planning report PDU/1097c/02 20 April 2011 Leamouth Peninsula North

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets ) planning application no. PA/10/01864/

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 Part detailed part outline application for a mixed-use development comprising 1,706 residential units, together with business, retail, leisure, arts, cultural, education and community floor space. The applicant The applicant is Clearstorm Properties Ltd, a full subsidiary of the Ballymore group of companies. The architect is Capita Lovejoy.

Strategic issues The principle of a high-density mixed-use residential led redevelopment of the site is in the interest of good strategic planning in London. The application is consistent with London Plan policy and further information has been provided in relation to affordable housing, child play space, energy and transport such that the scheme is in now in compliance with the London Plan.

The Development Corporation’s decision

In this instance the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation 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.

Context

1 On 29 September 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets 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 the following Categories of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

Category 1B “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.”.

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

Category 3B “Development which occupies more than 4 hectares of land which is used for a use within Class B1, B2 or B8 of the Use Classes Order and is likely to prejudice the use of that land for any such use”.

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

2 On 4 November 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1097c/01, and subsequently advised the Corporation that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 106 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 108 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. On 10 March 2011 the LTGDC decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 21 March 2011 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the LTGDC under Article 6 to refuse the application. The application was validated on 7 April 2011 and as such the Mayor has until 20 April 2011 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 some London Plan policies, but not with others, and that amendments and further information were required in order for scheme to be fully compliant with the London Plan. This related to affordable housing, children’s play space, inclusive design, climate change mitigation and transport. Addressing each of these points in turn, the following is noted:

Access and inclusive design

7 At the initial consultation stage, it was noted that a comprehensive access statement had been submitted, but that conditions would be necessary to monitor and review the blue badge parking. It was questioned as to whether the number of spaces could be increased to equate to the number of wheelchair accessible units (170). The importance of securing accessibility features of the leisure facility and pedestrian bridge was also noted.

8 The Corporation has included a number of conditions in the draft decision notice, which require detailed plans to be submitted in relation to the pedestrian and cycle bridge, a detailed

page 2 access statement for each phase, compliance with Lifetime Homes criteria, and that 10% of residential units are capable of being easily adapted. A clause has also been included in the draft s106 legal agreement requiring monitoring and review of the blue badge parking spaces, such that a commensurate number of spaces are provided in relation to the level of ownership by disabled persons. These commitments are welcomed and ensure compliance with London Plan policy 4B.5.

Affordable housing

9 At the initial consultation stage, the applicant’s affordable housing offer was noted and it was requested that further discussion take place once applicant’s financial appraisal had had been independently verified. This was with view to establishing appropriate review mechanisms, given the phasing of the development and length of the construction programme.

10 Since then, the applicant’s toolkit has been independently reviewed, and it has been concluded that the applicant has fairly and reasonably represented the economics of the scheme in the context of current market conditions. The configuration of the scheme in two separate phases provides an opportunity to review the viability of a large part of the scheme at a later date, possibly when market conditions have improved. In accordance with requests at the initial consultation stage, a review mechanism is proposed as part of the section 106, which secures increased tariff payments at Phase 1 and Phase 2 in the event that sales values of the private units exceed certain threshold values (in terms of achieved sales revenues per square foot). Appropriate trigger levels have been agreed, which ensure that the levels are not weighted too heavily in favour of the applicant and that there will be a prospect that further payment towards affordable housing are achieved, should the market improve.

11 On the basis that the scheme achieves the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing based on current market conditions, and secures increased contributions in the future, based on realistic threshold values being reached, the applicant’s offer is appropriate in this case, and in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.9 and 3A.10.

Child play space

12 In considering the scheme at Stage 1, it was not clear from the plans how much designated play space was being provided, and how the site was connected to existing local areas of play and recreation to supplement the on-site facilities.

13 The applicant has subsequently provided details of the proposed landscape strategy which sets out the location and quantum of play space provided in the development. The scheme proposes dedicated play space with a range of equipment and features for the relevant age group it serves. The scheme proposes 4,905 sq.m. of play space, which is well in excess of the required space based on a child yield of 364 children (3,640 sq.m.). The Corporation has secured a condition, requiring details of the child play areas to be submitted prior to the occupation of each phase. These commitments are welcomed, and ensure that the scheme is in accordance with policy 3D.13 of the London Plan.

Climate change mitigation - energy

14 At the initial consultation, a number of comments were made about the applicant’s energy strategy. This related specifically to commitment to exceeding 2010 Building Regulations through energy efficiency alone, providing details of how all building uses would be connected to a single site wide network that would be supplied by a single energy centre. Information about the optimisation of the CHP, and how it would provide all of the domestic hot water as well as a proportion of the development’s space heating demands was requested. Further details of the cooling strategy, and the renewable energy approach were also requested.

page 3 15 The applicant has subsequently provided further information in relation to the proposed energy strategy, including modelling the development with 2010 Building Regulations compliance software, so as to demonstrate that the highest levels of energy efficiency will be achieved. The applicant has committed to using reasonable endeavours on passive design and adopting additional energy measures with the aim of each element of the development achieving 2010 Building Regulations, in the form of improvements on u-values, thermal bridging details and air-tightness levels approaching 3 m3/hr sq.m., which is welcomed.

16 The applicant has provided an indicative drawing showing the heat network linking the buildings, including Building K, on the development with heat fed from an energy centre in Building N. Building N is already built and will include the energy centre for the whole development. The information confirms that there will be an active cooling load for the leisure centre in Building K and this will be met by ground source heat pumps. The system will make use of boreholes that have already been drilled for a previous development.

17 With respect to the heating of the swimming pool and space heating of the leisure centre, the applicant has confirmed that the swimming pool heat load and the space heating loads will also be connected to the development’s district heating heat network, where CHP is the lead heat source. This commitment is welcomed and condition 63 appropriately requires all spaces to be connected to this heat network.

18 In relation to the proposals for PV panels, the Corporation has imposed a condition requiring details of a feasibility study that investigates the potential to reduce the development’s carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from on-site photovoltaic arrays. The PV could be located on the roof of Building N, mounted at a horizontal inclination. The PV would serve a proportion of the landlord’s electrical load and would make a contribution of 0.04% to the site’s overall electricity consumption and generate an additional carbon reduction of 0.1%. The applicant is intending to progress with installing the ground source heat pumps in lieu of installing any PV panels in this instance, as the climate change benefit from installing PV panels is significantly less than the savings given that it results in more savings in carbon emissions delivered by implementing the ground-coupling technology (already established on the development site). This approach is considered reasonable in this instance, and the condition is suitably flexible to allow the approach to be reviewed at reserved matters stage.

Transport

19 At the initial consultation stage, a number of points were raised, requiring additional information, discussions between TfL, the Council, LTGDC and the applicant, and that specific contributions be secured as part of any planning permission.

Parking

19 At Stage 1, TfL confirmed that the proposed level of car parking for the completed development (equating to an overall provision of 0.4 spaces per unit) was within the maximum standards set out in the London Plan Policy 3C.21 and draft replacement policy 6.13. All parking for the non-residential elements of the proposed scheme is also in line with London Plan policy. Overall, the proposed level of cycle parking is acceptable and in line with minimum standards.

