Land at Chequers Lane, South Dagenham in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Planning Application No

planning report PDU/0311g/02 2 November 2011 Land at Chequers Lane, South Dagenham in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham planning application no. 11/00399/OUT

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 An outline application for the erection of business units, to provide approximately 38,090 sq.m. of employment space for flexible uses within classes B1 (light industrial, research and development), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution); with associated car and cycle parking space, landscaping and access works.

The applicant The applicant is AXA Investment Managers Ltd, and the architects are PRC Group.

Strategic issues The issues to reconsider were design, inclusive access, transport and energy. Those issues have since been resolved.

The Council’s decision

In this instance Barking & Dagenham Council has resolved to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement (Section 106) and associated conditions. Recommendation That Barking & Dagenham Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 20 May 2011, the Mayor of London received documents from Barking & Dagenham Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1B of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings—(c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

page 1 2 On 29 June 2011 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0311g/01, and subsequently advised Barking & Dagenham Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 108 of the above-mentioned report; but that the potential remedies set out in paragraph 110 of the report could address those deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below).

4 On 17 October 2011, Barking & Dagenham Council resolved to grant outline planning permission for the revised application, and on 26 October 2011 it advised the Mayor of that decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Barking & Dagenham Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Barking & Dagenham Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 8 November 2011 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

5 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.

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

Update

7 At the consultation stage Barking & Dagenham Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 108 of the above- mentioned report; but that the potential remedies set out in paragraph 110 of the report could address those deficiencies:

Design

9 The applicant was requested to carry out specific revisions to the site layout to bring it in line with the strategic aspirations for a comprehensive development of South Dagenham (West), as set out in the draft London Riverside Opportunity Area Framework (OAPF), the East London Green Grid supplementary planning guidance and the design policies of the London Plan.

10 The principal changes required were:

 A rearrangement of the proposed car and cycle parking spaces to positions along the internal road through the site, to allow the buildings abutting Chequers Lane to be sited closer to the eastern boundary whilst leaving some car parking along the road edge; in order to reinforce a sense of enclosure with the industrial building on the opposite side of that road and ensuring overlooking of the road space.

 The provision of details of the pedestrian access from Chequers Lane into the site.

 A setting back of Block A to increase the recreational space available to employees on the western bank of Gores Brook.

 The construction of a road that would enable better bus access to this and neighbouring sites.

page 2  A relocation of the site access adjacent to Block G closer to the southern boundary of the site, in order to reduce its distance to Dagenham Dock Station, facilitate the development of the adjoining site to the south by use of a shared access and assist the delivery of connecting a bus service closer to the station interchange.

11 In response, the applicant has revised the plans to replace the previous blocks of parking space with a single row close up to the eastern site boundary abutting Chequers Lane. The commercial buildings have subsequently been sited closer to that boundary with ancillary office spaces overlooking the road, to achieve the aim of reinforcing a sense of enclosure with the existing industrial buildings on the opposite (i.e. eastern side) of Chequers Lane and providing overlooking and activity from the car parking spaces and the proposed office elements of the industrial units.

12 To improve the pedestrian environment along Chequers Lane and into the site, a separate access plan has been submitted to illustrate the proposed footpaths and route through the site. Although it was always a common aim of the site development to eliminate or discourage vehicle movements, especially heavy goods vehicles, on Chequers Lane, an original proposal to install a barrier control on the secondary access from Chequers Lane has been revised to allow a future bus service to run through the application site, whilst excluding vehicular use by regular occupiers of the site. The Council’s draft decision notice also includes a Grampian planning condition to ensure that no development takes place on the site until detailed design drawings and safety audits of the new highway layout and site access arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Collectively, these measures should help ease pedestrian use of Chequers Lane to access premises from Dagenham Dock station, thereby encouraging sustainable travel by public transport and walking.

13 In addition, revised plans show the proposed Block A sited further west of its original position, to increase the width of the landscaped buffer along the Gores Brook from 8 to 11 metres; thereby providing more recreational space for employees of the site and enhancing the biodiversity value of the Gores Brook SINC, in accordance with the strategic objectives for development of the locality as set out in the OAPF.

14 The revised plans also provide a safeguarded strip, 2 to 3 metres wide, to the south of Blocks F and G, to include part of the land required for a new east-west road that would facilitate rather than compromise the future development of the vacant site directly south of the proposed development.

15 To summarise, the required revisions have all been incorporated within the latest plans to the satisfaction of the GLA and affiliated bodies, including TfL.

Inclusive access

16 Although full details of the internal layout and site treatment were ‘reserved matters’ for this outline application, concern was previously expressed that, with the exception of a 5% allocation of parking spaces for disabled users, the submitted design and access statement contained no proposals to facilitate access to, from, or through the development for staff or visitors with disabilities. The applicant was subsequently required to demonstrate a firm commitment to the tenets of strategic policy, prior to any further referral of this case back to the Mayor.

17 In particular, the applicant was advised that an addendum access statement and/or supplementary drawings to confirm and/or illustrate those details would be particularly useful. This should include, but not be limited to, a 10% (not 5%) disabled parking allocation; the inclusion of flush kerbs and easy gradients from the site entrance through the pedestrian routes, car park and building entrance; the provision of disabled toilets and wheelchair accessible lifts to the ancillary

page 3 offices on the upper floors; arrangements for the evacuation of disabled staff or visitors during an emergency, and the sign-posting of places for visually impaired people.

18 In view of the outline nature of the application, this issue has been addressed by the inclusion in the Council’s draft decision notice, of a planning condition requiring that “no development shall take place in the relevant part of the development until an accessibility statement outlining those measures proposed to ensure an accessible and inclusive environment both internally and externally, including a minimum 10% blue badge disabled car parking spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for that part. Thereafter, the accessibility provisions shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.”

19 This resolves the earlier concern that the final details of the scheme would not comply with policy 7.2 (An inclusive environment) of the London Plan. Energy

20 The submitted energy strategy was deemed at stage 1 to be broadly complaint with the London Plan energy hierarchy. The only additional information required was for the applicant to provide a figure of the percentage reduction in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development; and drawings showing the total area and precise location of photo-voltaic panels on the proposed roofs.

