planning report PDU/ PDU/2586/02 1 February 2012 Areas 7 and 1c, Canning Town London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (in the London Borough of Newham)

planning application no. 11/00662/LTGDC

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 application for the creation of a new town centre development within a series of buildings ranging from 4 to 18 storeys comprising residential (circa 1,100 units); retail (including foodstore); leisure, community and health; offices; live/work units; research and development/light industry; student accommodation; and hotel uses as well as detailed application for Phase 1 of the development.

The applicant The applicant is Bouygues and the architect is Aecom and Haworth Tompkins for Phase 1.

Strategic issues The outstanding issues relating to affordable housing, housing quality, density, inclusive design/lifetime neighbourhoods, student accommodation, transportation, and energy efficiency standards have been satisfactorily resolved.

The Development Corporation’s decision

In this instance the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation has resolved to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date. Recommendation That the LTGDC 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.

page 1 Context

1 On 10 May 2011 the Mayor of London received documents from Newham Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category under Categories 1A, 1B, and 1C 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 house, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15 000 sq.m.”

1C “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building that is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

2 On 16 June 2011 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2586/1, and subsequently advised the Corporation that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 112 but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 114 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 12 January 2012 the LTGDC decided that it was minded to grant full planning permission in respect of Phase 1 on Development Parcel 1 and outline permission in respect to the remaining plots subject to conditions the completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 agreement and 19 January 2012 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 or direct the LTGDC under Article 6 to refuse the application. The Mayor has until 1 February 2012 to notify the LTGDC 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 the Corporation was advised that the application complied with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 112 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 114 of that report could address these deficiencies:

 Affordable housing.

 Housing mix.

 Density.

 Housing quality.

page 2  Student accommodation.

 Inclusive design.

 Climate change.

 Transport.

Affordable Housing

7 At the initial application stage the quantum of affordable housing for the outline development was not provided with the application. The GLA required that a minimum level of affordable housing should be secured in any permission to ensure the application was compliant with the London Plan and that clarification on existing and previous residential use should be provided.

8 Since the stage 1 report the applicant has submitted a development appraisal to justify the proposed level and tenure mix of affordable housing that could be delivered as part of a viable scheme on a confidential basis. That appraisal has been independently assessed and verified by Jones Lang LaSalle on behalf of LTGDC.

9 The development appraisal and accompanying affordable housing statement concludes that, at this time, the development is only viable with affordable housing set at 30% (with grant) across the entire site and 27.5% (without grant except for Phase 1) across the entire site. However, subject to future viability and HCA grant funding, the proposed development could provide up to a maximum of 35% affordable housing. London Thames Gateway Development Corporation are satisfied that the details within the submitted development appraisal are robust and accurate for a scheme of this nature.

10 The proposed affordable housing tenure split across the entire site will deliver a 50:50 split between affordable rented and intermediate accommodation. The split within Phase 1 is weighted towards affordable rented accommodation; however this is balanced out through the later phases of the development. This detailed application comprises of 71 affordable units, including 51 affordable rent units and 20 intermediate units. Within Phase 1 this equates to 39.6% affordable housing. One Housing Group has been identified as the preferred RSL partner for Phase 1. The intermediate units will be provided within Block A1 and affordable rented units within Block A3 and 2 townhouses in Block A4. It is noted that the extra care accommodation has not been factored into the affordable housing percentages.

11 The London Plan (paragraph 3.75) states that, “In making arrangements for assessing planning obligations, boroughs should consider whether it is appropriate to put in place provisions for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation. To take account of economic uncertainties, and in respect of schemes presently anticipated to deliver low levels of affordable housing, these provisions may be used to ensure that maximum public benefit is secured over the period of the development”. Having considered the financial appraisal, LTGDC is content to accept the applicant’s commitment to provide a minimum of 30% affordable housing across the site, with re-appraisal, negotiation and review of each phase of development, prior to the implementation of any subsequent phase(s) of development. Further, in response to GLA comments that the Mayor is not consulted on reserved matters applications and will therefore not be afforded an opportunity to consider the level of affordable housing provided in the later phases. LTGDC and LBN officers have agreed to seek a minimum percentage of 30% across the whole site to be secured within the section 106 agreement – details of which are set out in paragraph 20.

12 GLA accept this approach to securing across site affordable housing provision and the application is compliant with the London Plan.

page 3 Extra Care Accommodation

13 In addition to the above, the development also provides for extra care accommodation which is targeted at older people and is a form of retirement housing which can accommodate both independent living and personal care. The provision was supported by the GLA, although clarification was sought regarding whether this would be classed as C2 or C3 under the Use Classes Order as was classification as to whether these are to be counted as affordable units and the mechanism to ensure affordability.

14 Condition C3 part (b) which sets out the quantum of built floorspace and distribution on land uses in a table and identifies extra care as a Sui Generis use meets GLA concerns at the initial application stage.

Housing Mix

15 At the consultation stage, the housing mix of the outline application was not provided and the GLA required that the applicant commit to a minimum level of family accommodation.

16 The issue with the housing mix was the applicant stated that planning permission is not being sought for housing mix as part of the outline application and that the precise housing mix for each development plot would be resolved during the reserved matters stage. As highlighted with the affordable housing provision, the applicant was informed that the Mayor is not consulted on reserved matters applications and would not have an opportunity to comment on the housing mix in line with the SPG. Any permission should set parameters for housing mix across the development, with particular reference to the level family accommodation.

17 The full consent for Phase 1 provides for the following mix of units:

Bedroom Numbers Unit Numbers Percentage (%) 1 bed (2 person) flat 54 30.2 2 bed (3 person) flat 12 6.7 2 bed (4 person) flat 71 39.7 3 bed (5 person) flat 21 11.7 3 bed (5 person) town 14 7.8 house 3 bed (5 person) duplex 7 3.9 units Total 179

18 Within the presented mix 78.4% of the 2 bed 4 person and 3 bed 5 person units are allocated to affordable rented units. Accordingly, the mix of units within Phase 1 is acceptable and meets the requirement of the London Plan.

19 In response to the GLA Stage I report and later comments, LTGDC Officers have stipulated that any planning permission granted should set parameters for housing mix across the development, with particular reference to the level of family accommodation provided. This is to be achieved through a requirement that a ‘Site Wide Housing Strategy’ setting out the agreed mix and tenure, including family accommodation across the whole development in line with the illustrative mix of units. It is to be secured through a S106 agreement when planning permission is granted.

page 4 20 In relation to both affordable housing and housing mix, GLA is satisfied with the LTGDC’s planning committee report dated 12 January 2012, which for the Phase 1 and/ or the outline proposals, secures under Owner’s Site Specific Obligations the following:

i. Affordable Housing – Provision of:

- 39.6% on a unit basis in Phase 1 = 71 units; split 51 affordable rent units and 20 intermediate units; and,

- overall, an average of 30% (with grant) on a unit basis [or 27.5% (without grant)] across the whole development, subject to viability testing at each pre- construction Phase.

ii. Planning Obligations Community Benefit Strategy Option 4 – Standard clauses allowing the phased appraisal of the Deferred Standard Charge excluding Phase 1.

iii. Site Wide Housing Strategy – Commitment to provide and implement a strategy to achieve an agreed mix and tenure, including family accommodation, across the whole development in broad accordance with the ‘illustrative residential unit mix’ table below:

Illustrative residential unit mix across whole site

Type 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 3 bed 4 bed Live Totals (duplex) (duplex) Work Area 50 70 86 96 107 70 (m2) No. of 350 550 150 45 24 11 1130 units Hab. 688 1650 600 225 144 66 3373 rooms

21 Further, the obligation states the submitted strategy must be supported by a ‘statement of compliance’ to demonstrate how the proposed mix accords with the illustrative mix.

Density

22 The stage 1 report required the applicant to confirm the residential density of the proposal based upon the net residential site area ( as set out in the Interim Housing SPG paragraph 3.35) in order to provide a realistic assessment of density.

23 The applicant has since supplied information in relation to the requirement, confirming the net residential area based on the then Interim Housing SPG paragraph 3.35 – this states that where schemes have more than 35% of total floorspace in uses other than residential it may be more effective to assess density by plot ratio in line with guidance on commercial developments. The applicant has provided a calculation of the total plot ratio of the total proposed floor area of 191,530 sq.m. has been divided by the sit area of 59,200 sq.m this equates to a plot ratio of 3.2:1. The information on plot ratio meets the requirement of the London Plan in relation to defining development density.