20 As part of the proposed section 106 agreement, a car parking management scheme has been secured. This will ensure that 10% of all spaces specifically for use by people with disabilities and include a review mechanism to ensure that disabled parking provision increases with demand. The provision of ten car club spaces is welcomed, and this is secured in the section 106 agreement. The commitment to ensuring that 20% of all parking spaces are fitted

page 4 with electric vehicle charging facilities is also welcomed in line with draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13 ‘Parking’. This is secured through planning condition.

Connectivity

21 Throughout the planning application process, TfL has worked with the applicant, the Council, and LTGDC to overcome the isolation of this site and to ensure the necessary public transport accessibility and connectivity to/from the site will be provided to support the high density development proposed. Accordingly, the proposed bridge link to Canning Town Station is essential to improve the site’s accessibility as it is expected to boost the public transport accessibility level of the northern section of the site from 1 to 6. As such, the section 106 obligation that will deliver the footbridge prior to the final occupation of Phase 1 is welcomed. Notwithstanding this, the ability of the proposed bridge link to increase the PTAL of the site relies on access being provided through Canning Town station. The station is not a thoroughfare and as such, public access will only be possible when the station is open to the travelling public.

22 In order to link the development site to Canning Town station and on to Silvertown Way, it is necessary to bring the Bow Creek entrance/exit of the underground station (known as the ‘rotunda’) into operation. The applicant has agreed to the principle of ensuring the timely delivery of the works to the rotunda in accordance with London Underground’s specification, although TfL requires further discussion with the applicant and LTGDC to ensure that this is fully reflected in the final Section 106 Agreement.

Buses

23 As the proposed development will place a significant demand on bus services, TfL welcomes the ring-fencing by LTGDC of £3.3 million towards bus capacity, as identified in the draft section 106 agreement, in line with London Plan policy 3C.2. Of this, £2.2 million should be paid to TfL prior to first occupation of Phase 1, and the remaining £1.1 million should be payable prior to the occupation of Phase 2. TfL requires further discussion with the LTGDC to ensure that the appropriate triggers for the payment(s) of this contribution are enshrined in the final section 106 agreement.

Bus Infrastructure

24 To allow a bus service to serve the peninsula, appropriate facilities, including bus stopping and standing facilities and driver toilets will be required to the south of the site, on Orchard Place. The above infrastructure is essential to the development’s accessibility and a condition is contained in the decision notice to ensure that these facilities are in place prior to the development of the Phase 1 of development. This should also be enshrined in the section 106.

Highway Alterations

24 Following further discussions with the applicant, TfL is pleased that the proposal to signalise the northern arm of the Leamouth Roundabout are no longer being pursued as this would conflict with the Mayor’s aspiration to smooth traffic flow on the strategic road network.

25 In order ensure that a safe and direct pedestrian route can be provided between the site and East India DLR station, TfL welcomes the section 106 obligation which will require the applicant to deliver these works, should LTGDC not bring them to fruition as part of the Olympic Park ‘FATwalk’ proposals is welcomed. Although the applicant has agreed to the principle of ensuring that these facilities are in place prior to first occupation of Phase 1, TfL requires assurances that this will be reflected in the final section 106 agreement. Delivery of these

page 5 facilities prior to first occupation is essential to integrating the proposed development with the wider public transport network, in line with London Plan policy 3C.2.

TfL Traffic Control Centre

26 Throughout the application process, TfL has sought to ensure that the continued operation of the TfL Traffic Control Centre & Depot on Orchard Place is safeguarded throughout the construction and operation of the proposed development. A clause has been added to the section 106 agreement which obliges the applicant to maintain unimpeded access to the centre, and this is welcomed.

Docklands Light Railway Services

27 At Stage 1, TfL requested a contribution towards improving the poor environment around the forecourt of East India DLR station. Whilst a contribution of this nature has not been specifically identified, TfL recommends that monies are made available from the overall section 106 tariff in order to mitigate additional trips from this scheme in accordance with policies 3C.9 and 3C.21, and draft replacement policy 6.10.

28 TfL welcomes the provision within the section 106 agreement for the installation of real- time information boards in the communal areas of the proposed development. TfL also welcomes the proposed planning condition which requires the applicant to assess the impact of the development on the DLR radio signal, and, if necessary, agree and implemented necessary mitigation.

Travel Planning

29 The applicant’s travel plan is in line with London Plan Policy 3C.1, and the objectives of this have been agreed with TfL. Both a delivery and servicing plan and a construction management plan have been secured via planning condition.

Response to consultation

30 The application was advertised by site and press notices and consultation letters, which were sent to occupiers of 2,449 adjoining and surrounding properties, together with all parties which made representations on the previous application.

31 A total of six responses were received as a result of the consultation process, of which one comprised an objection, four were in support, and one response was a general objection. The sole letter of objection raises concerns regarding the impact of the scheme upon the skyline and views around East India Dock Basin. The issue of design and visual impact has been dealt with in this and the previous report.

32 Agregate Industries and London Concrete confirm their aspirations to re-activate Orchard Wharf, a safeguarded wharf in the vicinity of the site. A letter of support has been received from the Trinity Buoy Wharf Trust, welcoming the proposed bridge link.

33 Other statutory consultees responded as follows:

CABE: Supports the layout and massing of the masterplan, the architectural quality, design, materials and strong landscape strategy. The removal of podium is welcomed, and the principle of connecting to Royal Docks energy network, and other sustainability features. Raises concern about the loss of a direct, 24-hour connection across the DLR tracks to Canning Town that was provided in the previously approved scheme.

page 6 Environment Agency: Has raised objections to the proposal on grounds of potential impact on inter-tidal habitat loss and flooding as a result of the proposed encroachment of the northern bridge landing. There is also a lack of information in relation to hydrological assessment, calculations for the associated encroachment and hydraulic modelling to assess potential scour and habitat loss, and impact upon stability of the flood defences. Requests that it be demonstrated that the impacts can or cannot be reasonably avoided before considering compensation/mitigation.

Ports of London Authority: Has raised concerns about the relationship with Orchard Wharf, in relation to cargo handling, noise, air quality, light pollution. Concerns also raised about the intrusion of the proposed bridge landing into the river and the implications for its navigational function. A navigational safety risk assessment is required and a final parameter plan will need to be prepared which tests all options for the bridge. The LTGDC has suggested a s106 clause that requires the applicant to test all options for the bridge and that it be delivered in accordance with the final parameter plan/risk assessment before the final occupation of phase 1.

British Waterways: Seeks to ensure that navigation along Bow Creek to the Thames is not adversely affected, and that headroom under the new bridge retains an air draft of at least 5.5 metres.

English Heritage (Archaeology): Reference is made to the archaeological excavations carried out on the site previously, and a condition is suggested in relation to post- excavation work.

Lee Valley Regional Park Authority: Requests that funding be secured for improvements to open space, landscaping and habitat enhancements. In accordance with comments made, conditions have been imposed in relation to lighting, green and brown roofs, bird nesting and bat roosting, together with details of the ecological riverside edge.

Metropolitan Police Authority: Requests the provision of a self-contained unit within the development to accommodate community policing facilities at a peppercorn rent, as was agreed as part of the previous planning permission. LTGDC has secured this space as part of the section 106 legal agreement

Crossrail: Various conditions are proposed in relation to safeguarding Crossrail structures and tunnels.

London Underground: No objection in principle subject to ensuring that the rotunda is brought up to current operational standards

Docklands Light Railway: No comments received.

London City Airport: No comments received.

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority: Requests conditions regarding brigade access and water supplies, which have been secured by the GLA.

