o o planning report D&P/1200b&c/03

Bishopsgate Goodsyard

23 September 2015 in the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets

Planning application no. 2014/2425 & PA/14/020 o Strategic planning application: Request that the Mayor become the Local Planning Authority 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 submitted to both Councils for the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site comprising: - Residential (C3) - up to 1,356 residential units - Business use (B1)- up to 65,859 sq.m (GIA) - Retail, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes and hot food takeaway (A1, A2, A3 and A5) - up to 17,499 sq.m (GIA) of which only 2,184 sq.m can be A5. - Non-residential institutions (D1)- up to 495 sq.m (GIA) - Assembly and leisure (D2) - up to 661 sq.m (GIA) - Public conveniences (sui generis) - up to 36 sq.m (GIA) - Ancillary and plant space - up to 30,896 sq.m (GIA) - Basement – up to 8,629 sq.m (GIA) - Formation of a new pedestrian and vehicular access and means of access and circulation within the site - Provision of 22,642 sq.m of new public open space and landscaping The application proposes a total of 12 buildings that range in height from 23.6 m AOD to 177.6m AOD.

All matters reserved save for FULL DETAILS submitted for alterations to and partial removal of existing structures on the site and the erection of three buildings for residential use (C3), namely plot C (ground level plus 26-30 storeys plus plant), plot F (ground level plus 46 storeys, plus plant), plot G (ground level plus 38 storeys plus plant) comprising a total of 940 residential units, retail/food/drink uses (A1, A2, A3, A4) and ground and basement level of the Braithwaite Viaduct for retail/food/drink/community uses (A1, A2, A3, A5, D1). Works to and use of the Oriel and adjoining structures for retail/food/drink uses (A1, A2, A3, A5).

Separate connected listed building consent applications have been submitted to each Council.

The applicant The applicant is Bishopsgate Goodsyard Regeneration Limited. The architects are Farrells, PLP Architecture, FaulknerBrown Architects, Space Hub, Chris Dyson Architects, and Peter

page 1

Connell Associates.

Strategic issues Bishopsgate Goods Yard is a key development site within the City Fringe Opportunity Area and Central Activities Zone. The provision of jobs and homes on a site vacant for over 50 years is strongly supported in principle, although there were a number of issues raised in the Mayor’s Stage 1 Report of 12 December 2014 and in the update report of 9 September 2015.

The statutory 16 week determination period expired on 29 December 2014 and 31 December 2014 without a determination by either Tower Hamlets or Hackney Councils. The applicant wrote to the Mayor on 15 September 2015 requesting that he take over determination of the applications from both Hackney and Tower Hamlets Councils.

Recommendation That the Mayor takes over the determination of the planning applications and connected listed building applications and becomes the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 15 September 2015, DP9 on behalf of the applicant Bishopsgate Goodsyard Regeneration Limited, wrote to the Mayor (copy of letter attached) requesting, pursuant to para 7(6) of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, that the Mayor become the local planning authority for the application. Case history

2 On 18 October 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council and on 20 October 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from Hackney Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. The application was referred to the Mayor under the following Categories of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

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

1C: Development which comprises or incudes the erection of a building of….more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.

4: Development subject to a Direction of the Secretary of State, in this case development within the background assessment area of Strategic Views 8A.1 and 9A.1

3 On 12 December 2014 the Mayor considered planning report D&P/1200b&c/01, and subsequently advised Hackney and Tower Hamlets Councils that while the application was generally acceptable in planning terms, further details were required on land use, housing and affordable housing, impact on world heritage site and heritage assets, urban design and tall buildings, inclusive design, sustainable development and transportation. These issues were summarised in paragraph 161 of the above mentioned report.

page 2

4 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached.

5 On 9 July 2015 the Mayor received notification from Tower Hamlets Council and Hackney Council that they had received amended plans for the planning application, and was inviting further comments on those amendments. On 9 September 2015 the Mayor planning report D&P/1200b&c/02, and subsequently advised Hackney and Tower Hamlets Councils that he welcomed the amendments that had been made, particularly the increase in employment floorspace and the reduction in the height of the towers, but that the issues set out in paragraph 89of that report, as well as those outstanding from the original stage I should be addressed, in particular the affordable housing offer.

6 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached.