21 In response, the officer report to the Council’s planning committee indicates that the applicant proposes 3,519 sq.m. of PV panels to achieve a 20.9% savings against the baseline energy demand of the building. The energy strategy is designed to ensure that each plot achieves a 20% reduction in CO2 savings. In addition, officers have included a condition in the draft approval notice requiring that:

 No development shall take place in the relevant part of the development until full details of the PV panels for each unit in that part of the development have been submitted to and approved in wrting by the LPA to achieve a 20% saving in CO2 emissions per unit. The details shall include a strategy for monitoring energy demand and demonstrate compliance with the approved energy strategy. The details shall be installed in accordance with the approved detail and thereafter permanently retained.

22 Commenting on the efficacy of the above condition, the GLA energy advisor stated, that ideally, it would have been better if the condition contained reference to an actual minimum in sq.m. of PV panel area, even if this was lower than the amount stated in the strategy, to allow for uncertainty in the floor area of the buildings which eventually get built. In this case, however, as there are multiple buildings of different sizes, which makes it more complicated to implement, the approach adopted in the planning condition is a suitable way forward.

Transport for London’s comments

23 While at stage 1, TfL was satisfied that the proposed development was unlikely to impact adversely on the operation of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), it raised concerns over the apparent inability to provide two-way bus operations through the site, as being contrary to the emerging London Riverside OAPF. In conjunction with this, TfL advised that a financial contribution was likely to be sought towards implementation of some of the bus improvement measures identified within the framework. TfL also recommended that the Council should seek a contribution towards implementing some of the improvements identified within the pedestrian audit (PERS); that shower and locker facilities be provided on site; and that a car parking management plan, construction logistics plan (CLP), delivery and servicing plan (DSP) and travel plan should all be secured by condition or a legal agreement under s.106.

page 4 24 Additional information has been received since Stage 1, including confirmation that the site could accommodate two-way bus operations. As a result, TfL is satisfied that the above concerns have adequately been resolved and subsequently supports Barking & Dagenham Council’s planning committee report dated 17 October 2011, which secures by condition the requirement for details of car parking management, cycle parking and facilities, a construction and environmental management plan, a delivery and servicing plan, and a travel plan, to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement/ first occupation on site.

25 In addition to the above, TfL also supports the heads of terms of a draft s106, which secures a contribution of £500,000, payable to TfL, towards implementing some of the bus improvement measures identified within the OAPF. This is currently broken down as: i) £100,000 towards the implementation of Dagenham Dock interchange, ii) £30,000 towards the provision / enhancement of bus stops, and iii) £370,000 towards extending a bus route through the site. An additional £100,000, payable to Barking & Dagenham Council also has been secured towards public realm improvements, which is also supported by TfL.

26 In summary, TfL is satisfied that all of its previous concerns have been adequately addressed, and that the application is in accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan. Response to consultation

27 The Council advertised the application by consultation letters to 154 neighbouring addresses. No written representations were received in response.

28 The following statutory bodies were also consulted and the following comments received in reply:

Environment Agency

29 Had no objection in principle, provided that the permission was subject to a number of suggested conditions.

English Heritage (Archaeology)

30 Recommended that an archaeological and mitigation be secured by planning condition.

Thames Water

31 Made a number of recommendations and comments on the application relating to the need to avoid waste back flow, surface water drainage, public sewers, piling, trade effluent consents; and petrol and oil interceptors.

London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (Water supply and vehicle access)

32 The Fire Brigade was generally satisfied with the proposals, subject to the number of floors within the buildings. If the total area increases, the access arrangements may require further consideration.

33 In respect of water supply, the Brigade recommended the installation of 9 private fire hydrants in locations suggested on small-scale drawing attached to its response letter. The proposed legal agreement

34 The Council’s resolution to grant planning permission was subject to the completion of a legal agreement under which the developer would undertake to make a financial contribution in the order of £ 600,000 towards public realm and transport improvements.

page 5 35 The contribution comprises allocations of £100,000 towards implementation of the Dagenham Dock interchange, £30,000 for bus stops, £370,000 towards the re-routing of buses through the site and £100,000 towards public realm improvements particularly along Chequers Lane.

Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

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

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

38 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.

39 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.

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

41 The revised scheme is acceptable in strategic planning terms.

page 6

planning report PDU/0311g/01 29 June 2011 Land at Chequers Lane, South Dagenham in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham planning application no.11/00399/OUT

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 applicant The applicant is AXA Investment Managers Ltd, and the architects are PRC Group.

Strategic issues The site is a Strategic Industrial Location within the London Riverside Opportunity Area. Industrial businesses are acceptable as part of the mix of uses proposed in the Council’s Site Specific Allocations DPD. Other strategic issues are urban design, inclusive access, transport, energy/climate change, biodiversity, ambient noise and air quality.

Recommendation That Barking & Dagenham Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, it does not fully comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 108 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 110 of the report could address those deficiencies.

Context

1 On 20 May 2011, the Mayor of London received documents from Barking & Dagenham Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 30 June 2011 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

page 7 2 The application is referable under Category 1B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

1B- “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings—(c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

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

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

5 The largely vacant site is approximately 9.4 hectares in size and situated close to the Goresbroook Interchange of the A13 (Choats Manor Way); some 200 metres north of Dagenham Dock train station in Dagenham, East London. It is bounded on the north by Merrielands Crescent, beyond which lies the Merrielands Retail Park (a local centre also known as Chequers Corner); on the east by Chequers Lane and a Ford Motors Stamping Plant; on the west and south by the elevated section of the A13, which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).; and on the south by railway lines, which offer rail services to central London and Essex.

Map1: Site location plan. (Source: applicant’s design and access statement).

6 The site is also in the vicinity of the East London Transit 2 (Service EL2) and four other bus routes, although not all of these are considered to be within an acceptable walking distance of the

page 8 entire site. As such, it is estimated that the site records a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) varying from 3 on the eastern side to 1 on the western side (on a scale of 1-6, where 6 is classed as excellent.)

7 The western half of the site is bisected from north to south by Gores Brook, and a row of protected trees (including 12 black poplar and 3 mountain ash trees) abut the site boundary with Chequers Lane on the east. The site is hard surfaced and presently used as a car park, and for the storage of shipping containers.

Details of the proposal

8 The submitted planning statement suggests that outline permission is sought at this stage for the principle and the access arrangements to and from the proposed development. Full details of the internal layout, landscaping, external appearance and scale of the development are expressly reserved for future consideration; although the parameter plans accompanying the application set indicative limits for the layout and height of the buildings, with a level of deviation to allow some flexibility in the detailed specification of this speculative development.