Thames Water Authority: Raises no objections, but suggests conditions regarding minimum pressure head and flow rates, and the need for drainage plans for all phases. Appropriately worded conditions and informatives have been secured in the draft decision notice

National Air Traffic Services Ltd: No safeguarding objections to the proposal.

page 7 Civil Aviation Authority: Advises that consultation with London City Airport will be appropriate, together with possible need for en-route obstruction lighting from structures and cranes.

National Grid: Has provided general guidance and advice notes regarding the safeguarding of pressure pipelines in the vicinity of the site.

EDF Energy Networks: No comments received.

Health and Safety Executive: The development does not fall with an HSE zone.

Olympic Joint Planning Authorities Team:

Sport England: No comments received.

Greenwich Council: Raises no observations.

34 Newham Council were notified of the application, due to part of the site falling within its jurisdiction. It has provided comments on the application, supporting the overall design approach and heights of buildings and energy strategy in particular. Comments are made in relation to the connection with the peninsula, and that the preference would be that this took place to the south, via the Limmo Site. The loss of the former ‘green bridge’ proposed in the previous application is disappointing, but the intention not to progress the Rueben’s Bridge route to the station is welcomed, due to safety concerns. Comments are made in relation to the s106 contributions for the rotunda and surrounding public realm, and that conditions are imposed in relation to the design of the bridge, buildings, and the incorporation of the transportation of freight by river.

35 Tower Hamlets Council considered the application on 7 March 2011 and resolved to recommend that the LTGDC refuse permission for the following reasons:

1. The provision of 19.6% affordable housing (or 11% without grant funding) together with the proposed cascade mechanism would fail to contribute towards meeting the borough’s affordable housing need and affordable housing targets, contrary to the aims of PPS3, Policy 3A.9 of the London Plan (2008), Policy HSG3 of the IPG (2007) and Policy SP02 in the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to ensure the borough meets the overall strategic target for affordable housing.

2. The overall under provision of family housing would result in an unacceptable housing mix contrary to policy 3A.9 and 3A.10 in London plan, policy HSG2 and HSG3 in the IPG (2007) and policy SP02 in the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to ensure developments provide an appropriate housing mix to meet the needs of the borough.

3. Given the significance of this strategic site in terms of the Council's overall growth agenda and the vision for Leamouth (especially housing growth, the provision of affordable housing, improved connectivity and the delivery of required social/community infrastructure to support development), the proposal, viewed alongside financial viability constraints and the inability of the scheme to satisfactorily mitigate the various impacts and accommodate associated infrastructure requirements, will fail to deliver a sustainable, liveable, vibrant, accessible and inclusive community, contrary to policies S01, SP02 and SP13 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010).

4. The proposal, by virtue of the proposed solid encroachment of the northern bridge landing on to the foreshore, fails to provides sufficient information to ensure necessary mitigation against nature conservation contrary to Policy 3D.14 and Policy 4B.1 of the London Plan (2008); the London Biodiversity Action Plan (2008); Policy DEV57 of Tower Hamlets UDP (1998) (saved policies); Policy DEV7 of Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) and Policy SP04 of

page 8 Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010) which seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity value.

5. The proposed encroachment of the northern bridge landing into the river is likely to impede flood flow and/or reduce storage capacity, thereby increasing the risk of flooding contrary to PPS25, Policy 4A.13 of the London Plan (2008), Policy DEV21 of Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) and Policy SP04 of the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to reduce the risk and impact of flooding.

6. The encroachment of the northern bridge landing in to the deepest part of the river is considered to have adverse impact on the navigational function of the river, and considered unacceptable by the Council and the Port of London Authority, contrary to Policy SP04 (4) of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy OSN3 of the IPG (2007) which seek to deliver a network of high quality usable and accessible water spaces through protecting and safeguarding existing water spaces from inappropriate development and using water spaces for movement and transport.

36 In a letter dated 6 April 2011, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets has written to the Mayor, seeking his intervention in the application. The Council has raised serious doubts that the proposal, in the current economic climate, is able to contribute to the Borough’s growth agenda without compromising the required infrastructure needs associated with such growth and development.

37 In relation to the points raised in relation to the bridge landing and flooding issues, it is understood that the PLA and EA still require technical issues to be resolved and these can be resolved through suitably worded planning obligations that require resolution in advance of work commencing, acknowledging that the principle of the bridge has been established previously. In relation to the Council’s dissatisfaction with the applicant’s affordable housing offer, as noted in paragraph 10 above, discussions have been on-going between the applicant and LTGDC in order to agree trigger points for increased tariff payments, thereby ensuring that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is secured over the life of the scheme. In relation to the housing mix, the scheme has been drawn up following discussion with the main affordable housing provider in the borough, and any uplift generated in the later phases will fall on the Council to determine the amount of family housing required in the borough. Legal considerations

38 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

39 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.

page 9 40 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

41 Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in London Thames Gateway Development 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

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] Samantha Wells, Case Officer 020 7983 4266 email [email protected]

page 10

planning report PDU/1097c/01 4 November 2010 Leamouth Peninsula North

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Newham) planning application no. PA/10/01864

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 Part detailed part outline application for a mixed-use development comprising 1,706 residential units, 7, 848 sq.m. business floorspace, 1,852 sq.m. of retail floorspace, 1, 801 sq.m. of leisure floorspace, 2,049 sq.m. of arts and cultural floorspace, 4,800 sq.m. of education floorspace, 1,296 sq.m. of community use floorspace. The applicant The applicant is Clearstorm Properties Ltd, a full subsidiary of the Ballymore group of companies. The architect is Capita Lovejoy.

Strategic issues The principle of a high-density mixed-use residential led redevelopment of the site is in the interest of good strategic planning in London. The application is broadly consistent with London Plan policy; however, further information is required on affordable housing, child play space, energy and transport to ensure compliance with the London Plan.

Recommendation

That Tower Hamlets and 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 106 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 108 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.

Context

1 On 29 September 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets 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

page 11 above uses. The application is also expected to be referred by Newham Council in the near future. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 9 November 2010 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 1A of the Schedule to the Order 2008: ”Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats or houses and flat”. Category 1B “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.”. Category 1C “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”. Category 3B “Development which occupies more than 4 hectares of land which is used for a use within Class B1, B2 or B8 of the Use Classes Order and is likely to prejudice the use of that land for any such use”. Category 3F “Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the provision of more than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use”.

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

5 The site is located at the southern end of the Lower Lea Valley, at the border of the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham. The site covers the entire peninsula, which has been cleared following the grant of planning permission in 2007. As the application includes a pedestrian bridge across the River Lea part of the site is within the London Borough of Newham. The entire site, however, is within the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation boundary.

6 The site is unique in being almost completely surrounded by water and inter-tidal mud flats. To the west of the site is the Limmo peninsula ecological park – a strip of land that is also dissected by the Docklands Light Railway. To the south of the site is the road overpass of the Lower Lea Crossing. To the southwest is the nature reserve of East India Dock Basin and, further west along the River Thames, ongoing redevelopment close to East India station. To the southeast of the site is ‘Leamouth Peninsula South’, with Trinity Buoy Wharf as a redevelopment marker at the far end of this peninsula. To the east of the site, in the London Borough of Newham, is a collection of infrastructure consisting of railway tracks for Docklands Light Railway, the overland train to Silvertown Way, as well as a strip of industrial uses. Overhead power lines run along and across the railway infrastructure at Canning Town. Canning Town interchange provides access to the overland train connection between North Woolwich and Stratford, a Docklands Light Railway connection to the City, Beckon and City Airport, the Jubilee underground line to Stratford and central London and to eleven bus routes. At the moment, however, the site is disconnected from Canning Town interchange.