Housing quality

page 5 24 At the initial consultation stage there was uncertainty over future layouts in relation to the GLA Housing Design Guide and confirmation was required that the indicative layouts meet the design guide and that this should be referenced through conditions.

25 A compliance statement demonstrating how the (interim) Mayor of London’s Housing Design Guide is being met for Phase 1 has been included in the design and access statement. All of the residential units exceed the minimum space standards for new development. In addition, all of the north facing units adjacent to the A13 are dual aspect whilst the majority of the remaining units are also dual aspect.

26 As set out in LTGDC’s planning committee report dated 12 January 2012 the proposed heads of terms of the section 106 agreement includes the requirement to mitigate the effects of the development and make the proposals acceptable. Under condition (v) a Commitment to appoint a ‘Design Certifier’ for each phase of the development to provide expert design advice to the Owner will be a requirement of consent. The appointed Design Certifier for each phase shall be a credible, experienced, architectural professional who shall be agreed with LB Newham. The GLA supports this obligation to ensure high quality design throughout the later phases of development.

27 Indicative layouts were submitted by the applicant of the outline phases of development. Whilst these layouts demonstrated that the quantum of accommodation can be provided within the building envelopes in accordance with the space standards, there were concerns over the level of single aspect flats and long corridors, particularly in phases 5 and 6. Further drawings were provided showing revised layouts that reduced number of single aspect flats, removed a number of long corridors and provided outline layouts of flats. This has met some of the GLA concerns over current outline application phases, but the authority would still like the housing standards to be referenced through S106.

28 LTGDC’s planning committee report dated 12 January 2012 under legal agreements (s106, s38 and s278) and the heads of terms of agreement omitted clauses relating to commitment London Plan Housing Design Standards and compliance with the London Housing Design Guide for the future development of the outline stages of the development.

29 The GLA has since received by e-mail (dated 27 January 2012) a commitment by LTGDA to include a condition which specifically references the London Plan Housing Design Standards and their application (as might be amended) during the future phases. The GLA accept this commitment as meeting the requirements of the London Plan.

Student accommodation

30 At the initial consultation stage the principle of student accommodation within the scheme was accepted as it will add to the mix and vibrancy of the town centre. However, the London Plan establishes that unless student accommodation is secured through a planning agreement for occupation by members of specified educational institutions for the predominant part of the year, it will normally be subject to the requirements of affordable housing policy (policies 3.11-3.14). Accordingly, clarification was sought on the identified users of the student accommodation and confirmation that such users will be secured through the legal agreement

31 In light of the above relating to student accommodation, GLA is satisfied with the LTGDC’s planning committee report dated 12 January 2012, which for the Phase 1 and/ or the outline proposals, recommends that a s106 agreement is put in place that all floorspace provided for student accommodation is restricted to be occupied by students attending London higher or further education establishments. Any student accommodation that is not robustly secured for those students will be subject to the requirements of affordable housing, with a minimum requirement of 30% provision.

Inclusive design

page 6 32 At the initial consultation stage GLA required detailed plans to be provided in relation to wheelchair units; a commitment was made for 10% accessible student units and that access commitments were to be secured via condition/legal agreement. GLA is satisfied that condition B16 responds to GLA requirements. This states: No fewer than 10% of any student accommodation units within the development shall be constructed so that they can be easily adapted for residents who are wheelchair users in accordance with the publication ‘Wheelchair Housing Guide’, Stephen Thorpe, National Wheelchair Housing Association Group, Home Housing Trust, BRE 1997.

33 At the initial application stage a commitment was given to provide a shopmobility scheme in the town centre. GLA welcomes the commitment but that it should be conditioned to ensure suitable space is identified along with suitable blue badge parking and that these arrangements for delivering the shopmobility scheme should be secured through the section 106 agreement. GLA is satisfied with the LTGDC’s planning committee report, which for the Phase 1 and/ or the outline proposals, secures under owners site specific obligation (xvi) commitment to arrange and implement shopmobility scheme associated with the supermarket and retail units.

34 The applicant in the stage1 report was encouraged to address the London Plan policy on neighbourhoods Policy 7.1 and the emerging advice from the Lifetime Neighbourhoods Foundation. Any design code should address these criteria and have regard to other emerging best practice standards in achieving inclusive access. GLA is satisfied with the LTGDC’s planning committee report has met this requirement with the inclusion of conditions under design and access that all residential units within the development will be constructed in accordance with Lifetime Homes standards (Reference B15 and C33).

35 At the initial consultation the GLA required that the provision of accessible hotel bedrooms be conditioned We have received by e-mail (dated 27 January 2012) a commitment from the LTGDA to include such a condition on accessible hotel bedrooms within the planning permission.

36 At the initial application stage the GLA asked the applicant to commit to providing 10% accessible residential units. As such the LTGDC’s planning committee report which includes are condition relating to outline planning permission only which states: no fewer than 10% of the total number of residential units within the development shall be constructed so that they can be easily adapted for residents who are wheelchair users in accordance with the publication ‘Wheelchair Housing Guide’, Stephen Thorpe, National Wheelchair Housing Association Group, Home Housing Trust, BRE 1997 is welcomed.

Climate change

37 At the initial consultation stage the following comments were made:

 The applicant should commit to meeting Building Regulations 2010 through energy efficiency measures alone.  The applicant should confirm floor area of proposed energy centre.  The applicant should provide further details of how the proposed energy strategy fits within the wider Canning Town/Custom House regeneration area (with regards to additional heat loads or connection to future district heating networks (DHN).  The applicant to clarify how the cooling requirements have been minimised and explain how to remaining cooling demand will be met

38 A response to these points was provided by Montagu Evans in their letter dated 19 July 2011 which agreed to conditions imposing:

 The delivery of an energy centre of floor area not less than 500 sq.m.

page 7  That the energy centre is able to take heat from an external district heating network to supply the whole of the Area 7 and 1C development site

39 It was also recommended that the design of the connection point be undertaken in accordance with the GLA Decentralised Energy Team (DET) guidelines and the GLA DET and that a clause be included in the S106 providing that upon the occupation of the 500th new apartment within the development the Energy centre shall be installed and operational and shall be the sole heat supply point for the Canning Town Area 7 and 1C development. These have been included in the draft conditions and heads of terms and therefore there are no outstanding issues in this regard. Transport for London’s comments

40 At Stage 1, TfL raised concern over the level of car parking being proposed on site, particularly for the retail aspect of the development, and requested that additional information be provided in relation to the trip generation, modal-split and trip distribution, as well as highway modelling, in order to get a better understanding of the potential impact of the proposals on the transport network including bus operations. TfL additionally recommended that an audit of the pedestrian environment be undertaken to identify any areas in need of improvement, and requested that Legible London signage be secured through the s106 agreement. Alongside advising that electric vehicle charging points (EVCP) and cycle parking were expected to be provided in accordance with London Plan standards across all land uses, and for the site not to preclude the future two-way operation of the bus network in this location, TfL also requested that a travel plan, car parking management plan, delivery and servicing plan (DSP) and construction logistics plan (CLP) all be secured for the site by condition.

41 Extensive discussions have taken place with the applicant since Stage 1, and as a result TfL is satisfied that the issues initially raised above have now been satisfactorily addressed. Following review of the car parking accumulation exercise, TfL is now satisfied that the level proposed on site could be considered acceptable, particularly given the intention for this to also be used as a town centre car park. Further information on trip generation, modal split and trip distribution has also been submitted, and subsequently considered acceptable to TfL. Confirmation that this development would not prejudice the potential for two-way bus operations on Hallsville Road in the future is also accepted and supported.

42 In light of the above, TfL is satisfied with the LTGDC’s planning committee report dated 12 January 2012, which for the Phase 1 and/ or the outline proposals, secures by condition the requirement for details of i) car parking and secure weather proof cycle facilities, ii) the installation of EVCP in accordance with London Plan standards, iii) the landscaping scheme including signage and street furniture, iv) a construction method statement including the requirement for a CLP and details of how impacts on the Olympic Route Network (ORN) will be kept to a minimum, v) a travel plan for each phase of development, vi) a DSP and vi) a car parking management plan, all to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement/ first occupation of each phase on site.