9 The application proposes seven business units (use classes B1/B2/B8) of varying floor sizes, totalling 38,090 sq.m; with ancillary office space and heights ranging from 7 to 16 metres, to accommodate more than 860 new jobs. The unit sizes are given as follows:

 Unit A-11,612 sq.m.  Unit B- 3,252 sq.m. (B1/B8 only)  Unit C- 6,503 sq.m. (B1/B8 only)  Unit D- 6,038 sq.m.  Unit E- 2,788 sq.m.  Unit F- 4,181 sq.m.  Unit G- 3,716 sq.m.

10 A new access for vehicles would be created from the north, off Merrielands Crescent, in order to transfer heavy goods traffic away from Chequers Lane. The existing entrance from Chequers Lane would, however, be retained for use by pedestrians, cars, cycles and emergency vehicles only. Two parallel routes, running east-west, would be created within the site, with the southern most one providing egress onto Chequers Lane.

11 A maximum of 379 car and 148 cycle parking spaces would be provided at ground level and distributed throughout the site for easy access to and from the proposed business units. The emphasis for new planting would be a buffer zone along the northern boundary to protect future development to the north of the applicant’s site and along the Gores Brook, to enhance biodiversity. Case history

12 The largely vacant site was previously owned and occupied by Ford Motors Ltd. A pre- application meeting was held on 21 March 2011 between representatives of the current applicant (Axa Investment Managers Ltd) and officers of the GLA.

13 Pre-application advice was subsequently issued in writing on 4 April 2011, accepting the principle of an industrial development on land strategically protected for such purposes and

page 9 providing guidance on the strategic policy requirements relating to design, inclusive access, energy, sustainability, biodiversity, ambient noise and air quality. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

14 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Land use/principle of development London Plan  Employment London Plan; PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG  Economic development/ regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy  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)  Transport/parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13; Land for Transport Functions SPG  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  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  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24  Air quality London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy; draft replacement air quality strategy; PPS23

15 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2010 Barking & Dagenham Core Strategy and Barking Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Documents, and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

16 The following are relevant material considerations:  The draft replacement London Plan, which was subjected to an Examination in Public in 2010 and upon which the Panel has now reported, is a material consideration of significant weight.  Pre-consultation draft London Riverside Opportunity Area Planning Framework, April 2011.  The Mayor’s East London Grid SPG

The London Riverside Opportunity Area

17 South Dagenham (West) is a key development site within the London Riverside Opportunity Area. The GLA is currently leading the preparation of an Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) in partnership with the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC), Transport for London (TfL), London Development Agency (LDA) and the borough Councils of Newham, Barking & Dagenham and Havering. The London Riverside Management Group, which acts as the steering group for the project, also includes the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and Environment Agency. A consultation draft OAPF is anticipated in summer 2011.

page 10 Land use policy and the principle of development

18 The London Plan (Annex 2) and the emerging replacement London Plan (Annex 3), identify the Dagenham Dock/Rainham Employment Area as a strategic industrial location (preferred industrial category) within the London Riverside Opportunity Area.

19 The London Plan describes strategic industrial locations (SILs) as the capital’s main reservoir of industrial land and promotes its strategic protection because the scale and relatively homogenous character of such sites can accommodate activities which, located elsewhere, might conflict with other land uses. The plan further provides that development for non-industrial uses in SILs should be resisted, other than as part of a strategically coordinated and carefully managed process of consolidation, e.g. through Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks and or Local Development Frameworks.

20 The site also forms part of the SM2 designation in Barking & Dagenham Council’s Site Specific Allocations DPD, which was adopted in December 2010. The designation includes the Merrielands Retail Park/Chequers Corner at the north-east end of Chequers Lane, wherein the Council favours a comprehensive (i.e. masterplanning) approach to redevelopment, with a potential for retail, leisure and recreation facilities at Merrielands Crescent/Chequers Corner; ancillary retail uses at Dagenham Dock Station; and some employment generation uses on the remainder of the site.

21 In particular, employment-generating uses should not prejudice the future development of housing on other parts of South Dagenham West (i.e. to the north and east of the application site), the delivery of a retailing and leisure hub at Merrielands Crescent/Chequers Corner, or the continuation of industrial activity on the abutting Ford site. They should, however, ensure that the spatial requirements for a future upgrade of a pedestrian cycle link across the rail corridor, as part of the Docklands Light Railway/East London Transit (DLR/ELT) Interchange improvement is incorporated; provide an integrated public realm around the future DLR Terminus at Dagenham Dock; protect and enhance the Gores Brook Site of Importance for Nature Conservation by retaining an 8-metre wide buffer along the length of the Gores Brook; ensure that the flood risk to the site is properly managed; and given its close proximity to the busy A13, address the need to mitigate the noise and air quality impacts through appropriate design solutions.

22 The strategic vision, to which a development of the site should aspire, is further set out in the Mayor’s emerging consultation draft London Riverside Opportunity Area Framework. Opportunity Areas are promoted as the capital’s major reservoir of previously developed (‘brownfield’) land and its principal opportunities to accommodate substantial new housing, employment and other development (at least 5,000 jobs or 2,500 new homes per area), with a mixed and intensive use of land linked to existing or potential improvements in public transport accessibility. The London Riverside Opportunity Area has an identified potential for 14,000 new jobs during the London Plan period up to 2031.

23 It is evident from the strategic and local land use designations cited above, that a development of the application site for B1 (light industrial), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (warehousing) purposes is acceptable in principle. Its subsequent details should, however, be compatible with the overall vision and environmental criteria specified in the Council’s site allocations document. Economic development, regeneration and employment

24 The application proposals are specifically subject to the national policies contained in PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ The latter includes developments within the business

page 11 use classes, public and community uses, main town centre uses and developments which achieve at least one of the following objectives: provides employment opportunities; generates wealth; produces or generates an economic output or product.

25 Policy EC10 of PPS4 encourages planning authorities to adopt a positive and constructive approach towards applications for economic development. Planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be assessed against five impact considerations and treated favourably if they fulfil the relevant criteria:

 Whether the proposal has been planned to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and to minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change over the lifetime of the development

 The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport, including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured.

 Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions

 The impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area, including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives.

 The impact on local employment.

26 The analysis in this section focuses on the latter two of these criteria, whilst the first three are addressed in the subsequent sections of this report.

27 In terms of economic and physical regeneration, there is a vast amount of vacant industrial land in the Dagenham Dock area, due in part to the sharp scaling down of operations by Ford Motors. Data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) indicates that the unemployment rate for the borough of Barking & Dagenham, for the period between October 2009 and September 2010, was 12.9%1- compared to the London and national averages of 8.9% and 7.7% for the same period respectively. An analysis of the indices of multiple deprivation also indicates that the locality of the site is in the 26-50% most deprived areas in the country; with a number of ‘hotspots’ in employment, income and crime indices falling within the 25% most deprived areas in England.

