure 1:

• the principal site is the Nicholls and Clarke site, a roughly rectangular plot measuring approximately 3,888 sq m which is bounded by Fleur de Lis Street (North), Folgate Street (South), Blossom Street (East) and Norton Folgate and Shoreditch High Street (west); and,

• the smaller site, the depot site, measuring approximately 479 sq. m lies immediately opposite the north east corner of the principal site at the junction of Blossom Street and Fleur de Lis Street.

Figure 1: Site location (Source applicant’s document)

6 The application site is located at the transition between Spitalfields and Shoreditch, within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Shoreditch lies to the north of the application site, whilst Spitalfields lies to the south and east. To the south west lies the City of London. Bishopsgate lies on the western boundary of LB Tower Hamlets some 500m to the north of Liverpool Street Station in the north west corner of the Elder Street Conservation Area where the railway cuttings

page 9 emanating from Liverpool Street turn north east towards the former site of Bishopsgate Goods Yard and effectively delineate the borough boundary with LBHackney.

7 The site is within the Elder Street Conservation Area and it is partly designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The area also falls within the Central Activities Zone and is identified as within the City Fringe Opportunity Area in the London Plan, being scheduled as one of a number of Mixed Use Opportunity Sites in LB Tower Hamlets. As such it may be seen as occupying a transitional position at the intersection of two spheres of influence - that of the developing City Fringe to the west and that of the Conservation Area to the east.

8 The nearest section of the Transport for London Road Network is the A10 Bishopsgate which is immediately to the west. There are 13 bus routes within 300m of the site, with Shoreditch High Street station (London Overground) and Liverpool Street station (National Rial Services to East London and East Anglia and Central, Circle, Metropolitan and Hammersmith & City Underground Lines) both within 750m. The site has a public transport accessibility level of 6, on a scale of 1 to 6, where 6 is excellent.

Details of the proposal

9 Full planning application for the regeneration of Nicholls and Clarke and Depot sites comprising the conservation, repair, adaptation of late Victorian terraced properties: nos16-19 Norton Folgate (stated by the Inspector in the appeal for the previous scheme to be retained), the Arts and Craft buildings nos 5 -11A Folgate Street, and the warehouses nos 12-15 Blossom Street; reconstruction of Georgian buildings: nos 14 and 15 Norton Folgate; the retention and reconfiguration of the existing Water Poet Public House; with demolition and redevelopment of properties including: nos 13 and 20 Norton Folgate, nos 2-9 Shoreditch High Street, nos 16-17 and no 10 Blossom Street.

10 The application proposes a mixed use development comprising buildings between 4 and 8 storeys in height of 48.40m AOD (plus plant) to incorporate approximately 14,000 sq m of new B1 accommodation, approximately 4050 sq m of B1 accommodation in restored and converted buildings, approximately 2000 sq m of A1 Retail and A3 Restaurant Uses, approximately 800 sq m of A4 Public House use, together with the re-creation of the historic public space known as Blossom Place, with adjoining amenity space, and improvements to the public realm along Shoreditch High Street including provision of access to Blossom Place, highway works to consolidate existing vehicle lay-bys on Shoreditch High Street and Blossom Street and provision of managed off-street servicing and parking facilities. Case history

11 There was a similar planning application in 2007 (LPA Ref PA/06/02333) which was also referred to the previous Mayor, that sought planning permission and conservation area consent for the redevelopment of the site to erect buildings between 4 storeys and 10 storeys plus plant (43 metres), and retention and conversion of a selection of existing buildings, to provide a mixed-use development to contain 9 residential units (1x studio flat, 1x1 bed flat and 7x2 bed flats), B1 (Office) ( including small/medium enterprise units), A1 (Retail) and A3 (Restaurant & Cafe) and A4 (Public House) with associated open space and servicing.

12 The application was recommended for approval, but Tower Hamlets Planning Committee resolved on 21 June 2007 to refuse planning permission and conservation area consent. The reasons for refusal were:

page 10 “The proposal by reason of its bulk, scale and height would fail to either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Elder Street Conservation Area contrary to policies DEV 25 and DEV 28 of the LBTH adopted (1998) UDP and policies CP49 and CON2 of the emerging LBTH Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document (November 2006).”

