planning report PDU/1732/02 22 December 2010 Battersea Power Station

in the London Borough of Wandsworth planning application nos. 2009/3575, 2009/3576, 2009/3577 & 2009/3578

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 Outline planning permission is sought for: Repair, restoration, extension and conversion of the former Power Station to provide residential, retail, business, culture, event and conference, with associated plant, servicing and storage. Development of land surrounding the power station to provide retail, business, hotel, serviced apartments, residential, community and culture, assembly and leisure, construction of basement to provide servicing, parking, energy centre, plant and storage. Landscaping and open space, alterations to existing and creation of new pedestrian and vehicular access routes, parking and enabling works. Listed building consent is sought for: Repair, restoration, extension and conversion of the grade II* listed Battersea Power Station. Repair, restoration, extension and conversion of the grade II listed riverside structures. Demolition of the grade II listed Battersea water pumping station. The applicant The applicant is REO (Powerstation) Ltd, and the architect is Rafael Vinoly Architects.

Strategic issues Outstanding issues relating to retail, housing, transport, urban design and inclusive design, children’s play space, climate change, the blue ribbon network, safeguarded wharves and hazardous installations have been satisfactorily addressed.

The Council’s decision In this instance Wandsworth Council has resolved to grant permission subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. Recommendation That Wandsworth 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

page 1 1 On 22 December 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Wandsworth 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 Categories 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2C, 3E, 3F and 3H of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

1A: Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats.

1B: Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats), which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings – (b) in Central London (other than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres.

1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building in respect of which one or more of the following conditions is met – (a) the building is more than 25 metres high and is adjacent to the River Thames.

1D: Development which comprises or includes the alteration of an existing building where - (b) the building would, on completion of the development, fall within a description set out in paragraph 1 of Category 1C.

2C: Development to provide – (i) a passenger pier on the River Thames.

3E: Development – (a) which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and (b) comprises or includes the provision of more than 2,500 square metres of floorspace for a use falling within any of the following classes in the Use Classes Order – (i) to (v) classes A1-A5 (retail/financial and professional/food and drink/drinking establishments/hot food takeaways) (vi) class B1 (business) (ix) class C1 (hotels) (x) class C2 (residential institutions) (xi) class D1 (non-residential institutions) (xii)class D2 (assembly and leisure)

3F: Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the provision of more than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use.

3H: Development which – (a) comprises or includes the provision of houses, flats or houses and flats; (b) does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and (c) is on a site that is adjacent to land used for treating, keeping, processing, recovering or disposing of refuse or waste materials with a capacity for a throughput of more than - (ii) 20,000 tonnes per annum of waste.

2 On 27 January 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1732/01, and subsequently advised Wandsworth Council that the application did not comply with the London

page 2 Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 260 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 262 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 11 November 2010 Wandsworth Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 10 December 2010 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 Wandsworth Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Wandsworth 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 23 December 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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 the consultation stage Wandsworth Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 260 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 262 of that report could address these deficiencies:

 Retail: clarification of a number of technical assumptions in the retail assessment is required in order to properly assess the acceptability of the impact of the proposed quantum of retail floorspace on nearby town centres, in line with London Plan policies 3D.1 and 3D.2.

 Housing: the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, which should be determined in the context of overall scheme viability, is required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 3A.9 and 3A.10. The mix of units should be determined with reference to local and strategic housing requirements to ensure compliance with policy 3A.5.

 Transport: further work as detailed in paragraphs 78 to 148 of this report is required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 3C.1, 3C.2, 3C.17, 3C.20, 3C.22, 3C.23, 3C.25 and 6A.4.

 Urban design: further work in relation to the relationship with the safeguarded wharves, the function and design of public open spaces, delivery of the continuous riverside walkway, external appearance and residential quality is required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan design policies.

 Children’s play space: further information relating to the provision of play space for the under 5’s and over 12’s should be provided to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3D.13.

 Climate change: further work as detailed in paragraphs 214 to 235 of this report is required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 4A.1 to 4A.7.

page 3  Blue ribbon network: the applicant should investigate opportunities for recreational use of the river in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 4C.10. Further information in relation to delivery of the continuous riverside walkway is required in line with London Plan policy 4C.11.

 Safeguarded wharves: the relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent safeguarded wharves should be revisited before the scheme can be considered compliant with London Plan policy 4C.9.

 Hazardous installations: regard will be had to the HSE’s advice in order to assess the acceptability of the scheme against London Plan policy 3A.34.

Application update

7 In response to the issues raised in the stage one report, as well as issues raised by the Council and in consultation responses, the scheme has been revised in the following ways:

 A revised mix of uses comprising Development Zone RS-1. This includes the removal of assisted living accommodation and a reduction in the quantum of residential use and community/culture use. A hotel use has now been introduced together with the potential for a defined area which can come forward as either residential or student housing. Development Zone RS1 now comprises: residential (C3), retail (A3/A4/A5), community/culture/leisure (D1/D2), hotel (C1) and student housing/residential (Sui Generis/C3)  A reduction in the quantum of residential use proposed in Development Zone RS-2 and introduction of an increased quantum of serviced apartments (C1/C3).  The introduction of an increased quantum of community/culture/leisure (D1/D2) and a reduction in the quantum of residential use (C3) in Development Zone RS-6.  A reduction in the quantum of residential use (C3) in Development Zone RS-WF and RS- 6.  Alterations to the proposed massing of Development Zones RS-6 and RS-WF.  A merger of community/culture (D1) and leisure (D2) use in relation to Development Zones RS-1, RS-2, RS-4 and RS-6. These development zones now proposed floorspace defined as community/culture/leisure (D1/D2).  An extension to Development Zone RS-4 at lower ground level.  Minor design amendments to the Power Station building.  A reduction in the proposed quantum of car parking.  Alterations to the minimum development envelopes associated with Development Zones RS-1, RS-2, RS-4 and RS-5.

Opportunity Area update

8 In summer 2010, Roger Tym & Partners, Peter Brett Associates, and GVA Grimley undertook a development infrastructure funding study (DIFS) on behalf of the GLA in partnership with TfL, Wandsworth and Lambeth Councils and landowners. The aim of the study was to understand what infrastructure is required to support the proposed level of new development within the opportunity area (OA) based on revised development capacity scenario five (high density housing with retail and office); to identify the level of contributions that can be collected from developers without jeopardising viability; to identify how this is split between the proposed NLE and other infrastructure projects and to identify the size of the potential funding gap.

9 The recommendations of the DIFS report are intended to form the basis of a revised section 106 funding chapter for the opportunity area planning framework (OAPF), which will be subject to consultation shortly. The DIFS indicates that the cost of infrastructure directly attributable to the

page 4 proposed quantum of development in the opportunity area is £908 million, of which £659 million could be raised through developer contributions via a section 106 tariff mechanism. £191 million could be raised through alternative funding solutions and ‘in kind’ contributions from individual developments. The identified funding gap of £58 million is not considered insurmountable given the long build out period and the prospect of market recovery.

Northern Line extension update

10 Over the last few months London Underground (LU) has been working closely with the applicant and has confirmed that it has no objection on a technical basis to the proposals and the project proceeding to Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) submission. In addition LU is satisfied that the latest cost forecasts (23 September 2010) are reasonable for this stage in the project. The forecast public and private sector costs are expressed at £662.30 million and £563.88 million respectively.

11 As set out in the draft OAPF (November 2009) a NLE from Kennington to Battersea Power Station with an intermediate/second station in the Nine Elms area is the preferred option as this brings a much wider range of transport and community benefits than would be achieved by a single stop extension. At this stage a single phase delivery of a two-stop NLE remains the preferred TfL/GLA solution.

12 The final DIFS report identifies the potential to collect between £581 million and £659 million through developer contributions. This includes an assumed level of contribution from the applicant of £210 million, of which £203 million would be towards the NLE. This represents (at most) 36% of the total (private sector) NLE cost or 30% of the total estimated public sector cost.

13 It is TfL’s view that finding a funding solution for a NLE will be challenging. A private sector delivery vehicle will need to obtain construction finance, secure sufficient funding against which to repay the finance, and have the ability to bear the associated risks of delivery (i.e. cost overruns, funding shortages). At this stage it is not known how this might be realised; however, progression of the TWAO will require all these matters to be fully addressed/clarified. TfL supports the coalition government’s recent announcement regarding Tax Incremental Financing and its potential role in funding infrastructure in the opportunity area and the contribution it could make to NLE funding. Retail

14 At stage one, comments were made and clarification sought in respect of a number of technical assumptions and impacts on nearby centres as assessed in the applicant’s retail impact assessment. Since then, the applicant has updated its retail assessment in light of the publication of PPS4. Third party consultants, Nathanial Lichfield & Partners (NLP), were appointed to review the applicant’s retail assessment on behalf of the Council and the GLA. As a result of concerns about some aspects of the methodology used in the applicant’s assessment, as well as trade draw assumptions and interpretation of results, NLP undertook an alternative assessment of the proposal.

15 In respect of the sequential test, NLP consider that the need for the retail development is not site specific, that the scale of need for comparison retail due to projected expenditure could be disaggregated, and that a smaller scale retail development could serve the proposed development and the wider Nine Elms area. However, they conclude that even allowing for disaggregation of need, existing floorspace, vacant units and commitments in sequentially preferable locations (i.e. existing centres) are unlikely to be sufficient to accommodate all of the estimated need for retail development in the primary catchment area up to 2016.

16 NLP’s impact assessment concurred with the applicant’s assessment that the main impacts of the new retail development at the power station would be on Clapham Junction and

page 5 Wandsworth Town. The estimated cumulative impact at 2016 of the proposed development with existing commitments and the Ram Brewery proposal, is -10.9% on comparison facilities at Clapham Junction and -9.5% in Wandsworth town centre. These impacts are greater than those estimated in the applicant’s retail impact assessment. It is estimated that in order to maintain their vitality and viability as town centres, Clapham Junction could absorb a cumulative impact of 16% in 2016 and Wandsworth town centre could absorb 20%. It is therefore unlikely that the viability and vitality of those centres would be materially harmed by the proposed development and that expenditure growth to 2016 will be sufficient to offset trade diversion.

17 The alternative assessment undertaken by NLP has addressed the concerns raised at stage one in respect of the applicant’s retail impact assessment. It was also noted at stage one that the scale of the retail floorspace should be conditional on major public transport improvements. Transport considerations are addressed elsewhere in this report, but the conditions proposed by the Council would ensure that the majority of the proposed retail floorspace will not be occupied until the Northern Line extension (NLE) is operational.

18 In summary, GLA officers are satisfied that the impacts of the proposed development will not materially harm the vitality and viability of existing centres to an extent that would warrant refusal of the application. The provision of retail floorspace is an integral part of the overall mix of uses necessary to create a successful scheme and is considered essential to creating a sense of place. The scale of the proposed retail provision is proportionate to the creation of a new central activities zone (CAZ) frontage, which is supported by the draft Vauxhall-Nine Elms-Battersea (VNEB) opportunity area planning framework (OAPF), and will be adequately served by major public transport improvements, notably the NLE. In conclusion, the application is acceptable in relation to London Plan policies 3D.1, 3D.2 and 5G.2 and draft replacement London Plan policy 5.22. Housing

Affordable housing

19 Since stage one, the applicant’s open book viability appraisal has been scrutinised on behalf of the Council and the GLA by an appointed third party consultant. Due to the complexity of the scheme, the Three Dragons Toolkit was not considered sophisticated enough for the purpose of assessment so a bespoke cash-flow model was used instead.

20 The consultant reviewed the full range of assumptions made on values for all aspects of the development. It also considered other key variables including construction costs, professional fees, finance assumptions, site costs, sales and letting fees and contingencies. During the review process a number of variables and the assumed growth rates were subject to discussion and alteration. The consultant’s final report included sensitivity testing at varying levels of affordable housing in order to demonstrate the total amount of planning obligations that could viably be provided. Various land value scenarios (existing use value, alternative use value and purchase price) and levels of developer return were also tested. The analysis shows that the amount of affordable housing that could be delivered varies considerably depending on the assumptions applied and the level of other planning obligations.

21 Two key aspects of the viability appraisal were of particular concern: the rate of return being sought by the developer and the value that should be applied to the site. On completion of the viability review process, and following a period of negotiation, the applicant agreed to accept a lower rate of return than it was originally seeking. It was also agreed that the most appropriate land value was the existing use value (EUV) at the point of purchase, which is considerably lower than the actual purchase price. These values are accepted as being robust for the purpose of assessing the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in line with London Plan policy 3A.10.

page 6 22 The final affordable housing offer is 15%, which equates to 517 units (without student housing in RS-1) or 503 units (with student housing in RS-1), with a tenure split of 60% social rented and 40% intermediate, to be provided in development zones RS-5 and RS-6. The Mayor should note that RS-5 and RS-6 are in the second half of the developer’s construction programme and are estimated to be ready for occupation no sooner than 2019 and 2021 respectively. The Council and GLA’s consultant has confirmed that bringing the affordable housing forward in the construction programme would negatively affect viability and consequently reduce the total amount of affordable housing that could be delivered. Whilst the arrangements for phased delivery of affordable housing and associated hold back of market housing are yet to be finally agreed, the indicative arrangements set out in the Council’s committee report are considered reasonable.

23 The Council has not sought a mechanism to review the viability of the scheme and the level of affordable housing during the build out period. Whilst review mechanisms are increasingly being applied to schemes of this size and length of build out, the consultant advised that this could result in a future reduction in the amount of affordable housing if the growth rates and sales values anticipated by the applicant are not realised. The Council therefore considers that the certainty offered by agreeing a fixed quantum of affordable housing, with no review mechanism, is the best solution in this instance. This is accepted.

24 Taking account of the consultant’s advice, the value of the total package of planning obligations, the costs associated with the other benefits of the development, notably the restoration of the Power Station, and in the context of the balance of priorities for the VNEB opportunity area including the need for major public transport improvements and in particular the NLE, the applicant’s offer of 15% affordable housing at 60% social rented and 40% intermediate is considered to represent the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. The application therefore complies with London Plan policies 3A.9 and 3A.10.

Mix of units

25 At stage one, a better understanding of the proposed mix of units was sought in order to properly assess the application against London Plan policy 3A.5. The overall mix of units will be conditioned to substantially accord with the following mix: 12% studios, 16% one-bed, 44% two- bed, 18% three-bed, 4% four-bed and 4% penthouse. This could be subject to minor variation at detailed design stage. The mix of units within the Power Station building is fixed by virtue of the listed building consent, and of 178 units, 6% are one-bed, 35% are two-bed, 44% are three-bed, 14% are four-bed, and one unit is a penthouse.

26 Within the affordable housing, following discussions between the Council and the applicant, the mix will be controlled via the section 106 agreement to reflect the target mix set out in the Council’s emerging Development Management Policies Document, which in its current form is as follows:

page 7 27 The overall unit mix, which will result in approximately 817 three and four-bedroom and penthouse units, provides an acceptable choice of unit type and size in line with London Plan policy 3A.5. The affordable mix, in line with the Council’s emerging policy, will deliver 40% three or four-bed social rented units and 20% three or four-bed intermediate units. Based on the indicative unit numbers, this would result in 124 three or four-bed social rented units and a further 41 three or four-bed intermediate units. This broadly accords with the strategic priority for affordable family sized units and is acceptable. Transport

28 TfL supports the regeneration of this major brownfield, central London site. At consultation stage TfL concluded that a ‘significant degree of further work and discussion would be required, before the proposals could be considered to comply with the London Plan and in order to meet TfL’s operational requirements’. Since then the applicant has worked with TfL to resolve all outstanding issues. A new Transport Assessment and supporting documents were submitted in July 2010; this has been reviewed against the comments set out at stage one.

Transport Assessment

Trip generation (stage one report paragraphs 82-85)

29 The revised transport assessment forecasts that across all modes in the region of 67,563 inward trips and 65,251 outbound trips will be generated by this development over the course of an average day. This includes 5,236 inbound trips and 2,525 outbound trips during the AM Peak hour (08:00 to 09:00) and 9,918 inbound and 14,150 outbound trips during the PM Peak period (17:00 to 19:00). TfL considers the approach to trip generation acceptable in order to demonstrate the development is in line with London Plan policies 3C.1 Integrating transport and development and 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity, and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.1 Strategic approach and 6.3 Assessing transport capacity.

Development impact (stage one report paragraphs 86-89)

30 Based on the revised and agreed trip generation forecasts the multi-modal impact assessment has been revised. This assumes that a NLE to Battersea Power Station via Nine Elms and Kennington is constructed and open for use in 2016 prior to the occupation of the retail element associated with phase 2.

31 TfL is satisfied with the level of analysis undertaken in relation to the revised transport assessment, both in relation to RS1 (phase 1) and Total Development scenarios. This can now be considered to be in line with London Plan policies 3.C1 and 3C.2 and replacement London Plan policies 6.1 and 6.3.

Site access and highways impact (stage one report paragraphs 90-95)

32 TfL is satisfied ‘in principle’ with the proposed junction improvements and highway layout changes proposed. Further work on traffic modelling and detailed highway design will be required as part of the section 278 process. It is TfL’s view that the traffic generated by this proposal could be accommodated on the surrounding road network once the necessary highways works are in place.

33 It should be noted that in line with draft replacement London Plan policy 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion and 6.12 Road network capacity, the proposal for a new signal controlled junction on Battersea Park Road at The Prospect which provides access to the proposed public car park is likely to be highly scrutinised at the detailed design and formal approvals stages.

page 8 34 TfL welcomes proposals to improve the pedestrian environment within and around the site. However, initial capacity assessments of the proposed pedestrian crossing at The Prospect junction indicate that it may be insufficient to cater for the likely pedestrian demand, particularly given the numbers of people accessing the new Underground station and the bus stop on the southern side of Battersea Park Road. Following discussions with the applicant, TfL is satisfied that an alternative access directly into the station could be provided via the currently closed passage under Battersea Park Road at the end of Stewart’s Road. This would relieve pressure on the crossing, particularly during peak periods when interchange movements are at their highest. If required, this could be delivered as part of the station proposals.

35 TfL’s Cycle Superhighway Route 8 (Wandsworth Town Centre to Trafalgar Square) is expected to be implemented in mid-2011. TfL has had detailed discussions with the applicant and whilst no definitive solution has been reached, TfL is satisfied that the applicants proposals for Queens Circus will be capable of accommodating the superhighway proposals. This requirement will be secured through the s278 agreement.

36 While traffic levels will increase as a result of this development as well as the wider development of the OA it is TfL’s view, subject to completion of the appropriate s278 agreements and delivery of highway works that this application can be considered to be generally in line with London Plan policy 3C.16 Road scheme proposals and replacement London Plan policies 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion and 6.12 Road network capacity.

37 All highways works proposed will be fully funded and delivered by the developer through the s278 process.

38 Should this application be granted planning permission, the applicant is reminded that this does not discharge the requirements under the Traffic Management Act (2004). Formal notifications and approvals may be need for both the permanent highway scheme and any temporary highway works required during the construction phases of the development.

Car parking (stage one report paragraphs 96-100)

39 As part of the original submission a total of 3,851 car parking spaces were proposed, and included a residential ratio of 0.6 car parking spaces per unit. Following discussion the level of residential car parking has been reduced to an average 0.43 spaces per residential unit. The level of office parking has been reduced by 50% to 80 spaces, and the level of dedicated retail (A1/A2) parking spaces has been reduced from 1,045 to 856 spaces.

40 In total car parking has been reduced by 1,123 to a total of 2,728 spaces. TfL supports the applicant’s agreement to prepare and implement both a site wide car parking management strategy as well as detailed car parking management plans for each phase.

41 TfL is satisfied with the planning conditions set out by the council (conditions 20 – 24) and provisions within the s106 heads of terms which relate to parking. In addition, given the scale, nature and location of this development it is TfL’s view that the revised level of residential and non-residential car parking is now acceptable and generally in line with London Plan policy 3C.23 Parking strategy and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13 Parking.

Cycling (stage one report paragraphs 101-105)

42 The original transport assessment failed to demonstrate how the site will integrate with the existing cycle network i.e. London Cycle Network (LCN) route 37 which runs along Battersea Park Road. TfL is now satisfied that this has been resolved.

page 9 43 A total of 5,821 cycle parking spaces are proposed across the site for all land uses, this is in line with TfL cycle parking standards as referred to in the draft replacement London Plan and is welcomed.

44 Following TfL’s request, the applicant has agreed to provide 2 cycle hire docking stations within the scheme as well as £267,000 towards their implementation. Indicative locations for these facilities have been identified and are secured through the s106 heads of terms.

45 TfL is now satisfied that the provision and design of facilities for cyclists as part of this development complies with London Plan policy 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.9 Cycling.

Walking (stage one report 106-111)

46 As requested at Stage 1 the applicant has provided further information in respect of how the site will link to the existing pedestrian and highway network. In addition an audit of the quality of the pedestrian environment has been undertaken for the area around the site.