43 TfL also supports the highway related condition which requires all of the relevant highways approvals for each phase of development to be secured in consultation with TfL and Newham Council, in advance of the relevant phase of development being occupied, alongside the informative which advises that all of the traffic modelling and the outline highway design will need to be agreed with TfL and Newham Council , in advance of the detailed traffic management act notification (TMAN) being submitted.

44 TfL is also satisfied with the draft s106 ‘heads of terms’ which secures a contribution of £775,000 towards ‘bus service improvements’, with the requirement for this to be paid to TfL in advance on phase 4 commencing, and £100,000 towards the provision of real time information

page 8 45 The requirement to implement an ‘all movements’ signalised junction, pedestrian crossing and raised table across Silvertown is also supported, as is the requirement for the applicant to undertake an audit of the pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the site in order to identify any areas in need of improvement, and for the applicant to enter into a s278 agreement with the highway authority.

46 In summary, TfL is satisfied that its initial concerns have now been satisfactorily addressed subject to the above conditions and planning obligations. As such, TfL is now satisfied that the proposals could be considered to be in general accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan. Response to consultation

Statutory consultees

47 British Waterway: no comments made.

48 Canning Town and Custom House Regeneration Project: fully support the proposed scheme for Area 7 and 1c in terms of both outline planning permission and the detailed application for phase 1.

49 CABE (Now part of the Design Council): welcomes this proposal to provide a new civic centre at the heart of Canning Town. The masterplan is well organised and offers a variety of distinctive urban spaces. CABE believe that the density suggested is appropriate for this site.

 The design of Canning Town Corner and Arrival Square should be resolved during the first phase of detailed design. The design of Arrival Square /Canning Town Corner does not form part of the first phase of the development. Those areas will be considered with the reserved matters applications for Development Parcels 2 and 8 (Plots B & 1C).

 The new Arrival Square does not address the route towards the proposed Lea Mouth Peninsular Bridge in a similar way. As regards Connections, LBN granted planning permission for a new riverside footpath and habitat areas linking Canning Town station to the Lea mouth in 2011. LTGDC have also approved proposals for a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Lea, linking Leamouth peninsula to Canning Town and the Lower Lea Crossing. Implementation of these permissions would provide connections down the banks of the river Lea. Crossing of the railway lines is available via the existing station concourse and up the rotunda, which has a lift and stairs. The rotunda is presently closed.

 To guarantee the long term success of the sky gardens, it is important that the tenure of each space is clearly defined, as either public or private and that a management strategy is put in place to ensure appropriate maintenance is carried out. In considering Public Space, officers recommend the imposition of a condition requiring the submission for approval by

page 9  CABE are pleased that residential accommodation within the two towers, directly adjacent to the A13, is located only at the higher levels, away from the road. However, other uses may be more appropriate for this zone, for example a hotel. Outline planning permission is sought for the tall buildings with the matters of Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping reserved for subsequent approval

50 In relation to phase 1 the following issues were raised:

 In relation to the food store, the main retail floor of the food store has no natural daylight penetrating from above; this compromises the building’s flexibility to accommodate future uses beyond its life as a supermarket. The supermarket design has been led by Morrison’s, who will operate the store and are committed to its long occupancy.

 The final quality of the phase one proposal will depend on careful detailing and appropriate specification of materials. Officers seek to impose a condition requiring the submission of samples of all proposed external materials

 CABE believe that the podium garden has an overly prescriptive approach towards the designated use of the space. It is a pity that the garden level bicycle park occupies valuable amenity space. Overall, the landscape has not established a suitably high benchmark for future phases. Comments regarding the podium garden within Phase 1 are noted. The design is considered to be appropriate

 CABE recognise the minimum target for BREEAM (Retails 2008) of Very Good, but are disappointed that there is not an aspiration for BREEAM Excellent. Although there is an ambition to deliver CSH level 5 or 6 in later phases of the masterplan, it is a pity that the phase one proposal only aims at the lower threshold of Level 4. The scheme has been designed to achieve level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes Code for Sustainable Homes and a rating of Very Good for BREEAM retail and non-residential uses

 The current stand-alone proposal for phase one does not have a comfortable relationship to the existing urban context. CABE are concerned that the western edge of this development will not be fully resolved until after phase two is delivered. Draft condition A12 requires the submission and approval of details of the temporary treatment of the exposed western façade prior to the occupation of Phase 1. The condition also requires the approved temporary treatment to be carried out as approved and maintained until the commencement of the Parcel 2 / Plot B part of the development.

51 Crossrail: no comments made.

52 English Heritage, Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLASS): English Heritage note that the scale of development, in terms of building heights, proposed appears to be substantially above that indicated within the Council’s adopted Canning Town and Custom House SPD. LTGDC officers note that the proposals conform with the ‘key principles’ listed at page 48 of the SPD with specific reference to Area 7.

53 Environment Agency: No objection in principle to the proposed development provided specified conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted. These are responded to in draft conditions.

54 Highspeed 1: no comments made.

page 10 55 Lee Valley Regional Park Authority: Request that improved pedestrian and cycle access from the application site to the Regional Park via Canning Town station be secured prior to implementation of this scheme, to link to routes to Bow Creek Ecology Park to the west and East India Dock Basin to the south. This would enable future residents of the scheme to more easily access these sites and the wider Regional Park. The proposals have been designed to facilitate and encourage pedestrian and cycle movement both through the site and connections to existing and proposed routes, with improved links to Canning Town station.

56 Links to Bow Creek Ecology Park are limited by the existence of a non DDA compliant bridge that traverses the DLR lines and the closure of the LBN owned riverside route linking Canning Town Station.

57 London Borough of Newham: The proposed development is fully supported due to the significant regeneration benefits for Canning Town which include the development of a new town centre with a wide range of appropriate land uses, in addition to new high quality residential accommodation.

58 The Council supports the proposed development subject to ongoing discussions with regards to the S106 Heads of Terms, wording of conditions and outstanding concerns raised by Transport for London being resolved.

59 London Development Agency: Overall it is felt that the application is well considered and comprehensive. In relation to phase 1 the following issues were raised:

 As a stand-alone proposal, phase 1 does not have a comfortable relationship with the existing urban context of Canning Town. The LDA is concerned that the blank and inactive west elevation of Phase 1 will have a negative impact on the perception of the wider Canning Town regeneration area, until the buildings in Phase 2 come forward.

 The LDA has concerns regarding the extent of the surface car parking as part of Phase 1 & 2 and would welcome better integration with the proposals for public realm enhancements as part of the A13 junction improvement scheme.

60 In relation to the masterplan the following issues were raised:

 A greater emphasis on Silvertown Way as part of Canning Town’s high streets should be considered with better integration of the central town centre spine with Silvertown Way in the southern part of the site, where a direct link from the junction of Silvertown Way/Hallsville Road to the 'Residential Square' via the area allocated to Phase 6 would enforce pedestrian connectivity to the south.  The LDA has concerns regarding the parking layout of the scheme and the variation of levels that is proposed  The tenure mix for the scheme appears to be very ambitious. Given the high level of intermediate and social housing units and the relative high quality design of the scheme.  The proposed retail tenancies are indicative and aspirational. However, given the demographics of the Canning Town area, the LDA would like to see support and encouragement given to small/independent retailers through the provision of affordable shop units.

61 GLA is satisfied with the LTGDC’s planning committee report dated 12 January 2012 has dealt with these issues in section 9.

62 London City Airport: no comments made.

page 11 63 London Fire and Emergency Planning authority (London Fire Brigade): Satisfied with the proposals without prejudice to any requirements or recommendations that may be made by the Authority under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 / Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928, the local authority or the Health and Safety Executive.

64 Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA): The MPA consider it appropriate that the impact of this development proposal is mitigated through the use of three planning obligations in order to assist with the provision of the required policing facilities within the development:

 Any approval should include a commitment to providing appropriate police related facilities in consultation with the MPA prior to the commencement of any development to be secured either by the imposition of planning conditions or as part of a S106 agreement. Development of this scale is likely to necessitate floorspace of approximately 150 sq. m of policing floorspace. This should be fully DDA compliant and located at ground floor level.