28 The application site benefits from close proximity to the A13 and A1306 road network, easy access to the M25 and Central London (via junction 30), a high-speed rail link (CTRL), a safeguarded wharf at Dagenham Dock on the River Thames, and the extensive old Ford Motors site, with its potential for commercial and freight-related development. At present, however, no employment is supported on the application site.

29 To redress these anomalies, policy 3B.11 of the London Plan (and policy 4.12 of the draft replacement London Plan) affirms the Mayor’s commitment to work with strategic partners to provide the spatial context and coordinate the initiatives necessary to improve employment opportunities for Londoners, remove barriers to employment and progression, and tackle low participation in the labour market.

1 Office for National Statistics: Official Labour Market Statistics (nomis).

page 12 30 Using the employment densities (of 1 employee per 20.6 sq.m. for B1 space, and 1 employee per 44 sq.m. for both B2 and B8 space) provided in the London Sites Database2, it is estimated that the proposed development would, on full occupation, generate over 900 new jobs. The latter is based on an estimate of the likely split in occupation of the proposed floorspace and is illustrated in the table below:

use class floorspace density assumption total estimate (sq.m.) ( employee/sq.m .) employees B1 2,718 1 per 20.6 131 B2 8,358 1 per 44 190 B8 27,074 1 per 44 615 total 936

31 In addition, a significant number of shorter term jobs would be generated during the construction phase of development.

32 Thus, in terms of overall impact, a significant proportion of the new jobs are likely to be recruited from the local area. Most employees would spend a proportion of their wages in the locality; thereby helping to restore investor confidence in the area, increasing the likelihood of other vacant sites being taken up by potential employers, and contributing positively to the regeneration of the area.

Urban design

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

34 Further to a review of previous GLA family comments provided to the Council, the contextual analysis provided in the applicant’s design and access statement, a second site visit and in-house design review; the following key principles have been identified to guide consideration of the outline and reserved matters applications:

 The development should bring activity to the edges of the scheme, with building entrances, parking facilities and pedestrian access on Chequers Lane and the southern boundary of the scheme, overlooking Dagenham Dock station and Gores Brook.

 Servicing of the industrial units from the centre of the site to minimise noise intrusion and maximise security for commercial activities on the site.

 To strengthen Chequers Lane by delivering active frontages along this key local route from Chequers Corner to Dagenham Dock station.

2 London Employment sites Database, Roger Tym and Partners, November 2009 (issued as part of the GLA evidence base for the draft replacement London Plan).

page 13  To create a business park frontage to Dagenham Dock station, marking it through building form, height, location, vehicular entrance and landscape treatment, including pedestrian access.

 To optimise access to and visual appreciation of the Gores Brook, which runs through the site for recreational use of employees of the business park – this could include seating areas overlooking the waterway.

 To enhance the biodiversity value of the Gores Brook.

 To facilitate the potential delivery of a bus route from Chequers Lane to serve Dagenham Dock station.

 In the short term, to enable improved bus services along Chequers Lane, including new bus stops in close proximity to the station; and in the longer term, ensuring that the scheme facilitates the delivery of an interchange at Dagenham Dock on the north side, which may or may not come forward as part of the DLR.

35 These design principles meet the requirements of the East London Green Grid, Supplementary Planning Guidance to the London Plan.

Map 2: The indicative layout provided in the applicant’s design and access statement.

36 The submitted scheme partially meets some of the principles set out above, such as attempting to deliver an active frontage along Chequers Lane, with building entrances and parking areas fronting onto the street. However, the parking bays on Chequers Lane are very

page 14 deep, which result in the buildings being unduly set back. In the GLA’s pre-application design advice the response clearly stated that the parking bays on Chequers Lane should be no more than single parking bays, in order that the sense of enclosure created by the industrial units opposite the Ford pressing plant is not undermined. This approach to defining street enclosure in industrial areas is illustrated in the Park Royal OAPF, which includes a public realm strategy for industrial areas in West London and is available on the GLA website. The GLA suggests that the applicant relocates an element of the parking and cycle parking along the internal road through the site to enable the building line on Chequers Lane to be brought forward. In addition, the GLA would welcome a slight re-orientation of the building line of Blocks C & D to be perpendicular to Chequers Lane. This would greatly enhance the sense of enclosure along Chequers Lane and strengthen the visual axis from Chequers Corner to Dagenham Dock station.

37 The submitted scheme also does not provide any information regarding pedestrian access from Chequers Lane. In the GLA’s pre-application design advice there is a request for an indicative visualisation, demonstrating how the boundary treatment would look and work, including fence treatment, lighting and pedestrian access. This requirement remains outstanding.

38 In terms of Block A the building location is still too close to the Gores Brook which restricts the potential for recreational use for employees of the business park on the western bank of the river.

39 Finally, whilst the proposed layout partially responds to the GLA’s pre-application requirement to create a gateway to Dagenham Dock station through the location of glazed elevations on the eastern side of Block G, the location of the site access is a remaining concern due to the distance from the station and the entrance to Block G. The east-west section of the access road through the site is currently located too far north, which has the disadvantages of limiting the development possibilities of the neighbouring site to the south, and connecting bus routes further away from an interchange at Dagenham Dock Station in the short-medium term.

Map 3: GLA preferred indicative layout with proposed gross floor area remaining unchanged

page 15 40 The GLA has included a diagram to illustrate the key layout issues it seeks to be addressed through the application in terms of a revised layout for the scheme. This is indicative and assumes the gross floor areas would remain unchanged overall. Its primary purpose ids to illustrate a different access strategy to the site from the south and to improve the relationship between Block A and Gores Brook.

41 If the road were to be relocated along the southern boundary of the site, there would be two benefits. Firstly a bus service could connect closer to Dagenham Dock Station, and secondly the neighbouring site to the south could be brought forward for development sharing access from this road, which would be within the Axa site. This arrangement would have very little impact on the scheme, if the southerly development plots were reversed.

42 It should also be noted that the eastern and western elevations in the Design and Access Statement for Blocks C and D appear to be wrongly marked. The GLA assumes the applicant intended to show the glazed elevations on the eastern elevations and the high bay services entrances on the western elevation. A revised and accurate Design and Access Statement is required to be submitted to clarify the applicant’s position in this regard.