47 The applicant’s commitment to facilitate an extension of the Thames Path along the northern riverside edge connecting Battersea Power Station to Queenstown Road, Chelsea Bridge and Battersea Park as well as eastwards to link with the river walk at Tideway Industrial Estate is welcomed.

48 TfL is satisfied that the provision of pedestrian signage to, from and throughout the site has been addressed through appropriate planning conditions (condition 37). TfL expects any scheme to fully integrated and be branded with TfL’s Legible London way finding scheme.

49 TfL is satisfied that this proposal is in line with London Plan policy 3C.21 Improving conditions for walking and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.10 Walking; all pedestrian realm proposals must be shown to meet all relevant accessibility standards.

London Underground (stage one report paragraphs 112-116)

50 Without an extension to the Northern line (NLE) this development would not be acceptable in transport terms and would contribute to a significant level of new demand particularly towards Vauxhall Station and on the Victoria line. Due to the existing capacity issues on the Victoria line any post-RS1 development will only be considered acceptable if a NLE is delivered and operational prior to occupation. In addition a NLE considerably increases the public transport accessibility level (PTAL) at the western end of the OA.

51 TfL’s view on engineering feasibility, phasing, costs and funding and financing options of a NLE are set out elsewhere in this report. The applicant’s commitment to use ‘all endeavours’ to progress the TWAO, the agreed total infrastructure contribution and the agreed conditions are essential aspects, necessary in gaining TfL support for this application.

52 It should also be noted that irrespective of the final identity of the promoter of the TWAO application, it is important that TfL, as strategic transport provider with ultimate responsibility for the operation of the NLE, will require rigorous controls in TfL's favour within the s106 agreement to ensure a robust application is made and that any potential risk to TfL derived from the nature of any TWAO application, its promotion, final determination, funding of the NLE and/or its operation, or otherwise, is adequately covered.

53 Subject to completion of the Section 106 agreements TfL considers the application to be generally compliant with the relevant London Plan policies 3C.1 Integrating transport and development and 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity, and draft replacement London Plan policies 6.1 Strategic approach and 6.3 Assessing transport capacity.

page 10 Interchange (stage one report paragraphs 117-118)

54 TfL agrees ‘in principle’ with the proposed layout of the station forecourt/interchange area fronting the proposed Underground station and onto Battersea Park Road/Nine Elms Lane. This is subject to further detailed design as part of plans for the Underground station, landscaping strategy and associated s278 highways works. The design of this area should reflect relevant guidelines including TfL’s “Interchange Best Practice guidance”.

Bus services and infrastructure (stage one report paragraphs 119-124)

55 The transport assessment states that around 18% of trips to and from the development are expected to use buses, and forecasts that 1,070 bus trips in the AM peak period (08:00 to 09:00) and 3,365 bus trips in the PM peak period (17:00 to 19:00) will be generated.

56 In relation to RS1 development alone the applicant has agreed to provide £1.4 million towards improved capacity/new bus services to mitigate the additional demands generated. This is welcomed.

57 An additional £6.8million for ‘other public transport enhancements’ has been identified within the wider infrastructure contribution offered. While this has not been explicitly allocated towards bus service enhancements it is appreciated by the applicant and the council that bus services is one area that could be funded from this contribution.

58 The provision of the bus standing areas and bus stops on ‘Hotel Lane’ are welcomed. TfL is satisfied with the indicative bus stand and stop locations on Hotel Lane however this is subject to further consultation and approvals with the council and TfL as part of detailed design stages and associated s278 processes.

59 The applicant has confirmed that all roads will be designed to adoptable standards and agreed to provide a bus driver toilet facility as part of the development; TfL expects this to be provided at no cost to TfL and via the s106 agreement.

60 TfL is satisfied with the level of bus contribution associated with RS1, contributions towards ‘other public transport enhancements’, indicative locations of bus standing and stopping areas and the commitment to provide a bus drivers’ toilet facility. TfL’s view is that the proposal generally complies with London Plan policy 3C.20 Improving conditions for buses and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.7 buses transits and trams as well as London Plan (2008) policy 3C.1 Integrating transport and development, 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.1 Strategic approach and 6.3 Assessing transport capacity.

Rail (stage one report paragraph 125)

61 In relation to RS1 TfL is satisfied that the additional rail trips generated are relatively low and therefore are likely to be absorbed within existing station and service capacity at Battersea Park, Queenstown Road and Vauxhall Rail Stations.

62 The level of rail trips generated by the ‘Total development’ is more significant. The numbers of passengers using Queenstown Road Station is forecast to increase by 23% and 33% in the AM and PM peak hour respectively. The development generates an additional 348 and 489 trips in and out of Vauxhall Rail Station in the AM and PM peak hours respectively. Given the high frequency of train service at Vauxhall Rail Station this would result in a relatively low number of additional trips per train; however, the impact on station capacity and congestion levels is likely to be increased.

63 Battersea Park Station is forecast to have the greatest increase. The number of passengers using this station is forecast to increase by 55% and 78% in the AM and PM peak hour

page 11 respectively. When the cumulative impact of other developments in the OA is considered, the revised transport assessment demonstrates that this development will have an adverse impact on Battersea Park Station. It is TfL’s view that while some impact will be experienced at both Vauxhall and Queenstown Road Stations, Battersea Park Station will experience the greatest impact as a result of this development.

64 TfL understands that Network Rail does not currently have an improvement scheme for this station; in addition the applicant has not proposed any specific mitigation towards managing the impacts of this development. In this instance TfL shares the view of the council in that improvements to Battersea Park Station can be secured through future development contributions from the wider opportunity area.

Taxis and coaches (stage one report paragraphs 126-129)

65 TfL is satisfied with the additional information supplied by the applicant and with the proposed arrangements for taxis and coaches proposed as part of this development. An appropriate planning condition (condition 25) has been agreed by the council to ensure the details of these facilities are acceptable.

River pier and services (stage one report paragraphs 130-132)

66 Post Stage 1 discussions with TfL London River Services and the Port of London Authority (PLA) identified that existing river service operators are keen and have the capacity to serve new areas of demand. The onus should therefore be on the developer to provide pier infrastructure in the first instance.

67 It has been agreed pump priming/a financial subsidy for river services from the developer would not be expected; however this does not preclude future pump-priming from the developer at a later date or advertising or sponsorship of services, which could be negotiated outside the planning process.

68 TfL is satisfied with the commitment to provide a temporary pier facility prior to occupation of the residential element of phase 1 and permanent pier facility prior to the occupation of the residential element of phase 3.

69 It is TfL’s view that the appropriate planning conditions (condition 51) have been agreed and will ensure this proposal is compliant with London Plan policies 4C.1 The strategic importance of the Blue Ribbon network, 4C.7 Passenger and tourism uses on the Blue Ribbon Network and draft replacement London Plan policies 7.25 Increasing the use of Blue Ribbon Network for passengers and tourism and 7.27 Blue Ribbon Network: supporting infrastructure and recreational use.

Servicing and construction management (stage one paragraphs 133-136)

70 The applicant has agreed to prepare a delivery and servicing plan (DSP) for the entire site which would be updated and agreed with the council, in consultation with TfL prior to the occupation of each phase. TfL is satisfied with the aims and objectives of the DSP as set out within the transport assessment.

71 In addition the applicant has agreed to provide detailed servicing and waste strategies prior to the occupation of individual buildings. The transport assessment describes the objectives of the servicing and waste strategy; this includes servicing protocols, trip generation, swept paths and details of access.

72 The applicant has agreed to prepare a detailed construction management strategy prior to each phase of development in line with the council’s approach and in consultation with TfL. In

page 12 addition the applicant has expressed a desire to utilise the river Thames for moving materials; research has illustrated that two barge movements per tide are available, each barge having a capacity of 1,000 tonnes. This has the potential to enable a significant reduction in freight movements on the highway.

73 TfL expects the construction management plans to contain specific measures and targets to maximise the use of the river during the construction period, an appropriate planning condition has been agreed.

74 TfL is satisfied that appropriate conditions securing both the construction management strategy and delivery and servicing plan have been agreed (conditions 38 and 59) and therefore is satisfied that this proposal is compliant with London Plan policies 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic, 3C.25 Freight strategy as well as draft replacement London Plan policies 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion, 6.14 Freight and 7.26 Increasing the use of the blue Ribbon Network for freight transport.

Travel planning (stage one report paragraph 137)

75 Two travel plans have been prepared: a framework employee travel plan for the office, hotel and retail uses and a residential travel plan. TfL is satisfied with the revisions made to these travel plans as the majority of TfL’s previous concerns have now been addressed. As this is a large site with unknown occupiers for the workplace elements it is important that the travel plan is secured through the s106 agreement with specific reference to targets, the travel plan co-ordinator and monitoring of the travel plans.

76 TfL is satisfied that all relevant travel plans and travel plan measures will be secured, enforced, monitored and reviewed through the s106 agreement and that this proposal is compliant with London Plan policy 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.3 Assessing transport capacity.

Transport mitigation

77 TfL agreed the s106 heads of terms with the council prior to committee but in doing so accepted that significant further detailed drafting will be necessary. TfL will be a signatory to the agreement to give comfort that all matters will be addressed to TfL’s satisfaction, with all reasonable legal costs associated covered by the applicant.

78 In terms of financial contributions a total of £228 million has been committed by the applicant. If the Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS) suggested tariff approach was applied to this proposal a contribution of up to £130 million would be expected. The total contribution currently offered is therefore in excess of this. It is TfL’s view that this is acceptable when considered in the wider context of the DIFS and future decisions regarding infrastructure priorities within the OA.

79 With the exception of £1,400,000 towards bus service improvements associated with phase one and £267,000 towards cycle hire which will be paid directly to TfL, all remaining contributions have been combined into an ‘Infrastructure Contribution’ totalling £211,582,711 and payments will be made to and held by the council on behalf of the Nine Elms Strategy Board. This has been calculated on the basis of the following breakdown:

 £203m towards the Northern Line Extension (including up to £14m towards progressing a TWAO)  £6.8m towards other public transport improvements  £1.8m towards community and local employment purposes

page 13 80 TfL expects the detailed terms of reference for the Nine Elms Strategy Board, including all those which relate to the management and control of the infrastructure fund to be finalised and agreed as soon as possible, but certainly prior to the completion of the s106 agreement. The next meeting of the Nine Elms Strategy Board will take place on 26 January 2011.

Phasing and timing of section 106 payments

81 The applicant proposes that the infrastructure contribution would be paid in instalments, and based on the current programme payments would commence in 2011/12 with the final payment being made in January 2024 aligning with the first occupation of the last phase of the development. These dates are purely forecasts and depend on market conditions and the pace of development. The s106 agreement should include arrangements whereby payments, supported by a bond scheme, are reviewed in the light of prevailing market conditions at the time, if there are concerns from the applicant about viability and the impact that may have on its ability to make payments.

82 TfL agrees that the initial (up to) £14m could be paid in stages prior to commencement of development in order to fund the costs of the TWAO process for the NLE. The applicant has proposed that the remainder of the contribution would be made at key points in line with the progress of each individual phase. The contribution for each zone would be in the same proportion to the total as the proportion of floorspace within each zone to the total floorspace in the development. The applicant proposes to pay 50% of the payment relating to each zone on commencement of superstructure works in that zone and 50% on first occupation of the zone.

83 However, as acknowledged in the council’s committee report, based on the current phasing just 19% (approx. £38m) of the applicant’s contribution would be available before the NLE running tunnel works commence and no further payments would be likely until after the running tunnel works were complete, 35% (or £73million) would be paid prior to the NLE becoming operational in 2016 (as currently anticipated by the applicant). In spite of funding the TWAO process, few payments are likely to be made ‘upfront’ or during the course of the NLE construction. The remaining 64% (over £134m) would be paid in ten instalments spread over some 8 years following completion of the tube works. The scheduled payments depend on the applicant’s scheme being built out completely in order to secure all their NLE contributions and the full payment would not be made until 2024. If the development stalls or parts of the later phases remains uncompleted the contribution payments may either be delayed or dry up. Clearly, if payments relating to earlier phases of the development (i.e. pre NLE) were increased and linked to specific dates and front loaded this would to some degree relieve the risk.

84 This clearly has implications for the funding statement that needs to be submitted with the TWAO application as in order to create a robust funding proposal for the NLE, issues such as cash flow will need to be fully resolved. To agree to the making of a TWAO, the Secretary of State must be satisfied as to the scheme’s funding arrangements. It is proposed that this will be demonstrated to a considerable degree by the mechanism agreed in the s106 agreement as this will establish and fix the payment timings of this substantial contribution.

85 A payment schedule has been worked up by the council based on the assumptions made by the applicant in their submission. It is the council’s view as set out in their committee report that the schedule is ‘not agreed’ but it does provide a basis for discussion on the detailed s106 agreement. In addition the agreed Heads of Terms state that ‘Payments to be phased in accordance with payment schedule to be agreed’. It is TfL’s view that this is a key issue which must be resolved prior to completion of the s106 agreement with the aim of ensuring that payments are advanced as far as possible. Given TfL’s role as strategic transport provider, and the potential role to be played in the TWAO process, TfL is confident that these issues will be resolved through the s106 process.

page 14 Planning conditions

86 TfL has considered the potential implications of the removal of a Grampian condition regarding the first phase, RS1, which as was originally envisaged would have prevented commencement of works until the submission of a TWAO for the NLE. While there are risks associated with the removal of this Grampian, TfL is satisfied that the additional provisions negotiated by the council on this point are sufficient.

87 The provisions place an obligation on the applicant in the proposed s106 agreement to use ‘all endeavours’ to submit the TWAO application as soon as practicable following the expiry of the relevant judicial review period. In the event that RS1 starts before submission of the TWAO application they give the council the ability to require payment by the applicant to an infrastructure fund set up and managed through the Nine Elms Strategy Board (the terms of which are yet to be established and agreed) of an amount equal to the estimated outstanding reasonable costs of the TWAO application. Currently this is estimated to be in the region of £14 million of which the applicant has confirmed, until the end of September 2010, £2.6 million has been incurred in relation to relation to designing, researching, costing and promoting the NLE.

88 In addition conditions restrict the commencement of development beyond stage 1 and other necessary works (i.e. repair of the Power Station) until either a NLE is in place and open for use or a TWAO has been granted, a full construction contract has been let for the NLE (including a second station at Nine Elms); an agreement is in place with London Underground to bring the line into operation and a detailed case has been made to the council to demonstrate that the NLE is capable of being completed and made available for use prior to the occupation of any part of the development other than phase one, the energy centre and the residential elements of the Power Station.

89 TfL is satisfied with the remaining conditions as agreed by the council and the council’s confirmation that TfL will be a signatory to the s106 agreement.

Conclusions

90 The Transport Assessment (July 2010) is now considered acceptable.

91 The highways proposals are considered acceptable ‘in principle’ this is subject to entering into the relevant s278 agreements. The applicant will fund all necessary off-site highways works.

92 In relation to NLE, TfL is satisfied with the level of progress made in relation to engineering, feasibility and design carried out by the applicant to date and that this provides a sound basis for moving towards submission of a TWAO.

93 TfL agrees that the applicants private and public sector NLE construction cost estimates of £563.80 million and £662.30 million respectively are reasonable at this stage in the process.

94 TfL considers the overall level of s106 contribution and proposed breakdown as acceptable; and is of the view that this along with other ‘in kind’ works proposed as part of the application will adequately mitigate the impacts of this development.

95 TfL welcomes the agreement that TfL will be a full signatory to the s106 agreement and the applicant’s agreement to cover TfL’s legal costs associated with the s106 agreement.

96 Considerable further detailed discussion is required in relation to the s106 agreement, in particular the scheduling and weighting of contributions and how these link to the phasing of the development.

page 15 97 TfL expects the Nine Elms Strategy Board to be fully constituted prior to the signing of the s106 agreement. Relevant details of the make-up and operation of the Nine Elms Strategy Board would need to be included within the s106 agreement. Urban design and inclusive design

Urban design

98 At stage one, whilst the masterplan was supported and the scheme was considered to be of a high design quality overall, further work and revisions were sought to address a number of concerns including the relationship with the safeguarded wharves, delivery of the continuous riverside walk, the function and design of open spaces, external appearance and residential quality. In order to address these and other issues raised by the Council, CABE and English Heritage, the applicant has revised aspects of the scheme, submitted an addendum to the design and access statement, revised the architectural code and produced an illustrative residential layouts document.

99 The massing of the riverside building RS-WF has been revised. The building now has an articulated stepped profile rising from four storeys at the junction with Kirtling Street up to a maximum of sixteen storeys adjacent to the riverside. The reduction of the building into a series of linked elements serves to reduce the perception of bulk and mass and is supported. In conjunction with the further development of the waterfront building architectural typology that applies to this development zone, GLA officers are satisfied that the revised outline parameters and architectural code provide a robust framework for a high quality building on this important riverside site. The access ramp to RS-WF has also been relocated to the southern elevation so that there are now two uninterrupted pedestrian routes to the river on the east and west sides of RS-WF; this is supported.

100 Development zone RS-6 has also been reduced in scale from a maximum of eighteen storeys to ten storeys (RS-6a) and nine storeys to six storeys (RS-6b). This change will result in a more successful transition of scale from the existing adjacent development to the proposed development on the main part of the site, and is supported.

101 In terms of the relationship between the development and the safeguarded wharves, the applicant has undertaken considerable further work on this. As part of the architectural code a series of design measures are proposed to RS-WF, RS-2 and RS-6 in order to ensure acceptable internal living conditions and to minimise the risk of complaints arising from residents in respect of noise from the safeguarded wharves. The residential flats are designed to have their main aspect and private amenity space orientated away from the wharves in order to minimise overlooking and avoid potential or perceived nuisance. For RS-2 this mitigation includes no residential units overlooking the wharves, single aspect units facing towards Power Station or into the residential courtyard, all dual aspect living areas face the Power Station, rooms in dual aspect flats facing the wharves having restricted openings such as clerestory windows and a sealed wall at podium level to screen the courtyard from the wharves. Measures for RS-WF include sealed west and south facades, no flats overlooking wharves and single aspect units facing into the internal courtyard, and for RS-6 include no flats directly overlooking the wharves and east and south elevation flats looking into the internal courtyard. These measures are appropriate and acceptable in design terms, but the acceptability in safeguarded wharf policy terms is addressed elsewhere in this report.

102 At stage one, further work on the external appearance of all the major buildings was requested, in order to demonstrate how the elevations could appear ‘en masse’ when the detailed architectural code is applied at the large scale. More detail was also requested in respect of the rationale for the proposed differentiation in height across the site. These issues have been addressed through the design and access statement addendum and the revised architectural code, which now includes a series of mandatory elements. Illustrative elevations have been provided to demonstrate how the design codes could be interpreted as part of the reserved matters applications. GLA officers are satisfied that the architectural codes are of a high standard and

page 16 strong enough to ensure that the detailed design of the proposed buildings will be of a high architectural quality appropriate to the context and the scale of buildings proposed.

103 In consultation with English Heritage, the application for listed building consent for the Power Station building has also been subject to some minor design changes. The heritage aspects of the proposal were given detailed consideration in the Council’s committee report. English Heritage has commented that whilst the proposals involve extensive intervention into the fabric of the listed building, it accepts that they are justified in order to give the building a long-term future use.

104 The design of the public realm at the interface between the High Street, the underground station and Battersea Park Road was also raised as a concern at stage one. This has now been revised to bring together the emerging design of the underground station and reconcile the slopes on the Duchess Bridge to ensure safe and accessible interchange between the transport modes and a high quality pedestrian environment. The detailed design of this space, including paving, street furniture and lighting will be worked up in conjunction with TfL and the Council, and off-site works will be delivered via section 278 agreement.

105 At stage one it was also suggested that the taxi lay-by should be relocated from the bottom end of The Prospect to the bottom of the High Street at tube station square, where a better modal connection could be delivered. However, in discussion with the applicant and TfL it was agreed that the taxi lay-by should remain in its original location in order to avoid putting too much pressure on tube station square and creating a potential conflict with the bus stops.

106 One of the principle objectives of the OAPF public realm strategy is to improve the riverside walk, and whilst the proposal will open up a large part of the riverside to public access, concern was raised in respect of the connection under Grosvenor Bridge, which involves third party (Network Rail) land. This issue has not been fully resolved but the applicant will be required by the section 106 agreement to use reasonable endeavours to provide the section of path under Grosvenor Bridge and to construct this at its own cost if consents can be obtained in three years; otherwise the Council will assume this role at the applicant’s cost. This is accepted.

107 The applicant’s intentions in respect of the treatment of Battersea Park Road has also been clarified. It will be lined with trees on both sides, consistent paving, street furniture and zoning of footways. These measures align with the OAPF public realm strategy.