13 As a result, appeals were lodged and the inspector, whilst accepting the proposed mixed use and the quality of the design, formed the view that four Victorian properties, nos 16-19 Norton Folgate that were proposed for demolition, made a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and should be retained rather than demolished. The Inspector consequently dismissed the appeals.

14 A pre-planning application meeting in relation to the current proposal took place on 3 August 2010 at City Hall and attendees included officers from the GLA and TfL and the applicant. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

15 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Urban fringe/CAZ London Plan; PPG2; PPS7  Mix of uses London Plan  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Housing/affordable London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG, EiP version  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Employment London Plan; PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13;  Crossrail London Plan Alteration; Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

16 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Documents (Adopted 2010) and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

17 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation.  The draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework (February 2008).  Tower Hamlets City Fringe Area Action Plan (October 2007). Mixed use/urban fringe/CAZ

page 11 18 The site lies in the Central Activities Zone (Policy 2A.4, Policies 5G.1-5), the North East sub-region (Policies 5C.1-3), and the City Fringe Opportunity Area (2A.5) in the London Plan. Table 5C.1 of the London Plan identifies that the City Fringe opportunity area has an indicative employment capacity of 80,000 jobs and the potential to deliver a minimum of 5,000 homes (both these figures assume commensurate investment in transport capacity enhancements). The draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework provides further strategic policy guidance for development in the area and, in particular, for tall buildings. 19 In the draft replacement London Plan the site lies in the Central sub-region (Policy 2.5), in the Central Activities Zone (Policy 2.10-2.11) and is identified as an Opportunity Area (Policy 2A.13). Table A1.1 of the draft replacement London Plan identifies that the City Fringe opportunity area has an indicative employment capacity of 40,000 jobs and the potential to deliver a minimum of 7,000 homes in the plan period.

20 Policy 5G.4 and DRLP Policy 2.11 state that within the CAZ the Mayor and Boroughs should identify, enhance and expand retail capacity to meet strategic and local need. The emphasis of Policy 3B.3 is further reinforced by Policies 2.11 and 4.3 of the DRLP which specifically state that developments which increase office floor space within the CAZ should also include a mix of uses. Thus, as a general principle, strategically important office development in the Central Activities Zone and the north of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area where most office growth will be concentrated will be expected to contain other uses which shall include housing (see policy 5G.3). Policy 5C.3 relates to opportunity areas in North East London. This includes the City Fringe (embracing Bishopsgate / South Shoreditch) area and seeks to ensure that developments will be expected to maximise residential and non-residential densities and to contain mixed uses.

21 As a result, the proposed commercially-led mixed scheme is consistent with the existing and emerging strategic planning policies for the area and would support the London’s role as a world city. Urban design

22 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained in Chapter 4B. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other polices in Chapter 4B and elsewhere in the London Plan set out design requirements relating to specific issues, notably heritage. London Plan policies 4B.9 and 4B.10, which set out specific design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, are applicable to the proposal. Chapter 7 of the draft replacement London Plan sets out design related policies.

Heritage

23 The site is located within the Elder Street Conservation Area, an area first designated in 1969 focussed on preserving the surviving Georgian houses in Elder Street and Folgate Street. Extension of the Conservation area in 1977 took in the commercial area west of Blossom Street (the Nicholls and Clarke Site) and north of Fleur de Lis Street.

24 The site is also located within an area defined as the Priory and Hospital of St Mary Spital, Scheduled Ancient Monument which extends south of Fleur de Lis Street to Spital square. The application site lies over the northern extent of the Scheduled Ancient Monument where little of the built elements of the Priory and Hospital of St Mary Spital that once stood.

page 12

Figure 2: View of the restored Norton Folgate properties within the proposed scheme (Source- applicant’s design and access doc.).