7 The 16 week statutory period for determination expired on 29 December 2014 and 31 December 2014 in Tower Hamlets and Hackney respectively. The Councils are currently looking to co-ordinate extra committees to consider the application in November.

8 The site has been subject to a long planning history dating back to 2007 when the applicant commenced discussions with the boroughs and the GLA. In recognition of the strategic importance of this cross boundary site within a sensitive part of Central London discussion on an emerging scheme were put on hold while a masterplan was prepared. The applicant worked with the two boroughs and the GLA to prepare an Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) for the site.

9 The IPG was adopted by the boroughs and the GLA in late 2009 and published in 2010.

10 The applicant re-commenced pre-application discussions in May 2013 and the application was submitted in July 2014. In response to consultation revisions to the application were submitted in June 2015.

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

11 This report informs the Mayor of the test to be applied in considering whether to become the local planning authority. The initial policy test regarding the Mayor’s power to take over and determine applications referred under categories 1 and 2 of the schedule to the 2008 Order is a decision about who should have jurisdiction over the application, rather than whether planning permission should ultimately be granted or refused. Article 7 sets out the criteria which must be satisfied before the Mayor may direct that he is to be the local planning authority in respect of a particular planning application: The policy test consists of the following three parts, all of which must be met in order for the Mayor to take over planning applications:

(a) the development or any of the issues raised by the development to which the PSI application relates is of such a nature or scale that it would have a significant impact on the implementation of the spatial development strategy;

(b) the development or any of the issues raised by the development to which the application relates has significant effects that are likely to affect more than one London Borough; and

(c) there are sound planning reasons for issuing a direction.

12 Article 7(1)(a) relates to whether the development has a significant impact upon the London Plan and (b) relates to the geographical extent of the impact, whilst part (c) deals with the planning reasons for the Mayor’s intervention. These criteria are intended to ensure that the Mayor only intervenes in important and exceptional cases.

o page 3

13 This report considers the extent to which the criteria under Article 7(1) apply in this case and whether, therefore, the Mayor should direct that he is to be the local planning authority, applying the criteria set out under Article 7(3) of the 2008 Order. This report does not consider the merits of the applications, although regard has been given to the key planning issues in respect of assessing the policy test in Article 7(1) c, as set out below. Criterion 7(1) (a): Significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan

14 There are significant impacts on the implementation of the London Plan for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

Opportunity Area and Interim Planning Guidance

15 The London Plan sets a minimum target of 70,000 new jobs and 8,700 new homes for the City Fringe Opportunity Area. Bishopsgate Goodsyard is one of the largest sites within the OA and is recognised as having the potential to deliver a significant number of jobs and homes. The revised application estimates some 6,000 jobs (under the minimum parameter plans) and up to 1,356 new homes (8.5% and 15.5% of the OA targets respectively).

16 The Opportunity Area emphasises the importance of securing new flexible and affordable workspace to meet the demands of the “tech-City” cluster.

17 The 2010 Interim Planning Guidance, which was adopted by the Mayor as Supplementary Planning Guidance, provides a framework for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site and envisages a high density mixed use development which could deliver 350,000sq.m. of total development, up to 2,000 homes, some 75,000sq.m. to 150,000sq.m. of non-residential floorspace and a 1.8ha public park.

18 The revised development provides for up to 1,356 homes, 124,075sq.m non-residential floorspace a 0.97ha public park and 1.28ha of other public open space; thus meeting the high level objectives of the IPG.

Need for regeneration

19 Despite its City Fringe location the site has been vacant for over 50 years, in part due to the numerous constraints that affect the site (Central Line running tunnel, large diameter BT tunnel, range of listed heritage assets, LVMF viewing corridor and London Overground box) but undoubtedly also due to the fact that the borough boundary between Hackney and Tower Hamlets runs through the site in a manner that makes it impossible to practicably split the development up into separate parcels.

Housing delivery

20 London Plan Table 3.1 requires Tower Hamlets and Hackney Councils to deliver 3,931 and 1,599 new homes per year until 2025, respectively. The revised proposal includes the delivery of up to 1,356 new homes, 782 in Tower Hamlets and 582 in Hackney, representing 36.4% of Tower Hamlets’ annual London Plan target and 19.7% of Hackney’s.