108 At stage one more detail on the function and uses of the open spaces, including children’s play space, within the scheme was requested. The applicant has responded that the placemaking code sets out general principles for play spaces and functions within each courtyard and outdoor space, but that the specific details of these will be dependent upon detailed designs for each development plot. This is accepted. Parameter plans for the open spaces were requested at stage one; however the applicant has clarified that the open spaces are in fact defined by the parameter plans for the buildings themselves.

109 At stage one further work was requested to demonstrate that the scheme will result in a successful residential environment. The illustrative residential layout document, which includes layouts for typical and atypical units within each development zone, demonstrates that it will be possible within the parameters of the outline scheme to design a successful residential environment at reserved matters stage. Furthermore, the section 106 heads of terms require the affordable housing to be designed to a standard and quality suitable to secure grant funding support, i.e. in line with emerging HCA funding standards, which are consistent with the Interim London Housing Design Guide. This is acceptable.

110 In conclusion, the strategic design issues raised at stage one have been satisfactorily addressed through the submission of further information and revisions to the scheme. The

page 17 application now complies with London Plan design policies including those relating to tall and large scale buildings and heritage assets.

Inclusive design

111 At stage one, detailed comments were made in respect of the inclusive design aspects of the scheme. GLA officers met with the applicant and its access consultant to discuss these issues and suggest ways in which the parameters of the outline application could ensure that the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion will be delivered through the final detailed design of the scheme.

112 The applicant has undertaken some limited further work and has addressed some but not all of the stage one comments in the addendum to the Design and Access Statement. However, many of the issues raised remain unresolved and will need to be addressed at reserved matters stage. Whilst this is not ideal, the outline parameters do not raise any fundamental concerns and the inclusive design principles embodied in the scheme are generally sound and provide a robust framework to guide the development at detailed design stage. On this basis the scheme is considered to comply with London Plan policy 4B.5 and draft replacement London Plan policy 7.2. The applicant has committed to take an active role in the working group to be formed to deal with inclusive access issues in the VNEB area. This will enable the inclusive design aspects of the scheme to be further scrutinised as the detailed design develops.

113 The requirement for all units to meet Lifetime Homes standards and for ten per cent of units to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair users will be secured by condition. The detailed design and layout of individual units will be addressed at reserved matters stage; the Council and applicant’s attention is drawn to the revised Lifetime Homes standards which were published in July 2010. Children’s play space

114 In order to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3D.13, the applicant was asked to provide further information to demonstrate that the required quantity and quality of play space could be provided within the development.

115 The applicant has confirmed that the child yield figures have been calculated according to the methodology in the London Plan ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ SPG, using the data from the updated Wandsworth New Housing Survey 2007. This is acceptable.

116 The relevant chapter of the Environmental Statement has been updated since stage one, and the child yield has been recalculated based on a series of affordable housing scenarios. This analysis demonstrates that the inclusion of affordable housing will increase the child yield and the associated requirement for play space in the scheme above the level estimated in the original environmental assessment. Based on the provision of 15% affordable housing, the total play space requirement is in the region of 10,000 sq.m.

117 Based on the updated child yield figures, the total quantum of open space in the scheme is more than sufficient to meet the child play space requirements, and the Placemaking Code identifies the locations and requirements for play space within the scheme. The Power Station Park itself will be a significant resource for children of all ages to play. Whilst the detailed design of these spaces is yet to be resolved, the information provided is now adequate and the application complies with London Plan policy 3D.13.

page 18 Climate change

118 In response to comments made in the stage one report, and subsequent discussions with the applicant, a revised Energy Statement and an Energy Statement Addendum have been submitted.

119 The applicant has clarified apparent inconsistencies in the energy consumption values for the power station building and the rest of the development. It has also demonstrated that the dwelling emission rate and building emission rate for the power station building will exceed Building Regulations 2006 target emission rate. Whilst the estimated savings are relatively modest, it is recognised that they are constrained by the nature of the existing building. The proposed energy efficiency standards are now acceptable.

120 In relation to district heating and on-site infrastructure, the applicant has committed to a single energy centre (6,574 sq.m.) and site-wide heat network. Details of the phased implementation of the heat network and the phased expansion of combined heat and power (CHP) capacity necessary to meet the carbon savings commitments identified in the energy strategy will be secured by condition, along with details of arrangements to facilitate connection to, and ensure compatibility with, the planned VNEB district heat network, and a link to the Pimlico district heat undertaking network, to which the applicant has agreed in principle.

121 The applicant’s preferred fuel type for the CHP is biofuel. However, there remains a degree of uncertainty about the availability and practicality of using biofuel, and whilst the applicant has indicated that discussions with fuel suppliers have taken place, evidence of these discussions is limited. The conditions relating to CHP capacity are intentionally not fuel specific in order to retain flexibility over the fuel type, with natural gas fired CHP being the most likely alternative if biofuel is not possible. On site fuel storage capacity has been confirmed as 508 cubic metres.

122 In terms of cooling, the applicant has indicated which parts of the development will require active cooling. Whilst passive measures have been incorporated where possible, modelling demonstrates that some parts of the development will be at risk of overheating and therefore require active cooling. Localised cooling networks are proposed to provide this.

123 In summary, the additional work undertaken by the applicant since stage one, together with the proposed conditions and section 106 clauses relating to the on-site energy infrastructure, have addressed the issues raised at stage one and the outline application complies with London Plan policies 4A.1 to 4A.7.

124 In response to concerns raised at stage one in relation to the adequacy of the air quality assessment, the applicant has undertaken further work including the impact of emission s from the energy centre on receptors above ground level. The air quality impacts of the scheme are acceptable in relation to London Plan policy 4A.19 Improving air quality. Blue ribbon network

125 At stage one the applicant was requested to consider opportunities for river-related recreational uses such as visitor mooring or sports/sailing activities, and to explore further the connection of the riverside walk under Grosvenor Bridge. The latter issue has been addressed in the urban design section of this report. Whilst the opportunity for recreational uses has not been taken forward, the restoration of the jetty, the creation of a new pier for commuter and visitor services, and the development of a new section of the riverside walk are major benefits of the scheme and as such it is considered generally compliant with London Plan blue ribbon network policies.

page 19 Safeguarded wharves

126 At stage one, concern was raised with regard to the relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent safeguarded wharves, which was not considered compliant with London Plan policy 4C.9. The main concerns related to the proximity of development zone RS-2 to Cringle Dock waste transfer station (WTS) and development zone RS-WF to the Cemex concrete plant. It was suggested that, in accordance with design principles set out in the OAPF, the proposed office building (O-1) would be better located at RS-WF. The applicant has resisted this, claiming that an alternative use on this part of the site would not be viable and that residential on RS-WF forms part of the overall balance of uses in the scheme.

127 The applicant has, however, undertaken a considerable amount of further work to address the concerns raised by the GLA and the Council as well as the wharf operators and the Port of London Authority. Two main types of mitigation are proposed: on-site in the form of design features incorporated into the design of the buildings adjacent to the wharves and off-site mitigation in the form of improvements to the wharf sites themselves, to mitigate the potential nuisance impacts of the operations without jeopardising the operations themselves.

128 The on-site mitigation strategy against noise, dust and odour arising from the wharves includes sealed facades with non-openable windows, mechanical ventilation and comfort cooling, sealed winter gardens instead of balconies, odour and dust filters and glazing specifications designed to reduce internal sound levels. This applies to development zones RS-2, RS-6 and RS- WF. Detailed design mitigation measures for each development zone are explained in paragraph 101 above.

129 The off-site mitigation strategy relates principally to the waste transfer site, as impacts from the concrete plant give limited cause for concern. The applicant proposes to work alongside the wharf owners and operators to secure long term improvements to the sites, specifically with mitigation at the source of the noise and odour nuisance. Examples of potential interventions include the use of a rotary atomiser to neutralise odour and the installation of a scrubber system in the tipping halls. These are examples of best practice technologies which would not jeopardise the wharf operations.

130 Delivery of the off-site mitigation measures relies on cooperation of the wharf operators, and there remains a degree of uncertainty over whether these measures can be delivered. The on- site mitigation strategy on its own may not be sufficient to completely eliminate the risk of complaints from residents in respect of nuisance noise and odour from the safeguarded wharves. However, the Council has proposed a condition that prevents commencement of development on RS-2, RS-6a and RS-WF until the applicant has submitted, and the Council has approved, a scheme to protect the occupiers of those zones from external noise and vibration sources, dust and odours. Occupation of those residential units and serviced apartments is also prevented until tests have been conducted demonstrating that the performance criteria and target noise levels set out in the approved scheme have been achieved. The applicant will also be required through the section 106 agreement to use best endeavours to procure at source mitigation works to the waste transfer station prior to commencement of development zone RS-2.

131 A balanced judgement needs to be made between the provisions of safeguarded wharf policies and the regenerative benefits associated with development of the largest brownfield development site in central London. It is considered that the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, which will be secured and controlled by condition and the section 106 agreement, offer sufficient safeguards to ensure that the long term use of the safeguarded wharves for cargo handling uses will not be unduly compromised. On balance, it is recommended that a direction to refuse planning permission by virtue of London Plan policy 4C.9 would not be justified in this instance.

page 20 Hazardous installations

132 By virtue of London Plan policy 3A.34 and draft replacement London Plan policy 5.22, the Mayor has a duty to consider the presence of hazardous substances in determining planning applications that relate to the development of land in the vicinity of establishments where hazardous substances are stored. As set out in the stage one report, DETR Circular 04/2000 “Planning Controls for Hazardous Substances” provides national policy on hazardous installations. This states that any advice from the HSE that planning permission should be refused for development near such a facility, should not be overridden without the most careful consideration. It also states that the HSE’s role is an advisory one and that it has no power to direct refusal of planning permission, but that where a local planning authority proposes to grant planning permission against the HSE’s advice, it should allow the HSE 21 days notice to consider whether to request the Secretary of State to call in the application for determination. The HSE will consider call-in action only in cases of exceptional concern or where important policy or safety issues are at stake.

133 Since stage one, the applicant has submitted an update to its Quantified Risk Assessment (June 2010) and a further addendum assessment (August 2010), to address changes to development zone RS-1 which resulted in the introduction of hotel and potential student accommodation and to take account of matters arising from the Inspector’s report on the Ram Brewery development, including the preference for a scaled risk integral (SRI) assessment in estimating societal risk. The Council commissioned third party consultants, GL Noble Denton (formerly Advantica), to review the Atkins reports on its behalf.

134 In accordance with the obligations set out in Article 12 of the European Council Directive 96/82/EC (the ‘Seveso II Directive’), the HSE has assessed the proposed development against its ‘Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations’ (PADHI) methodology, which as anticipated by the applicant’s own assessment, has generated an ‘Advise Against’ output in relation to the ‘Indoor use by the public’ development type. This relates primarily to the retail floorspace located in development zone RS-4. The HSE has therefore advised Wandsworth Council that there are sufficient public safety grounds for planning permission to be refused. In its letter to the Council dated 11 November 2010, the HSE makes the following notable points:

 The HSE’s advice applies to the proposed development as a whole, not just that part of the scheme that generates an ‘Advise Against’ recommendation, which in this case are uses that fall under the definition of ‘indoor use by the public.’

 The HSE’s advice that permission should be refused should not be overridden without the most careful consideration. In Regina v Tandridge District Council Ex parte Al Fayed, the courts noted that local authorities, while not bound to follow the advice of statutory bodies such as the HSE, “should nevertheless give great weight to their advice.”

 The HSE’s advice on whether planning permission should be refused should not be confused with its criteria for requesting call-in of the application, and even if the HSE decides not to request call-in, its advice still stands.

 The HSE proposes that the Council should treat the Atkins assessments with extreme caution when deciding the weight, if any, they should be given when determining the present case. It also appears to question the expertise of the third party consultants commissioned by the Council to review the Atkins assessments.

 The HSE considers that the Atkins safety assessment reports misrepresent the HSE’s position on a number of land use planning matters. The HSE does not accept, as a Cautious Best Estimate, Atkins’s estimates on the matter of the case of societal risk for the proposed development, as quantified in terms of Scaled Risk Integral (SRI).

page 21 135 The assessments submitted by the applicant for the purpose of assessing the risk arising from the probability of a major hazard event at the gasholders necessarily make a series of technical assumptions and consider various scenarios including the type of hazardous event (e.g. fireball, jet fire, flash fire, vapour cloud explosion), the event’s likely frequency of occurring, and other variables. These variables are modelled to determine the level of risk, which varies considerably depending on the assumptions made. The level of societal risk, measured by SRI, takes account of the number of people at the development, the risk to which they are exposed, the proportion of time the development is occupied by people and the size of the area affected. Estimates vary between 133,000 SRI as the lowest level of risk (in the Atkins QRA), 572,000 SRI (in GL Noble Denton’s review) and 950,000 SRI as the highest level of risk (the likely HSE figure, calculated by GL Noble Denton). At this level, it is likely that the HSE would consider requesting a call-in. By way of comparison, in the Ram Brewery case, a SRI of 14,000,000 was calculated for the residential tower closest to the gasholders.

136 The societal risk associated with the proximity of the gasholders to the proposed development is clearly an important factor in assessing the acceptability of the scheme. In his report on the Ram Brewery scheme, the Inspector stated that the PADHI output is not an overriding factor in the determination of a planning application, and that it is for the local planning authority to undertake a planning balance on the material considerations relating to the application. It is noted that the estimates of risk provided in the various assessments vary considerably, and that the HSE has stated that it does not accept Atkins’s estimate of societal risk (133,000 SRI).

137 Another relevant consideration is the future of the gasholder station, specifically the likelihood that it will be decommissioned in the near future. Whilst the application must be determined on the basis that the gasholders are active, the GLA is aware that National Grid is considering the likely future need for this type of gas storage at Battersea, and intends to take a decision on decommissioning next spring. The HSE has indicated that its advice that planning permission should be refused on public safety grounds would only be lifted once the Hazardous Substances Consent for the site has been revoked. The HSE has suggested that a Grampian-style condition could be imposed which would prevent occupation of all or parts of the development until this has occurred. Discussions are ongoing between the Council, the applicant and the HSE to find a mutually acceptable solution.

138 Having considered the evidence available to it, the Council’s conclusion in its committee report is that “In terms of risk from a major hazardous event at the gas holders, there are clearly some negative aspects to the proposals, however there are also positive aspects to the scheme, which would include securing the future of the Grade II* listed power station, the provision of over 3000 homes (including over 500 affordable homes), being the catalyst for the potential regeneration of the VNEB OA, making a vital contribution to the delivery of the NLE and economic benefits including job creation. Before reaching a decision on the applications, the Council has to weigh up the risks against the benefits. Ultimately it is considered that the undoubted benefits of the proposed development would outweigh the risk a hazardous event occurring and its likely consequences.”

139 It is apparent from the Council’s committee report, and its appointment of third party consultants, that the Council has given careful consideration to the gasholder issue. GLA officers accept the Council’s assessment that in this instance the positive aspects of the scheme, including the restoration of the grade II* listed building and delivery of the NLE, outweigh the risk of a hazardous event occurring and its likely consequences. As such, it is considered that the balance of all relevant material considerations lies in favour of granting planning permission.

page 22 Response to consultation

140 The Council carried out three rounds of consultation on the application, in November 2009, July 2010 and September 2010, consulting the public, statutory consultees, interest groups and amenity societies. The initial round of consultation included a newsletter which was issued to 10,000 residents. The applicant has also carried out its own consultation process including public exhibitions. In terms of public responses, a total of 56 objections, 22 letters of support and four general responses were received.

Public responses

Objections

141 Objections from members of the public centred around the following themes:

 Power station: concerns that the alterations and additions to the building are excessive and unsympathetic; demolition and reconstruction of chimneys is unnecessary; opposition to removal and relocation of the switch gear.

 Townscape, height and mass of surrounding buildings: concerns that the new buildings are too tall; too close to the power station and the river; will obstruct views of the power station; and are not of a high enough architectural standard worthy of the location and the power station’s status as an international icon.

 Water pumping station: opposition to the demolition of the grade II listed water pumping station.

 Impact on neighbours: concerns that the new buildings will be visually intrusive and obscure existing views of power station and river; will cause loss of light, privacy and overshadowing; will magnify train noise, vibration and brake dust.

 Transport: application is premised on NLE which does not form part of the application; existing overground stations should be upgraded; cost of NLE is disproportionate to function and benefit; impact on existing road network; no consideration for extra parking.

 Accessibility: lack of access and permeability; very limited number of entrances; access to site and power station inadequate to service the scheme.

 Land use: poor land use distribution; concern over daylight to office building; proposed uses are unsustainable; too much retail floorspace.

 Residential amenity: too many flats; too high density; overdevelopment; open spaces not for public use; not enough recreational space for children; retention of waste handling facility is incongruous; new flats will have poor views and little sunlight; physically oppressive.

 Affordable housing: unclear how many units will be affordable; social housing should be prioritised; no documentary evidence of how much was paid for the site; developer return is too high; calculation of affordable housing is not sound; should be 50% affordable housing.

 Other: no community benefit; last chance to do something at the site is not a reason to allow the proposal to proceed; masterplan is fundamentally flawed and unrealistic; fails to integrate with wider VNEB proposals,; does not provide sound principles for a residential

page 23 living environment; previous proposal was more reasonable; property values will depreciate once river views are obscured.

142 One representation has been made directly to the Mayor requesting that he recommends that the Secretary of State calls in the application. In accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Directive 2009, the Council has referred the application to the Secretary of State and a decision on call-in is currently awaited. However, GLA officers are of the opinion that the application has been thoroughly scrutinised at the local and strategic level and that a public inquiry is neither necessary nor justified.

Support

143 Support from members of the public includes comments in favour of the NLE, benefits of new homes, jobs and community facilities, the site has been derelict for too long; support for preservation of iconic power station building; scheme will put Battersea on the map.

Statutory consultees, undertakers and amenity societies

144 As explained earlier in this report, the Health and Safety Executive has advised against the grant of planning permission on public safety grounds. CABE supports the application in principle but notes that much of the detail still needs to be resolved. The Environment Agency supports the scheme in principle, subject to a number of conditions relating to flood risk management, works to the river wall and riverside structures, biodiversity, contamination and remediation. Natural England supports the provision of open spaces and biodiversity features in the scheme.

145 Of the neighbouring local authorities, Westminster City Council objects to the height and bulk of the scheme on grounds of harm to the setting of the listed building, and harm to viewpoints from Westminster and harm to the setting of a number of Westminster conservation areas. It is also concerned about pressure on Victoria station if the NLE is not complete and operational before the development is occupied. Kensington and Chelsea Council objects on the grounds of harm to view from the borough including the Royal Hospital Conservation Area. It also comments that the proposed level of car parking, particularly for the non-residential uses, is excessive, and that the transport assessment is insufficient to assess impact on roads in the borough.

146 Southwark Council does not formally object to the scheme, but makes a series of observations about transport impact and parking levels. Lambeth Council has no objection in principle but makes a number of observations relating to design and townscape considerations, land use mix, transport impacts, affordable housing and the section 106 agreement. Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey and Camden Councils do not object to the scheme.

147 English Heritage accepts that the alterations to the grade II* listed power station are necessary to secure the long term re-use of the building. However, it raises concerns over the loss of the grade II listed water pumping station and suggests key items of significance from the building could be taken to Kew Pumping Station Museum. The Victorian Society also objects to the demolition of the pumping station. The Council for British Archaeology and the Twentieth Century Society object to the scheme including the alterations to the Power Station, the massing of the new development around it and the demolition of the pumping station.

148 The Port of London Authority remains concerned about whether the mitigation strategy for the safeguarded wharves can be delivered, but supports the use of section 106 clauses and conditions to secure mitigation to RS-2, RS-6 and RS-WF. Cemex initially objected to the scheme but withdrew this objection subject to robust planning conditions to secure noise mitigation. Western Riverside Waste Authority remains concerned about the relationship with the wharves, but recognises the wider benefits of the scheme and is keen to continue positive dialogue with all

page 24 parties to reach a mutually acceptable solution. Cory Environmental continues to object to the development including the proposed package of at source mitigation measures.

149 The Metropolitan Police Authority considers that the development will generate a need for increased police presence in the area and requests mitigation in the form of a new 150 sq.m. neighbourhood policing unit. NHS Wandsworth notes that the population generated by new development in the area will require the provision of a new health facility, ideally on this site, with precise requirements to be determined.

150 Detailed representations on the application were also made by a range of local amenity groups and societies. These include observations and objections in relation to the scale and density of development, works to the power station and demolition of the pumping station, the transport impacts and the level of affordable housing.