25 The site is identified in the draft City Fringe OAPF (2008) as being suitable for taller buildings. The design has benefited from review and revision in response to the merits and deficiencies of the previous design as identified in the appeal decision. The result is a scheme that is substantively improved and which would address those deficiencies. In particular it would now retain the buildings at 14-19 Norton Folgate that were identified as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Elder Street Conservation Area (see Figure 2). The layout would now integrate these, the other retained buildings on Folgate Street, Blossom Street and Fleur de Lis Street, and the new office buildings to create a well defined urban block with two courtyards at its centre. The proposed retention and renewal of the existing buildings to bring them back into economic use is supported.

Figure 3: View showing that the vista remains dominated by 201Bishopsagate to the west (Source- applicant’s design and access doc.).

page 13 26 The proposed courtyards would reflect the known archaeological survival on the site and assist with its preservation. The design of these courtyards would integrate sufficient tree planting within the constraints of the archaeology and servicing and facilitate active management, permitting open access during the day and managed access at night. It would also provide outdoor space for the existing and proposed retail, food and drink uses, including the pub known as 'The Water Poet' (shown in Figure 3), which would successfully animate this space and contribute to the vitality of the wider neighbourhood.

27 The scale, mass and architecture of the taller office building in the north of the site, has been well handled in terms of its relationship with the Elder Street Conservation Area. The tightly enclosed streets in the area would largely obscure sight of the building and where visible, notably from Fleur de Lis Street, it would be viewed against modern tall buildings to the west of Bishopsgate / Norton Folgate. In these views the proposal, though clearly a modern commercial building, would respond to the character of the Conservation Area, especially though the extensive use of masonry in the facade. In addition, it is noted that the elevational treatment to Fleur de Lis is improved by incorporating windows openings at the ground floor level, where at the moment it is faced on both sides by blank walls.

Figure 4: The proposed mixed use development in contex as seen from Shoreditch High Street (Source- applicant’s design and access doc.)

28 In longer views to the building from Shoreditch High Street (see Figure 4), the proposal would suitably enclose the street appearing, due to their relative positions in this view, as being of similar scale to 201 Bishopsgate though being considerably lower in scale in reality. The proposal would improve the setting of the South Shoreditch Conservation Area in these views, appearing in this perspective of comparable scale and solid appearance. The northern elevation will prominent in views from this location owing to gap in the street scene to the north created by the railway cutting. The architect has given careful thought to this and to the principal facade on Bishopsgate /Norton Folgate where the proposal would carry through the rhythms and proportions of the

page 14 retained buildings on Norton Folgate, which is a positive approach. It is noted that the proposal, having been reduced in scale from the previous scheme, would be no longer be visible in views from Christ Church Spitalfields, which is positive.

Residential quality

29 The proposal includes eight residential units and these would, within the constraints presented by the conversion of the retained buildings, comply with the relevant residential design standards, including Lifetime homes, wheelchair housing and the emerging space and design standards. This is welcomed.

Summary

30 The proposal has taken account of the assessment of the previous application and has been improved as a result. It would be consistent with the design policies of the London Plan including polices 4B.1, 4B.9, 4B.10, 4B.12 and 4B.15, and those of the draft replacement London Plan. Housing

31 Policy 3A.2 of the London Plan relates to Borough housing targets. It advises that the DPD policies should seek to exceed the target figures set out in table 3a.1 for each borough and to address the suitability of housing development in terms of location, type of development, housing requirements and impact on the locality.

32 For Tower Hamlets the target for additional homes for the 2007/08 to 2016/17 period is 31,500 and the annual monitoring target is 3,150 homes. The plan acknowledges that the delivery of these targets will be affected by market factors; consequently these targets will be reviewed on a five yearly basis. The new annual target for Tower Hamlets in the DLRP (Annexe 4) is 2,885. These targets relate to 2011/12 to 2020/21. This provides a disaggregation of the targets by components of supply, i.e. conventional supply, non self-contained and vacant dwellings. For Tower Hamlets the target for conventional supply is 2,462 whilst that of non-self-contained and vacant dwellings is 382 and 43 respectively, giving an annual target of 2,885.

33 Policy 3A.3 (Maximising the Potential of Sites) seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum intensity of development compatible with local context, the design principles in policy 4b.1 and with public transport capacity.

34 The proposal provides two 3-bed units (25%), one 2-bed unit (12.5%) and five 1-bed units (62.5%), which given the sites location and constraints the proposal is acceptable.