 The floorspace will be required to shell and core fitting and at peppercorn rent for a period of 25 years minimum.

 It is essential that the proposal complies with the security standards detailed in the Secured by Design Scheme.

65 This representation was noted and has been considered as part of LTGDC’s assessment of this planning application. Emergency Services are acknowledged in LTGDC’s Planning Obligations Community Benefit Strategy. Buildings for Emergency services are specifically captured within the Lower Lea Valley Public Sector Investment Plan.

66 LTGDC will return planning powers to the Local Authorities on 1st October 2012, it would now be prudent to ensure that any new S106 agreement provides for expenditure on purposes within the relevant Corporate Infrastructure Delivery Plan or on such other public infrastructure projects as the Local Planning Authority may reasonably decide.

67 National Grid: The works proposed are likely, unless controlled, to adversely impact the safety and integrity of national Grid apparatus. If the applicant decides to proceed with these works, they should contact National Grid again so that it may arrange for technical advice and guidance to be provided. All of the advice provided by National Grid has been passed to the Applicant and also reiterated as informatives at section 11 of this report.

68 NHS East London and the City (NHS Newham): NHS Newham requires £7,698,079 to address the health needs created by the proposed development as justified by the application of the HUDU Model Assessment. Capital costs are anticipated to be £1,309,137. The total amount of contributions expected by NHS Newham, would be £9,007,216 – the combined financial requirement. The purpose of the S106 contribution is to secure funding for capital investment and also revenue to account for the 3 year gap between now and when NHS Newham can secure health service funding from central government based on population projections and registered patients records.

69 There exists currently a health facility in St. Luke’s Church at E16 1HT, close to the development site, but this is less than ideal accommodation. The Canning Town redevelopment presents an excellent opportunity to relocate these practices, while also contributing to the town centre’s footfall, economic viability and creation of a civic heart. This would give a total catchment population of about 13,500 which is ideal for the efficient and effective running of a practice. The accommodation need for this would be 2,000 sq.m. approximately

70 Newham Primary Care Trust is a Member of the Lower Lea Valley Management Group, which is responsible for advising the LTGDC Board on the proper use and expenditure of the

page 12 71 Network Rail: no comments made.

72 Olympic Delivery Authority Planning Decisions Team: NO objection to the proposals contained in the planning application.

73 Thames Water made the following the representations:

 It is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer.

 Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a groundwater discharge permit will be required.

 A Trade Effluent Consent will be required for any Effluent discharge other than a ‘Domestic Discharge.

 Thames Water recommends the installation of a properly maintained fat trap on all catering establishments.

 No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out.

 The existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands of the proposed development. Thames Water therefore recommend the following condition be imposed: Development should not be commenced until: Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the/this additional demand.

74 In response to these issues Thames Water is in consultation with the developer with regard to the development of a drainage strategy. The developer has agreed for an impact study to be completed and all drainage will be subject to the output from the study.

75 UK Power Networks: Object to the proposal on the grounds that UK Power Networks has six fully operational electricity substations on the site that are held under leases. The Applicant responded confirming that the Applicant’s Energy / Utilities Consultant, Parsons Brinkerhoff, has engaged in discussions with UK Power Networks regarding the relocation of the substations. This matter does not compromise the grant of planning permission.

76 In summary these representations raise no material planning issues of strategic importance that have not already been considered by the Mayor.

Local neighbour consultations

77 A total of 11,010 consultation letters were sent to neighbouring properties and the application was advertised in the Newham Recorder on 11 May 2011. Site notices were posted on

page 13 78 Three representations were received by LTGDC in relation to the application these can be summarised as follows:

 Transport and roads –changes to local transport network.

 Local noise disturbance.

 Ongoing refurbishment.

79 In summary these representations raise no material planning issues of strategic importance that have not already been considered by the Mayor. Legal considerations

80 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. 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..

Financial considerations

81 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.

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

83 Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the Corporation’s committee report and its draft decision notice, this scheme is acceptable in strategic planning terms. Further information has been provided, which together with conditions (and planning obligations) imposed by the Corporation, address all the outstanding issues that were raised at Stage 1. On this basis, there are no sound reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case.

page 14

planning report PDU/2586/01 16 June 2011 Areas 7 and 1c, Canning Town London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (in the London Borough of Newham)

planning application no. 11/00662/LTGDC

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 application for the creation of a new town centre development within a series of buildings ranging from 4 to 18 storeys comprising residential (circa 1,100 units); retail (including foodstore); leisure, community and health; offices; live/work units; research and development/light industry; student accommodation; and hotel uses as well as detailed application for Phase 1 of the development.

The applicant The applicant is Bouygues and the architect is Aecom and Haworth Tompkins for Phase 1.

Strategic issues The principle of the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use residential-led development is accepted. In broad terms the scheme complies with London Plan policy, however, further information is required on affordable housing, housing mix, student accommodation, inclusive design, climate change and transport.

Recommendation

That Newham Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 112 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 114 of this report could address these deficiencies. The application does not need to be referred back to the Mayor if the Corporation resolve to refuse permission, but it must be referred back if the Corporation resolve to grant permission.

page 15 Context

1 On 10 June 2011 the Mayor of London received documents from Newham Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC), 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 20 June 2011 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Categories 1A, 1B, and 1C 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 house, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15 000 sq.m.”

1C “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building that is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

3 Once the LTGDC 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 or allow the Corporation to determine it itself, unless otherwise advised. In this instance if the LTGDC resolves to refuse permission it need not refer the application back to the Mayor.

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

6 Area 7 covers a large tract of land located between the A1020 (Silvertown Way), which forms part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), and the A13 Newham Way which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). It is also located close to the Canning Town roundabout, which is itself the subject of a planning application for its removal and replacement with a signalised crossing junction and which will involve a number of associated highway improvements. The site is well served by public transport, being located across the road from Canning Town station, which is served by Docklands Light Railway (DLR), London Underground and bus services. Numerous bus routes are also located within walking distance of the site; however, the location of the nearest stop varies depending upon the exact location within the site. As such, it has been demonstrated that the whole site records an excellent public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 6, on a scale of 1-6, where 6 is the highest. Currently, the site includes a number of streets that are to be removed with Rathbone Street running along the eastern boundary from the A13 to Silvertown Way.

7 Area 1c is located to the north of site across the A13 and is bounded by Barking Road and the Rathbone Marketplace development that is currently under construction.

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 16 8 Further to the west lies the DLR/Jubilee line railway tracks with the River Lea beyond. The area is characterised by low scale post-war housing and industrial uses although new higher density developments are emerging.

Details of the proposal

9 The proposed development involves the creation of a new town centre at Canning Town within a series of buildings ranging from 4 to 18 storeys together with new internal pedestrian streets. It will provide a range of uses and up to 1,130 residential units as well as public open space including a new area under the A13 flyover.

10 Changes to the road layout will mean that the westbound exit from the A13 will move to Rathbone Street and connect to Silvertown Way.

11 The specific details of the proposal are as follows:

 Residential; up to 1,130 dwellings;  Senior living (50 units); up to 5,500 sq.m;  Live / Work: up to 1,500 sq.m;  Employment floorspace; up to 10,500 sq.m;  Retail floorspace; up to 31,700 sq.m. gross (of which the supermarket is 8,200 sq.m. floorspace);  Leisure; up to 10,500 sq.m;  Community centre, primary health care and nurseries; up to 5,500 sq.m;  Hotel (200 rooms); up to 6,000 sq.m. and ancillary conference facilities;  Student accommodation up to 12,000 sq.m;  Pedestrian, cycle and vehicle routes;  Parking – up to 1,150 covered spaces;  Two new town squares;  Energy centre and utilities infrastructure; up to 1,330 sq.m

12 Outline permission is being sought for the majority of the site over eight phases with detailed permission being sought for Phase 1 which is located in the north eastern corner of the site. It comprises a new supermarket together with 179 residential units. A podium deck is proposed over the supermarket that provides communal amenity space whilst 224 parking spaces are proposed within the basement. Case history

13 Formal pre-application advice in relation to access and energy was issued on 10 December 2010 and a general advice letter was issued on 25 February 2011. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

14 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Principle of development London Plan; PPS1  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy  Housing London Plan; Interim Housing SPG  Mix of uses London Plan

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 17  Retail/town centre uses London Plan; PPG13, PPS4  Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24  Child play space London Plan; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG

15 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 2001 Newham Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

16 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The draft replacement London Plan, which underwent Examination in Public in 2010 and upon which the Panel has now reported is a relevant material consideration of significant weight.  The Newham Core Strategy (submission version)  Canning Town and Custom House SPD  The Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework

Principle of development

17 The provision of residential accommodation on this site is supported by policy 3A.1, which seeks to increase London’s supply of housing.