7 The closest section of the Transport for London road network is the A1261 Aspen Way and the slip roads which lead to the Leamouth Roundabout, 400 metres to the west of the site. East India Docklands Light Railway station lies 500 metres to the southwest of the site. Bus route 277

page 12 can also be accessed at the Leamouth Roundabout. The public transport accessibility level of the site currently varies across the site, but is as low as 1 in the northern part (out of 6, where 6 is the most accessible).

Details of the proposal

8 Permission is sought for a part detailed part outline application for a mixed-use development comprising 1,706 residential units, 7, 848 sq.m. business floorspace, 1,852 sq.m. of retail floorspace, 1, 801 sq.m. of leisure floorspace, 2,049 sq.m. of arts and cultural floorspace, 4,800 sq.m. of education floorspace, 1,296 sq.m. of community use floorspace.

9 The proposal also includes an energy centre, car and cycle parking and a new pedestrian bridge across the River Lea.

10 The thirteen buildings will range in height from 3 to 27 storeys with the tallest buildings positioned towards the end of the peninsula.

11 A breakdown of the residential units for the first phase is shown below.

Social Private Total % rented Studio - 54 54 10%

1-bed 45 109 154 29%

2-bed 70 131 201 37%

3-bed 64 36 100 19%

4-bed 16 - 16 3%

5-bed 12 - 12 2%

Total 207 330 537 100

% 39% 61% 100

12 The applicant has also provided an indicative breakdown of the unit ranges for the later phases. The later phases will be mainly private units with some affordable intermediate units, the proportion of which is yet to be fixed. However, the applicant has indicated that the overall mix proportion of affordable housing will not exceed 20%. It is therefore likely that the later phases will provide circa 4% social rented units.

Private units Intermediate units Percentage Max Percentage Max range No. of range No. of units units

Studio 5-20% 225 - -

page 13 1-bed 35-45% 505 40-60% 28

2-bed 20-35% 292 40-60% 18

3-bed 7.5-15% 84 - -

4-bed 1.5-5% 17 - -

5-bed - - - -

Total 1,123 46

13 In addition to the 537 residential units, phase one will also provide a flexible workspace building, a leisure facility, a small cultural facility, a community centre and an energy centre. The main creative industries hub with the remaining employment floorspace, retail and cultural floorspace will come forward in later phases as part of the creative industries hub. Case history

14 In 2007 permission was granted for the redevelopment of the Pura Foods factory to a high- density mixed-use residential-led redevelopment of the site. Comprising 1,663-1,884 residential units, a primary school for 371 children, 16,690 sq.m of office floorspace, 1,150 sq.m. of retail and restaurant floorspace, 4,600 sq.m. of other commercial and community floorspace and 2,170 sq.m. of leisure floorspace.

15 The principal of a mixed-use residential-led development has therefore been established.

16 In January 2010 the applicant began a series of meetings with officers from the GLA, LTGDC and Tower Hamlets to discuss a new proposal for redeveloping the site. The main differences between the this application and the consented scheme are as follows:-

 The range of residential units (1,663 –1,884) has been removed. A set number of 1,706 residential units are now proposed.

 The podium has been removed and the design of the development altered.

 The number of car parking spaces has been reduced.

 The non-residential uses have been relocated in the proposal.

 The phasing of the development has reversed.

 The second pedestrian bridge over the railway tracks connecting the site to Canning Town has been removed. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

17 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Principle of development London Plan; PPS1

page 14  Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Tall buildings/views London Plan; RPG3A, Revised View Management Framework SPG  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Child play space London Plan; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  River Thames/flooding London Plan; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; PPS25, RPG3B  Biodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; PPS9; draft PPS Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment

 Climate change 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  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

18 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 Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

19 The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation is also material considerations.

Principle of development

20 The principle of redeveloping the site to provide a high-density mixed-use development is already established through the extant 2007 permission. The provision of residential accommodation on this site is also supported by London Plan policy 3A.1, which seeks to increase London’s supply of housing and policy 3A.3 which seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with the local context, the design principles in policy 4B.5 of the London Plan and with public transport. The provision of the business and retail floorspace is supported by policies 3B.8 and 3D.3 of the London Plan. The provision of arts and cultural floorspace is supported by policy 3D.4 of the London Plan. The provision of leisure and community facilities are supported by policy 3A.18 of the London Plan and the provision of education facilities are supported by policy 3A.24 of the London Plan.

21 The proposal is also supported by policies in the draft replacement London Plan. Density

22 The London Plan and draft replacement London Plan density matrix uses three parameters to suggest density ranges for residential developments: location, accessibility index

page 15 and setting. In terms of location Poplar town centre (which is a ‘district centre’ in the London Plan classification) is 1.5 kilometers away and Canning town centre (also a ‘district centre’) is circa 700 metres away, from the middle of the site, across the proposed bridge connection. The public transport accessibility level is currently 1 with the potential for 6 if an appropriate connection with Canning Town Station is provided.

23 The area is currently industrial land and therefore a characterisation as described in the London Plan density matrix is difficult to apply. However, the extant permission established the aspiration to develop this area as part of an area which is ‘central’ providing a density range of 240 –405 units per hectare or 650 – 1100 habitable rooms per hectare.

24 The proposed density of the site is 364 units per hectare or 887 habitable rooms per hectare. A reduction of approximately 17% on the extant planning permission. The density matrix, provides a tool for increasing density in locations where transport proposals will change the public transport accessibility ranking and is dependant on the characterisation of current conditions or aspirations to create new parts of the city.

25 The site is potentially highly accessible, being within walking distance to Canning Town town centre and in relatively close proximity to Canary Wharf and Stratford (Jubilee Line, and DLR). As such the proposed density is considered appropriate. Tall buildings/views

26 London Plan policies 4B.8 and 4B.9, which relate to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings, are of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. These policies set out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor. Policy 7.7 of the draft replacement London Plan is also relevant.

27 The site has extant outline permission for the development of tall buildings, and the current proposal proposes tall buildings of similar overall height and scale. The principle of tall building development on the site is established by the extant permission. The development is therefore considered in the context of the revised London View Management Framework (LVMF) and the amended massing, scale and appearance of the proposed buildings.

28 The LVMF identifies a number of important views integral to defining London’s character. Although the site is not within a viewing corridor, it is visible within the context of the panorama viewed from Greenwich Park. The applicant’s environmental statement demonstrates that the proposed buildings will be visible above the dome of the O2 in North Greenwich. The LVMF recognises the venue as a landmark, but has no specific measures for its protection. In this case, although development will be visible, the O2 will remain the dominant feature. The development will have no detrimental impact on the views over the World Heritage Site. Urban design

29 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage, views, and the Blue Ribbon Network. The draft replacement London Plan reinforces these principles, with new development

page 16 required to have regard to its context, and reinforce or enhance the character, legibility and permeability of the neighbourhood (policy 7.1).

30 This iteration of the scheme proposes several improvements over the previously approved scheme. These include the introduction of a landscaping scheme at ground level, which allows better accessibility and potential for views through the peninsula, the creation of mixed-use nodes throughout the site, more appropriate conditions for residents during phasing, as well as the introduction of larger areas of open space more appropriate to play or other activities. The application details full specifications for the first phase of the development, with the proposal appearing to be of a generally high standard. The subsequent future phase of the scheme is limited to parameter plans and design guidelines that provide a degree of flexibility in future design, but the GLA is confident that these would be delivered to a standard comparable with the earlier development.