Comment

151 The application has been subject to detailed scrutiny and the issues raised in consultation responses have been fully assessed in the Council’s committee report. The strategic planning issues raised in consultation responses, including the transport impacts, design and townscape considerations, affordable housing, safeguarded wharves and health and safety issues relating to the gasholders have been assessed in this report and in the stage one report. Objections to aspects of the proposal, including the demolition of the grade II listed pumping station, the proximity of the development to the safeguarded wharves, and the advice of the Health and Safety Executive, are acknowledged; but it is considered that these are outweighed by the positive aspects associated with the development of this large, long term vacant, brownfield central London site, including the delivery of circa 3,400 new homes, an extension to the Northern line and the restoration and reuse of the grade II* listed power station building. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

152 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 one, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

153 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

page 25 154 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 Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

155 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.

156 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion

157 Since the application was reported to the Mayor in January 2010, it has been the subject of considerable further work and revisions. Outstanding issues relating to retail, housing, transport, urban design and inclusive design, children’s play space, climate change, blue ribbon network, safeguarded wharves and hazardous installations have been satisfactorily addressed. Taking account of all relevant material considerations, including the section 106 heads of terms and the proposed planning conditions including those relating to delivery of the NLE, the safeguarded wharves and the restoration of the grade II* listed power station building, and having regard to the HSE’s advice, on balance the application complies with the London Plan and there are no outstanding issues that warrant a Mayoral direction to refuse planning permission.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Martin Scholar, Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Frameworks) 020 7983 5750 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Claire O’Brien, Senior Strategic Planner 020 7983 4269 email claire.o’[email protected] Lee Campbell, Principal Planner (TfL) 020 7126 4576 email [email protected]

page 26

planning report PDU/1732/01 27 January 2010 Battersea Power Station

in the London Borough of Wandsworth planning application nos. 2009/3575, 2009/3576, 2009/3577 & 2009/3578

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 Outline planning permission is sought for: Repair, restoration, extension and conversion of the former Power Station to provide residential, retail, business, culture, event and conference, with associated plant, servicing and storage. Development of land surrounding the power station to provide retail, business, hotel, serviced apartments, residential, community and culture, assembly and leisure, construction of basement to provide servicing, parking, energy centre, plant and storage. Landscaping and open space, alterations to existing and creation of new pedestrian and vehicular access routes, parking and enabling works.

Listed building consent is sought for: Repair, restoration, extension and conversion of the grade II* listed Battersea Power Station. Repair, restoration, extension and conversion of the grade II listed riverside structures. Demolition of the grade II listed Battersea water pumping station. The applicant The applicant is REO (Powerstation) Ltd, and the architect is Rafael Vinoly Architects.

Strategic issues Strategic issues for consideration are the principle of the proposed mixed use development; justification for, and acceptability of, the proposed quantum of retail and office uses; the requirement for affordable housing and the proposed mix of housing units; the transport requirements of the scheme; urban design, including the setting of the listed building, the design of the public realm, residential quality and impact on strategic views; the provision of children’s play space; the need for new social and community infrastructure; climate change mitigation and adaptation; flood risk, the blue ribbon network and impact on adjacent safeguarded wharves; and proximity of hazardous installations.

Recommendation That Wandsworth Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 260 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 262 of this report could address these deficiencies.

page 27 Context

1 On 22 December 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Wandsworth 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 29 January 2010 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 Categories 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2C, 3E, 3F and 3H of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

1A: Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats.

1B: Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats), which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings –

(b) in Central London (other than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres.

1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building in respect of which one or more of the following conditions is met –

(a) the building is more than 25 metres high and is adjacent to the River Thames.

1D: Development which comprises or includes the alteration of an existing building where -

(b) the building would, on completion of the development, fall within a description set out in paragraph 1 of Category 1C.

2C: Development to provide –

(i) a passenger pier on the River Thames.

3E: Development –

(c) which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and (d) comprises or includes the provision of more than 2,500 square metres of floorspace for a use falling within any of the following classes in the Use Classes Order –

page 28 (j) to (v) classes A1-A5 (retail/financial and professional/food and drink/drinking establishments/hot food takeaways) (vi) class B1 (business) (ix) class C1 (hotels) (x) class C2 (residential institutions) (xi) class D1 (non-residential institutions) (xii) class D2 (assembly and leisure)

3F: Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the provision of more than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use.

3H: Development which –

(d) comprises or includes the provision of houses, flats or houses and flats; (e) does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and (f) is on a site that is adjacent to land used for treating, keeping, processing, recovering or disposing of refuse or waste materials with a capacity for a throughput of more than - (ii) 20,000 tonnes per annum of waste.

3 Once Wandsworth 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 environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

The application site

6 The 21 hectare application site is bounded by the River Thames to the north and Battersea Park Road to the south. The main part of the site comprises Battersea Power Station and surrounding land, its western boundary being formed by the railway lines in and out of Victoria station and its eastern boundary by Cringle Dock/RMC Battersea and Thames Water Battersea works to the north-east and Kirtling Street to the south east. The main part of the site includes the grade II listed former water pumping station and the grade II listed jetty, cranes and associated structures fronting the River Thames. The application site also includes a square parcel of land fronting the River Thames between Cringle Dock and Tideway industrial estate, which is currently occupied by a vacant industrial warehouse. Also included is land at 28 Kirtling Street, currently

page 29 used by Thames Water as a depot with associated storage and equipment, and a cleared site at 2 Battersea Park Road, which was formerly occupied by a petrol filling station. Parts of Battersea Park Road, Nine Elms Lane, Queens Circus, Kirtling Street and Cringle Street are also included within the red line boundary.

The surrounding area

7 The area surrounding the site is characterised by a mix of residential, commercial, industrial and warehousing uses and road and rail infrastructure. Cringle Dock, located to the east of the site on the riverside is a working wharf occupied by Western Riverside waste transfer station. RMC Battersea, an aggregates facility operated by Cemex is located to the east of Cringle Dock and to the west of the applicant’s satellite site (west of Tideway industrial estate). The area to the south east of the site, in the heart of the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) opportunity area (OA), is dominated by industrial, warehousing and distribution uses. To the south of the site across Battersea Park Road lie the Savona and Patmore estates, characterised by 3 to 5-storey residential blocks. Beyond the railway lines to the west is the Marco Polo office building and Chelsea Bridge Wharf residential development, with Battersea Park beyond across Queenstown Road. Across the railway lines to the south-west is the Battersea gasholder site, which comprises four active gasholders.

Figure 1: red line site plan (source: Development Specification)

Existing transport conditions

page 30 8 Battersea Park Road (A3205)/Nine Elms Lane is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). The junction of Battersea Park Road and Queenstown Road (A3216) lies approximately 400 metres from the south west point of the site. The main vehicular access to New Covent Garden Market (NCGM) Main Market site is located opposite the existing entrance to the Power Station at the junction of Kirtling Street and Battersea Park Road. The northern edge of the site is bounded by the River Thames; the western edge by railway lines and associated infrastructure.

9 The site has limited access to public transport with a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) ranging from 2 (in the northern part of the site) to 4 (at the south western tip), on a scale of 1 to 6 where 6 is most accessible.

10 Battersea Park National Rail station lies 350 metres to the south west of the site, while Queenstown Road National Rail station lies 600 metres to the south. Vauxhall transport interchange, providing mainline rail, Victoria line underground services and numerous bus connections is over one kilometre to the north east. The nearest bus stops are adjacent to the site on Nine Elms Lane and are served by routes 156 and 344. Services 44, 137 and 452 operate along Queenstown Road.

Details of the proposal

11 The application is for comprehensive mixed use development, including the repair, restoration, extension and conversion of the grade II* listed power station building for retail, residential, office, culture, event and conference uses with associated plant, servicing and storage, and development of surrounding land for retail, residential, office, hotel, serviced apartments, community and culture, assembly and leisure uses, with servicing, parking, energy centre, plant and storage at basement level.

Land use Max gross internal area (sq. m) Max gross external area (sq. m.) Residential (C3) 422,449 430,899 Residential assisted living (C2) 8,397 8,565 Retail (A1/A2) 51,222 52,246 Retail (A3/A4/A5) 14,682 14,976 Business (B1) 157,978 161,138 Hotel (C3) 21,214 21,638 Serviced apartments (C1/C3) 27,376 27,923 Community & culture (D1) 14,741 15,037 Assembly & leisure (D2) 17,885 18,242 Event & conference (D1/D2) 15,789 16,105 Riverbus ticket office & 240 245 waiting facility Sub-total 751,973 767,014 Parking, servicing, plant & 180,759 184,220 storage Energy centre 6,574 6,650 Circulation space within power 14,201 14,485 station Total 953,507 972,369 Table 1: proposed floorspace by use

page 31 Development zones

12 The master plan is subdivided into seven development zones, plus the power station.

Power station

13 Works to the power station for which listed building consent is sought include demolition of external structures including the former pumping house and east extension, demolition and reconstruction of the chimneys, restoration of external fabric, extensions, new floors and internal walls, removal of the switch gear in Annexe B for restoration and relocation, refurbishment of control rooms, turbine halls and directors’ entrance, fit out and creation of basements, roof gardens and terraces.

14 The uses proposed within the building are offices, residential, retail and a conference centre/event space. Landscaped gardens are proposed at roof level to provide amenity space for the business and residential uses. The total quantum of development floorspace in the power station is 179,157 sq.m. (GEA), including circulation space.

RS-1

15 Development zone RS-1 comprises residential, assisted living units, retail (food and drink), and community and cultural uses, with a total development floorspace of 102,402 sq. m. (GEA).

RS-2

16 RS-2 is the largest development zone and comprises residential, a hotel and serviced apartments, retail (food and drink), community/cultural use and assembly and leisure uses, with a total development floorspace of 127,854 sq.m. (GEA).

RS-4

17 RS-4 comprises residential, retail (shops and food and drink) and assembly and leisure uses, with a total development floorspace of 97,997 sq. m. (GEA).

RS-5

18 RS-5 comprises residential, retail (food and drink), business and assembly and leisure uses, with a total development floorspace of 109,801 sq. m. (GEA).

RS-6

19 RS-6 is the smallest development zone comprises residential and community/cultural uses, with a total development floorspace of 31,097 sq. m. (GEA).

RS-WF

20 RS-WF is located on the site of the vacant industrial warehouse fronting the river between Cringle Dock and Tideway industrial estate. It comprises residential and retail (food and drink) uses, with a total development floorspace of 37,300 sq. m. (GEA).

O-1

21 O-1 is the only development zone which does not include residential development. It comprises mainly offices with retail (shops and food and drink), with a total development floorspace of 95,645 sq. m. (GEA).

page 32 Master plan

22 The master plan and landscape framework are based around a series of character areas which reflect the main uses and functions in different parts of the site. Two primary streets – the High Street and Hotel Lane – provide direct connections from Battersea Park Road to the power station. The pedestrian ‘High Street’ is on two levels and will have a predominantly retail function, with the proposed tube station at its southern end adjacent to Battersea Park Road. Hotel Lane provides the primary vehicular access to the site and connects Battersea Park Road to the Circle, a public space encompassing the power station and providing a formal setting that includes a shallow reflecting pool between the pedestrian spaces and the power station building. The Town Square, located where the High Street meets the Circle, is a public piazza marking the southern entrance to the power station and allowing views of the power station’s southern facade. Fountain Square is a roundabout with a central fountain located where Hotel Lane meets the Circle. The Prospect is a predominantly pedestrian route with a leisure and retail (food and drink) function. It provides the main visual connection between Battersea Park Road and the power station and has a hour glass form with a central reflecting pool leading to the pool around the power station. The area to the north of the power station fronting the river is the Power Station Park, which is the main public amenity space in the scheme. This space will enable uninterrupted views of the power station from across the river and will comprise a series of lawns, a large paved piazza and play space, and will link into the Thames Riverside walk.

Figure 2: masterplan layout and character areas (source: Design and Access Statement)

Other works

Jetty and riverside structures

23 Listed building consent is sought for the repair, restoration and extension of the grade II listed jetty and river wall to provide pedestrian access, a new passenger pier and a passenger terminal building.

Highway works, car parking and Northern Line Extension

page 33 24 The application also includes a series of alterations to highways and junctions surrounding the site. These include Queenstown Road, Battersea Park Road, Queen’s Circus, Prince of Wales Drive and Kirtling Street. A new junction to provide access to and aggress from the development is proposed on Battersea Park Road opposite Savona Street.

25 The application as submitted includes 3,856 car parking spaces. Following early discussions with TfL, this has subsequently been reduced to 3,247 spaces, broken down by use as set out in table 2.

26 An extension of the Northern line from Kennington to the OA, with a station on the power station site, is being progressed by the applicant. The new tube line and station do not form part of the planning application and the applicant is expected to bring forward a separate application for a Transport and Works Act 1992 Order. However, the planning application, including the retail impact assessment, environmental statement and transport assessment, is predicated on the Northern line Extension (NLE) being operational in 2016.

Land Use Transport Assessment Revised Car Parking Note (October 2009) (December 2009)1 Residential 2,364 (0.6 spaces/unit) 1,928 (0.5 spaces/Unit) Residential assisted living 12 12 Retail (A1/A2) 1045 1045 Retail (A3/A4/A5) 0 0 Business (B1) 161 161 Hotel (C3) 30 30 Serviced Apartments (C1/C3) 34 34 Community and Culture (D1) 37 37 Assembly & Leisure (D2) 168 0

Event & Conference (D1/D2) Totals 3,851 3,247 Table 2: proposed car parking numbers Case history

27 The relevant planning history dates back to the closure of the power station in 1983:

 1983-1989: a planning application was submitted to Wandsworth Borough Council for redevelopment of the site for a family entertainment theme park, for which permission was granted in 1986 (ref: 85/N/2289). Demolition work commenced in 1987, and included the removal of equipment, internal walls, floors, and the roof of the power station building. Construction work stopped in 1989 and the partially implemented scheme was abandoned.

 1993-1997: the site was acquired by new owners and a planning application was submitted for comprehensive redevelopment comprising a leisure and entertainment complex in the power station building, together with business uses, film studios, hotels, theatres, ‘product showcase pavilions’, residential units, a railway station and 3,500 car parking spaces on the remainder of the site. Planning permission was granted in 1997 (ref: N/96/0713) subject to a legal agreement. Listed building consent was also

1 These levels have not been agreed with TfL

page 34 granted for demolition of the grade II-listed Battersea water pumping station (ref: N/96/0714).

 1999-2004: a series of applications were made for reserved matters approval and also to extend the period of time within which reserved matters associated with the 1997 permissions could be made. A new planning application (2001/3845) was also made to bring additional land comprising the site of the former Spicer-Cowan warehouse into the development scheme. This application, along with an application for an extension of time associated with the listed building consent for the power station (2002/2218), was the subject of a judicial review. This was unsuccessful in relation to the Spicer- Cowan site, but successful in relation to the listed building consent for the power station, which consequently had to be reconsidered by the Council.

 2005: Revised outline planning permission was granted and a legal agreement completed for development of the power station for leisure and entertainment purposes, up to 41,805 sq. m. of business floorspace, up to two theatres, up to 46,190 sq. m. of ‘product showcase pavilion’ floorspace, 500-750 flats, two hotels, 930 sq. m. of retail floorspace, 3,500 car parking spaces and 80 coach parking spaces. Various reserved matters applications were made in 2005 and 2006. The current status of this permission is uncertain, although it is understood to have been partially implemented.

 2006 to date: The site was purchased by REO (Powerstation) Ltd, who reviewed the consented scheme and concluded that it lacked the necessary quantum of development, appropriate mix of land uses and necessary transport infrastructure to provide a successful and viable development. Work began on a new comprehensive masterplan scheme.

28 The current proposal follows several months of pre-application discussions with the GLA, TfL, Wandsworth Council, CABE and other key stakeholders. The applicant has also engaged the local community via a series of public consultation events.

29 The applicant entered into the formal Transport for London (TfL) pre-application planning process. Following a review of the draft proposals, a series of meetings were held between April and November 2009. TfL’s position on a range of transport issues has been outlined in correspondence dated 18 November 2009, 27 July 2009, 10 June 2009 and 24 April 2009. Wandsworth Council have been party to all pre-application transport discussions. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

30 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Economic development London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy  Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, draft Housing Strategy  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, draft Housing Strategy  Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Mix of uses London Plan  Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13;  Crossrail draft London Plan Alteration; draft Crossrail SPG

page 35  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13  Retail London Plan; PPS4; PPG13  Employment London Plan; PPG4; PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG  Biodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; Improving Londoner’s Access to Nature: Implementation Report; PPS9  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Culture London Plan; the Mayor’s Culture Strategy  Tall buildings/views London Plan; View Management Framework SPG, draft Revised View Management Framework SPG  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24  Air quality London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy; The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition BPG; PPS23  Health London Plan; Health Issues in Planning BPG  Climate change London Plan; PPS1, PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Waste London Plan; the Municipal Waste Management Strategy; PPS10  Tourism/leisure London Plan; Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (DCLG)  River Thames/flooding London Plan; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; PPS25, RPG3B  Safeguarded wharves London Plan; Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames Implementation Report  Historic Environment London Plan; PPG15, draft PPS15

31 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the Wandsworth Unitary Development Plan 2003 and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

32 The following are also relevant material considerations:  Wandsworth Council’s Core Strategy submission document (March 2009) which will be subject to examination in public in February 2010.  The consultation draft replacement London Plan (October 2009)

The Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework 33 The consultation draft Vauxhall-Nine Elms-Battersea (VNEB) Opportunity Area Planning Framework (hereafter referred to as “the OAPF”) was published in November 2009. Whilst still in draft form, the OAPF has been produced by the GLA in collaboration with Wandsworth and Lambeth councils, other public authorities, landowners and other key stakeholders. It sets out a comprehensive framework for the VNEB area, including a land use strategy, estimates of development capacity, a package of transport interventions, public realm and tall buildings strategies and an energy master plan. In terms of development capacity, the preferred option is revised scenario 5 which would deliver a minimum of 16,000 new homes and 20-25,000 new jobs, including potential for a new central activities zone (CAZ) frontage at Battersea Power Station. It should be noted that no retail impact assessment has been undertaken as part of the OAPF and as such this needs to be tested through the planning application.

page 36 34 The five key principles underpinning the framework are:  High density mixed use intensification in the OA  High density mixed use intensification with potential for new CAZ frontages at Battersea Power Station and Vauxhall  Potential for new office development at Battersea Power Station  Retention and improved access to Stewarts Road industrial area  Retention of safeguarded wharves in the OA

 Significant improvements to existing public realm and the provision of new public realm and open space interventions across the OA

35 As part of work on the OAPF, TfL has completed a strategic transport study for the OA, called the VNEB Transport Study. The findings recommend that a major public transport intervention is required in order to enable high density development in line with the GLA’s preferred revised development scenario 5 and to support regeneration within the Opportunity Area. Both the study and the draft framework conclude that existing constraints and limitations on public transport, infrastructure and highways present a major barrier to the future development of the area. Principle of proposed development

36 Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea are identified as an opportunity area by policy 5E.2 of the London Plan on the basis that it is capable of accommodating substantial new jobs and homes. The OA is located in the central activities zone (CAZ), as indicatively defined by map 5G.1 of the London Plan. London Plan policy 5G.2 sets out strategic priorities for the CAZ, which include providing a competitive, integrated and varied global business location, sustaining and enhancing the offer of the country’s premier retail destinations in Knightsbridge and the West End, identifying and bringing forward capacity through development and redevelopment in Opportunity and Intensification Areas, and developing and implementing the frameworks for the CAZ opportunity areas. Draft replacement London Plan policies 2.10 Central Activities Zone - strategic priorities, 2.11 Central Activities Zone – strategic functions and 2.13 Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas are also relevant.

37 The emerging Wandsworth Core Strategy identifies the site as having potential for high density mixed use development, including local shops and services, with improved public transport links. The site is identified in the VNEB OAPF as a growth pole for delivery of high density residential and commercial development including retail and office uses.

38 Relevant to consideration of the listed building applications are London Plan policies 4B.11 London’s built heritage, 4B.12 Heritage conservation and 4B.13 Historic conservation-led regeneration, which collectively seek to protect and enhance London’s historic environment and support schemes that make use of historic assets including where they bring redundant or under- used buildings and spaces into appropriate use. National planning policy on the historic environment is set out in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

39 The site is the largest vacant brownfield development site in the OA and in the CAZ. As described in paragraph 27 above, it has been the subject of several consented but unimplemented development proposals since the power station closed in 1983. Since then the power station

page 37 building itself has been disused and has been subject to alteration and removal of original features including its roof.