18 The site is classified as a District Town Centre within the London Plan and is within the Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area. It is identified in the Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework as having the potential for mixed use, retail and commercial together with new housing.

19 Area 7 is also identified in the Core Strategy as Site S1 (Canning Town Central) that is intended to deliver an expanded district centre, moving towards a major town centre, comprising retail, leisure, and civic spaces and community uses.

20 Accordingly, the proposal for a residential-led mixed-use development to create a new town centre is supported in policy terms. Housing

Affordable housing

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 18 21 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. Policy 3A.9 states that such 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 35% of housing should be social and 15% intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. 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.

22 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.

23 The affordable housing policies of the adopted Newham UDP have not been saved and, accordingly, the relevant development plan policies are the London Plan and the emerging Newham LDF. The Core Strategy (submission version) document is seeking a negotiated level of between 35% and 50% affordable housing within new developments.

24 Private and affordable housing will be provided across each phase of the development and, in accordance with the Canning Town and Custom House SPD, the proposed development is intended to provide up to a maximum of 35% affordable housing. The affordable housing tenure will be split across the development approximately 50/50 between affordable rented units and intermediate units.

25 The detailed application for Phase 1 comprises 100 affordable units, including 51 affordable rent units and 49 intermediate units. Within Phase 1 this equates to 56% affordable housing on a unit basis and a 51:49 split in favour of affordable rented accommodation. One Housing Group has been identified as the preferred RSL partner for this part of the development.

26 The applicant has stated that it is not possible to determine the precise quantum and mix of affordable housing for subsequent phases given the proposed delivery period of 12-15 years and uncertainty around market conditions and affordable housing tenure and funding availability.

27 The applicant has therefore proposed to submit financial appraisals with reserved matters applications for each subsequent phase. This is supported in principle as it will provide an opportunity for viability assessments to be made in real time. However, the Mayor is not consulted on such applications and will therefore not be afforded an opportunity to consider the level of affordable housing provided. Accordingly, to enable the application to be considered against the London Plan, any legal agreement will need to identify a minimum percentage of affordable housing provided across the development.

28 A financial appraisal has been submitted in support of the application. This will need to be independently assessed to ensure the development is providing the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, the results of this should be shared with GLA officers.

29 In addition to the above, the development also provides for extra care accommodation which is targeted at older people and is a form of retirement housing which can accommodate both independent living and personal care. The provision of this is also supported, although the nature of this in the context of the Use Classes Order should be clarified, as elsewhere in London some

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 19 Estate renewal

30 Policy 3A.15 of the London Plan resists the loss of housing, including affordable housing, without its planned replacement at existing or higher density. Paragraph 3.75 of the London Plan gives further advice on the Mayor’s approach to estate renewal. This approach is carried through to the draft replacement plan in policy 3.13 (B) and paragraph 3.75. More detailed guidance is set out in Section 20 of the Housing SPG which clarifies that there should be no net loss of affordable housing, which can be calculated on a habitable room basis and should exclude right to buy properties. Replacement affordable housing can be of a different tenure mix where this achieves a better mix of provision.

31 The site historically contained, and in parts continues to contain, a variety of residential housing, with the majority of the land owned by Newham Council. No detail has been provided on the tenure of these dwellings although it is assumed that they were affordable units and, although some have now been demolished, they would count as affordable units to be re-provided.

32 The applicant must provide a breakdown of the existing and demolished units on site including tenure in order to provide an accurate level of uplift in affordable housing provision.

Housing mix

33 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. Policy 3.12 of the draft replacement London Plan states that within affordable housing provision, priority should be accorded to family housing. Recent guidance is also set out in the draft revised interim Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (October 2009) and draft replacement London Plan policy 3.8, which seeks to widen housing choice.

34 In addition, Policy C3 of the Lower Lea Valley OAPF requires new housing development to provide 44% family housing, which includes 2 bed social units.

35 Phase 1 of the scheme provides the following mix of units:

Unit Size Unit Percentage Numbers

1b2p 54 30.2% 2b3p 12 6.7% 2b4p 71 39.7% 3b5p 42 23.5%

36 Within the above, 78.4% of the 2-bed 4-person and 3-bed units are allocated to social/affordable rent units. Accordingly, the mix of units within Phase 1 is acceptable.

37 The applicant has stated that planning permission is not being sought for housing mix as part of the outline application and that the precise housing mix for each development plot will be resolved during the reserved matters stage. As highlighted with the affordable housing provision, the Mayor is not consulted on reserved matters applications and will not have an opportunity to

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 20 Housing quality

38 Policy 3.5 of the draft replacement London Plan introduces a new policy on the quality and design of housing developments. Part A of the draft policy states that housing developments should be of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to the wider environment. Part C of the draft policy states that new dwellings should meet the dwelling space standards set out in Table 3.3, have adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts. Part E of the draft policy states that the Mayor will provide guidance on implementation of this policy including on housing design for all tenures.

39 Whilst the Mayor’s interim London Housing Design Guide applies to grant funded housing and London Development Agency development, its guidelines are considered by the Mayor to be best practice in residential design. Additionally, the principles of the Guide have been written into the newly released draft Housing SPG (EiP consultation version), in support of policy 3.5, which will gain increasing weight through to its expected adoption at the end of 2011. This will apply to all development, including market housing.

40 The applicant has stated that the affordable units across the development will exceed the standards within the design guide and that all units within Phase 1 will exceed the standards which is welcomed.

41 A compliance statement demonstrating how the design guide is being met for Phase 1 has been included in the design and access statement. The four storey townhouses on the north side of the courtyard are in excess of 130sqm whilst all units exceed the minimum floorspace standards; all of the north facing units adjacent to the A13 are dual aspect whilst the majority of the remaining units are also dual aspect.

42 The internal layout of the remaining phases of the development will not form part of any permission however indicative layouts have been submitted. Whilst these layouts demonstrate that the quantum of accommodation can be provided within the building envelopes in accordance with the space standards, there are concerns over the level of single aspect flats and long corridors, particularly in phases 5 and 6. All phases of the development should be designed to meet the London Housing Design Guide and such an undertaking should be secured through the planning permission given subsequent reserved matters applications are not referable. In addition the applicant should demonstrate how the development can be satisfactorily accommodated within the parameters of the outline proposal and met the Housing Design Guide, through the submission of further information before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

43 The high standard of accommodation provided within Phase 1 is welcomed and provides assurance to officers that the same level of quality can be achieved in the subsequent phases of development. The standard of accommodation proposed is considered to provide a good level of amenity for a high density development.

Student accommodation

44 The principle of student accommodation within the scheme is accepted as it will add to the mix and vibrancy of the town centre. However, the draft replacement London Plan establishes that unless student accommodation is secured through a planning agreement for occupation by members of specified educational institutions for the predominant part of the year, it will normally be subject to the requirements of affordable housing policy (policies 3.11-3.14). Accordingly,

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 21 Retail/town centre uses

45 Canning Town is designated as a district town centre within the London Plan and Area 7/1C is identified in the Lower Lea Valley OAPF as having potential for mixed use, retail and commercial uses. Policy 2.15 of the draft replacement London Plan seeks to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres as well as accommodating economic and housing growth through intensification and expansion in appropriate locations. In addition policy 4.7 of the draft replacement London Plan ensures the scale of retail, commercial and leisure development relates to the size, role and function of town centres and their catchment and that retail, commercial and leisure developments are focussed on sites within town centres.

46 In addition, the provision of retail on the site is supported by the spatial policies within the Core Strategy with the strategic site designation seeking to deliver retail space to include an anchor food store and significant comparison floorspace and create a major town centre.