43 In summary, the preferred GLA layout seeks to achieve the following objectives:

 To create a sense of enclosure to Chequers Lane.

 To create a gateway to Dagenham Dock station.

 To release land for development to the south of the application site.

 To optimise the potential recreational use for employees on the western bank of the Gores Brook by moving Block A slightly west.

Inclusive access 44 The London Plan (policy 4B.5) requires all new development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum required under the Building Regulations); and to ensure from the outset that the design process takes all potential users of the proposed places and spaces into consideration, including disabled and deaf people, older people, children and young people. This, together with the Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment’, underpins the principles of inclusive design and aims to achieve an accessible and inclusive environment across London. These policies are supported by policy 7.2 of the Mayor’s draft replacement London Plan and require all referable planning applications to be accompanied by a design and access statement, to demonstrate full compliance with the principles of inclusive design and accessibility.

45 The outline application is supported by a design and access statement and a set of parameter plans, which focus on urban design and the external appearance of the scheme but, with the notable exception of a 5% allocation of car parking space, contain no specific proposals to facilitate access to, from, or through the development for staff or visitors with disabilities.

46 Whilst full details of the internal layout and site treatment are reserved for future consideration, the applicant and the Council would be required to demonstrate a firm commitment to the tenets of strategic policy, prior to any further referral of this case back to the Mayor.

47 An addendum access statement and/or supplementary drawings to confirm and/or illustrate those details would be particularly useful. This should include, but not be limited to, a 10% (not 5%) disabled parking allocation; the inclusion of flush kerbs and easy gradients from the

page 16 site entrance through the pedestrian routes, car park and building entrance; the provision of disabled toilets and wheelchair accessible lifts to the ancillary offices on the upper floors; arrangements for the evacuation of disabled staff or visitors during an emergency, and the sign- posting of places for visually impaired people.

48 The proposed and other required details should be secured by planning condition, if Barking & Dagenham Council resolves to grant outline permission for the development. Transport issues

49 As part of the OAPF, TfL is undertaking a transport study to form an evidence base to support London Plan growth estimates for London Riverside. As part of its interim findings, which the borough Councils have been consulted upon, TfL has set out a series of connectivity objectives for the Opportunity Area. A key aspiration for South Dagenham is to deliver a bus link from Chequers Corner to Dagenham Dock station in the short term. In the longer term, TfL is considering the introduction of a new interchange on the northern side of Dagenham Dock station to facilitate walking, cycling and bus travel. This scheme is currently included in a package of measures which make up the proposed Dockland Light Rail (DLR) extension from Beckton to Dagenham Dock. The scheme forms part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the East London Sub-Regional Transport Plan (2010), although it has not, as yet, been committed for implementation. Details of the scheme have been developed as part of a Transport and Works Act Order, though that process is currently on hold. TfL contemplates bringing the Dagenham Dock interchange proposals forward, in advance of any decisions made in relation to the DLR extension, although this is subject to funding. Land to the north of the station has been safeguarded for this purpose.

50 The land between Dagenham Dock station and the site is presently vacant; with a narrow northern strip owned by Ford Motors and the southern strip in front of the station safeguarded for a DLR/bus interchange. Barking & Dagenham Council has aspirations to strengthen Chequers Corner as a local mixed-use centre to serve new housing developments coming forward in South Dagenham. There is currently no bus link serving Dagenham Dock station from Chequers Corner. The Council also has a long standing aspiration to deliver a bus service along Chequers Lane.

51 While TfL is satisfied that the development is unlikely to impact negatively on the operation of the TLRN, it does, however, have some concerns relating to the site access for articulated vehicles turning into and out of Chequers Lane, and the junctions with Merrielands Crescent and the Northern Access. TfL therefore recommends that the Council, as the highway authority, should request a design review at all those junctions, and that a safety audit should also be secured.

52 At the pre-application stage, TfL requested that the site should be future-proofed so that bus services could potentially operate through it in the future. This is proposed as a way of facilitating improvements to bus accessibility in the area, accommodating future demand and enabling improved multi-modal interchange at Dagenham Dock station; particularly if bus- standing facilities can be secured north of Dagenham Dock station, as identified in the emerging London Riverside Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF). While it was subsequently advised that this request had been taken into consideration, the information presented within the transport assessment (TA) appears to show that two-way bus operation through the site would not be possible. It is, therefore, very disappointing that this request does not appear to have been addressed. This is also considered to be non-compliant with DRLP policy 6.7 ‘Buses, bus transits, trams’. The reason why two-way vehicle operation has not been incorporated into the site layout should be provided.

page 17 53 It is understood that there is a large number of car parking spaces available at both the nearby Asda store and the retail park located to the north of the site. Given their close proximity, TfL question how users of the development will be prevented from making use of those spaces, as at present there does not appear to be any control mechanisms in place which would stop this from taking place. As such, TfL recommends that a car parking management plan is secured for the site by condition in order to address this.

54 The TA should demonstrate the expected direction of bus trips. At present, the bus trip generation figures identify an increase of 55 trips in the AM peak. If these are expected over the peak hour only, then TfL will be seeking for a s106 contribution to be secured towards mitigating the development’s impact on the bus network, in accordance with DRLP Policy 6.7 ‘Buses, bus transits, trams’. This could be in the form of an extra peak flow journey, or an extra vehicle in a route’s daily schedule. Once the additional information requested has been received, TfL will be able to provide further advice on the exact level of contribution likely to be required towards capacity enhancements.

55 In addition, a contribution might also be sought, to be pooled with other developments, towards implementing some of the bus improvement measures identified in the London Riverside OAPF, in line with DRLP Policy 6.7 Buses, bus transits, trams’. This could include bus standing facilities at Dagenham Dock station or extending a route through the site (subject to the above points being satisfactorily addressed). TfL would welcome further discussions with the applicant and the Council on this matter in due course.

56 A pedestrian (PERS) audit has been undertaken, as requested by TfL at the pre-application stage, which is supported. The audit has identified a number of areas in need of improvement. TfL therefore recommends that the Council secures a contribution through the s106 agreement, towards implementing those improvements, in accordance with DLRP Policy 6.10 ‘Walking’.

57 A total of 152 cycle parking spaces are proposed on site, and while this is supported as being in accordance with the standards set out in DRLP Table 6.2, TfL recommends that showers and secure storage space are provided on site for those members of staff wishing to cycle to work, in accordance with DRLP Policy 6.9 ‘Cycling’.