35 Affordable housing: The housing element of the proposal (i.e. 8 apartments) lies below the threshold of developments comprising 10 or more dwellings. As a result, such provision is not warranted within the scheme.

36 As a result, the proposed development that comprises the provision of 8 residential apartments is in line with the housing policies of the London Plan and the emerging DLRP. Access

37 Policy 4B.5 of the London Plan expects all future development to meet the highest standard of accessibility and inclusion. This, together with the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment’, underpins the principles of inclusive design and aims to achieve an accessible and inclusive environment across London. Policy 7.2 of the draft replacement London Plan reinforces the principles of inclusive access.

page 15 38 Policy 3A.5 of the London Plan requires all new housing to be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards and 10% of all new housing to be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for such use in order to meet the full range of housing needs.

39 The access statement demonstrates that the proposed residential units are designed to comply with design and space standard principles of the Interim Edition of London Housing Design Guide (Mayor of London, August 2010) and will be fully compliant with Lifetimes Homes and all entrances will be well lit, covered and will be level. 10% of the units are designed to wheelchair users.

40 The statement reiterates that the proposals produce three units on each of the 1st and 2nd floors and two units at the 3rd floor (mansard level). The access at each level is via the entrance core from Folgate Street where a secure hallway leads to lift and staircase access to the upper external walkway overlooking the proposed Blossom Place. A level gradient pedestrian access leads the visitor from Blossom Street through to a reception area with a lift, stairwell and two toilets; one of the toilets is wheelchair accessible.

41 The development proposes wheelchair accessible parking spaces at three locations. One disabled parking space will be located within the site, one is located on Folgate Street and the third location is on Folgate North which, although not exclusive to the proposed development offers wheelchair accessible parking.

42 As a result, the access arrangement complies with inclusive design policies of the London Plan. Climate change mitigation & adaptation

43 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 4A collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions (Policy 4A.1). Chapter 5 of the draft replacement London Plan sets out the approach to climate change and requires developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate change mitigation

44 London Plan policies 4A.4-11 focus on mitigation of climate change and require a reduction in a development’s carbon dioxide emissions through the use of passive design, energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. The London Plan requires developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures and prioritising decentralised energy, including renewables.

45 The applicant has submitted an energy statement and the overview of proposal is that the applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. The proposals are broadly acceptable; however, further information is required before the carbon savings can be verified.

BE LEAN

Energy efficiency standards

46 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters

page 16 will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include energy efficient lighting, improved controls and high performance glazing.

47 Based on the information provided, the proposed development is likely to approach 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency measures alone. The applicant should confirm that each of the new build elements of the development will achieve 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency measures alone.

BE CLEAN

District heating

48 It is envisaged that the office, retail and residential heat requirements will be supplied from a heat network served by a central energy centre. An indicative drawing showing the location of the energy centre has been provided. However, the energy statement states that the heat network infrastructure is subject to agreement being reached between different parties. The applicant should clarify why agreement might not be reached between the different parties, given that they will all occupy the development which is the subject of the planning application.

49 The site heat network will be capable of connection to an external district heating network in the future. However, no information has been provided on existing or planned networks in the vicinity of the development. Further information should be provided in this regard.

Combined Heat and Power

50 The applicant is proposing to install a 33kWe gas fired CHP unit as the lead heat source for a site heat network. The CHP would operate for 15 hours per day and heat load profiles have been provided to support its sizing. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 30 tonnes per annum (7%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

Cooling

51 Passive design measures will be adopted including solar control glazing, external shading and effective ventilation. However, active cooling will be required in the commercial elements of the development. This will be provided using high efficiency electric chillers. The residential elements will be entirely passively cooled.

BE GREEN

Renewable energy technologies

52 The applicant is proposing to install 150sqm of roof mounted photovoltaic panels. Drawings have been provided showing the proposed location of the photovoltaic panels. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 6 tonnes per annum (2%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

53 Overall, the estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 383 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account.