47 The proposal is seeking to establish a new town centre at Canning Town and provides a range of town centre uses including retail, employment, hotel, leisure and community facilities (galleries, museums, libraries, clinics, health centres, day nurseries), which are considered to contribute to the vitality of the town centre and the future viability of the location. It is important that the proposal is fully integrated with the existing town centre, as set out in the urban design section below this should be achieved as a result of the layout, arrangement of routes and overall permeability.

48 A PPS4 assessment, including a sequential assessment, has been included with the application in order to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposal on the existing town centre and surrounding centres have been robustly assessed. The economic analysis adequately demonstrates that the proposals would not have any materially harmful effect on the vitality and viability of the relevant centres that have been studied.

Density

49 London Plan policies 4B.1 and 3A.3 outline the need for development proposals to achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context, the design principles of the compact city, and public transport accessibility. Table 3A.2 of the London Plan provides guidelines on density in support of policies 4B.1 and 3A.3. However, as highlighted above, the consultation draft replacement London Plan policy 3.4 and Table 3.2 moves away from ‘maximise’ to ‘optimise’ taking into account all those matters in existing policy but with greater emphasis on local context and design principles.

50 The density matrix within the London Plan establishes three areas for development being central, urban, and suburban. The site is located within a central area which is defined as those with very dense development, a mix of different uses, large building footprints and typically four to six storeys, and located within 800 metres of an International, Metropolitan, or Major town centre.

51 The applicant should confirm the residential density of the proposal, based on the net residential site area (as set out in the Interim Housing SPG paragraph 3.35) in order to provide a realistic assessment of density.

Urban design

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 22 52 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained in Chapter 4B. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other polices in Chapter 4B and elsewhere in the London Plan set out design requirements relating to specific issues. London Plan policies 4B.9 and 4B.10, which set out specific design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, are applicable to the proposal. Chapter 7 of the draft replacement London Plan sets out design related policies.

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 23

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 24

53 This is an important and prominent site in the area and the applicant has positively developed the proposed masterplan in consultation with GLA and Newham Council officers. As a result, the illustrative masterplan, parameters and design code collectively describe an approach to the layout, massing and public realm across the site that is generally well resolved and would

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 25 54 The proposal sensibly allows for the phased development of the site over an extended period and anticipates and resolves the issues created by the partial development of the site through the introduction of temporary paths and screening measures. The detail submitted for Phase 1 demonstrates that this would successfully address the noise and amenity issues arising from the proximity of Newham Way through the configuration of the block and the introduction of a green wall. The architecture is simple, robust and a credible proposition for the area. At ground level, the block would introduce active frontages to the surrounding public realm and the public realm would deliver the first part of the main public square in the scheme. It would also deliver the first phase of works to improve the area beneath Newham Way, which is an important connection to Barking Road and one of the Mayor’s Great Spaces. Further improvements will come forward with subsequent phases in the vicinity.

55 The outline phases parameter plans and design code identify four locations where tall buildings of up to 18 storeys will be permitted. These would focus height around the junction of Newham Way and Silvertown Way, marking the transport interchange and town centre and would cluster with the tall buildings under construction as part of the Rathbone Market scheme. This is supported by the Core Strategy which identifies Canning Town as being appropriate for carefully- placed taller buildings at its heart. The proposed tall buildings form part of what is a credible, robust and comprehensive masterplan for the area and, whilst this element is being considered in outline form, the quality of their design is sufficiently described and controlled by the parameters and design code for officers to be satisfied that this is an acceptable approach in this context.

56 The design of the underground car parks has been discussed at length with the design team. The residential and town centre car parks have now been separated to different levels, in terms of access and control, which is welcome. The town centre car park will by its nature serve multiple uses in the town centre above over the course of the day. It therefore has a minimum of six public pedestrian access points, multiple entrances via shops or directly into the public realm and a minimum of three vehicular entrances, all of which are suitably distributed across the masterplan.

57 The design of these entrances is important to the success of the scheme and the plans and design code duly provide for the pedestrian access points to be clearly marked, include lift and stair access and incorporate light wells into the car park beneath. The layout of the car park has been amended to improve the lines of sight across it and thereby promote wayfinding and passive security at all times of day. Notwithstanding these measures, wayfinding and security in this space will require active measures, such as colour coding of zones, security cameras, controlled entry for vehicles and active management. The applicant has committed to this space being actively managed and the Council should ensure that a satisfactory management and maintenance regime for car park and the remainder of the scheme is secured through the section 106 agreement or condition.

58 In summary, subject to adherence to the submitted Design Code, the proposal is considered to attain a high standard of design required by the London Plan and would be consistent with design policies 4B.1, 4B.3, 4B.6, 4B.9 and 4B.10.

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 26 Ambient noise

59 Policy 4A.20 (Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes) of the London Plan states that the Mayor will reduce noise by minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals. The Mayor will also support new technologies and improved practices to reduce noise at source, especially in road, rail and air transport. Policy 7.15 of the draft replacement London Plan reinforces these aims.

60 The main potential strategic noise concerns with this proposal arise from the noise exposure of the residential elements due to the proximity of the A13 elevated flyover and the four lane Silvertown Way. The Canning Town Transport Interchange is also within close proximity to the site.

61 According to the Noise Assessment, areas within 75m of Newham Way, 60m of Silvertown Way and 25m of Rathbone Road fall within NEC C. PPG24 advises that permission should be normally be refused for residential development that falls within NEC D and not normally granted for residential development in NEC C unless there are no alternative quieter sites. In addition standard 5.2.1 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG (EiP draft) states that developments should avoid single aspect dwellings that are north facing, exposed to NEC C or D or contain three or more bedrooms. Given that the boundary locations are NEC C the applicant should set out measures proposed to deal with noise which should be secured in any planning permission. The applicant has attempted to address this by providing dual aspect units against the A13; although these are mostly larger units, further details of noise attenuation would be useful.

62 Single aspect flats facing onto the noise generators of the A13 and Silvertown Way in subsequent phases should be avoided in line with the housing design guide.

Child play space

63 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.”

64 Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ the estimated child yield for the development based on the indicative outline housing mix is 398, the SPG sets out that 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace should be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on- site. As such 3,980 sqm of child playspace is required.

65 The strategy for the development is to incorporate formal playspace within the communal courtyards. Other than for Phase 1, the precise quantum of formal playspace for the remainder of the masterplan cannot be specified at this stage. However, the parameter plans define the minimum amount of semi-private amenity space (i.e. courtyards) that will be provided by the development, which equates to a total of 6450 sq.m. In addition to these courtyard spaces, the two main pieces of public realm delivered by the development, Town Square and Park Square, amounts to a further 3310 sq.m. On this basis it is considered that there is sufficient area for formal and informal childrens playspace to be provided in accordance with the GLA’s guidance.

Inclusive design

66 The aim of London Plan Policy 4B.5 (Policy 7.2 in the draft replacement London Plan) is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum) and given the size and nature of this development it should seek to better minimum access standards.

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 27 67 The design and access statement has taken a positive approach to addressing the needs of disabled people, has set a framework for the approach to inclusive design and committed to meeting identified good practice standards across the whole site, while recognising that much will need to be addressed at detailed design stage. These commitments should be conditioned to ensure full implementation at detailed design stage and in the ongoing management arrangements.

68 The appointment of an access consultant at this early stage is welcomed as close and continuing collaboration between the access consultant and the design team can help to ensure that inclusive design principles are embedded into the detailed design process and continue through to completion. Constructive consultation with the local access group has already taken place and should also continue through the detailed design stages.

Retail Units

69 The access statement states that the buildings have been designed to be accessible to all, that the external levels have been designed to provide flexibility of the entrance positions into the retail units, that level thresholds will be provided to all entrances, and that the canopy at first floor level will provide some weather protection at entrances. This provision is welcomed.

Shopmobility Scheme

70 A commitment has been given to provide a shopmobility scheme in the town centre which is welcomed. This commitment should be conditioned to ensure suitable space is identified along with suitable blue badge parking. The arrangements for delivering the shopmobility scheme should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

Public realm

71 The design of the landscaping and the public realm is crucial to how inclusive the development is to many people; connectivity to the surrounding streets and public transport network is also a key issue. The proposals to improve legibility and connectivity to Canning Town station are welcomed. The design and access statement commits to ensuring that all the pedestrian routes to all of the different buildings on the site will be designed to ensure full and easy access for all users with entrances at street level clearly identified. There is a level change of 1m - 1.5m between the existing street level and the new public realm town centre level, but these gradients will all be less steep than 1 in 21 and will be designed to be as gentle as possible to provide a gradual change in level and ease of access for all users. This is welcomed.