58 TfL supports the delivery and servicing Plan (DSP) and the construction logistics plan (CLP) set out in the TA and would recommend that both documents are secured for the site by condition, in accordance with DRLP policy 6.14 ‘Freight’. The submitted travel plan is generally considered to be of a high standard, and similarly, TfL recommends that it be secured, managed, monitored and enforced through the s106 agreement.

59 In summary, while TfL is satisfied that the development is unlikely to impact negatively on the operation of the TLRN, additional information (as further detailed above) is required to ensure that the application complies with policies 6.7, 6.9 and 6.10 of the DRLP, to enable full assessment of the development on the bus network, and to determine what level of contribution may be required to mitigate the impact of the development. Climate change mitigation 60 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 4A collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures, prioritising decentralised energy supply, and incorporating renewable energy technologies with a target of 20% carbon reductions from on-site renewable energy. The policies set out ways in which developers must address mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of climate change. Chapter 5

page 18 of the draft replacement plan sets out the approach to climate change and requires developments to make the fullest contribution to minimizing carbon dioxide emissions. Energy

61 Policies 4A.1 to 4A.8 of the London Plan focus on how to mitigate climate change and the carbon dioxide reduction targets that are necessary across London to achieve it. Be Lean Energy efficiency standards 62 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 mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and energy efficiency lighting. 63 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 31 tonnes per annum (3.4%) in

CO2 emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

Be Clean District heating 64 The applicant has investigated opportunities to connect the development to either the planned London Thames Gateway Heat Network (LTGHN) or to a heat network planned on the London Sustainable Industries Park (LSIP). The applicant states that timescales for the development of and connection to LTGHN are uncertain at the moment and connection of all buildings to the LSIP network would require over a kilometre of district heating pipe so connection is not possible at the moment.

65 In order to facilitate future connection to a heat network the applicant investigated the potential for installing radiant heaters using hot water rather than gas fired radiant heaters. In the short term this would result in additional carbon emissions due to pumping; however, it would enable the gas heating to be displaced by low carbon heat in the future. Modelling suggests that the level of potential carbon savings varies depending on the assumed carbon intensity of heat from a heat network. Due to uncertainty in the likelihood of a district heating network connection being available, coupled with the need to adopt radiant heating, the applicant is proposing to use the gas fired radiant heaters, as originally planned. On balance, taking into account the type of heating required in these buildings and the difficulties of extending the planned networks to the development, this is accepted in this instance. Combined heat and power 66 The applicant has discounted the use of CHP. Given the type and scale of development, this is accepted in this instance.

Cooling 67 It is proposed that the warehouse storage and workshop areas be naturally ventilated. The ancillary office areas are proposed to be comfort-cooled by a fan coil system.

Be Green Renewable energy technologies 68 Some 3,519 sq.m. of photovoltaic (PV) panels are proposed as the development’s contribution to renewable energy provision. The applicant states that if a connection to the LTGHN should prove viable at the time of construction, the proposed quantum of PV would be reduced, but the overall percentage of carbon saving would be maintained.

page 19

69 A reduction in CO2 emissions of 178 tonnes per annum will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy. On a whole energy basis, a reduction of 20% from renewable energy is proposed. This quantum of PV should be secured by condition.

70 Drawings showing where the PV would be located on the development roofs should be provided.

Overview

71 The estimated carbon emissions of the development are 688 tonnes of CO2 per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy has been taken into account. This equates to a reduction of 209 tonnes per year in emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 23%. The percentage reduction in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development should be provided. Climate change adaptation

72 Developments are required to be adaptable to the climate they will face over their lifetime and address the five principles set out in policy 4A.9 of the London Plan. These are: to minimise overheating and contribution to heat island effects; minimise solar gain in summer; contribute to flood risk reductions, including the application of sustainable drainage principles; minimise water use; and protect and enhance green infrastructure. Specific policies cover overheating, living roofs and walls, and water conservation. Chapter 5 of the draft replacement London Plan considers climate change adaptation, specifically policies 5.9 through to policy 5.15.

Overheating/urban heat islands/solar gain

73 A sustainability statement submitted in support of the application confirms detailed construction proposals to ensure the achievement of these objectives. In particular, the specifications have been optimised (using iterative Integrated Environmental Solutions software modelling) to ensure that the proposed roof lights have been sized and oriented to achieve the best balance between maximising daylight to each warehouse and the control of solar gains in summer.

74 To reduce the impact of heat island effects and improve thermal comfort within the external environment, a comprehensive landscaping scheme is proposed that includes the retention of statutorily protected (TPO) trees on the site, the introduction of more street trees and greenery along the Gores Brook; and new planting along the northern and southern perimeters off the site, with green space connections between the Gores Brook and enhanced landscaping along Chequers Lane. Flood risk reduction

75 London Plan policies 4A.12 and 4A.13 reaffirm the national advice provided in PPS25, which requires developments to contribute to flood risk reduction, including the application of sustainable drainage principles. Its objectives are supported by policies 5.12 and 5.13 of the draft replacement London Plan.

76 The application site is located within flood zone 3, which is identified in PPS25 as having a high (i.e. 1 in 100 or greater) annual probability of river flooding, although the Environment Agency has no history of actual flooding for the site. The proposed industrial and commercial uses

page 20 are, however, within the ‘less vulnerable’ category of land uses at risk from flooding and are, therefore, compatible for siting within zone 3.

77 A flood risk assessment has nonetheless been submitted in line with the national policy requiring applicants for all development proposals in zone 3 to submit a flood risk assessment, together with firm proposals to mitigate the risk. In particular, proposals should ensure that the risk of flooding is minimised through the form and layout of the scheme and the adoption of sustainable drainage techniques.

78 The assessment indicates that the site is at high risk from fluvial flooding, at moderate risk from surface and ground water flooding; and at residual risk from a breach in the River Thames tidal defences. It suggests that the risks of fluvial and tidal flooding can be managed by incorporating flood resilient construction techniques into the building design and ensuring that an effective flood evacuation plan is in place in the event that a flood warning were issued by the There are no proposals for any significant increase in ground levels across the site, given that there is flood water storage on either side of Gores Brook for the 1 in 100 plus (>1%) year fluvial flood event and a raise in levels would require the applicant to demonstrate that development would cause no overall loss of flood storage.

Surface water run-off/sustainable drainage principles

79 To reduce the risk of flooding within the catchment, it is recommended that surface water run-off from the site be discharged at the greenfield run-off rate for the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event. This would reduce the volume of run-off entering the Gores Brook in all rainfall events compared to the existing situation.