54 In summary, whilst the energy strategy is supported, the applicant should provide an estimate of the overall carbon emissions savings, expressed in tonnes carbon dioxide per annum and percentages, relative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

page 17 Climate change adaptation

55 London Plan policy 4A.3 seeks to ensure future developments meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, and policy 4A.9 identifies five principles to promote and support the most effective adaptation to climate change. These are to minimise overheating and urban heat island effects; minimise solar gain in summer; incorporate sustainable drainage systems; minimise water use; and protect and enhance green infrastructure.

Surface water drainage

56 The applicant is also referred to specific policies relating to overheating (4A.10), living roofs and walls (4A.11) and sustainable drainage (4A.14). Additional guidance is provided in the London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG.

57 Water-use: The sustainability statement sets out that a reduction in the water consumption in the residential units will be achieved through the specification of water efficient appliances. The commercial spaces will also implement water saving measures and aim to have a water use less than 4.5m3/person/year.

58 Living roof and walls: Rainwater run-off attenuation will be provided by living roofs and other attenuation measures. It is envisaged that the proposed living roofs and walls will increase the biodiversity of the site.

59 Sustainable drainage system: The sustainability statement proposes that permeable surfaces will be used in the external landscaped spaces to favour natural infiltration, in line with SuDS principles of the London Plan. Employment & training

60 The proposed development is supported in principle by the GLA. The scheme could help contribute to the delivery of objectives set out within the London Plan and the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS) in relation to:

 London’s Places and Infrastructure – Support the delivery of the London Plan, to promote sustainable growth and economic development, and deliver healthy, sustainable, high quality communities and urban environments, as well as, the delivery of improved and effective infrastructure to support London's future growth and development.

 London’s People - tackle barriers to employment

 London’s Enterprise - Improve the skills of the workforce, as well as addressing barriers to start up, growth and competitiveness.

61 In accordance with policy 3B.1 Developing London’s economy and policy 3B.11 Improving employment opportunities for Londoners of the London Plan and Mayoral objectives as set out in the EDS, initiatives to create training and employment opportunities for local people during the construction phase as well as within the completed enterprise and initiatives to address barriers to employment, should be formalised through a section 106 agreement between the applicant and the Council.

62 The applicant has committed itself that in the event that planning permission is granted the section 106 agreement will provide for a financial contribution to employment, training and enterprise. Provided the contribution is secured the scheme complies with policies 3B.1 and 3B.11 of the London Plan.

page 18 Transport for London’s comments

63 In recognition of the site’s excellent accessibility, TfL welcomes the car-free nature of the proposal, except for one on-site Blue Badge space, in line with London Plan policy 3C.23 ‘Parking Strategy’ and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13 ‘Parking’. TfL also supports the total provision of 142 cycle spaces on site to serve the office, the restaurant/retail units and the 8 private residential apartments, in line with TfL’s minimum cycle parking guidance and draft London Plan policy 6.9. The applicant’s intention to ensure that all occupiers provide dedicated shower and changing facilities is also welcomed. This should be secured by way of condition.

64 The applicant should note that the site lies above the Central Line running tunnels and the area of influence for which London Underground has protective covenants over. Considering this, appropriate conditions may need to be applied to the planning permission if detailed design and method statements for all of the foundations, basement and ground floor structures, or for any other structures below ground level, including piling (temporary and permanent) is required. This should be approved by Tower Hamlets Council, in consultation with London Underground, and will ensure that the development does not impact on existing London Underground infrastructure, in accordance with London Plan policy 3C.4 and ‘Land for Transport Functions’ Supplementary Planning Guidance. Whilst this should be secured by condition, TfL would therefore welcome further discussion with Tower Hamlets Council and the applicant in this respect.

65 In view of the strategic regional importance of Crossrail to London’s economic regeneration and development, and in order to bring the project to fruition in suitably timely and economic manner, contributions will be sought from development likely to add to or create congestion on central London’s rail network that Crossrail is intended to mitigate. This will be through planning obligations, arrangements for the use of which are established at strategic level in accordance with relevant legislation and policy guidance (Policy 3C.12A of the London Plan and draft replacement London Plan Policy 6.5).