40 The policy framework set out above provides a strong impetus to realise comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site and bring the power station building back into active use. The principle of its restoration and re-use is supported by London Plan policy, subject to detailed design and conservation considerations, and given the considerable regeneration benefits it could realise for London and Wandsworth. The principle of mixed use redevelopment of the site including the restoration and conversion of the grade II* listed power station building is fully supported. Retail

41 London Plan policy 3D.1 seeks to strengthen the role of London’s town centres and secure a sustainable pattern of retail provision by encouraging retail, leisure and other related uses in town centres and discouraging them outside town centres. London’s strategic town centre network is illustrated on map 3D.1 and in Annex 1. Policy 3D.2 states that the scale of retail, commercial and leisure development should be related to the size and role of a centre and its catchment, and that retail and other service provision should be managed in line with the sequential approach, seeking to reduce car dependency and traffic generation and to improve public transport access to promote more sustainable forms of development. These principles are reflected in draft replacement London Plan policy 4.7 Retail and town centre development. The CAZ policies set out in paragraph 36 above are also relevant.

42 National planning policy guidance for retail, leisure, entertainment and other main town centre uses is provided by Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. This was published in December 2009 and replaced PPG4 (1992), PPG5 (1992) and PPS6 (2005). The key change from PPS6 to PPS4 is the replacement of the need test with a wider ranging six-point impact test. The sequential test remains, as does the scale test, which has been incorporated into the new impact test alongside accessibility by a choice of means of transport. PPS4’s main objectives include promoting the vitality and viability of town and other centres as important places for communities, delivering more sustainable patterns of development, reducing the need to travel, especially by car, and responding to climate change.

43 The site is in the unique situation of being located in the CAZ, but without the benefit of the range of functions and public transport infrastructure normally associated with CAZ. The draft replacement London Plan (table A2.2) recognises the site’s future potential as a CAZ frontage, subject to capacity analysis, impact assessments, land use and accessibility, planning approvals, town centre health checks and full implementation. In line with PPS4, critical to the acceptability of new retail provision in this location will be its impact on the vitality and viability of nearby town centres, and the realisation of significant improvements to public transport accessibility.

44 The applicant has undertaken a retail impact assessment (RIA) based upon the proposed 51,222 sq. m. gross internal area (GIA) of A1/A2 retail floorspace of which 46,888 sq. m. is for comparison goods and 5,358 sq. m. is for convenience goods. At the time of submitting the application, PPS4 had not been published; the RIA was therefore undertaken according to the advice in PPS6.

45 The Council and the GLA are in the process of commissioning consultants to undertake a detailed technical review of the applicant’s retail impact assessment. The comments made below are therefore provisional and further information may be sought upon receipt of the consultant’s recommendations.

page 38 The need for retail development

46 Whilst consideration of ‘need’ is no longer a national policy requirement, the applicant’s assessment of expenditure capacity is useful when considering the potential impact of the development under the new wider impacts test.

47 Based upon a detailed household survey and a set of technical assumptions, the assessment concludes that there is need for the retail floorspace proposed at Battersea Power Station with expenditure capacity for comparison goods in the catchment of £1,408m (compared to the estimated turnover of the scheme of £177 million). However, estimates of capacity are highly sensitive to technical assumptions and the GLA seeks clarification on a range of these assumptions including the expenditure projections, sales densities, floorspace productivity growth and other schemes in the planning pipeline before the expenditure capacity estimates can be accepted.

The appropriateness of the scale of the proposed retail

48 The London Plan states that development plans should relate the scale of retail, commercial and leisure development to the size and role of a centre and its catchment and encourage appropriate development on sites in town centres in the network (policy 3D.2). The retail assessment is based on 51,222 sq. m. (GIA) of A1/A2 retail floorspace, of which 46,888 sq. m. is for comparison goods and 5,358 sq. m. is for convenience goods. The comparison goods component is intended to serve a wide catchment and capture some expenditure from competing centres such as the West End, Kings Road, Brent Cross, White City and Kingston. The convenience goods component is mainly intended to serve a more locally defined catchment, although the assessment does indicate that the scheme would draw convenience customers from a wider area.

49 The scale of retail development proposed is considered to be generally appropriate for a potential new mixed use quarter in the CAZ. However, the scale of development is conditional on major public transport improvements and subject to the assessments of impact, accessibility and its likely effect on overall travel patterns and car use.

The impact of the proposals on existing centres and investment

50 When considering proposals for retail development, the London Plan is concerned with the likely impact of development on the vitality and viability of existing town centres, including the evening economy (para 3.273). Impacts traditionally consider trade diversion, but it is also essential to consider the health of nearby town centres and the likely effect of the new proposal on planned investments in those centres.

51 The retail assessment provides detail on the anticipated impact of the proposal on existing town centres in the network and distinguishes between comparison goods and convenience goods impacts. The applicant’s assessment of the impacts (trade diversion) on existing centres arising from the proposed development, and the cumulative impact taking into account the proposed development and all other commitments in the planning pipeline, indicates that the most significant impacts will be on Clapham Junction (-5.1% and –7.1% cumulative) and Wandsworth town (-2.7% and +18.9% cumulative, assuming implementation of the Southside shopping centre extension).

52 The retail assessment also sets out the convenience goods impacts of the proposed development and concludes that the greatest impact will be at Nine Elms (Sainsburys) at 17% and at Clapham Junction (Asda) at 12.4%. This has been attributed to the close geographical location of these facilities and their strong market share. Both stores are reported to be trading at significantly above company averages. All other convenience store impacts are assessed as being

page 39 below 4%. A number of technical clarifications including the precise method and basis for calculating trade diversions in the retail assessment are needed.

53 In accordance with the requirements of PPS4, the impact of the proposal on the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer and other important local impacts should be assessed by the applicant. Subject to this work and a number of detailed technical clarifications, the impacts might be acceptable in principle, particularly given that existing centres will benefit from overall growth in consumer expenditure in the catchment area between now and 2031. However, the most significant impacts are on Clapham Junction and Wandsworth (a centre in need of regeneration) and the potential impact on planned investments in these centres, such as the expansion of Southside shopping centre and Ram Brewery, should be confirmed. If the planned investments in these two nearby centres are not likely to be affected by the development, then it is likely that they will be able to sustain their vitality and viability as major town centres alongside Battersea Power Station, and continue to meet the needs of their more immediate catchments.

The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport and the likely effect on overall travel patterns and car use

54 An understanding of the accessibility of the proposed development by a choice of means of transport, taking into account the importance of fostering public transport use in London and the likely effect on overall travel patterns and car use, is essential for assessing the acceptability of the proposed development. The site currently has limited access to public transport and has a public transport accessibility level of between 2 and 4, which is not compatible with the proposed quantum of retail provision. The comments made by Transport for London in paragraphs 78 to 147 of this report, particularly those that relate to car parking provision and the need for mitigation through improved public transport infrastructure provision, are relevant. The proposed retail car parking provision should be broken down between the food store parking and the rest of the retail development.

55 It is understood that the applicant envisages the NLE being delivered and operational prior to the occupation of phase two (the power station), which contains the majority of the proposed retail floorspace. Further work is required in relation to the transport aspects of the application, but delivery of the NLE is likely to be critical to the acceptability of the scheme, and the scale and nature of the proposed retail provision will need to be conditional on its implementation. Further discussions on this issue will be necessary before the application is referred back to the Mayor at stage two. Offices

56 London Plan policy 5G.2 recognises that the CAZ and the northern part of the Isle Of Dogs OA are the heart of London’s world city offer and seeks to promote and coordinate their development so that together they provide a competitive, integrated and varied business location. Policy 3B.2 promotes the provision of additional office space in the CAZ. This is supported by policy 5G.3 which recognises the CAZ as the country’s most important strategic office location and seeks to ensure adequate capacity to meet future demand and identify and bring forward office capacity in the western part of the CAZ. Policies 3B.3 and 5G.3 state that wherever increases in office floorspace are proposed they should provide for a mix of uses including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies in the London Plan. PPS4 is also relevant to consideration of the proposed office provision.

57 The proposed development includes 161,138 sq. m. of B1 floorspace, of which approximately half will be provided in the power station building and half in development zone O- 1. The planning statement claims that this will generate 1,700 jobs; this appears to be an error and

page 40 should be clarified. The applicant states that this critical mass of business floorspace is important to the success of the development as a new mixed use quarter.

58 The principle of new office development in the CAZ is supported by the London Plan and also by the draft OAPF which envisages 20-25,000 new jobs in the OA as a whole and 160,000 sq. m. of office development at Battersea Power Station. Notwithstanding this support, it is essential that the proposed quantum of office development is supported by significant improvements in public transport infrastructure. The draft OAPF recognises that the level of employment generation in the OA is dependent on significant transport infrastructure being delivered.

59 The scheme has the potential, when combined with the implementation of the NLE, to deliver a major strategic addition to central London’s modern office stock, and relieve pressure in the CAZ for sustainable, headquarter-type office functions, which will strengthen London’s global competitiveness in the long term. Housing

60 London Plan policy 3A.1 seeks to increase London’s supply of housing and sets a London- wide target of 30,500 additional homes per year between 2007/8 and 2016/17. Table 3A.1 sets borough housing targets, of which Wandsworth’s is 745 additional homes per year between 2007/8 and 2016/17. The draft replacement London Plan sets new targets for 2011-2021, of which Wandsworth’s is 1,280 additional homes per year.

61 The proposed development includes 430,899 sq. m. (gross external area) of residential floorspace, which depending on the precise mix of accommodation will deliver in the region of 3,856 units, of which 245 are proposed to be ‘built to let’ units. A further 118 assisted living units are proposed. The development will therefore provide a total of 3,974 residential units. This represents a significant contribution towards housing targets in the borough and in London as a whole and is supported in principle.

Affordable housing

62 London Plan policy 3A.10 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mix-use schemes. In doing so, each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. In addition, policy 3A.10 encourages councils to have regard to the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development, and to the individual circumstances of the site. Targets should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements. Policy 3A.10 is supported by paragraph 3.52, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified.

63 Policy 3.13 of the draft replacement London Plan sets out the approach to negotiating affordable housing on site, and states that “The maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed use schemes” taking account of a range of factors including local and regional requirements, the need to encourage rather than restrain development, and viability. Wandsworth Council’s submission Core Strategy includes a requirement that applicants provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, with a target of 50%.

page 41 64 Also relevant is London Plan policy 6A.4 Priorities in planning obligations, which states that affordable housing and public transport improvements should generally be given the highest importance with priority also given to tackling climate change, learning and skills and health facilities. Draft replacement London Plan policy 8.2 Planning obligations states that affordable housing; supporting the funding of Crossrail where this is appropriate; and other public transport improvements should be given the highest importance.

65 The applicant has not, at this stage, proposed a level of affordable housing for consideration, but has indicated that the amount of affordable housing will be determined in the context of a viability appraisal to be submitted shortly. The Council and the GLA are in the process of commissioning consultants to undertake a review of the applicant’s viability appraisal, which will inform discussions to determine the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing which can be delivered by the development. The applicant’s statement that contributions it makes to the delivery of the NLE must be afforded substantial weight in considering the appropriateness of an affordable housing contribution, is noted. In line with London Plan policy 6A.4, an appropriate balance will need to be struck between competing requirements for transport, affordable housing and social infrastructure, but the applicant should be aware that the Mayor expects the scheme to contribute the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in the context of overall scheme viability.

66 The GLA is in the process of undertaking a Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS) for the VNEB OAPF which will set out the costs of delivering public transport, public realm and social infrastructure.

Tenure split

67 London Plan policy 3A.9 states that affordable housing targets should be based on an assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply, and should take account of the London Plan strategic target that within the affordable element 70% of housing should be social and 30% intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities.

68 Draft replacement London Plan policy 3.12 states that within the 13,200 affordable homes per year target, the Mayor will, and boroughs and other partners should, seek to ensure that 60% is social housing and 40% is intermediate housing. Wandsworth’s submission Core Strategy also seeks 60% social housing and 40% intermediate housing.

69 The applicant has not yet indicated what proportion of social and intermediate housing would be provided within the affordable housing element of the scheme. This should be submitted alongside an overall affordable housing offer and supported by the viability appraisal.

Mix of units

70 London Plan Policy 3A.5 encourages a full range of housing choice. This is supported by the London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, which seeks to secure family accommodation within residential schemes, particularly within the social rented sector, and sets strategic guidance for councils in assessing their local needs. Draft replacement London Plan policy 3.12 states that within affordable housing provision, priority should be accorded to family housing. Recent guidance is also set out in the draft London Housing Strategy 2008, including policy 1.1.2, which seeks more family sized homes, and draft replacement London Plan policy 3.8, which seeks to widen housing choice.

71 The following indicative mix of units is proposed within the power station:

page 42 Unit type % of units 1-bed 6 2-bed 35 3-bed 44 4-bed 14 Penthouse 1 Total 100 Table 3: proposed indicative mix of units in power station

72 The following indicative mix of units is proposed across development zones RS1, RS2, RS4, RS5, RS6 and RS-WF:

Unit type % of units Studios 12.5 1-bed 15 2-bed 50 3-bed 17.5 4-bed 2 Penthouse 3 Total 100 Table 4: proposed indicative mix of units in RS1, RS2, RS4, RS5, RS6 and RS-WF

73 The applicant must reconcile these figures to demonstrate the proposed mix of units for the scheme as a whole. It will be necessary to understand the proposed mix within the affordable element of the scheme, for both social rented and intermediate tenures. GLA officers will then take a view on the acceptability of the proposed mix, but further discussions on this issue are likely to be required.

Housing choice

74 London Plan Policy 3A.5 states that all new housing should be built to Lifetime Homes standards and that 10% should be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. This is supported by draft replacement London Plan policy 3.8.

75 The applicant’s commitment that all new residential units will meet Lifetime Home standards and that 10% will meet wheelchair standards is welcomed. However, further clarification is needed on how these standards have been interpreted – for example the two Lifetime Home standards that relate to car parking are omitted from the list on page 235 of the Design & Access statement. Similarly, there is no reference to Habinteg’s Wheelchair Housing Design Guide and the GLA’s Wheelchair Housing Best Practice Guide, both of which are referenced in London Plan policy 3A.4 and draft replacement London Plan policies 3.5 and 3.8.

76 The provision of additional cupboard space and a level access shower in a lifetime home will not, as implied by the Design & Access Statement, necessarily provide a residential unit that can be easily adapted for occupation by a wheelchair user. If the residential units are designed to meet generous space standards, many more than the minimum 10% could potentially be easily adaptable for disabled people, providing much greater choice of unit size and location and providing an incentive to older people who also benefit from accessible and generously proportioned homes.

page 43 Housing quality

77 Draft replacement London Plan policy 3.5 addresses the quality and design of housing developments and is supported by table 3.3, which sets out minimum space standards for new development. Paragraphs 3.31 to 3.33 of the draft replacement London Plan state the Mayor’s intention to produce guidance on the implementation of policy 3.5 for all tenures in a new housing SPG, drawing on the guidance contained in the draft Housing Design Guide. The applicant has provided little information regarding residential quality and should submit an assessment of the scheme against the standards in the Housing Design Guide, which should demonstrate how the standards could be met for individual units within the context of the outline scheme.

Transport

Background

78 TfL welcomes the regeneration of this major brownfield, central London site. A transport assessment has been submitted as part of the application; however, as set out below a significant degree of further work and discussion will be required, before the proposals can be considered to comply with the London Plan and in order to meet TfL’s operational requirements.

79 To date the applicant has been solely progressing the NLE from Kennington to Battersea Power Station, and the application submitted is predicated and designed around a NLE to the site being delivered. It is the applicant’s view that the certainty associated with a NLE will be important in attracting retail, office and commercial occupiers as well as residents.

80 The strategic transport study undertaken as part of the OAPF tested the NLE as an option and concluded that an Underground extension with an intermediate stop in the Nine Elms area, supported by a wider package of bus, highway, pedestrian and cycling enhancements and improved river transport is required to provide an acceptable level of additional transport capacity to meet the demands generated by new residential, retail and commercial developments such as this proposal.

81 The Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy Proposal 22 (b) and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.5 (e) and para. 6.28 give support to the concept of a privately funded NLE to Battersea. However, the cost associated with delivering this is likely to be significant and it remains unfunded. In addition, proposals have yet to go through the necessary approvals processes including a Transport Works Act Order (TWAO). At this stage any timetable for opening of the station and services (currently estimated by the applicant as 2016) is contingent on progress being made on the TWAO and funding issues. These are currently being investigated by TfL, the GLA and the applicant.

Trip generation

82 London Plan (2008) policy 3C.1 Integrating transport and development and 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity, and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.1 Strategic approach and 6.3 Assessing transport capacity seek to integrate transport and development and ensure that there is sufficient transport capacity to allow for travel generated by new development.

83 The transport assessment currently estimates that across all modes in the region of 85,400 inward trips and 83,300 outbound trips will be generated by this development over the course of an average day. This includes 4,419 inbound trips and 3,332 outbound trips during the AM Peak

page 44 hour (08:00 to 09:00) and 6,251 inbound trips during and 8,517 outbound trips during the PM Peak hour (17:00 to 18:00).

84 Pre-application discussions took place between the applicant and TfL which raised concerns with the trip generation and associated modal split undertaken. In order to ensure compliance with the London Plan policies stated above and to ensure a robust level of analysis discussions are progressing and further work will be required before TfL is satisfied with the trip generation and modal split. In addition TfL expects the trip generation and mode split to be broken down and presented for each of the seven development zones.

85 TfL expects the transport assessment to clearly reference and illustrate how the travel demand forecasting undertaken in relation to the trip generation work undertaken as part of the VNEB Transport Study has informed the overall assessment.

Development impact

86 A multi-modal impact assessment has been undertaken for ‘Phase 1’ and for end state 2024. This assumes that a Northern Line Extension to Battersea Power Station via Nine Elms and Kennington is constructed and open for use in 2016 prior to the occupation of the retail element associated with phase two (the power station).

87 It is TfL’s view that the transport assessment should not only concentrate on the end state 2024, but fully consider the impact of the development on the baseline conditions of the funded and committed transport network in 2016.

88 TfL expects an assessment of interim stages or phases having regard to the cumulative impacts of surrounding development (both committed and OA totals should be considered). This should include the necessary measures to mitigate the additional demand from the development on the public transport and highway network. The transport assessment is entitled to consider a NLE in order to demonstrate how the development’s impacts will be mitigated. Further discussion and analysis is therefore required to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 3.C1 and 3C.2 and replacement London Plan policies 6.1 and 6.3.

89 It is TfL’s view that transport infrastructure and capacity must be provided in advance of or concurrently with development demand. The applicant has indicated that the NLE will be operational prior to the occupation of the retail element associated with phase 2. Appropriate triggers and conditions, linked to the phasing of development and delivery of essential transport infrastructure will need to be agreed with TfL and the Council as part of the section 106 agreement or through planning conditions.

Site access and highways impacts

90 The proposed highway layout includes a modified and enlarged Battersea Park Road/Kirtling Street Junction, which is proposed as the main access point to the site, and the junction is shared with the existing main access to the New Covent Garden main market site. A new junction at Battersea Park Road/The Prospect/Savona Street is proposed providing access to the main underground retail/public car park, via a ramped access. Off-site improvements to the Queenstown Road/Battersea Park Road Junction, Queens Circus Roundabout and the sections of Battersea Park Road immediately adjacent to the site are also proposed. In addition the existing, un-signalised Cringle Street junction is to be utilised as a third access point to the site, however no improvements are planned at this stage.

page 45

Figure 3: ground level access plan (source: Planning application drawings: details of access and circulation)

91 In light of the Mayor’s aim to smooth traffic flow, additional junctions on the TLRN will need full justification before they are deemed acceptable to TfL. TfL raised concerns with the proposed layout at pre-application stage many of which still need to be addressed.

92 Further detailed discussions are on-going in relation to highway design and modelling issues and to ensure all highways proposals fully comply with London Plan policy 3C.16 Road Scheme Proposals and replacement London Plan Policies 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion and 6.12 Road network capacity which focus on smoothing the flow of traffic, congestion and road network capacity.

93 Further details relating to the various phases of public realm/access works proposed to allow access to the site at each phase of the build should be provided and agreed with TfL and the council prior to determination.

94 TfL has commissioned an independent review/audit of the ‘traffic modelling’, the details of which were received from the applicant on 4 January 2010. Once available a report will be sent directly to the applicant. No further comments on the capacity and operation of the proposed highways layout can be provided until the traffic modelling has been fully reviewed.

95 Should this application be granted planning permission, the applicant is reminded that this does not discharge the requirements under the Traffic Management Act 2004. Formal notifications and approvals may be needed for both the permanent highway scheme and any temporary highway works required during the construction phase of the development.

page 46 Car parking

96 A total of 3,856 car parking spaces are proposed; however, following discussions with the Council and applicant it is proposed that this level will be reduced by 604 spaces to a total of 3,247 spaces (refer to table 2 of this report for a full breakdown of car parking spaces). Given that the proposed increase in transport capacity and that accessibility of the site is planned to increase to a PTAL 6, the CAZ location and current and future highway capacity constraints and impacts on air quality and overall amenity, TfL remains concerned with the level of car parking and in particular the levels of office, retail and residential parking; TfL expects the applicant to review these and seek to reduce them.