80 To help achieve that objective, it is also recommended sustainable urban drainage systems (such as permeable paving, green roofs and bio-retention) should be incorporated within the detailed design of the buildings and the attenuation requirements subsequently reviewed by recalculating the relevant volumes. These measures are entirely in line with the drainage hierarchy set out in the London Plan (policy 4A.14) and the draft replacement London Plan (policy 5.13), but their actual implementation would need to be secured by a planning condition imposed by the Council.

Water conservation/minimisation of use

81 Measures are proposed to meet the requirements of policies 4A.16 and 5.15 of the London Plan and its emerging draft replacement respectively. They comprise the specification of highly efficient sanitary fittings, including 4/2 litre dual flush toilets, 6 litre per minute wash basin taps and 7 litre per minute low-flow showers; the installation of a supply shut-off system with presence detection facilities and a leak detection system. They are designed to achieve the BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) credit rating for Wat1 (Water Consumption), which requires consumption not to exceed 4.5-5.5 cubic metres per person per year.

82 In addition, there would be a dedicated water meter from the mains supply to each of the buildings, to enable the facility managers to detect the incidence of abnormal demand/use and to manage overall consumption in the long term. Biodiversity 83 London Plan policy 3D.14 and policy 7.19 of its draft replacement require development proposals to make a positive contribution to the protection, promotion and management of biodiversity wherever possible.

page 21 84 The application site does not fall within an internationally or nationally designated protection site. A section of the locally designated Gores Brook and Ship & Shovel Sewer Site of Borough Importance does, however, pass through the site, which is described as being of low to moderate habitat quality due to the growth of an invasive species (Himalayan Balsam) along both banks of the brook.

85 Whilst no development or loss of habitat is proposed for that part of the site, it could potentially be impacted indirectly by pollution from contaminated run-off into the brook, elevated dust and noise levels, disturbance to wildlife and the loss of adjoining habitat associated with the construction activities.

86 A number of mitigation measures are subsequently proposed to increase the habitat value of the site and encourage a greater diversity of wildlife. The latter includes minimising the effects of construction by adopting the controls provided in the Code of Construction Practice and the preparation of a Construction Environment Management Plan; the timing of major works outside the commuting/foraging times and sensitive breeding season for bats and foraging/breeding birds; and a possible eradication of the invasive plant growth.

87 The low level and sluggish flow of the brook provides a potential opportunity to enhance the vegetation along its corridor for wildlife, including water voles, which are known to be present further downstream. In addition, it is recommended that bat boxes suitable for the local (pipistrelle) species be placed on the mature trees on the banks of Gores Brook and the semi- natural woodland of mature black poplars along the eastern boundary of the site.

88 A comprehensive site landscaping scheme is proposed for the site and the recommendation is that emphasis be placed on the use of native species of local provenance, to assist the enhancement of biodiversity. The Gores Brook corridor would be enhanced with additional planting, which together with a footway and cycleway, would improve connectivity and contribute to the green chain objectives of the East London Grid. The Chequers Lane frontage would also be enhanced by a setting back of the boundary to facilitate enhanced planting, a foot and cycleway and the retention of preserved trees.

89 To ensure compliance with the strategic policies, the Council would need to secure the implementation of these recommendations by appropriate planning condition(s) as part of any resolution to grant permission for the proposed development. Ambient noise

90 London Plan policy 4A.20 (and policy 7.15 of the draft replacement London Plan) requires development proposals to minimise the existing and potential impacts of noise on, from, in or within the vicinity of sites; and for major sources of noise to be separated from noise-sensitive developments wherever practicable.

91 A noise and vibration assessment report to identify potential sources of noise, their impact on any sensitive receptors and the mitigation measures required to ensure compliance with the relevant policies of the London Plan, was submitted on behalf of the applicant. Its principal focus is on the noise and vibration resulting from the construction phase of development; the increase in traffic noise once the development is fully operational; and the noise and vibration arising from activities within the operational development. The construction phase

92 With respect to construction noise, it is noted that the application is in outline form and that the assessment has been carried out prior to confirmation of a detailed design, the phasing of

page 22 construction, or the plant and equipment likely to be used during construction and within the completed development. Nonetheless, it has been possible to make a number of assumptions for the Code of Construction Practice likely to be adopted by the eventual building contractor- the measures include: limitations on the hours of construction; the use of well maintained equipment in the minimum noise mode (to be shut down when not in use); the supply of power by diesel generator for an initial period until mains power becomes available; the use of electrically-operated cranes; ensuring that each item of plant complies with the noise limits set in the relevant EC directive; and ensuring that no vehicles wait or queue on the adjoining public highway with engines running.

93 The nearest noise-sensitive development to the site is the residential area on the opposite side of the A1306, some 150 metres north of the site boundary with Merrielands Crescent. A comparison with the assessment of similar sites, with noise-sensitive developments in closer proximity, demonstrates the possibility of managing construction noise below the 65dB LAeq period. In the light of this, it is expected that construction noise levels are unlikely to be significant.

94 Similarly, given that vibration impacts generally occur at distances of 40 metres or less, construction activities are not expected to result in vibration levels that are likely to be significant at the distances from the site where sensitive premises are located. The operational phase

95 With regard to noise from a potential increase in operational traffic, a robust assessment was carried out using appropriate guidance3 and methodology4. For the assessment year of 2018, a comparison between noise levels without the development and noise levels with the development produced changes ranging between 0.1dB and 0.8 dB at the reception points. Given the negligible impact that traffic noise is predicted generate as a result of the proposed development, no mitigation measures are proposed in respect of this scheme.

96 Being a speculative development, the identity and nature of prospective business occupiers are presently unknown. A detailed assessment of noise impacts attributable to activity from within the development can, therefore, not be made at this stage. It can, however, be anticipated to comprise traffic movements, loading/unloading operations and noise generated by heating and ventilation plant. When considering the surrounding area it should be noted that there are other operations such as the adjacent Asda supermarket that have similar operations taking place on their premises located at a similar distance away from noise sensitive premises. Taking this into account, and with a further assessment of the most appropriate specification and location of heating and ventilation systems at the detailed design stage, it is anticipated that noise created within the site would not have a significant impact.