21 The Councils’ performance relating to housing delivery, including affordable housing over recent years is set out under Matters that the Mayor must take account of below. In essence, the position is that whilst both boroughs have delivered a significant number of new homes and affordable housing relatively in London, Tower Hamlets has not met its target for the last eight years where as Hackney has exceeded its target.

o page 4

London’s economy

22 London is a world city with a key role in the global economy. As such, it fulfils functions and attracts investment that other cities in the United Kingdom – and in Europe – do not. It has a distinctive role to play in the spatial development of the country and continent as part of a polycentric network of cities and urban areas, and the Mayor recognises the importance of ensuring London does this in ways that promote sustainable success at European, national and city region levels. He recognises the importance of this to the continued prosperity and well-being of London and its people (London Plan, paragraph 2.7).

23 Projections within the London Plan suggest that, despite changes to the economy in recent years, the total number of jobs in London could increase from 4.9 million in 2011 to 5.8 million by 2036 – growth of 17.6 per cent or an additional 861,000 jobs over the period as a whole. Chapter one of the London Plan makes clear that this growth is fundamental to London’s endurance as a national and international economic driving force, and crucial to meet the needs of a growing and changing population.

24 London Plan Table 4.1 establishes the demand for office based jobs and floorspace up to 2031. Within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and the north of the Isle of Dogs there is expected to be a demand for 177,000 office jobs (58% of total office based employment growth), and up to 3,070,000 sq.m. of office floorspace. Paragraph 2.46 of the London Plan states “It will be important to ensure an adequate supply of office accommodation and other workspaces in the CAZ/Isle of Dogs suitable to meet the needs of a growing and changing economy. The projected increase in office-based employment in the CAZ/Isle of Dogs could create significant demand for new office space.”

25 The London Plan states that the City Fringe opportunity area provides particular scope to become a business hub of major international significance and should nurture the employment, business and creative potential of the digital-creative sectors while ensuring supporting the provision of suitable levels of commercial floorspace, supporting uses and related infrastructure to meet the needs of this growing cluster. Table 1A.1 within the London Plan indicates that the City Fringe opportunity area has capacity to provide 70,000 new jobs by 2031. The Hackney part of the site is in a designated Preferred Employment Area and the Tower Hamlets part, while not in a Preferred Office Location is within close proximity.

26 The application proposes the development of a range of employment generating land uses, including: up to 65,859 sq.m. of B1 office space and up to 17,499 sq.m. of retail, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes and hot food takeaways floorspace (Classes A1, A2, A3 and A5).

27 The application documents indicate that around 6,000 jobs would be created by this development, thereby making a significant contribution to the wider Opportunity Area employment creation.

Heritage and tall buildings

28 The site contains a number of designated and undesignated heritage assets, including the Grade II Listed Braithwaite Viaduct and the Grade II Listed former forecourt walls and gates (including the Oriel), both of which are on the Historic England Building at Risk Register. The proposals have been developed with these elements in mind and would result in securing a long term viable use for the Listed Arches and restoring the Listed former forecourt walls and gates. The proposals also repair, restore and bring into use a number of other undesignated heritage assets, such as the Sclater Street weaver’s cottages and mission hall, the unlisted arches, jack arches and external walls.

o page 5

29 The revised application includes a number of tall buildings up to 177.6m AOD (47 storeys). Part of the site is within strategic viewing corridors and the site is surrounded by Conservation Areas and a number of listed buildings and parts of the development will be visible behind the Tower of London (Grade I listed and World Heritage Site). The proposal therefore gives rise to important heritage and views considerations, which must be considered in the context of London Plan LVMF, heritage and tall buildings policies and the site’s identification in the IPG, and previous and current drafts of the City Fringe OAPF, which identify the site as being suitable for tall buildings.

30 As such the development gives rise to significant impacts on the implementation of London Plan LVMF, heritage and tall buildings policies.

Transport

31 The Mayor recognises that transport plays a fundamental role in addressing the whole range of his spatial planning, environmental, economic and social policy priorities. It is critical to the efficient functioning and quality of life of London and its inhabitants (London Plan, paragraph 6.2).

32 London Plan policies 6.4 and 6.5 identify that the implementation of Crossrail is the Mayor’s top strategic transport priority for London over the plan period. London Plan paragraph 6.21 states that Crossrail is essential to delivery of the strategic objectives of the London Plan given that demand for public transport into and within central London is nearing capacity. The employment growth expected up to 2036 will further increase this demand, and unless this is addressed, continued development and employment growth in central and eastern London will be threatened. In particular, Crossrail is critical to supporting the growth of the financial and business services sectors in central London and in the Isle of Dogs, where there is market demand for additional development capacity.