97 Whilst TfL acknowledges the need for car parking in terms of delivering a viable and competitive development, a balanced approach which meets London Plan policy 3C.23 Parking strategy and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13 Parking is required.

98 The applicant has agreed to prepare a car parking management strategy prior to the occupation of individual buildings/phases; this is welcomed. In addition, TfL requests that car parking numbers per development zone and accumulation by phase are provided and that a cap on car parking levels for each phase is agreed. A site wide framework must be agreed with TfL prior to determination; further phased car parking strategies will also need to be agreed with TfL. This must be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement.

99 TfL welcomes the positive approach to providing car-club spaces within the proposed parking totals for residential and office uses. Further details are required in relation to the indicative number of car-club spaces proposed for each phase, and how these will affect the overall level of car parking proposed. A commitment to increase the number of car club spaces if demand dictates is also required.

100 The draft replacement London Plan states that 20% of all residential spaces must be for electric vehicles (or 1 point per 5 car parking spaces) with an additional 20% passive provision. For commercial development the target is 20% with a further 10% passive provision, and for retail 10% with a further 10% passive provision. For passive provision the applicant is expected to demonstrate that the additional spaces or points can be provided at the time of implementation or at some time in the future.

Cycling

101 The transport assessment fails to demonstrate how the site will integrate with/help improve the existing cycle network i.e. London Cycle Network (LCN) route 37 which runs along Battersea Park Road and wider cycle network. Consideration should be given to cycle access through the site as well as how proposals for Battersea Park Road and the riverside walk are designed to encourage and accommodate cycling.

102 As part of the TfL’s Cycle Super Highway proposals, the indicative route 8 (Vale to (A3 – A3205 Vauxhall Cross) will pass the southern edge of the site. This needs to be acknowledged and taken into consideration as part of the highways solution for the Battersea Park Road frontage.

103 A total of 5,369 cycle parking spaces are proposed across the site for all land uses, this is in line with TfL cycle parking standards as referred to in the draft replacement London Plan and is welcomed. Further details concerning the location and design of these spaces are required for each development phase, even if only indicative at this stage.

page 47 104 Given the scale and nature of the site, it is TfL’s view that the applicant should provide the space for, and fund the delivery of two cycle hire docking stations, each with a minimum of 30 docking points. The indicative locations of these docking stations must be agreed by TfL.

105 More work is therefore required before TfL can be satisfied that the provision and design of facilities for cyclists as part of this development comply with London Plan policy 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.9 Cycling.

Walking

106 The public realm proposed throughout the site will be of a high quality and is welcomed by TfL. Details will be subject to further discussions; however, further information is required in respect of how the site will link to the existing walk and highway network.

107 An audit of the quality of the pedestrian environment has been undertaken for the area around the site (PERS audit). TfL expects the applicant to demonstrate how the deficiencies idenitified as part of this audit are to be resolved. In addition, TfL expects further pedestrian flow analysis to be undertaken to demonstrate the pedestrian desire and demand patterns to, through and from the development site.

108 TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to facilitate an extension of the Thames Path along the northern riverside edge connecting Battersea Power Station to Queenstown Road, Chelsea Bridge and Battersea Park. In addition the application is expected to ensure the Thames Path towards Central London is well connected beyond the site.

109 Further details are required regarding pedestrian signage to, from and throughout the site. TfL expects any scheme to fully integrate with TfL’s Legible London way finding scheme.

110 Further work is required prior to determining whether proposals are compliant with London Plan policy 3C.21 Improving conditions for walking and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.10 Walking; all pedestrian realm proposals must be shown to meet all relevant accessibility standards.

111 In order to ensure that key pedestrian linkages, such as the riverside walkway, and cycle routes, such as the Mayor’s super highway proposal is delivered as part of the outline consent, a parameters plan establishing pedestrian and cycle access principles is required.

London underground

112 The OAPF and supporting transport study conclude that a strategic transport intervention is required in order to support the ‘revised scenario 5’ densities throughout the OA. This site experiences the lowest level of public transport accessibility in the OA. The scale and density proposed reflect ‘revised scenario 5’ levels. This development has a key role in enabling/delivering a scheme such as the Northern Line Extension.

113 A major strategic transport intervention serving this site and the rest of the OA is needed in order to support a development of this scale in line with London Plan policy 3C.1 Integrating transport and development and 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity, and draft replacement London Plan policies 6.1 Strategic approach and 6.3 Assessing transport capacity.

114 Whilst the proposal is predicated on the NLE to the site being delivered and operational prior to the occupation of phase two, TfL acknowledges that there remains a significant amount of further work to be done in terms of identifying appropriate funding sources and gaining the necessary support and approvals including TWAO approvals. Therefore, TfL will expect the Council

page 48 and applicant to agree to an appropriate set of conditions (possibly including Grampian conditions) or appropriate obligations which will limit the occupation of the development until such times as the necessary transport infrastructure is in place and fully operational. Further discussions between TfL and the applicant are required.

115 TfL has concerns in relation to potential overloading on the Victoria Line and at Vauxhall station. As discussed above, trip generation and development impact assessments need to be reviewed by phase; this should include a consideration of phased impacts at Vauxhall and on the Victoria line, both with and without the NLE.

116 The location and outline detail of the proposed NLE station box has not yet been submitted as part of the planning application. TfL expects this to be submitted as soon as possible if it is to be considered as part of the application, even if only indicative at this stage.

Interchange

117 It is important that the proposed NLE station entrance is fully integrated with local bus stops, taxi rank facilities, nearby rail stations and pedestrian crossings. Further detail on the station forecourt and interchange area should also be provided, even if only indicative at this stage. The applicant should take account of TfL’s interchange best practice guidance http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/interchange/.

118 Further details on the ‘interchange area’ between the proposed station entrance, other local transport services and the adjacent section of Battersea Park Road should be prepared and agreed with TfL at the earliest opportunity.

Bus services and infrastructure

119 The existing local bus network is at capacity in the AM peak period and therefore any additional demand generated by new development will require mitigation through the provision of additional bus capacity and infrastructure. This is supported by the VNEB Transport Study which sets out a number of recommendations for improvements to bus capacity and the introduction of new services across the OA.

120 Subject to agreement in relation to the trip generation figures and development phasing TfL will further advise on the scale and associated costs of the capacity improvements required. TfL expects the applicant to prepare and agree a bus strategy for the site; this must be agreed by with TfL prior to determination of the application.

121 The provision of bus stops and stands on Hotel Lane is welcomed; however, the numbers and locations of all stops and stands will be subject to further detailed discussions and agreement with TfL and should take full account of TfL’s Bus stop accessibility guidelines (Jan 2006).

122 The assessment should illustrate the number of interchange trips which are being made between bus and underground from the proposed NLE, these trips may not necessarily be using the development itself.

123 TfL expects appropriate bus driver facilities to be designed into the development in line with TfL guidance. Further details on how this will be accommodated with the proposals are required and must be secured as part of the section 106 agreement as land will be required.

124 The resolution of bus issues as outlined above will be necessary in order for the proposals to comply with London Plan policy 3C.20 Improving conditions for buses and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.7 Buses, bus transits, trams.

page 49 Rail

125 TfL requires the transport assessment to fully examine the capability of Battersea Park and Queenstown Road stations to cater for the additional passengers at each phase and examine any Network Rail/TOC plans to enhance these stations and services – to provide them with more capacity and to better integrate them with the new development. Further discussions with TfL, the council and Network Rail are required.

Taxis and coaches

126 A taxi rank facility is proposed at the end of Hotel Lane which provides good access to the middle of the development site. This arrangement is supported in principle; however, further discussions are required concerning the level of forecast taxi demand and the proposed capacity of this rank.

127 A taxi pick-up/drop-off area is also proposed to serve the hotel located on Hotel Lane. This arrangement is supported.

128 In addition, a third taxi pick-up/drop off area is proposed in the form of a lay-by, accessed from and exiting onto Battersea Park Road. Further analysis is required before TfL is able to give a view on whether the location and need for this is supported. Issues such as enforceability, management, potential impacts on the TLRN and disruption to the safety and operation of the bus lane must be investigated.

129 The provision of ten coach parking spaces in the basement area of the development and a coach drop-off facility associated with the hotel is welcomed. TfL expects the applicant to investigate the provision of a second coach drop-off facility to serve the conference venue. In addition, further evidence is requested to demonstrate that both the drop-off facilities and the coach parking areas can be accessed by 12 metre and 15 metre double decked vehicles. The management of the coach access to the site, and coach parking should be committed as part of the parking/servicing management plan.

River pier and services

130 The desire for a pier in this location is supported by the existing London Plan policies 4C.1 The strategic importance of the Blue Ribbon Network, 4C.7 Passenger and tourism uses on the Blue Ribbon Network, the Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy and London Plan policies which encourage increasing the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for passengers and tourism.

131 A new pier capable of supporting the extension or introduction of new ‘river services’ has been proposed as part of the planning application. TfL expects a commitment to the construction, operation and maintenance of this facility. Further to this TfL expects the applicant to agree to making the pier available free of charge to the eventual ‘riverbus’ operator for a minimum period of time. Further work on the funding and implementation of services will need to be undertaken in consultation with TfL in order to inform the section 106 agreement.

132 All issues relating to the provision of the pier and enabling of river services are expected to be approved in consultation with TfL and secured by appropriate planning conditions/section 106 agreement. This is required to ensure compliance with the above London Plan and MTS policies.

Servicing and construction management

133 TfL welcomes the applicant’s intention to prepare a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) for the site; the DSP should be developed in line with the London Freight Plan. The proposal to

page 50 prepare a construction management plan is also welcomed; this should be accompanied by a construction logistics plan (CLP) developed in line with the London Freight Plan.

134 Given the scale of the development and the duration of the construction programme it is anticipated that the volume and frequency of construction traffic to and from the site will be considerable. TfL expects a more detailed construction impact assessment (which includes NLE construction traffic) to be provided at this stage. In addition, consideration should be given to the development of a construction travel plan for the site. This would address access, management, freight and river freight targets and employee travel targets.

135 Serious consideration should be given to the use of water-based transport to move demolition and construction materials given the proximity to the river Thames. The CLP should also take the likely cumulative construction movements of other nearby developments into consideration.

136 Given the proximity of sensitive TLRN and SRN roads, TfL will require the DSP and CLP to be approved in consultation with TfL and secured by planning condition in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic and 3C.25 Freight strategy as well as draft replacement London Plan policies 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion and 6.14 Freight.

Travel planning

137 A draft travel plan covering both the residential and non-residential elements has been submitted with this application. Further work is required before it is deemed to be acceptable and in line with London Plan policy 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.1 Strategic approach. More detailed advice regarding the travel plan will be provided directly to the applicant. The travel plan should be iTRACE and TRAVL compliant and secured, enforced, monitored, funded and reviewed as part of the Section 106 agreement in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.3 Assessing transport capacity.

Mitigation and section 106 contributions

138 Further discussions between TfL, GLA and the council are required in relation to the priorities for Section 106 contributions in this area, governance in relation to the wider VNEB area and the potential pooling and allocation of Section 106 contributions prior to the VNEB development tariff being finalised.

139 In relation to this proposal the applicant needs to make it much clearer what is being proposed in terms or mitigation measures and how this relates to London Plan policy 6A.4 Priorities in planning obligations and replacement London Plan policies 6.5 Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure and policy 8.2 Planning obligations.

140 It is TfL’s view that this scheme will significantly contribute to the current and future cumulative impact of development on the already-constrained transport services and infrastructure in the VNEB area. Subject to further trip generation and development impact assessments being provided by the applicant, the level of mitigation and schemes will be further defined and discussed with the Council and applicant.

141 The Mayor’s Draft SPG: Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail (amended October 2009), states in relation to contributing towards Crossrail that ‘...Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area presents a special case. It has the potential to accommodate a range of uses appropriate to the Central London Zone (including offices), and with strategic-scale

page 51 transport infrastructure that would sustainably increase public transport accessibility and capacity into the area. Policy 6.5 in the draft Replacement London Plan makes clear that an approach similar to the one outlined in this guidance for Crossrail could be adopted to support other transport infrastructure of regional strategic importance and highlights the proposed Northern Line Extension (NLE) in the VNEB area as an example of where this might be done’.

142 The draft policy goes on to propose that development within the VNEB Opportunity Area should be excluded from the Central London charging area, but only on the basis that significant contributions (of at least a similar scale to those which would normally be directed towards Crossrail) are collected ‘towards other regionally important transport infrastructure which will enable the quantitative and qualitative optimisation of development in ways that will make a significant contribution towards the objectives of the London Plan.’

143 TfL therefore expects any proposed mitigation to identify how the requirement of this draft SPG will be included within the overall mitigation package.

144 All necessary highways works will need to be agreed with TfL and must be secured through the Section 278 process due to works over the TLN and SRN. These works are expected to be funded separately by the applicant. The highway network once agreed will be defined in the Section 106 with detailed assessment and design being secured through the Section 278 process.

145 TfL considers that it must be a signatory to the Section 106 agreement. This is necessary due to the considerable transport implications, scale of development proposed and lengthy time scale for implementation. TfL can assist the applicant and the council in delivering a high quality transport network which this development requires.

146 Due to the scale and complexity of the transport issues and in order to allow TfL to continue to provide high quality and timely advice and review of the transport assessment, associated material and provision of control mechanisms, TfL will require funding from the applicant to pay for on-going planning and legal fees where appropriate. There is a precedent for this established on other major developments throughout London such as at Brent Cross Cricklewood.

Summary

147 TfL supports the regeneration of this site; however, as described above there remains a significant amount of further work and analysis to be undertaken by the applicant before the full impacts of this development on the public transport and highways networks can be adequately demonstrated and understood.

148 It is essential that TfL is satisfied that all relevant London Plan policies, including those mentioned above are complied with and an appropriate level of mitigation and/or associated physical measures are secured to allow all negative impacts to be fully mitigated as well as ensuring TfL’s ongoing and future operational requirements are protected and enhanced. Urban design

149 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B, which address both general design principles and specific design issues. Policy 4B.1 sets out overarching design principles for London, and states that the Mayor will seek to ensure that new developments maximise site potential (see also policy 3A.3), enhance the public realm, provide a mix of uses, are accessible, legible, sustainable, safe, inspiring, exciting and respect London’s natural and built heritage. Policy 4B.2 promotes high quality, world- class contemporary and integrated design. Policy 4B.3 refers specifically to the contribution of

page 52 planning applications to the public realm and in particular the quality of design for waterside development. Policy 4B.4 encourages the retrofitting and reuse of buildings. Policy 4B.5 requires all development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, and that the principles of inclusive design should be integrated into proposed developments, with information on how inclusion will be maintained and managed. These general design principles should be reflected in developments. Policy 4B.6 requires proposals to address the fear of crime and to minimise potential crime through good design. Policy 4B.8 requires proposed developments to preserve or enhance local context and distinctiveness, including social, physical, cultural, historical, environmental and economic characteristics.

150 London Plan policies 4B.9 and 4B.10, which relate to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings, are of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. These policies set out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor.

151 The applicant has provided a Design and Access Statement (DAS) for the outline planning application with associated Architectural Code and Placemaking Code, a Townscape, Conservation and Visual Impact Assessment as part of the Environmental Statement in support of the outline application; a Design and Access Statement as part of the listed building application for the Power Station and Riverside Structures and a set of planning application drawings including parameters plans. The intended status of the Architectural and Placemaking Codes is currently unclear and needs to be clarified.

152 These documents provide a clear and well-articulated rationale for the applicant’s approach to strategic and detailed design issues for the scheme as a whole. They clearly demonstrate that in terms of scheme development, good progress has been made from the pre-application stage, in terms of delivering a robust master plan for this strategically important and iconic site.

153 The applicant has responded positively to the emerging public realm proposals in the consultation draft OAPF, including a new riverside park in front of the Power Station, and orientating the master plan to link to the linear park proposal which would connect Battersea Power Station to Vauxhall. In addition, the master plan has successfully responded to the key strategic design issues of protecting the setting and silhouette of the Palace of Westminster from strategic river views, and preserving and enhancing the setting of Battersea Power Station, itself a grade II* listed building.

154 The applicant has also engaged in a lengthy and productive engagement with CABE, English Heritage, the Council and the GLA and has continued to respond positively to consultation as part of the ongoing design process. Notwithstanding the good progress that has been made in the outline and detailed applications, further work, particularly on the level of information supporting the outline application for the overall site master plan is required. The strategic design issues that require further consideration are set out below.

Response to the safeguarded wharves

155 The Design and Access Statement (DAS) sets out a series of principles which drive the master planning approach. Whilst these principles are robust and sensible, they do omit a key site constraint, which is how the master plan proposes to respond to the ongoing operation of the safeguarded wharves in the long term.

page 53 156 The Consultation Draft OAPF (November 2009) sets out an approach to this, which is to wrap the safeguarded wharves in commercial development. Whilst there could be commercial viability issues associated with this approach, it maybe that, the proposed office block would be better located in this position. Whilst, it is recognised that the office development is currently located in close proximity to the proposed tube station, this alternative location should be considered.

157 If the applicant can demonstrate that this is not a suitable location for office, then a detailed design study is required to indicate the range of mitigation measures that would be required to ensure the ongoing operation of the safeguarded wharves in the long term, when surrounded by residential development. This would include visual separation and/ or screening, noise attenuation, vibration and air quality measures. An example of which is shown on page 72 of the OAPF.

158 The issue of proximity of the proposed residential development overlooking the safeguarded wharves relates to blocks RS2, RSWF and RS6 with regard to the outline application.

159 The applicant’s design response to the safeguarded wharves also causes concern at ground level. The DAS (page 137 paragraph 7.5.39) states that ground floor frontages around the safeguarded wharves are not suitable for active uses and as such the proposal is to treat these frontages as edges where car parks, ventilation grilles and plant rooms are located. Whilst there is an understandable rationale for creating a buffer zone around the safeguarded wharves, it does not meet the GLA’s requirement for an improved public realm in this location. With the delivery of the riverside walkway likely to be delivered in the longer term, the alternative short term route will be along Cringle Street and Kirtling Street. As such it is essential that an attractive and active street setting is delivered.

160 In order to ensure that this alternative key route is delivered it is essential that the plans and illustrative material for Block RS2 show how this link will be accommodated, providing a direct pedestrian and cycle route link from the eastern entrance of the Power Station to Cringle Street.

Open space – public and private realm

161 The proportions of the proposed public open spaces in and around the Power Station are undoubtedly generous in scale and provide both valuable amenity space and a positive spatial gesture towards the iconic building itself as well as to the aspiration to link this development to the linear park promoted in the OAPF. Achieving balance between conservation of the heritage asset and delivering a high quality residential environment for mixed communities including families and children will be critical to the long term success of this scheme and the applicant has made good progress towards this.

162 The height of the built development in relation to the scale of the internal courtyard spaces is of concern within some of the major residential blocks. The DAS shows daylight and sunlight modelling of the master plan, and on the basis of this, it is considered that there are likely to be issues at the lower levels of blocks RS1, RS2, RS4 and RS5. Whilst the applicant has gone some way to mitigating these conditions through locating less sensitive land uses such as office and hotel uses in the poorer positions, it is essential in residential planning terms that this issue is resolved at the outline stage.

163 In terms of Power Station park on the riverside, the town square, tube station square, the circle and the prospect there is a lack of detail about the function of these spaces. If the park is for sitting and relaxing with a book, perhaps some shade would be beneficial? If the circle is for physical activity perhaps some recreational play space such a climbing wall for older children could

page 54 be included? Further detail about the location and design of the children’s playspace in the park is required. Similarly, the town square and tube station square could benefit from more activities such as temporary pavilions, kiosks, way finding and other features, perhaps an outdoor performance space. Further details on the functions and uses of these spaces and the connections between them is required and the public spaces should be subject to their own plans addressing these issues.

164 In terms of the master plan layout there is also an issue about how the east and west entrance bridges to the Power Station are reflected in the built form. Whilst there are grand aprons to the north and south entrances to the Power Station, the at grade response in plan to the east and west entrances is much more modest. This lack of spatial articulation is also reflected in the master plan response in Blocks RS1 and RS2. Whilst the location of the pedestrian link (block RS2) to Cringle Street aligns in some plans with the eastern entrance to the Power Station, it doesn’t in others and there is no elevational material to suggest how this link might look and function. Would a pedestrian crossing be required? Similarly, whilst building entrances and a car parking ramp are located opposite the western entrance (block RS1), more detailed design in plan and elevational treatment would be beneficial (see page 169 of the DAS). Given the scale and expanse of the facades on blocks RS1 and RS2, it is considered that a stronger and more monumental vertical emphasis in the built form is required to punctuate the east and west entrances to the Power Station. This should also be reflected in the landscape treatment to define a stronger urban realm response in terms of orientation and legibility.