31 Officers have been involved within the development of the scheme, attending design workshops with the applicant and Council/LTGDC officers.

Layout, scale and massing

32 The layout is similar to that within the previous proposal, with a semi-organic form that will contribute to interesting spaces around the buildings. The buildings’ proposed locations would relate positively to the river and create interesting routes throughout the site.

33 The supporting material within the design and access statement demonstrates that the scheme will have a substantially urban character, but that this will be somewhat offset by the creation of substantial areas of open space. Buildings surround the spaces, with active layouts proposed at ground floor level to focus activity. The scale of the buildings are also likely to provide appropriate levels of enclosure. The tall well-proportioned towers, with medium-rise infilling elements add to the character of the development, allow sunlight through the development and ensure that buildings do not become overbearing on the open spaces.

34 Rather than being limited to rectangular blocks, the buildings utilise the layout pattern to provide interesting shapes, with features such as inset gardens within the buildings. The exception to this within the first phase is the proposed car park block. While the external materials help to reduce its massing, their application over substantially proportioned facades and the lack of features such as windows contribute to making the building appear bulky, and at odds with the rest of the scheme.

35 A large car-park element is also proposed in the later phases, and this will raise similar design challenges. It will also be important to ensure that the design of the building interacts with the ground floor uses and that transitions in external building treatment between car parking and other levels are sympathetically applied. Appearance and landscaping

36 The design and access statement and design guidelines provide a detailed indication of the future character of the development, with a strong role for each of the main open spaces. The use of a common elevational language across the various buildings is supported, as is the choice to engage different architects for each of the buildings, who have responded well to the challenge of creating individually recognisable buildings within the overall framework. The landscaping proposals for the upgrading of the various routes to and around the site are also welcomed.

37 The buildings will have clear entrance points for communal areas – double height in many instances – and the ground floor uses will provide active frontages along public spaces.

page 17 38 The treatment of the car park close to the entrance remains a concern. The design and access statement indicates that significant efforts have been made to make its appearance as interesting as possible, however it still appears bulky and at odds with the rest of the development. It is however a significant improvement over the extant permission which provides parking below a raised ground level.

Residential quality

39 The residential quality of units in phase one is high. The applicant has submitted a comparison of the unit sizes again the floorspace standard in the draft housing Design Guidance and policy 3.3 of the draft replacement London Plan. All of exceed the minimum standards. The LTGDC should ensure the residential units in the later phases are equally generous.

40 Although single aspect buildings are located throughout the development, none of the first-phase single aspect units will be north-facing, and many would benefit from views across the River Lea or towards the Thames.

41 Other best-practice urban design principles covering entrances into buildings and navigation around the site have been incorporated into the development. The design standards appear to provide a commitment that the architecture and landscaping would be finished to a high standard for future residents.

Routes and phasing

42 Proposed routes throughout the development would have a clear hierarchy and the designation of one main north-south route through the site will assist in reducing ambiguity. The scheme will provide an improvement over the extant scheme, which proposed a podium from which the River Lea bridge crossing to Canning Town would have launched. The result was that the site levels gradually rose from south to north, with the riverfront pathway retained at ground level.

43 The main design concern expressed at the pre-application stage regarded the management of the phasing, and the level of access available for residents both during and following completion of construction. The London Plan provides support for high density development only in areas of good accessibility, which includes access to both transport and services, such as social infrastructure. The existing routes to the site are unattractive, potentially unsafe and blighted by road overpasses. The routes will be improved as part of this scheme, both to the north – across the River Lea to Canning Town Station, or along the A13 – and the south, alongside the flyover and across a roundabout to East India DLR station. However, only this latter route will be improved within the first phase of the development. The construction of the bridge Canning Town will not take place until the second phase of development, which would leave residents of the first phase isolated from Canning Town station and town centre. Given that phase one’s construction would take place over ten years, this could leave residents with access only to the DLR at East India for several years. The applicant has stated that even if the bridge was provided as part of phase one the second phase construction programme would not provide a safe or attractive route to the bridge for phase one residents; the applicant also makes the point that stage I residents would be able to catch a bus from the base of the site to Canning Town tube station or town centre.

44 The proposed bridge is outlined within the parameter plans and design guidelines; it would be a lifting bridge capable of allowing river traffic to pass, but at a level that would enable stair and wheelchair access from either bank. The LTGDC should ensure that the S106 agreement is sufficient to ensure the delivery of the bridge as part of the later phases by this applicant or any other applicant.

page 18 45 The extant permission provided a second bridge link across the railway tract to Canning Town town centre. The current proposal does not include this second bridge, instead pedestrians will utilise a currently disused stair and lift entrance into the Canning Town station underpass, which would only be operational during station operating hours (approximately 05.00-01.00). Outside these hours, access between Canning Town and the site would be via a longer route via the A13 overpass and riverbank to the new river bridge, and the applicant has set out improvements to this route that would provide adequate safety and amenity conditions. It is disappointing that the second pedestrian link has been removed from the proposal, however, its is accepted that removal of the podium, the feasibility of crossing the railway line and the cost of the proposal mean it is not possible to commit to the bridge. Access

46 The aim of policy 4B.5 of the London Plan an 7.2 of the draft replacement London Plan is that proposals aim for the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum) and that the design process has from the outset considered how everyone, including disabled and deaf people, older people, children and young people, will be able to use the places and spaces that are proposed.

47 The applicant has submitted a comprehensive access statement, which details how each of the proposed uses and buildings will be as accessible. Overall the site will have a good standard of accessibility. All residential units will comply with the Lifetime Homes criteria and 10% of units will be fully wheelchair accessible. The applicant has also supplied plans detailing each type of the wheelchair accessible units in the different buildings. The proposed service capsules in units within building J are particularly inventive and provide genuine opportunities for modification to suit resident’s needs.

48 There would be 62 blue badge parking spaces provided within the car park (10% of total), however this would not equate to the number of wheelchair accessible units (170). This does not therefore reflect best practice standards which require one space per wheelchair unit and given the currently unknown level of demand for blue badge parking, a condition should be included on the permission to ensure that the parking management plan includes a mechanism to ensure that the supply and demand of the blue badge bays are regularly monitored and provision reviewed. This is to ensure that provision equates to the demand from disabled residents and visitors and that the bays are effectively enforced, that needs are met and that disabled people are not prevented from living in this development due to a lack of suitable parking.

49 The LTGDC should ensure sufficient conditions and clauses within the S106 agreement are in place to secure the provision of the elements which make up the access strategy such as the location of blue badge parking, the accessible changing areas in the leisure facilities and the lifts on the pedestrian bridge. Affordable housing and mix of units

50 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

page 19 flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements. Policies 3.12 and 3.13 of the draft replacement London Plan also seek to maximise affordable housing provision when negotiating on individual residential and mixed-use schemes.

51 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

52 Tower Hamlets Council’s Core Strategy sets an overall target of 35-50% affordable housing for site providing 10 new dwellings or more.

53 In total the development will provide approximately 1,706 residential units of which 20% by habitable room will be affordable. Of the 537 residential units in phase one 38.9% by habitable room will be affordable and in the later phases 4% by habitable room will be affordable. As such the majority of affordable housing (85%) will be provided in the first phase of development. Whilst this raises some concern over the ability of the development to create a mixed and balanced community, it is acknowledged that the majority of affordable units will be family units and will be centred around the central amenity space in phase one and will therefore have a good residential environment. The delivery of the bulk of affordable units will also help to bring the site forward for development given the difficult market conditions.