66 The approach for collecting contributions towards Crossrail is set out in the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ (July 2010). The SPG states that contributions should be sought in respect of retail, hotel and office developments in Central London, which involve a net increase in floorspace of more than 500sqm (GEA). As the proposed development falls within the Central London Contribution Area, the proposed indicative level of charge is £137 per sqm for new office floorspace, £88 per sqm for new retail floorspace and £60 per sqm for new hotel floorspace.

67 A requirement for a Crossrail contribution from this development will therefore relate to the net additional impact from the new development, by deducting the theoretical charge that would be paid by the existing uses within the site. Applying this approach to floorspace figures contained in the applicant’s transport assessment, the current uses on site (3,224sqm of retail and 6,938sqm of offices) generate a requirement for £1,234,218. The proposed uses (2,665sqm of retail floorspace and 17,705sqm of office floorspace) would generate a contribution of £2,660,105. Accordingly, TfL requires a contribution of £1,425,887 towards Crossrail. This should be paid to TfL upon commencement of the proposed development, and secured as part of the section 106 agreement. A 20% discount will be applied if the contribution is paid before 31 March 2013.

68 Additionally, TfL is currently developing a scheme to improve pedestrian crossing facilities along Bishopsgate, which could incorporate the installation of a cycle superhighway. Given that this is likely to benefit the proposed development site by improving pedestrian and cycle safety, TfL would therefore welcome further engagement with the Council and the applicant to secure a contribution towards this scheme, in line with London Plan policies 3C.21 ‘Improving conditions for walking’ and 3C.22 ‘Improving conditions for cycling’.

page 19 69 The proposed travel plan structure contained within the transport assessment is not sufficient. Although it is noted that the end users are currently unknown, TfL still requests the submission of a framework travel plan to support site-wide measures that encourage shifts to more sustainable modes in line with London Plan policy. This should be prepared in line with TfL’s ‘Guidance for workplace travel planning for development’ (March 2008). The travel plan should be evaluated before submission using ATTrBuTE tool.

70 A construction logistics plan should also be submitted, which should seek to minimise highway and traffic impact to the highway network during the course of construction. Similarly, TfL also requests the submission of a delivery and servicing plan which should seek to rationalise servicing with the aim to reduce the total number of trips made and to avoid critical times on the road network. Given that servicing is proposed to be undertaken on an existing loading bay on Shoreditch High Street, the DSP should contain measures to ensure that deliveries are appropriately timed and managed to reduce its impact on traffic, whilst avoiding illegal loading. This information is required before TfL can support the servicing arrangements for the proposed development. Both plans should additionally be secured by way of condition.

Summary

71 TfL requires the applicant to address the following matters in order for the application to be considered acceptable and compliant with transport policies of the London Plan:

 A contribution should be secured by s106 towards a pedestrian and cycling improvement scheme on A10 Bishopsgate Grant of planning permission should be made subject to protection of LU infrastructure.

 A delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan should be secured by condition or s106.

 A framework travel plan should be secured by condition or s106.

 A contribution of £1,425,887 towards Crossrail is required. Local planning authority’s position

72 Tower Hamlets Council officers have yet to confirm their position. Legal considerations

73 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments.

page 20 Financial considerations

74 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

75 London Plan policies on mixed use, urban design, housing, access, climate change mitigation & adaptation, employment & training, transport & parking are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Mixed use/CAZ: The proposed mixed use at a site located within the CAZ is in line with the London Plan.  Urban design: The design of the proposed development is consistent with the design policies of the London Plan including polices 4B.1, 4B.9, 4B.10, 4B.12 and 4B.15, and those of the draft replacement London Plan.

 Housing: The proposed housing development is in line with the London Plan.  Access: The access arrangement complies with inclusive design policies of the London Plan.

 Climate change mitigation & adaptation: Whilst the energy strategy is supported, the applicant should provide an estimate of the overall carbon emissions savings, relative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

 Employment & training: Provided contribution towards employment & training is secured, the scheme complies with policies 3B.1 and 3B.11 of the London Plan.

 Transport, crossrail & parking: A contribution towards a pedestrian and cycling improvement is required; travel plan, delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan should be secured, and a contribution of £1,425,887 towards Crossrail is required.

76 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Tefera Tibebe, Case Officer 020 7983 4312 email [email protected]

page 21