Movement

165 It is essential that the riverside walkway between the Power Station and Battersea Park is delivered as part of the outline consent. Whilst the DAS recognises that this is a desirable outcome, the issue of site ownership with Network Rail remains unresolved. As set out above, in the safeguarded wharf section of the urban design comments, the requirement for a continuous riverside walkway is a key principle which underpins the public realm strategy within the Consultation Draft OAPF. The applicant must demonstrate as part of the outline consent for the Power Station that these key linkages to both Battersea Park and Cringle Street will be delivered.

166 The Mayor is currently in discussion with Cemex, the owner/ operator of RMC Battersea to deliver a caged walkway in front of the operational wharf, in the manner of the City of London waste wharf. When development proposals come forward for Cringle Dock, the Mayor will be seeking a connection of a similar kind to be designed and built as part of the redevelopment proposal. It is essential that the applicant demonstrates that a connection can be made to the east of RS2 and on RS-WF. The applicant must also demonstrate that the proposed decorative wall to screen the waste wharf to the east of RS-2 on the riverside is temporary in nature and can be removed to ensure a direct connection is delivered in the longer term. Details of this decorative screen are required. Given the prominence of this location from the north bank of the River Thames, further exploration of this issue is required at the outline stage, including the proximity of residential units to Cringle Dock on the riverside.

Battersea Park Road

167 Whilst the DAS and Placemaking Code set out a clear vision for public realm delivery at the Power Station, there are some concerns about the treatment of Battersea Park Road. These include the location of the taxi lay-by on the prospect, the lack of detail pertaining to the design of tube station square at the south of the high street, the car park access from Battersea Park Road to RS- 4 and the overly traffic engineered response to movement on Battersea Park Road.

page 55 168 The Consultation Draft OAPF identifies improving the character of Nine Elms Lane/ Battersea Park Road as a key principle of the area-wide public realm strategy. The current application does not integrate the treatment of Battersea Park Road with the rest of the public realm strategy for the site.

169 The proposed location of the taxi lay-by, car park access to RS-4 and associated pedestrian crossing design on Battersea Park Road opposite Thessaly Street undermines the potential for stronger physical connection between the prospect and existing residential communities to the south of Battersea Park Road. The preferred approach would be to move the taxi lay-by west to tube station square where a better modal connection would be delivered. A shared surface approach would also bring animation to this large public space and provide a good connection to retail uses along the high street. In addition, it is recommended that the proposed car park access to the west of the prospect is removed and all vehicular movements are taken through the main entrance to the site at Kirtling Street. This would enable a really strongly defined termination to the prospect where it abuts Battersea Park Road and a clearer pedestrian/ cycle connection to the south to be delivered.

External appearance

170 The DAS sets out five different architectural types including residential terraces, curved buildings, office, hotel and linking buildings. The more detailed investigations undertaken into the terrace, curved and office typologies are developing well and the overall horizontal emphasis promoted in the design codes works well with the curved form of the large blocks both within the scheme and as it faces onto the river. The horizontal emphasis provides a clear contrast to the block form of the power station and the strong verticals of the chimney stacks and their bases. There is however a lack of detail regarding the external appearance of the hotel and linking buildings (see Architectural Code page 143).

171 These buildings are located in the Cringle Street and Kirtling Street vicinity; the lack of detail provided contributes to the sense that a service orientated backland environment with few active ground floor frontages could be delivered. This is of particular concern with regard to RS-WF which is the satellite site to the east of RMC Battersea. The current proposal is for a 60m (c.30 storey) tall building on a key riverside site. The form, bulk, massing and external appearance of this block is unresolved (see Architectural Code page 158 and Townscape Assessment page 61). Significantly more design information is required at this stage in order to determine that a tall building of excellent architectural quality on this key riverside site will be delivered.

172 Given the degree of visibility of all the major buildings which comprise the Power Station application, further details on elevational treatment is required. Blocks RS-1 and O-1 will both be highly visible from the south west, and given the noise issues from the railway lines to the west of the site, the architectural response to this issue is critical.

173 The applicant has gone to some length in the architectural code to define approaches to elevation treatments for the different architecture types. However, it is not clear how these will appear en masse when applied across the facades which characterise the architectural response to the main development blocks and indicative illustrations should be provided.

174 In terms of the external appearance of the terrace and curved buildings in the master plan, further work on the elevations is required. At a detailed level within the architectural code, it is clear that a residential typology is emerging. However, at a large-scale, further illustration of how the codes may look when implemented would be helpful.

page 56 175 In order to satisfy the Mayor that the scheme is demonstrating a clear commitment to delivering excellence in housing design the applicant should address his aspirations for housing design quality as set out in policy 3.5 and paragraphs 3.31 to 3.33 of the draft replacement London Plan. Given the overall quantum of housing proposed in the scheme (c. 4,000 units), further work on the external appearance of all the major buildings is also required, to demonstrate that a successful residential environment will be delivered.

Height

176 The applicant’s Townscape Assessment concludes that the proposed scheme will relate well with surrounding conservation areas and will not harm the setting of listed buildings within the locality. It also concludes that where visible the proposed development will enhance views from across the River Thames and will not harm the setting of the Palace of Westminster World Heritage site.

177 The massing of the scheme clearly responds to the strategic issues of protecting the silhouette of the Palace of Westminster from both the existing and draft London Views Management Framework (LVMF) views and does not harm the setting of the Power Station, a grade II* listed building and heritage asset. The buildings’ heights have been arranged so that they do not overwhelm the scale of the power station in views across and along the river and from Battersea Park Road. The power station remains the key iconic element of the river front panoramas.

178 Buildings range in height from 45m – 60m across the site and whilst the number of storeys is not defined (probably in the region of 15 – 20 storeys); these buildings are still tall buildings in their own right. As such, more details and a rationale for differentiation in height across the site is required. Indicative elevations of all blocks should be submitted, with particular attention to the riverside buildings and those overlooking Nine Elms Lane and existing communities at the Savona and Patmore estates (see pages 65, 103, 105, 107 and 157 of the Townscape Assessment). The treatment of elevations overlooking the railway to the west is also a key strategic design issue, given visibility of the scheme to the west. Overall the scale of the scheme along Battersea Park Road has been much reduced from the original so that it no longer overwhelms the scale of the estate buildings to the south.

Summary

179 The master plan responds well in terms of height, bulk and massing to the strategic design issues concerned with protecting the setting of the Palace of Westminster and Battersea Power Station. Further consideration of how to respond to the ongoing operation of the safeguarded wharves is required. There is also a concern that in addressing the strategic design issues that the delivery of private communal space in the form of the internal courtyard in the residential blocks has been overly squeezed.

180 In terms of building heights further information, setting out how the scheme responds to local townscape issues, would be beneficial. With regard to the scale of development and number of residential units proposed, further work on external appearance is required. Whilst the bold, modern architectural expression is supported, how this is articulated in detail to create a residential environment needs further clarification. Other issues relate to the delivery of the continuous riverside walkway, its short term alternative route to Cringle Street, and further consideration of the function and design of key public spaces. In particular, parameter plans should be provided for the public open spaces.

page 57 Inclusive design

181 The aim of London Plan policy 4B.5 and draft replacement London Plan policy 7.2 An Inclusive Environment is that proposals aim for the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum) and that the design process has from the outset considered how everyone, including disabled and deaf people, older people, children and young people, will be able to use the places and spaces that are proposed. Draft replacement London Plan policy 7.1 also stresses the importance of extending these inclusive design principles to the neighbourhood level by meeting Lifetime Neighbourhood criteria. This can help to ensure that the public realm, the parking areas, the routes to the site and links to adjacent public transport and local services and facilities are also designed to be accessible, safe and convenient for everyone, particularly disabled and older people. This concept can also help to meet the specific needs of older people (see the CLG report ‘Lifetime Homes Lifetime Neighbourhoods A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society’).

182 Given the size and complexity of this scheme and the timescale for its delivery there is substantial scope to implement a scheme that is exemplary in terms of inclusive design and, in particular, the way that the access needs of disabled and older people are met and so achieves the delivery of a Lifetime Neighbourhood.

183 The Design and Access Statement submitted with the outline application has addressed these issues up to a point which is very welcome, but there are a number of detailed issues that still need to be resolved before the scheme is returned at stage 2. A presentation to the GLA’s Access and Inclusive Design Adviser and to members of the London Access Forum, in conjunction with the applicant’s access consultant, would assist in discussing and resolving some of these outstanding issues.

Public realm

184 The plan on page 232 showing the various gradients across the site is useful and demonstrates that there are only two areas where gradients may be an issue – the park on the riverside where gradients are steeper than 1 in 30 and the entrance to the high street from Battersea Park Road where the gradient is steeper than 1 in 25. It would be useful to understand further the constraints on these two areas and to see whether there are any further opportunities to reduce the gradients further, particularly at the high street where it meets Battersea Park Road given the proposal for an obliquely sloped plaza and the sloped link at Duchess Bridge. Is the existing tunnel beneath the Duchess Bridge to Stewarts Road wheelchair accessible? If not are their plans to improve its accessibility?

185 With regard to the design of The Circle and the shared surfaces, the consideration that has been given to ensure that all pedestrians can use these spaces safely is welcomed but there is a need to ensure that the detailed design, including details of the tactile paving, meet best practice standards at the time of implementation given that the Department of Transport and Transport for London are currently undertaking research in this area and given the concerns of major disability organisations including Guide Dogs for Blind People who have major concerns about the safety of shared surfaces for visually impaired people. More detail is needed on how well The Circle will work as a shared surface given the use that all vehicles accessing building RS-1 will make of this route.

Riverside walk

186 Further details of the ramp gradients on the riverside walk and to the jetty and pier would also be useful. A pedestrian link to Battersea Park along the riverside walk will be detailed for a

page 58 later submission, but it would be useful at this stage to understand whether any future link will be fully wheelchair accessible and whether this can include lift access up to Chelsea Bridge to provide a close and accessible connection to the bus routes along Chelsea Bridge Road (which provide quick access to Sloane Square).

Access to the underground and overground rail stations

187 It is appreciated that further design work is to be undertaken regarding access and egress to the tube station but it is worth stressing at this early stage that the lifts, stairs and escalators that give access from the street to the underground station should be co-located and designed as an integral and inclusive entrance (the plan currently shows steps/escalators co-located but no lifts in the same position). As access to the new tube station from Battersea Park Road appears to be via the lower level of the shopping mall orientation and wayfinding from the street to the station entrance must be direct, clear and intuitive for all users including visually impaired people and wheelchair users.

188 Given the importance of overground as well as underground facilities to serve the new development, consideration should be given to the arrangements for step free access from street to platform and fully accessible facilities at Queenstown Road and Battersea Park Stations. Will lifts be installed at these two stations prior to completion of the first phase of the development as part of the local transport improvements?

Wayfinding strategy

189 Reference is made in the DAS to signage but further details of a wayfinding strategy should be submitted at detailed design stage, to ensure that it addresses specific access issues, for example navigating through Town Square could be challenging for some visually impaired people given the size of the square and the proposed nature of the large expanse of the unbroken paved plaza without any apparent navigational clues.

Residential

190 In addition to addressing the comments made in paragraphs 75 and 76 above, further explanation of the pedestrian and vehicular routes and the distances to residential entrances from local bus stops, taxi drop off facilities, visitor and resident parking bays and to the tube station would be helpful, particularly for block RS-1 which appears to be a long walk from these transport links. Further details of the proposed Assisted Living Units and how they are integrated into the community in the context of the Lifetime Neighbourhood concept is requested.

Parking

191 The applicant’s commitment to provide 10% of all car parking bays for Blue Badge holders is welcomed, but the distribution of these bays needs further consideration to ensure that there is a sufficient number available for all potential users in the right location. For example the location and number of blue badge bays for the 10% of wheelchair accessible residential units, for employees and visitors to all the leisure and retail uses and the location and number of visitor spaces for the assisted living units for carers and support workers. A condition should be included on the permission to ensure that the parking management plan includes a mechanism to ensure that the supply and demand of the blue badge bays are regularly monitored and provision reviewed, to ensure that provision equates to the demand from disabled residents and visitors in the future and that the bays are effectively enforced.

page 59 Shopmobility scheme and other facilities

192 Given the size of the development consideration should be given to setting up a Shopmobility scheme and making provision for facilities such as a public ‘Changing Places’ WC.

Hotel

193 Given the shortage of wheelchair accessible hotel bedrooms in London consideration should be given to increasing the number of fully wheelchair accessible bedrooms above the minimum 5% required under the Building Regulations in line with the draft replacement London Plan policy 4.5 which seeks to achieve at least 10% wheelchair accessible hotel bedrooms. The hotel operator should also be asked to assess themselves against the National Accessible Scheme as set out by Visit Britain (see http://www.tourismtrade.org.uk/quality/assessmentstandards/nationalaccessiblescheme/default. asp?pf=y) and to commit to implement an accessibility management plan (The GLA is currently developing further guidance on this).

Consultation

194 The DAS confirms that some consultation will take place with the local access group in Wandsworth. Consultation should also be undertaken with the strategic access forum which is to be set up for the OAPF (the format of this OAPF Access Panel has not been decided yet but should be formed of representatives from the London Access Forum, Inclusion London, Wandsworth Access Group, the GLA and other local or regional individuals and organisations involved in promoting inclusive access issues, as appropriate). This OAPF Access Panel should be consulted at each stage of the BPS masterplan’s development and for each of the reserved matters applications submitted for Battersea Power Station.

195 The appointment at this early stage of an access consultant at this early stage is welcomed as close collaboration between the access consultant and the design team can help to ensure that inclusive design principles are embedded into all aspects of the design process. The access consultant should continue to be involved in the detailed design as it progresses and with helping to facilitate engagement with the OAPF Access Panel and the local access group, to ensure inclusive design principles are embedded into and implemented in the detailed design. Children’s play space

196 Policy 3D .13 of the London Plan sets out that “the Mayor will and the boroughs should ensure developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with playspace for under 5’s provided on-site.

197 The applicant has estimated that there will be approximately 826 children within the development, broken down by age group as per table 5. As such the development should make provision for a total of 8,260 sq.m. of playspace.

page 60 Age group Max walking distance Total no. of children Total play space from home (m) required (sq. m.) 0-4 100 488 4,882 5-11 400 241 2,405 12+ 800 98 976 Total - 825 8,263 Table 5: estimated child occupancy by age group

198 The applicant should confirm that these figures have been calculated using the methodology in the London Plan supplementary planning guidance (SPG) ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ and in particular state the child occupancy rates on which they are based. The numbers will need to be re-calculated when the level of affordable housing provision is agreed; the applicant is advised that social rented units generate a higher child yield than private units and that the play space requirement is likely to increase accordingly. The comments made below are based on the existing figures and may therefore be subject to change.

199 The estimated 488 children aged 0-4 generate a demand for 4,880 sq. m. of on-site play space. The applicant has stated that this will be provided within the residential courtyards or at roof top level, but has not demonstrated that the required quantity and quality of space can be delivered in those areas. Further work needs to be undertaken to address this issue; it should identify the broad locations for play space and consider the quality of the spaces in relation to e.g. overshadowing and other relevant design principles.

200 The estimated 241 children aged 5-11 generate a demand for 2,410 sq. m. of local or neighbourhood playable space. The applicant proposes that this requirement will primarily be met by the eastern gardens in the Power Station Park (approximately 1,800 sq. m.), but that the rest of the park, particularly the open lawns (6,000 sq. m.) and western gardens (2,300 sq. m.), provides further opportunities for play. This is acceptable.

201 The estimated 98 children aged 12+ generate a demand for 980 sq. m. of neighbourhood playable space or youth space. The applicant states that this is already available within 800 metres of the site at Battersea Park. Whilst the proximity and recreational opportunities at Battersea Park are recognised, guidance in the London Plan SPG states that there is a presumption in favour of play space provision being made on site unless it is demonstrated that this is not possible. Given the size of the proposed development and the amount of available open space on-site, there are sufficient opportunities to provide some dedicated ‘youth space’ on-site. This should be addressed. Social and community infrastructure

202 London Plan policy 3A.18 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities states that adequate provision for social infrastructure and community facilities is particularly important in major areas of new development and regeneration. Policies 3A.21 Locations for healthcare and 3A.24 Education facilities are also relevant. The principles embedded in these policies are also contained in draft replacement London Plan policies 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19. The development is expected to provide, as a minimum, additional facilities identified as being necessary to mitigate the impact of demand arising from the new residential population.

203 London Plan policy 5E.1 seeks to ensure that new housing provision is complemented by adequate social and other infrastructure. The social infrastructure analysis undertaken as part of the OAPF demonstrates that new social infrastructure is likely to be required in Battersea and Nine Elms where there is currently a lack of provision, and that improvements to social infrastructure provision will include new schools, GPs, pharmacies, libraries and community centres.

page 61 204 The applicant has undertaken an assessment of the education, health and community facilities required to support the new population generated by the development and has expressed a willingness to make provision for new facilities on site, including nurseries and a health clinic. The application includes in the region of 15,000 sq. m. of community and culture (class D1) floorspace. Further discussions with the applicant are necessary to understand what proportion of this floorspace will be dedicated to social and community infrastructure.

205 The population generated by the development is estimated to be almost 8,000, including over 800 children. The applicant’s assessment identifies a requirement for 561 school places, five new GPs and four new dentists. It is noted that this assessment has been undertaken on the basis that the 3,611 residential units will all be private tenure and according to the proposed unit mix as set out in tables 3 and 4 of this report. As with the children’s play space assessment, the demand for school places will need to be reassessed to reflect the agreed level of affordable housing provision and any changes to the proposed unit mix.

206 The demand for school places is broken down by early years, primary, secondary and post- 16 education. The baseline information provided by the applicant suggests that the majority of the demand generated by the development will be absorbed by projected capacity and that there is no need for a new school on-site. The exception is early years provision, for which capacity issues in the catchment area are identified and provision for on-site nursery facilities will be made. The Council should be satisfied that the applicant’s assessment is robust, particularly in respect of the ability of existing schools to absorb the demand for places generated by the development.

207 As described above, the assessment identifies a demand for five new GPs and four new dentists arising from the development. It is noted that the applicant’s assessment has not accounted for employees of the on-site retail and employment floorspace. As part of work on the OAPF, the GLA and the Council have been liasing with the local NHS primary care trust to understand its requirements across the opportunity area as a whole. The GLA is also liasing with the Metropolitan Police Authority to understand its requirements for new policing facilities in the opportunity area. The outcome of these discussions will inform negotiations with the applicant on the size and type of new facilities required as part of the proposed development.

208 Whilst the applicant’s commitment to provide new social and community infrastructure facilities to meet the need generated by the development is welcomed in line with London Plan policies 3A.18, 3A.21 and 3A.24, further discussion is needed in respect of the size and type of new facilities needed and how they will be secured and delivered. As the largest single development opportunity in the area, GLA officers would also welcome consideration of the potential to accommodate the need for additional new facilities arising from the development of the opportunity area as a whole. Climate change

209 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 4A collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions. The policies set out ways in which new developments must address mitigation of, and adaptation to, the effects of climate change (Policy 4A.1).

Climate change mitigation

210 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

page 62 sustainable design and construction measures and prioritising decentralised energy, including renewables.

211 Draft replacement London Plan policy 5.2 provides a comprehensive framework for minimising carbon dioxide emissions, and sets targets for carbon dioxide emissions reductions for residential and non-residential buildings over the plan period.

212 The OAPF energy strategy sets out the approach to tackling climate change through development in the opportunity area. The key principles including establishing a VNEB district heat network (DHN) throughout the opportunity area, with potential to link to the Pimlico, Whitehall and Waterloo district heat networks. It recommends that all new developments in the opportunity area connect to the DHN, and that where development comes forward in advance of the DHN, it should be designed in line with technical standards established by a VNEB district heating steering group, to ensure ease of connection to the network. It also recommends that the strategic connection between Pimlico DHN and VNEB via the existing pipework beneath the River Thames is secured, including any access requirements and space for heat exchangers and pumps on the Battersea Power Station site.

213 The applicant has expressed an aspiration to achieve ‘zero carbon’ for the power station building. The energy strategy includes energy efficiency measures, and a site-wide bio-fuel 10MWe combined cooling heat and power (CCHP) system. Whilst the proposed measures have been selected in accordance with the London Plan energy hierarchy (policy 4A.1), in its present form the strategy lacks sufficient detail in a number of areas. Detailed comments on the strategy have been given to the applicant who has expressed a willingness to address the issues raised. It is envisaged that an updated energy strategy will be submitted in due course.

Baseline carbon dioxide emissions

214 London Plan policy 4A.4 requires an assessment of the energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions from proposed developments. Building Regulations 2006-compliant modelling has been undertaken for the power station building and for the rest of the development to establish the baseline emissions from regulated and non-regulated uses. On a whole site basis total carbon dioxide emissions are estimated to be 32,219 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum, which comprises 8,256 tonnes from the power station building and 23,963 tonnes from the rest of the development.