54 Tower Hamlets Council and the LTGDC are yet to discuss the most appropriate way to assess the applicant’s financial appraisal. It is however most likely that an independent appraisal of the applicant’s financial viability with be commissioned. This approach is strongly supported and the findings of which should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

55 Given the intention to build this proposal in phases of which phase one is expected to take ten years an appropriate solution to ensure the proposal provides the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing possible would be to assess the viability of the provision of affordable housing on commencement of each phase. The mechanism for which can be secured through the section 106 agreement.

56 This option prevents the applicant agreeing to provide a percentage of affordable housing that they cannot realistically deliver and ensures the proposal complies with London Plan policy to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should the market improve during the lifetime of the permission and construction.

57 The proposal provides a ratio of 87% social rented and 13% shared ownership affordable housing units. This is not in accordance with the London wide target in the London Plan of 70% social rented and 30% intermediate or the draft replacement London Plan of 60% social rented and 40% intermediate. It however, closer to the Tower Hamlet Core Strategy target of 80% social rented and 20% intermediate which takes account of the local need for a higher proportion of social rented units. Tower Hamlets Council should therefore ensure it is confident that the proposal will meet the housing needs of its residents.

58 The proposal provides a good mix of unit sizes. 45% of the social rented units in phase one are family units with three bedrooms or more. The applicant has also stated that the later phases of development have the capacity to provide up to 20% family housing within the private units. The success of securing a range of unit sizes in the later phases will depend on the robustness of conditions and the section 106 agreement to secure them as part of the submission of reserve matters.

page 20 Child play space

59 Policy 3D .13 of the London Plan and policy 3.6 of the draft replacement 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”. Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 365 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 3650 sq.m. of playspace.

60 The applicant states the proposal provides 4,905 sq.m of child play space across a series of different playable space typologies. Whilst this space may be genuinely playable it is not solely designated as child play space and will have other competing functions, such as circulation space and general amenity space. As such it is not clear how much designated child play space has been provided. At the pre-application the meeting the applicant was advised to clearly show what is designated child play space and what is general amenity space, this information should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor. The applicant should also show connections to existing local areas of play and recreation in the vicinity which will supplement the on site offer. Blue Ribbon Network, flooding and biodiversity

61 Part of the site adjacent to the river edge is designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and an area deficient in access to nature and is part of the Blue Ribbon Network. Policy 4C.11 of the London Plan and 7.30 of the draft replacement London Plan seeks to protect and improve existing access points to and along the Blue Ribbon Network. Policy 4C.3 of the London Plan seeks to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the Blue Ribbon Network. Policies 3D.14 of the London Plan and 7.19 of the draft replacement London Plan seek new development to have regard to nature conservation and biodiversity. Opportunities should be taken to achieve positive gains for conservation through the form and design of development.

62 The provision of an ecological riverside edge, wildlife garden, 6000 sq.m. of brown roofs and artificial bird nesting boxes along with the timber baulking to the river wall facade are therefore strongly supported.

63 As such the opening up of the site and the proposed river walk, extension to the Olympic “FATwalk” and the nature conservation area along the perimeter of the site is strongly supported.

64 A Flood Risk Assessment (2007) and an Addendum (2010) has been carried out for the development proposal. The proposal includes improvements to the floodwalls (as required over the next 50 years) and new safety features. This would bring the development to over 1.0 metre above the 1 in 1000-year flood level plus climate change impacts (4.86m AOD). Sufficient provision will also be made to allow for sufficient maintenance access to the river walls. This is in line with London Plan Policy 4A.13 of the London Plan and policy 5.12 of the draft replacement London Plan. The site is part of an early warning system and critical access routes have been identified addressing London Plan Policy 4A.13 and 5.12 of the draft replacement London Plan. The intertidal terraces are welcomed combining flood risk and biodiversity improvements.

65 The development site is north of the safeguarded Orchard Wharf. The wharf is currently vacant but potentially subject to a compulsory purchase order by the Port of London Authority to facilitate its revitalisation as a wharf. Policy 4C.9 of the London Plan and 7.26 of the draft

page 21 replacement London Plan highlights that development next to or opposite safeguarded wharves should be designed to minimise the potential for conflicts of use and disturbance. In addition, paragraph 4.166 of the London Plan states that boroughs should ensure that appropriate highway access to wharves for commercial vehicles is maintained when considering proposals for development of neighbouring sites.

66 The new river link bridge is welcomed. However, it will be necessary to ensure in cooperation with British Waterways that the proposals set out in section 9.6.1 of the Design and Access Statement does not negatively affect current and predicted vessel movements on the river Lea. London Plan Policy 4C.14 indicates that proposals for new structures should be accompanied by a risk assessment detailing the extent of their impact on navigation, hydrology and biodiversity, and mitigation measures proposed to address the adverse impacts identified.

67 The development includes the provision of a riverside walk/edge with many functions including transport, recreation, biodiversity and flood protection. This is welcomed and in line with London Plan Policy 4C11 and 7.27 of the draft replacement London Plan. Links to the surrounding areas are also proposed. Climate change mitigation

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

Be lean

69 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include energy efficiency lighting and minimising thermal bridging.

70 The development is estimated to emit 4,575 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per annum after the application of passive design and energy efficiency measures. Based on the information provided, the proposed development does not appear to achieve any carbon savings from energy efficiency alone compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

71 Using 2010 Building Regulations compliance software, the applicant should model, and commit to, additional measures that can be adopted to enable the development to exceed 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone. The applicant should also provide a table comparing the proposed values for energy efficiency parameters to those used in the 2010 Building Regulations Notional Building.

Be clean

72 The applicant has investigated the potential to connect to the London Thames Gateway and Thames Gateway institute for sustainability heat networks. The applicant highlights some uncertainty regarding the potential to connect at this time. The applicant has however provided a commitment to provide a heat network connection adjacent to the energy centre (delivered in phase one) for potential link to their Leamouth South Development subject to scheme viability.

page 22 73 The applicant should provide a schematic showing all building uses connected to a single site wide network. The schematic should also show how the network will evolve during phasing including timescales where available. The applicant should confirm that the network will be supplied from a single energy and provide details of its size and location. The single network and energy centre should be secured.

74 The applicant is proposing the installation of a 1,357kW thermal output gas fired combined heat and power unit. The combined heat and power unit has been sized to meet the domestic hot water profile. The applicant should ensure that the combined heat and power unit is optimised to provide all the domestic hot water as well as a proportion of the development’s space heating demand.

75 The development is estimated to emit 3,019 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per annum after the application of combined heat and power. A reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 1,556 tonnes per annum (34%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

76 Ground source heat pumps are proposed to provide cooling loads for the leisure centre in Building K. The applicant should provide further information on the proposed cooling strategy including both passive and active measures. The applicant should clarify which areas would require active cooling and provide details on how these will be provided.

Be green

77 A 150kW ground source heat pump is proposed to provide heating and cooling loads for the leisure centre in Building K. The applicant should clarify how the proposed ground source heat pump will operate alongside the proposed combine heat and power plant.