97 As no significant noise impacts are predicted during either the construction or operational phases of the proposed development, no mitigation measures are proposed for this scheme. Air quality

98 Given its location at the busy Goresbrook interchange, the site and its surrounding may be subject to high levels of air pollution dust particles during the construction phase and from increased levels of traffic generated by the development on completion. The relevant policies to address this are London Plan policy 4A.19 (and 7.14 of the draft replacement London Plan), which aims to promote sustainable design and construction, and to ensure that, at the planning application stage, air quality is taken into account along with other material considerations.

3 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 7 4 Department of Transport Memorandum: Calculation of Road Traffic Noise

page 23 99 Barking & Dagenham Council has declared the borough an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), due to predicted exceedences of the annual mean targets for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10). Baseline modelling indicates that concentrations of NO2 were above the annual mean UK Air Quality Strategy (AQS) objective for NO2 (40 micrograms per cubic metre) at three of the modelled receptors and close to that level at all the remaining ones; whilst the baseline modelling concentration for PM10 were well below (< 75% of) the annual mean AQS objective at all the modelled receptors. The construction phase

100 The potential for construction dust nuisance was considered through a qualitative impact assessment, which concluded, due to the number of sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity and the duration of dust-generating activities within range of those receptors, that the construction phase represented a ‘slight risk’ of causing significant dust effects if mitigation measures were not applied. Best practise mitigation measures have subsequently been recommended to minimise that risk and ensure that the impacts are not significant. Dust mitigation measures would be included in a construction environment management plan (CEMP), the submission and approval of which can be required by condition imposed by the local planning authority if it were minded to grant permission for the proposed development. The operational phase

101 The completed development has the potential to change the traffic flows through the surrounding area. Those changes are predicted to lead to imperceptible (<1%) or small (1-5%) increases in NO2 at the majority of modelled receptors. Those receptors are likely to be well below the annual mean AQS objective for NO2 and therefore, the predicted increases are likely to have a negligible effect.

102 The diffusion tube at Scrattons Terrace (receptor No. 2) is predicted to be above the annual NO2 air quality standard in all modelled scenarios, due to its close proximity to the heavily trafficked A13 road. However, the difference in NO2 concentrations between the scenarios with and without development shows an imperceptible increase. The change in NO2 concentrations at receptor No.2 would therefore have a negligible effect.

103 The changes in traffic flows are predicted to lead to imperceptible (<1%) increases in PM10 at all the modelled receptors. As those receptors are likely to be well below the annual mean AQS objective for PM10, it is considered that those increases would have a negligible effect. Local planning authority’s position

104 In principle, Barking & Dagenham Council supports a redevelopment of the application site to provide industrial/business employment accommodation as part of the mix of uses envisaged in its Core Strategy/ Site Specific Allocations DPD for the South Dagenham (West) area, subject to satisfactory details.

105 It could not be ascertained at the time of writing, however, whether the Council’s officers were satisfied with the details of this proposal, when the application was likely to be reported to the Council’s planning committee and what the officer recommendation was likely to be. Legal considerations

106 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

page 24 reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

107 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

108 London Plan policies on strategic industrial locations, opportunity areas, urban design, inclusive access, transport, energy/climate change and sustainable development; biodiversity, noise and air quality are relevant to this application. In general, the application complies with these policies, but not with others, for the following reasons:  Design: In its existing form, the indicative layout would compromise the ability of the scheme to meet the Mayor’s strategic aspirations for a comprehensive development of South Dagenham (West) as part of the London Riverside Opportunity Area, as described in the London Plan, the draft replacement London Plan and associated supplementary planning guidance.  Inclusive access: The design and access statement contains no specific provisions to facilitate access to, from or through the development for staff and visitors with disabilities, to meet the requirements of policies 4B.5 and 7.2 of the London Plan and draft replacement London Plan respectively.  Transport: Inadequate information is provided to enable TfL assess the impact of development on the local bus network, the contribution required to mitigate the overall impact of the development and ensure full compliance with the transport policies of the London Plan.  Energy: Additional details are required to clarify some elements of the proposed energy strategy, to ensure full compliance with the energy policies of the London Plan.

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

110 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:  Design: The submitted layout should be revised in line with the recommendations outlined in the design section (paragraphs 33 to 43) of this report. In particular, that some of the adjoining car and cycle parking spaces should be relocated to positions along the internal road through the site, to allow the buildings abutting Chequers Lane to be sited closer to the eastern boundary, and to reinforce a sense of enclosure with the industrial building on the opposite side of that road. Details should also be provided of the pedestrian access from Chequers Lane into the site. Block A should be set back to increase the recreational space available to employees on the western bank of Gores Brook. The site access adjacent to Block G should be located closer to the southern boundary of the site to reduce its distance to Dagenham Dock

page 25 Station, facilitate the development of the neighbouring site to the south by use of a shared access and assist the delivery of connecting bus service closer to the station interchange.  Inclusive access: An addendum access statement and/or supplementary drawings should be provided to confirm and/or illustrate a 10% (not 5%) disabled parking allocation; the inclusion of flush kerbs and easy gradients from the site entrance through the pedestrian routes, car park and building entrance; the provision of disabled toilets and wheelchair accessible lifts to the ancillary offices on the upper floors; arrangements for the evacuation of disabled staff or visitors during an emergency, and the sign-posting of places for visually impaired people.

 Transport: Each of the transport issues raised by TfL in paragraphs 49 to 59 of this report should be addressed. In particular, a car parking management plan should be submitted to prevent overspill parking into the neighbouring retail park. TfL recommends that the Council should request a design review and safety audit for articulated vehicles at the junction of Merrielands Crescent and the proposed northern site entrance, as well as for vehicles entering and leaving Chequers Lane. Details of the provisions to facilitate bus accessibility to the site and inter-modal interchange at Dagenham Dock Station should be submitted in line with the pre-application advice issued by TfL. Additional information on bus trip generation is required to determine the level of contribution required to enhance bus capacity and to mitigate the impact of the scheme on the local bus network. Further contributions may be required for identified improvements to the pedestrian environment and the measures identified in the London Riverside OAPF, including bus standing facilities at Dagenham Dock station and the extension of a bus route through the application site. TfL recommends the provision of secure storage and shower facilities for cyclists within the development; and the need to secure the applicant’s delivery and servicing plan and the construction logistics plan by appropriate planning conditions.  Energy: Additional drawings should be provided to identify the location and extent of the photo-voltaic panels on the roofs of the proposed industrial units. The percentage reduction in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development should also be provided.

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] David Blankson-Hemans, Senior Strategic Planner, Case Officer 020 7983 4268 email [email protected]

page 26