Residential

72 The commitment to meeting Lifetime Home standards in all the new homes and wheelchair accessible standards in 10% of new homes is welcome and is in line with London Plan policy 3A.5 (Policy 3.8 of the draft replacement London Plan). The design and access statement confirms that each of the 16 Lifetime Homes criteria have been met and the plans demonstrate a good standard of compliance with the wheelchair housing design guide.

Lifetime neighbourhoods

73 Extending the Lifetime Home concept to the neighbourhood level 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. The applicant is encouraged to address the draft replacement London Plan policy on

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 28 http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/pages/lifetime-neighbourhoods.html). Any design code should address these criteria and have regard to other emerging best practice standards in achieving inclusive access.

Hotels

74 Policy 4.5 of the draft replacement London Plan relates to the provision of visitor accommodation and facilities and it supports an increase in the quality and quantity of fully wheelchair accessible accommodation. This draft policy asks for at least 10% of new hotel bedrooms to be wheelchair accessible and for applicants to submit an accessibility management plan which sets out how the continuing management of the hotel will ensure the accessible rooms are maintained and managed, helping inclusive access to become part of the overall operation and business of the hotel (in a similar way that travel plans can ensure a commitment to sustainable travel patterns after occupation). A research study undertaken by Grant Thornton on behalf of the GLA and the LDA has looked at how inclusive design principles can be applied to London's hotel accommodation and has assessed that less than 2% of existing stock is accessible to disabled people which makes it difficult for disabled people to find an accessible hotel, particularly when linked to other access barriers such as location near accessible public transport facilities or the availability of blue badge parking provision. The provision of accessible hotel bedrooms should be a condition of the planning permission.

Student housing

75 London Plan policy 3A.5, and draft replacement London Plan policy 3.8, expect 10% of all new housing, including student housing, to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair users. Further guidance to this policy is provided in the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment.’

76 Educational establishments have a duty under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to ensure that their facilities and services are accessible for disabled students. There is currently a shortage of wheelchair accessible homes in London, and one of the biggest barriers to disabled students being able to live and study in London is access to suitable accommodation. In the context of ensuring equal life chances for all, meeting the needs and expanding opportunities for all Londoners and promoting social inclusion, the ability to accommodate disabled students should be fully integrated into any student housing development.

77 The applicant should commit to providing 10% accessible units.

Other uses

78 Community facilities and the other commercial uses proposed on the site such as the cinema will also need to meet best practice access standards.

Parking

79 Blue badge bays will be provided for each of the 10% of homes designed to be wheelchair accessible and designated blue badge bays will also be provided by each of the residential entrance cores in line with the lifetime homes standards. 4% of bays in the foodstore car park are proposed to be for blue badge holders and an additional 3% will be parent and toddler bays. BS 8300 recommends that 6% of parking bays should be provided for disabled users of the retail uses with a further 4% of bays provided as enlarged standard spaces to allow for flexibility of provision in the future. It is unclear why the percentage proposed is lower than best practice standards.

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 29 80 The parking management plan should include mechanisms for ensuring that the management of the blue badge bays takes into account changes in future demand for bays, including visitor provision to both the residential and the commercial uses to ensure that any new residents who are blue badge holders in either the Lifetime Homes or who occupy the wheelchair accessible homes, can be provided with designated parking. Any changes in demand for blue badge bays in the future, including visitor provision, should be addressed in the parking plan. The travel plan should also address the specific access needs of disabled people and older people. There should be one blue badge bay provided for each of the wheelchair accessible hotel bedrooms provided.

Transport for London comments

Car Parking

81 385 car parking spaces are being proposed for the residential aspect of the development, which equates to a ratio of 0.34 spaces per unit. This is in accordance with London Plan standards, and therefore considered acceptable, although TfL would be supportive of further reductions given the site’s accessible location next to Canning Town station. It is noted that this site is located in the Canning Town Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), and TfL would therefore recommend that all occupiers of the proposed development should be prevented from obtaining on-street residents parking permits, and that this should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

82 At present 580 car parking spaces are proposed for the retail floorspace. However, given the excellent PTAL of the site, TfL considers that parking for this particular land use should be provided at the bottom end of the maximum London Plan standards. This would equate to the provision of 216 spaces for the proposed anchor foodstore (1 space per 25sqm) and 280 spaces for the ‘town centre’ parking (1 space per 75sqm). The transport assessment states that the site is in outer London, and seems to regard this as justification for the level of parking proposed. It should therefore be noted that Newham is actually classed as being an inner London borough in the London Plan, and TfL would therefore strongly recommend that parking levels currently proposed are reduced to be more reflective of the figures presented above and to better encourage trips to the site by sustainable modes of transport.

83 Both the residential and the retail car parking spaces will need to be fitted with electrical vehicle charging points (EVCP’s), in accordance with Policy 6.13 ‘Parking’, of the draft replacement London Plan policy (DRLP). This will require 20% of the residential spaces and 10% of the retail spaces to be fitted with EVCP’s, with an additional 20% and 10% of spaces respectively having passive provision. It is understood that a car parking management plan (CPMP) has been produced for the site, and while this is supported, TfL has been unable to access this document, and cannot therefore provide any comments on it at present. This should be provided before the application is referred back at Stage II.

Highway impact

84 Modelling has been undertaken to demonstrate the likely impact of the development proposals with the proposed access on Silvertown Way. Results show average delays to buses serving Canning Town station, of 17 seconds going southbound and 35 seconds going northbound. TfL may therefore require bus priority measures to be implemented at Canning Town station in order to minimise the delays in line with DRLP policy 6.7 ‘Buses, bus transits, trams’. TfL will be able to advise further on this in due course, following the submission of the additional information detailed below.

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 30 85 In order for TfL to get a better understanding of what impact this proposed development is likely to have on the surrounding highway network, and to confirm its acceptability in accordance with Policy 6.11 ‘Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion’ of the DRLP, the submission of additional information is required, as further detailed in TfL’s letter to Newham, dated 27th May 2011. Following the submission of the information requested relating to trip generation and modal-split, trip distribution, and highway modelling, TfL will be in a better position to provide more detailed comments, and determine what improvements (if any) are required to mitigate the impact of the development on the highway network.

86 Temporary community uses are proposed beneath the raised A13. While this is supported, the applicant would however need to ensure that whatever is proposed does not negatively impact on TfL’s ability to maintain the A13. There are a number of restrictions in place on the use of the land located under the viaduct which allow TfL and their agent unrestricted access to inspect and maintain the infrastructure. As part of this, a 4 metre maintenance access to the supporting columns of the A13 is required at all times to enable the viaduct bearings to be replaced if required. No combustible materials can be stored underneath the viaduct, as the supporting tendons inside the bridge deck are heat sensitive, and this requirement should therefore be secured by condition.

Public transport impact

87 The bus trip generation figures need to be presented as trips into and out of the site, rather than an aggregate two-way figure. This is to help TfL to better determine what the impact on the bus network is likely to be, and to subsequently identify what measures may be required in order to mitigate the impact on the network. Initial assessment suggests that TfL is very likely to be seeking a section 106 contribution towards capacity enhancements to the local bus network, in accordance with Policy 6.7 of the DRLP. TfL would therefore welcome further discussions on this matter. Consideration should also be given to improving access to the bus stops located to the south-east of the site. Buses serving Custom House Crossrail station in the future may be attractive to users of the east and south east of the site, and so accessibility to these stops is going to be important. A contribution of up to £10k per stop should be sought within the section106 agreement towards implementing any identified improvements, if proven necessary.

88 Hallsville Road is served by buses in one direction, but as part of the wider regeneration plans for Canning Town / Custom House area, TfL is seeking to simplify the bus network with the implementation of two-way operation as much as possible. This development should therefore not preclude this from happening, and where possible should assist in working towards this goal. This includes providing kerb space for bus stops in both directions, road-widening where necessary to allow the two-way operation, and providing pedestrian access to current and future bus stops. This also applies to the potential future bus route proposed on the east side of the development.