78 The applicant has discounted the use of photovoltaic panels on the basis that the electricity generation would diminish the potential of the combined heat and power. GLA officers do not support this view. Combined heat and power and photovoltaic panels are compatible technologies. The applicant is encouraged to reconsider the use of photovoltaic panels in the proposed development. Details of the roof area which could accommodate photovoltaic panels should be provided, along with estimates of the electricity generation and potential carbon savings.

79 A reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 88 tonnes per annum (3%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy. Climate change adaptation

80 The London Plan promotes five principles in policy 4A.9 to promote and support the most effective adaptation to climate change. These are to minimise overheating and contribute to heat island effects; minimise solar gain in summer; contribute to flood risk reduction, including applying sustainable drainage; minimising water use; and protect and enhance green infrastructure. Specific policies cover overheating, living roofs and walls and water. These policies have also been carried over into the draft replacement London Plan.

81 The references to sustainable urban drainage system including green and brown roofs and storm water retention area are welcomed and in line with London Plan policy 4A.14 and policy 5.13 and 5.11 of the draft replacement London Plan. The discharging of surface water directly into the River Lea is also welcomed. However, there appears to be no specific reference to the use of porous materials for the paths through the development, which could also contribute to a reduction of surface water run-off.

page 23 Comments from Transport for London

Car parking

82 The final completed scheme will provide 629 spaces for the 1,706 units (equating to an overall provision of 0.4 spaces per unit). A further 37 spaces will be provided for the remaining community, retail and office uses. This level of car parking is within the maximum standards set out in the London Plan Policy 3C.21 ‘Parking Strategy’ and draft replacement policy 6.13 ‘Parking’. 10% of all car parking is proposed to be allocated as dedicated blue-badge holder spaces, and further details are requested regarding the location of these parking bays, to ensure that they are in close proximity to building entrances.

83 The provision of 10 car club spaces is welcomed, as is the commitment to providing electric vehicle charging facilities in line with draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13 ‘Parking’. Both should be secured by the borough through a section 106 agreement, and should be managed through the travel plan. TfL welcomes the commitment to producing a parking management plan, which should also be secured through planning condition in consultation with TfL.

Highway alterations

84 TfL notes that a number of alterations to the highway are proposed, at the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing and at the Leamouth Roundabout, to allow for emergency vehicles to access to the site and to improve the pedestrian environment. The applicant also proposes to widen the Leamouth roundabout on its western side to provide additional capacity for vehicles heading to the Blackwall Tunnel and subsequently ease traffic flow. Although these works primarily affect borough roads, formal notifications and approval may be needed for any highway works affecting the westerns slip roads to the roundabout.

85 The highway modelling for the Leamouth Roundabout assumes that the northern arm would be signalised. TfL however considers that this will result in unacceptable traffic queuing back to the A13. To ensure the smooth flow of traffic on the roundabout and adjoining roads, such highway proposal needs to be reconsidered, as these are unlikely to receive TfL’s approval at implementation stage.

86 TfL understands that the pedestrian improvements to the links to East India DLR station are expected to be funded as part of the ‘FATwalk’ proposals developed by LTGDC. As these improvements are key to unlocking the site to the south and necessary to guarantee satisfactory access between the first phase of development and the station, TfL expects the developer to fully fund and implement the pedestrian and cycle facilities over the Lower Lea Crossing, should LTGDC not bring them to fruition. TfL expects these facilities to be in place prior to the commencement of the first phase of development, and invites further discussion with all interested parties to agree their implementation.

TfL traffic control centre

87 In order to ensure the continued operation during construction of the TfL Traffic Control Centre and Depot on Orchard Place, the section 106 agreement should include an obligation for it to be maintained during any proposed construction and operational periods including ensuring unimpeded access to and from the centre.

Connectivity

88 The Leamouth Peninsula is currently isolated from surrounding neighbourhoods and suffers from inadequate levels of pedestrian accessibility and permeability. TfL requires assurance that

page 24 measures secured with the development proposals will ensure its integration with the wider area. Access to public transport is also currently very poor, particularly considering the pedestrian links between the site and East India DLR station. The proposed development will provide enhanced pedestrian and cycle routes across the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing as mentioned above, a pedestrian/cycle bridge link providing direct access to Canning Town station, and improvements to the riverside footpaths along either side of the River Lea. The bridge link is crucial to improve the site’s accessibility and to justify the proposed scale and density, and is expected to boost the public transport accessibility level of the northern section of the site from 1 to 6.

89 The previously approved scheme for this site included a bridge link to Canning Town station and a second bridge across the DLR/London Underground rail tracks to the bus station area. This arrangement was welcomed by TfL as it ensured convenient and direct access to the Canning Town area without relying on access through the station. The current proposal does not include provision for direct twenty-four hour access to Canning Town. During the hours when the station is closed, therefore, those wishing to access Canning Town will use the enhanced riverside walkway, and pass back the A13 East India Dock Road. Before the proposed access arrangements can be considered satisfactory and consistent with London Plan Policy 3C.1 ‘Integrating Transport and Development’, TfL requires further discussions with the applicant to discuss possible ways of enhancing and improving this aspect of the site’s connectivity, given the above constraints.

90 Given the above site constraints, it is reasonable to assume that travel demand from the first phase of the proposed development will be focused towards the southern end of the peninsula. Nevertheless, the subsequent phases of development will be dependent on the delivery of the proposed bridge connection to Canning Town. Therefore, TfL expects the applicant to commit to providing the footbridge a part of the development of the second phase of the masterplan, and this should be reflected in the section 106 legal agreement.

Canning Town Station

91 At the pre-application meetings and connectivity workshops held with the applicant, opportunities for creating twenty four hour access through Canning Town station have been explored. The applicant is aware that, as the closure of the underground network is required for routine maintenance and engineering, access through the station outside existing station opening hours is not possible.

92 TfL considers that the capacity of the Bow Creek entrance/exit (the ‘rotunda’) is likely to be sufficient to accommodate the expected trips entering and exiting the station. Nevertheless, a significant level of work is required to re-open and maintain its operation. These station works will need to be completed in accordance with all relevant DLR and London Underground requirements and guidelines. Furthermore, TfL requires an implementation and funding plan for the station works to be submitted to, and agreed with, TfL and the local planning authority prior to the commencement of works. The plan should take into account works on the bridge as well as planned works by DLR and London Underground. All station works need to be fully funded by the developer and completed prior to delivery of the second phase of the proposed development. Details of the management and security arrangements affected by the station works will also need to be agreed prior to the commencement of works. Additional costs incurred as a result of opening and operating the station entrance should be met by the developer.

93 All of the above requirements should be fully reflected in any planning permission, as well as a separate legal agreement between the applicant and affected parties. TfL expects continued involvement with regard to the detailed design aspects of the bridge links, particularly the integration with TfL/DLR and London Underground Limited ownerships and infrastructure.

page 25 East India DLR

94 TfL anticipates that demand from this development will result in significant pressure on East India DLR station, especially from the first development phase. DLR has a programme of works to improve the public realm area close to East India station, which is likely to cost in the region of £500,000. In order to mitigate the impact of this additional demand, TfL requests that a contribution towards these improvements to the station forecourt area is secured to enhance pedestrian connections in accordance with Policy 3C.9 ‘Increasing the capacity, quality and integration of public transport to meet London’s needs’, 3C.21 of the London Plan ‘Improving conditions for walking’, and draft replacement Policy 6.10 ‘Walking’, and welcomes further discussion in this respect. TfL also suggests that the developer should allow up to £40,000 towards the installation of DAISY screens in the communal areas of the proposed development, as well as on the approach to the link bridge.