215 There are some apparent inconsistencies between the energy consumption values used for the power station and the rest of the development, particularly in respect of the heating requirements of the residential elements of the scheme. Clarification of this should be provided. The applicant is also requested to provide the standard assessment procedure (SAP) output sheets for the non-power station residential and SBEM (or other building regulations approved modelling) output sheets for the non-residential uses.

Energy efficiency

216 The applicant has proposed a series of energy efficiency measures which are estimated to provide a 12% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 32,219 to 28,445 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum. For the power station building, the applicant should demonstrate how much the dwelling emissions rate (DER) and building emissions rate (BER) exceed the Building Regulations 2006 target emissions rate (TER).

217 Whilst the proposed carbon savings are welcomed in principle, the standards provided in the energy strategy (particularly U-values) do not represent the highest performance standards currently available or expected to be available during the build out of the various phases of the

page 63 scheme. The applicant has indicated that the standards in the strategy are intended to represent a ‘worst case scenario’ so that carbon savings are not overstated at this stage. Whilst this is noted, the applicant should reconsider committing to higher standards, which may require making informed assumptions about advances in energy efficiency techniques.

District heating

218 London Plan policy 4A.6 requires all developments to demonstrate that their heating, cooling and power systems have been selected to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. It states that heating and cooling infrastructure should be designed to allow the use of decentralised energy (including renewable generation) and for it to be maximised in the future. Draft replacement London Plan policy 5.6 states that where future decentralised energy network opportunities are identified, proposals should be designed to connect to these networks.

219 The energy strategy for the development is expected to accord with the principles in the VNEB energy masterplan and provide the necessary infrastructure and be technically compatible to ensure straightforward connection to the district heat network in future. The applicant has expressed a willingness to connect to the VNEB network although this is not fully reflected in the submitted energy strategy and further assurances are needed as to how this will be implemented. In particular the applicant needs to confirm that the BPS heat network would be compatible with the VNEB heat network for the importation and exportation of heat as specified in the technical standards of the VNEB Energy Masterplan. For example, would the temperature required for the localised absorption chillers, as proposed in the BPS energy strategy, be compatible with the temperatures provided by the VNEB heat network when heat is imported from it?

220 The energy strategy includes a single energy centre located at basement level on the northern side of the power station under Power Station Park. An indicative layout for the energy centre has been provided, which includes space for additional heat generating plant to supply the wider VNEB network. The development specification states a gross internal area of 6,574 sq.m. for the energy centre; the applicant should provide a scaled drawing which demonstrates how much heat generating equipment and fuel storage will be accommodated, and how much space will be made available for future additional heat generating equipment.

221 The on-site heat network comprises a heating ring main from the energy centre around the outside edge of the power station building, with a radial heating network to the various development zones. Further information is needed in relation to how the network will be developed out in the context of phasing.

222 The applicant has given insufficient consideration to the opportunity to supply heat to the Pimlico district heat network via the existing operational pipework under the River Thames. A temporary boiler house (leased by Dalkia) on the power station site supplies heat to the Pimlico network in times of peak demand, but this would be lost through the redevelopment. This strategic connection must be maintained; ideally the existing pipework should be extended to enable direct connection in to the new energy centre with the ability to supply low carbon heat as and when the demand arises.

Cooling

223 The energy strategy states that the risk of overheating and the need for active cooling has been designed out as far as possible. However, the baseline emissions include cooling demand, which suggests that parts of the development will have an active cooling load. It would be useful for the applicant to indicate which parts of the development (particularly the residential uses) are expected to have an active cooling load.

page 64 224 In addition to the proposals for the use of localised small absorption chillers at the building level, the applicant should investigate the installation of centralised cooling plant at the energy centre to feed a cooling network serving those building with a cooling network. This is necessary to be in agreement with the London Plan requirements. This option should be detailed in the energy strategy. An indicative drawing including the cooling infrastructure throughout the site should be also submitted.

225 The applicant states that it has investigated the potential for river water cooling, but this option has been dismissed following advice from the Environment Agency; the applicant is requested to make this available to GLA officers. The development’s cooling demand is therefore proposed to be met using absorption chillers. Further information about the proposed system is required before this can be supported.

Renewable energy

226 London Plan policy 4A.7 adopts a presumption that all developments will achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible. Draft replacement London Plan policy 5.7 also seeks a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through the use of onsite renewable energy generation, where feasible, and states that all renewable energy systems should be located and designed to minimise any potential adverse impacts on biodiversity, the natural environment and historical assets.

227 The current energy strategy proposes bio-oil as a renewable source of fuel for the CCHP system, which the applicant estimates will result in a further 53% carbon saving over and above energy efficiency measures. Whilst this is welcomed in principle, the applicant should provide calculations showing how this figure has been arrived at and in particular should specify the assumed carbon intensity factor. During discussions with the applicant it came across that other bio fuel CCHP technologies could be employed.

228 Bio-fuel CCHP is a relatively new technology in the UK and further information is required to ensure that the proposed energy strategy is robust. The applicant should undertake an option appraisal investigating possible bio fuel CCHP technologies that could be suitable to supply the BPS heat network. In particular, potential sources of fuel supply should be identified GLA officers understand that the applicant is in discussions with a number of potential suppliers; evidence of these discussions should be provided. The amount of on-site fuel storage capacity should be specified, and the practicalities of delivery access need further consideration.

229 The proposals for the bio-fuel CCHP are welcomed and should be investigated further. However, due to the nature of these technologies, uncertainties exist regarding this option and hence, the applicant is required to develop an alternative low carbon energy strategy that considers site wide gas fired CHP. This option should also consider how the renewable aspirations could be met. This should be fully detailed in the revised energy strategy.

230 The load profiles supporting the sizing of the CCHP system should be separated into heating and cooling. Monthly demand and supply profiles should also be provided.

231 In line with London Plan policy 4A.7, the applicant has investigated a range of renewable energy technologies in addition to the bio-fuel CCHP. The majority of these have been rejected with appropriate justification. However, photovoltaics (PVs) are identified as having potential to make an additional small (0.5%) contribution to carbon savings. The applicant states that provision could be made to accommodate PV in future if the carbon benefits and viability improve; this is acceptable.

page 65 Air quality

232 London Plan 4A.19 Improving air quality states that at the planning application stage, air quality should be taken into account along with other material planning considerations, and that formal air quality assessments should be undertaken where appropriate. The use of bio-fuel has potential air quality implications which warrant consideration.

233 The applicant has submitted an air quality assessment, some aspects of which require clarification. Point source emissions from the CCHP and boilers have been modelled using an appropriate dispersion model. However, the assessment does not state the source of the emission or stack parameters and it is not clear whether a site specific assessment has been undertaken; this should be included within the assessment.

234 It is unclear whether the assessment has included emissions from the on-site movement of cars or from car parking areas; this should be clarified. Consideration has not been given to the process contribution of the energy centre at receptors above ground level. This is particularly important in the context of the development which includes residential units over several storeys.

235 The energy centre has potential to significantly affect local air quality and the above issues must be addressed before the effects can be fully assessed. However, the use of selective catalytic reduction can significantly reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and ground level concentrations of nitrogen dioxide; such mitigation should be secured by condition.

Climate change adaptation

236 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. 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.

237 The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement which satisfactorily addresses the full range of sustainability principles and specifically assesses the scheme against the standards in the SPG. Specific measures include extensive green and brown roofs, covering up to 80% (53,000 sq. m.) of the total available roof area. This will provide significant benefits in terms of rainwater attenuation, mitigating the urban heat island effect, and enhancing biodiversity and is supported in line with London Plan policy 4A.11. The extent of green and brown roofs and their detailed design should be secured by condition.

238 In accordance with London Plan 4A.16 Water supplies and resources, the applicant has committed to a maximum water use target of 105 litres per person per day. Water metering will be applied to all new dwellings and a central greywater recycling system will be provided to serve the landscape irrigation and fire hydrant services. Flood risk

239 London Plan policies 4A.12 and 4A.13 seek, among other things, to manage existing and future flood risk and ensure that new developments incorporate flood resilient design. Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk aims to ensure that flood risk is taken

page 66 into account at all stages of the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding

240 The site is located within flood zone 3a and therefore is classed as having a high probability of flooding for planning purposes, although it does benefit from a high level of flood protection by the river walls and the Thames Barrier. It is protected from fluvial and tidal flooding to the statutory level of 5.41 metres above sea level, which corresponds with a 1 in 100 year flood event. The applicant states that all finished floor levels in the scheme will be above the 1 in 1000 year flood level.

241 In accordance with London Plan policy 4A.12 and PPS25, the applicant has undertaken a flood risk assessment (FRA). This concludes that the proposed development passes the sequential test and the exceptions test; this is accepted. A breach analysis has been undertaken and the Environment Agency’s standing advice in respect of raising flood defences has been incorporated into the design of the scheme. Any further comments made by the EA on the planning application should be fully addressed as appropriate.

242 The applicant proposes to deal with surface water run off via gravity discharge to outfalls through the river walls to the River Thames. This strategy is supported in line with London Plan policy 4A.14 Sustainable drainage.

243 Whilst the development has passed the sequential and exceptions tests, the applicant should have regard to the Environment Agency’s Thames Estuary 2100 project. Particular attention should be paid to flood warning, either evacuation procedures or consideration of how the development will remain safe during a flood and how the development would recover from a flood. The applicant’s proposal to create flood refuges within all the buildings and locate more vulnerable uses outside of the areas of risk is welcomed. Blue ribbon network and safeguarded wharves

Blue ribbon network

244 The policies contained within chapter 4C of the London Plan seek to capitalise on the water as an asset and enhance the Blue Ribbon Network in order to improve the quality of life for Londoners. Policy 4C.3 seeks to protect and enhance the biodiversity value of the blue ribbon network, and only allow development into the water space only where it serves a water-dependent purpose or is a truly exceptional case which adds to London’s world city status. Policy 4C.7 encourages development of new facilities that increase use of the blue ribbon network for passenger and tourist traffic. Policies 4C.10 and 4C.11 collectively seek to increase sport and leisure use on the blue ribbon network and improve access to and alongside it. Policy 4C.13 also seeks to protect and improve mooring facilities particularly in basins or docks. Draft replacement London Plan policies 7.25, 7.26 and 7.27 seek to increase the use of the Blue Ribbon network for passengers and tourism and freight transport, and improve supporting infrastructure and recreational use.

245 The creation of a new pier to provide for new or extended river boat services is welcomed in line with London Plan policy 4C.7. The provision of increased public access to the riverside, a riverside park, and potential continuous access under the railway viaduct to Chelsea Bridge Wharf and on to Battersea Park are welcomed in line with London Plan policy 4C.11, although further discussions are necessary in respect of implementation of the link under the railway line.

246 In accordance with London Plan policy 4C.10, consideration should be given to the potential for water recreation in line with London Plan policies in chapter 4C. The existing

page 67 pontoons would be a suitable location for river related recreational uses such as visitor moorings, or sports/sailing use.

247 The applicant has expressed an intention to deliver construction materials to, and remove excavation materials from, the site by river transport; this is welcomed in line with London Plan policy 3C.8 and draft replacement London Plan policy 7.26.

Safeguarded wharves

248 London Plan policy 4C.9 Safeguarded wharves on the blue ribbon network protects safeguarded wharves for cargo-handling uses such as inter-port or transhipment movements and freight-related purposes and the transport of waste. It states that development next to or opposite safeguarded wharves should be designed to minimise the potential for conflicts or use and disturbance. This is supported by paragraph 4.166 which recognises that many wharves are in opportunity areas and that there will be a challenge to minimise conflict between the new and the old land uses, and that new development next to or opposite wharves should utilise the layout, use and environmental credentials of buildings to design away these potential credentials.

249 The OAPF sets out a strategy for mitigating noise and visual intrusion around the safeguarded wharves in the opportunity area. This includes wrapping the wharf uses in commercial or other non-residential uses. Whilst the OAPF includes an option to relocate the Western Riverside waste transfer station at Cringle Dock to the east side of RMC Battersea (the vacant industrial warehouse on the site of development zone RS-WF), Wandsworth Council has indicated that it does not support this option and as such it is unlikely to be taken forward. The application will therefore be assessed on the basis that the wharves will remain in situ for the foreseeable future. It should be noted that CEMEX has recently applied for planning permission to redevelop RMC Battersea to provide replacement concrete plant, a new aggregates storage facility and ancillary office units.

250 The applicant has undertaken noise and air quality assessments in support of the application. These broadly conclude that the impacts of noise, dust and odour from the wharf operations on the proposed development are acceptable. The GLA intends to undertake a detailed technical review of these assessments, particularly as they relate to the relationship between the wharf operations and the residential parts of the proposed development. Subject to the outcome of this work, further information or revisions to the assessments may be necessary.

251 The application includes built development up to the eastern edge of the site on the boundary shared with Cringle Dock. This building (part of development zone RS-2) is proposed to accommodate assembly and leisure and community and culture uses at ground floor, with residential, serviced apartments and hotel uses above. Development zone RS-WF is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the aggregates facility on RMC Battersea and comprises retail (food and drink) use at ground floor and residential above. The design and access statement claims that the effects of noise and smell from the waste transfer site will be mitigated by facade treatment; a detailed strategy is contained in the Architectural Code. GLA officers are unconvinced that the strategy will result in an acceptable design solution or provide sufficient mitigation to meet the requirements of policy 4C.9. This is discussed in more detail in the design section of this report; the issue is critical to the acceptability of the scheme and further discussion will be necessary to resolve concerns. Hazardous installations

252 London Plan policy 3A.34 Dealing with hazardous substances relates to the development of land within the vicinity of hazardous substances in order to limit the consequences of any potential

page 68 accidents. It states that the Mayor will and boroughs should take into account the presence of hazardous substances in determining planning applications that relate to the development of land in the vicinity of establishments where hazardous substances are stored. National policies on hazardous installations are set out in DETR Circular 4/2000 “Planning Controls for Hazardous Substances.” Also relevant is London Plan policy 4B.6, which requires physical risks, including those arising as a result of fire and related hazards, to be taken into account in the design of new developments.

253 The Battersea gasholders on the opposite side of the railway lines to the west of the application site, are collectively designated as a Major Hazard site under Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regulation. Parts of the proposed development fall within the Consultation Distance (Middle and Outer Zones - see figure 4) for seeking the HSE’s advice on the level of risk posed by the development and its recommendation as to whether planning permission should or should not be granted. To this end the HSE measures risk against its Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations (PADHI) methodology, which produces either an ‘Advise Against’ or ‘Don’t Advise Against’ output.

Figure 4: Proposed development and PADHI zones (IZ = inner zone, MZ = middle zone, OZ = outer zone) (source: Quantified Risk Assessment)

254 The applicant has submitted its own assessment of the proposed development against PADHI. This states that the scheme has been designed to ensure that it is as closely compliant with the PADHI methodology as possible, and hence that the risks are minimised. The assessment concludes that all aspects of the proposed development are PADHI compliant with the exception of the ‘indoor use by public’ (predominantly retail) element. As more than 10% of the ‘indoor use by public’ floorspace falls within the Middle Zone, the assessment concludes that this would generate an ‘Advise Against’ recommendation.

page 69 255 The applicant has also undertaken a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) of the risk associated with the proximity of the proposed development to the gasholders. QRA is a more sophisticated assessment of the level of individual and societal risk than PADHI, because it takes account of the frequencies and consequences of events, which enables an estimate of the level of risk posed to users of the development on a scale of unacceptable, tolerable and broadly acceptable. It concludes that the individual risks across the development site are lower than many other risks to which people are exposed every day and fall within the ‘broadly acceptable’ level. In terms of societal risk, it concludes that this falls within the ‘tolerable’ level.

256 At the time of writing, the HSE’s advice to the local planning authority is awaited. It would be imprudent to judge the acceptability of the risk in planning terms in advance of this advice being received. However, on the assumption that the applicant’s PADHI assessment is accurate, a HSE ‘Advise Against’ recommendation is likely. It should be noted that the HSE’s advice is not binding on the local authority and planning permission can be granted in cases that are ‘advised against,’ provided there has been careful consideration of the HSE’s advice by the local planning authority and that the risks are fully understood and addressed. The acceptability of the proposed development will ultimately be determined by balancing the individual and societal risks with the social, environmental, economic and regenerative benefits associated with the proposed developed. The HSE’s advice, and the local planning authority’s consideration of it, will be reported to the Mayor at stage two. Local planning authority’s position

257 As yet unknown. Legal considerations

258 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. Financial considerations

259 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

260 London Plan policies on retail, office development, housing, transport, urban design and strategic views, children’s play space, social and community infrastructure, climate change, flood risk, the blue ribbon network, safeguarded wharves and hazardous installations are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

page 70  Principle of proposed development: the principle of comprehensive redevelopment of the site is supported in line with London Plan policies 5E.2 and 5G.2 and the provisions of the draft VNEB OAPF.  Retail: a retail assessment has been undertaken in line with London Plan policy 3D.2; however further work is required in order to ensure full compliance with policies 3D.1 and 3D.2.

 Office development: the provision of new office development in the CAZ complies with London Plan policies 3B.2, 3B.3 and 5G.3.

 Housing: in the absence of an affordable housing offer the application does not currently comply with London Plan policies 3A.9, 3A.10 and 3A.5.

 Transport: in its present form the transport assessment is not sufficiently robust to demonstrate the impacts of the proposal on the public transport and local highway network, and does not therefore comply with London Plan policies 3C.1 and 3C.2. The proposed level of car parking is excessive for this CAZ location and does not comply with London Plan policy 3C.23. In addition, further work is needed to ensure the application fully complies with London Plan policies 3C.17, 3C.20, 3C.22, 3C.25 and 6A.4.

 Urban design and strategic views: the master plan responds well to the site context and constraints in terms of height, bulk and massing. However, further work on a number of detailed issues is needed before the application can be considered compliant with London Plan policies 4B.1, 4B.2, 4B.3, 4B.5 and 4B.8.

 Children’s play space: in its present form the application does not demonstrate adequate provision for children’s play space and is not therefore compliant with London Plan policy 3D.13.

 Social and community infrastructure: the applicant has assessed the impact of the new population on social and community infrastructure provision. In its present form the application complies with London Plan 5E.1, 3A.18, 3A.21 and 3A.24; however, this may need to be re-assessed depending on the level of affordable housing and mix of units.

 Climate change: insufficient information has been provided in the energy strategy. As a result in its current form the application does not comply with London Plan policies 4A.1 to 4A.7. The applicant’s commitment to sustainability measures complies with London Plan policies 4A.3, 4A.9, 4A.10, 4A.11 and 4A.14.

 Flood risk: a flood risk assessment has been undertaken and the application complies with London Plan policies 4A.12 and 4A.13.

 Blue ribbon network: the provision of a new pier and increased public access to the riverside are welcomed in line with London Plan policies 4C.7 and 4C.11. Further work is required before the application can be considered fully compliant with policies 4C.10 and 4C.11.

 Safeguarded wharves: the application does not currently comply with London Plan policy 4C.9 because it has not been designed to minimise the potential for conflicts of use and disturbance between the existing safeguarded wharves and the new development.

page 71  Hazardous installations: the advice of the HSE is awaited before the application can be considered compliant with London Plan policy 3A.34.

261 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

262 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:  Retail: clarification of a number of technical assumptions in the retail assessment is required in order to properly assess the acceptability of the impact of the proposed quantum of retail floorspace on nearby town centres, in line with London Plan policies 3D.1 and 3D.2.  Housing: the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, which should be determined in the context of overall scheme viability, is required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 3A.9 and 3A.10. The mix of units should be determined with reference to local and strategic housing requirements to ensure compliance with policy 3A.5.

 Transport: further work as detailed in paragraphs 78 to 148 of this report is required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 3C.1, 3C.2, 3C.17, 3C.20, 3C.22, 3C.23, 3C.25 and 6A.4.

 Urban design: further work in relation to the relationship with the safeguarded wharves, the function and design of public open spaces, delivery of the continuous riverside walkway, external appearance and residential quality is required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan design policies.

 Children’s play space: further information relating to the provision of play space for the under 5’s and over 12’s should be provided to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3D.13.

 Climate change: further work as detailed in paragraphs 214 to 235 of this report is required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 4A.1 to 4A.7.

 Blue ribbon network: the applicant should investigate opportunities for recreational use of the river in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 4C.10. Further information in relation to delivery of the continuous riverside walkway is required in line with London Plan policy 4C.11.

 Safeguarded wharves: the relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent safeguarded wharves should be revisited before the scheme can be considered compliant with London Plan policy 4C.9.

 Hazardous installations: regard will be had to the HSE’s advice in order to assess the acceptability of the scheme against London Plan policy 3A.34.

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] Claire O’Brien, Senior Strategic Planner 020 7983 4269 email claire.o’[email protected]

page 72