89 As a result of the roundabout removal scheme and the associated impact on the bus station, TfL may need to seek additional bus standing space in the immediate area of Canning Town Interchange, and hence probably in the Area 7 masterplan area. In accordance with DRLP Policy 6.2 ‘Providing public transport capacity and safeguarding land for transport’, TfL would therefore encourage the applicant to identify potential bus standing space within the boundary of their development.

90 The mode splits, and therefore the trip generation numbers, have been based on 2001 census data, with DLR assumed to receive an additional 264 trips in the AM Peak hour. Based on the evidence presented in the Transport Assessment (TA) however; this number only includes those trips that were on rail in 2001 (i.e. the North London Line), and not any of the trips that were on light-rail/metro/tram, which TfL thinks would actually constitute the majority of trips on the DLR.

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 31 Pedestrians and cycles

91 Given the intention is to designate Canning Town Area 7 as a new district centre, TfL considers it important for the pedestrian environment to be of the highest quality, in order to encourage walking as a key mode of transport. TfL would therefore request that in accordance with DRLP policy 6.10 ‘Walking’, an audit of the pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the site (with PERS being TfL’s preferred option) be undertaken, in order to identify any areas in need of improvement. Where improvements are identified, these should subsequently be secured through the section 106 agreement.

92 The transport assessment states that there is currently poor information for pedestrians in the area, and TfL would therefore be very supportive of the introduction of pedestrian signage. The TA goes on to say that ‘signage should be in the style of Legible London’ which is supported; and TfL would therefore request that this is secured through the section 106 agreement.

93 Cycle parking for the residential aspect of the development is being proposed at a ratio of one space per residential unit. Two spaces per 3+ bedroom unit should be provided in order to comply with London Plan standards. Cycle parking for the anchor retail foodstore is being proposed in accordance with London Plan standards and is therefore considered acceptable. While cycle parking provision for the other land uses is to be confirmed as part of the detailed applications, TfL would expect London Plan cycle parking standards to be met as an absolute minimum, in accordance with policy 6.9 ‘Cycling’, of the DRLP, and would recommend that this requirement is secured by condition. Additional visitor cycle parking spaces should also be provided if feasible and all cycle parking should be secure, sheltered, conveniently located and covered by CCTV where possible.

94 The transport assessment states that ‘where there are potential conflicts at the Cycle Superhighway, this route will be delineated in the public realm to serve as a warning for pedestrians’. As discussed at the pre-application stage, any proposed changes will require approval from TfL. These would need to be implemented at full cost to the applicant.

Travel planning

95 The submitted travel plan is generally considered to be of a high quality, and TfL would therefore recommend that it is secured, managed, monitored and enforced through the section 106 agreement.

96 It will need to be ensured that any HGVs waiting to enter the supermarket delivery bay do not block back into the car park access road, potentially causing disruption to traffic flows. TfL request that, in accordance with policy 6.14 ‘Freight’ of the DRLP, a delivery and servicing plan (DSP) is secured for the site by condition.

97 The Framework Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) included within the TA is supported. While it is accepted that the detail of the CLP will need to be submitted nearer the time of construction, and be based on current guidance at that time, this plan should be secured by condition. As part of the final CLP, a construction workers’ travel plan will also need to be produced.

98 The nearby A1020 Lower Lea Crossing forms part of the Olympic/Paralympic Route Network (ORN/PRN), with Silvertown Way forming part of the Alternative Olympic Route Network

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 32 Overview

99 In summary, TfL currently has concerns over the likely impact of the proposals on both the highway and public transport networks, and additional information, as further detailed above is therefore required before TfL can support the proposals ‘in principle’, and be satisfied that the proposals are in general conformity with policies 6.2, 6.9, 6.10 6.11, 6.13 and 6.14 of the DRLP.

Climate change

100 Policies 4A.1 to 4A.8 of the London Plan focus on how to mitigate climate change, and the carbon dioxide reduction targets that are necessary across London to achieve it.

101 The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole; however, further information is required before the carbon savings can be verified.

BE LEAN

Energy efficiency standards

102 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed for Phase 1 to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Specific energy efficiency measures for the later phases will be specified in the detailed applications for those phases.

103 The energy strategy states that it is the intention of designs to achieve a level of carbon emissions reductions close to 2010 Building Regulations compliance levels through energy efficiency alone. The applicant should clearly commit to the development achieving 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone.

BE CLEAN

District heating

104 The site heat network will be supplied from a single energy centre located in the north- eastern corner of Phase 1 of the development, adjacent to the proposed supermarket. This commitment to constructing an energy centre capable of accommodating the plant to supply the entire development, as well as other sites outside the development, is strongly welcomed.

105 A drawing showing the envisaged layout of plant within the energy centre has been provided which suggests that the energy centre is capable of accommodating plant to supply the whole development, while still meeting the relevant carbon reduction targets. The applicant should confirm the floor area of the energy centre and this minimum area should be secured through condition.

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 33 106 Further details should be provided regarding how the proposed energy strategy fits within the wider Caning Town/Custom House regeneration area. For such purpose, the applicant should contact the Council and evidence of these conversations should be submitted to the GLA.

Combined Heat and Power

107 The applicant is proposing to install a gas fired CHP unit of 635 kWe to supply the heating requirements of Phase 1. Larger CHP capacity would be installed to supply the later phases. Given the size of the proposed CHP unit it may be more appropriate for it to be installed at a later point.

108 The Code for Sustainable Homes also provides some flexibility for when low carbon/renewable heat supply technologies have to be installed into heat networks.

Cooling

109 Little information has been provided in relation to the cooling aspects of the energy strategy. The applicant should clarify how the cooling requirements have been minimised and explain how the remaining cooling demand would be met.

BE GREEN

Renewable energy technologies

110 As stated in the energy statement, renewable fired CHP might be used to supply the later phases of the development in order to achieve the highest level of the Code.

111 The use of photovoltaic cells is also proposed for each of the phases in order to reduce carbon emissions further. Accordingly, the renewable provision is accepted. Local planning authority’s position

112 It is anticipated that the application will be presented to Newham’s and LTGDC’s planning committees in October. Legal considerations

113 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 Corporation 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 Corporation under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the 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

114 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

112 London Plan policies on are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 34  Affordable housing: the quantum of affordable housing for the outline development is not being provided with this application.

 Housing mix: the housing mix for the outline development is not being provided with this application.

 Density: Residential density based on net residential site area has not been provided, therefore it is not possible to determine whether the density is acceptable

 Housing quality: uncertainty over future layouts in relation to the Housing Design Guide.

 Student accommodation: if there is no identified user for the student accommodation, affordable housing policies apply.

 Inclusive design: further information is required.

 Transport: given its highly accessible location, the level of parking for both residential and non-residential uses is excessive; electronic vehicle charging points are required; insufficient technical information has been provided which will also determine section 106 contributions to mitigate impacts on public transport.

 Climate change: further energy efficiency measures are required.

113 Whilst the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms, on balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

114 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:  Affordable housing: a minimum affordable housing across the site should be secured in any permission; clarification on the existing and previous residential use is sought.

 Housing mix: the applicant should commit to a minimum level of family accommodation.

 Density: calculate residential density, based on net residential site area.

 Housing quality: confirmation that the indicative layouts can meet the design guide; reference to the design guide through condition.

 Student accommodation: clarification of an end user should be provided.

 Inclusive design: detailed plans in relation to wheelchair units should be provided; commitment to 10% accessible student units; access commitments should be secured via condition/legal agreement.

 Transport: the level of parking should be reduced; the car parking management plan should be provided; information in relation to trip generation and modal-split, trip distribution, and highway modelling should be provided; a contribution of up to £10k per bus stop within the station should be sought within the section 106 agreement towards implementing any identified improvements, if proven necessary; cycle provision should be increased in line with London Plan standards; servicing and construction plans to be secured via condition; residents restricted from obtaining parking permits.

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 35  Climate change: the applicant should clearly commit to the development achieving 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone; the floor area of the energy centre should be confirmed and secured through condition; further details on how the proposed energy strategy fits within the wider Canning Town Custom House regeneration area should be provided; further detail on cooling aspects is required.

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] Jonathan Aubrey, Case Officer 020 7983 5823 email [email protected]

PDU/ 2586/02– Stage 2 report page 36