95 Given the height and location of the proposed buildings, the section 106 agreement should include an obligation to test the impact of the proposed buildings on DLR’s radio communications. Should a signal booster be required to mitigate this impact, the cost of this should be borne by the applicant.

Bus Services

96 As predicted in the applicant’s transport assessment, the first phase of the development will place a significant demand on bus services, with only the later phases of the development benefiting from the proposed pedestrian link to Canning Town station. The development of phase one will therefore necessitate enhanced bus service provision along the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing, possibly by extending one of the bus services that currently terminate at Canning Town. In line with London Plan policy 3C.2 ‘Matching development to transport capacity’, and draft replacement Policy 6.1 ‘Strategic approach’, TfL therefore requests a contribution towards two extra vehicles, which will be required for any route that is extended. At £220,000 per vehicle, over a period of five years, the total cost for phase one would be £2.2 million, which should be paid to TfL upon commencement of the first development phase. TfL considers that this initial phase will not be adequately accessible unless a contribution is paid to enable bus services to better connect the site.

97 Similarly, the later phases of the development will also require bus service enhancements to provide the necessary additional capacity, either on services operating from Canning Town bus station, or those along the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing. This is very likely to equate to a requirement for an extra vehicle, over a period of five years, for which the developer is requested to contribute to an additional £1.1 million.

Bus infrastructure

98 To facilitate the above service improvements, the applicant has proposed two bus stands on the slip road leading to the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing, and a bus stop on the underpass beneath the Lower Lea Crossing. These facilities are essential to the development’s accessibility, and TfL expects these to be in place prior to the development of the first phase of development. TfL does, however, have concerns that pedestrian access and passenger ambience at the particular locations proposed is poor, and could discourage their use. TfL welcomes further discussions with the applicant to agree a suitable location for the necessary facilities, and any associated pedestrian realm improvements particularly in light of London Plan Policy 3C.10 ‘Public Transport Security’.

99 Further details of the layout and accessibility of the stands and stops, including drawings which show the swept paths of bus movements will also be required. The full cost of providing bus

page 26 stop flags, posts and shelters should be met by the developer, as should the purchase, installation and operational costs of a bus driver toilet facility.

Travel planning

100 The applicant has submitted a framework travel plan for the development site, which is welcomed in line with London Plan Policy 3C.1. Additional details are however required, including site-specific objectives and travel plan management. Objectives have been included for both residents and workplaces, but these are not specific to the context of the site. Initial targets have also been set, but given the low base level of expected car use, the headline targets for the site should be focused on reducing the impact on the public transport network during peak hours.

101 The phasing must be taken into account within the targets and the monitoring of the plan, and the trigger points for undertaking the initial travel survey should also be adjusted to reflect the proposed phasing. Reference must be made to the development of individual travel plans specific to each occupier, for subsequent approval.

102 As requested at pre-application stage, an outline delivery and service plan has been provided, which is welcomed. The applicant has also committed to producing a construction logistics plan upon refining the details of the outline scheme. This will consider the routing of construction vehicles and the use of the River Thames for the transportation of aggregates, as well as other construction best practice. TfL expects the delivery service plan and construction logistics plan to be secured by the local planning authority through a section 106 agreement. Local planning authority’s position

103 The application is likely to be reviewed by Tower Hamlets Council’s planning committee in November 2010. Legal considerations

104 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

105 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

106 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:  Principle of use: London Plan policies support the provision of the proposed uses and the principal of a mixed-use residential-led development has been established in the 2007 extant permission. As such the proposed redevelopment complies with London Plan policy.

page 27  Urban design: The proposal provides an overall commitment to high quality buildings and public realm. As such the proposal complies with the design policies of the London Plan.

 Access: Overall the site will have a good standard of accessibility. All residential units will comply with the Lifetime Homes criteria and 10% of units will be fully wheelchair accessible. However, the proposal does not provide one blue badge parking space per wheelchair accessible unit. As such the proposal does not comply with best practice and policy 4B.5 of the London Plan.  Affordable housing: The independent assessment has not been submitted. As such it is not possible to ascertain whether the proposal complies with London Plan policy 3A.9 and 3A.10.  Child play space: It is not clear from the plans how much designated child play space is being provided. As such it is not possible to assess whether the proposal complies with policy 3D.13 of the London Plan.

 Blue Ribbon Network and biodiversity: The opening up of the site and the proposed river walk, extension to the Olympic fat walk, nature conservation area and other biodiversity measures are strongly supported. The proposal also includes sufficient flood improvements to the floodwalls and new safety features. As such the proposal complies with London Plan policies 3D.14, 4C.11 and 4A.13.

 Climate change mitigation: The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy in Policy 4A.1. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole and to verify carbon dioxide savings in principle. However, further clarification is required in relation to specific issues.

 Climate change adaptation: The proposal includes a good sustainable urban drainage including green and brown roofs with direct discharging of surface water into the Rover Lea. As such the proposal complies with London Plan policies on climate change adaptation.

 Transport: TfL requires further discussions with the applicant to discuss possible ways of enhancing and improving this aspect of the site’s connectivity, given the above constraints. Further information and discussion is required on the provision of blue badge parking bays, the signalising the northern arm of the Leamouth roundabout, the implementation and funding plan for the Canning Town station works and the travel plan. Car club and electric parking points, the provision of the “FATwalk”, the continued operation of the TfL Traffic Control Centre, the provision of the footbridge as part of the second phase, an obligation to test the impact of the proposed building heights on the DLR’s radio communications, the provision of two bus stand in place prior to the development of the first phase, submission of a delivery and service plan and construction logistic plan should be secured through legal agreement. Contributions towards improving the East India Station forecourt area, up to £40,000 towards the installation of DAISY screens, £3.3 million towards extra vehicles needed to extend bus routes are required to ensure the application complies with the London Plan policies on Transport.

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

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

page 28  Access: A condition should be included on the permission to ensure that the parking management plan includes a mechanism to ensure that the supply and demand of the blue badge bays are regularly monitored and provision reviewed  Affordable housing: The independent appraisal should be submitted and a mechanism for securing phased viability assessments should be investigated before the application is referred back to the Mayor.  Child play space: A plan clearly showing what is designated child play space and what is general amenity space should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor. The applicant should also show connections to existing local areas of play and recreation in the vicinity which will supplement the on site offer.

 Climate change mitigation: The applicant should model, and commit to, additional measures that can be adopted to enable the development to exceed 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone. Provide a table comparing the proposed values for energy efficiency parameters to those used in the 2010 Building Regulations Notional Building. Provide a schematic showing all building uses connected to a single site wide network. Confirm that the network will be supplied from a single energy and provide details of its size and location. The single network and energy centre should be secured by condition. The applicant should ensure that the combined heat and power unit is optimised to provide all the domestic hot water as well as a proportion of the development’s space heating demand. Provide further information on the proposed cooling strategy including both passive and active measures. Clarify which areas would require active cooling and provide details on how these will be provided. Clarify how the proposed ground source heat pump will operate alongside the proposed combine heat and power plant. Reconsider the use of photovoltaic panels in the proposed development. Details of the roof area which could accommodate photovoltaic panels should be provided, along with estimates of the electricity generation and potential carbon savings. The additional information requested should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

 Transport: The additional information, discussions and contributions requested above should be resolved before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

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] Kim Hoffman, Case Officer 020 7983 6589 email [email protected]

page 29