33 The funding arrangements for Crossrail announced by Government make clear that the project will not proceed without contributions from developers. A funding agreement between the Mayor, Transport for London and the Government envisages that a total of £600,000,000 might be raised towards the cost of the project from developers, as follows:

 £300,000,000 from use of planning obligations or any similar system that might replace them; and,

 £300,000,000 from the Community Infrastructure Levy.

34 The site falls within the Central London Contribution Area for Crossrail, as defined by the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance Use of Planning Obligations in the Funding of Crossrail, which acts in support of London Plan Policy 6.5. Within the Central London Contribution Area a charging level of £137 per sq.m. is applied to new office floorspace, £88 per sq.m. for new retail floorspace and £60 per sq.m. for new hotel floorspace.

35 The application includes an uplift in office and retail floorspace at the site, and gives rise to an estimated £10,795,170 contribution towards Crossrail. Therefore, the application has the potential to contribute towards the delivery of Crossrail, thus helping to deliver the Mayor’s principle transport policy priority within the London Plan.

Summary

36 As set out above the proposal and the issues it raises are of a nature and scale that give rise to significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan particularly with regard to Central London, housing, affordable housing, employment, regeneration, opportunity areas and heritage.

o page 6

Criterion 7(1) (b): development likely to affect any other boroughs

37 Para 7(4) of the Order sets out that where a development falls within Category 1A of the Schedule, namely that over 150 homes will be delivered, this test does not apply. As the application is for up to 1,356 homes, this test does not need to be applied.

Criterion 7(1) (c): Sound planning reasons for intervening

Principle of development

38 The principle of the development is clearly supported by the London Plan, the Mayor’s Stage 1 report of 12 December 2014 and update report of 9 September 2015 and the aspirations for the City Fringe Opportunity Area and Bishopsgate Goodsyard IPG.

39 The principle of the development is also supported by both Councils as allocated in their respective DPDs as development sites, reflecting the IPG objectives.

Determination of a cross-borough application

40 As stated above the Goodsyard site straddles the borough boundary between Hackney and Tower Hamlets. The boundary itself does not follow any existing feature on the ground (such as a highway or property boundary) and this combined with the complexities of the site and the need to deal with infrastructure costs across the whole site mean that the development cannot practicably be divided into two elements, one for each Council.

41 A cross borough application in itself need not necessarily result in unusual delay or determination issues. However, such applications that are referable to the Mayor are relatively uncommon (less than 10 since 2000, excluding Olympic related applications and single bridge applications). This site in particular has a number of complex site constraints, which combined with the inevitably different focusses of the two Councils means that determination is unusually difficult. This has been exacerbated by the decision, subsequent to submission of the original application to exempt the Tower Hamlets part of the site from CIL, but not the Hackney part.

42 Both Councils have worked together (and where relevant with the GLA) both during pre- application discussions and post submission, seeking to provide joint responses and procuring single advisors to assess elements of the scheme, such as affordable housing. This has been helpful and certainly avoids dealing with competing demands from each Council. However, the applicant has highlighted in its letter to the Mayor of 15 September 2015 particular delays relating to affordable housing negotiation, noting that the original financial viability assessment (FVA) was submitted as part of the application in September 2014. The applicant states that the Councils appointed BNPP to assess the FVA, but the cost consultant was not appointed until February 2015. Since then there has been ongoing dialogue between the Councils’ consultant and the applicant’s, although a response to the revised FVA and applicant’s consultant's feedback is still awaited. The Councils’, in their letter to the Mayor regarding the take-over request dispute elements of this narrative (see later section on Local Planning Authorities’ Position for more detail).

Central Activities Zone

43 London Plan Policy 2.10 sets out the Mayor’s policy on the CAZ and states that the Mayor will, and boroughs and other relevant strategic partners should, enhance and promote the unique international, national and London-wide roles of the CAZ, supporting the distinct offer of the Zone based on a rich mix of local as well as strategic uses and forming the globally iconic core of one of the world’s most attractive and competitive business locations.

o page 7

44 The proposal would, in line with London Plan Policy 2.10 and associated policies, support the strategic objectives for the CAZ through delivering high quality large-scale office floorspace in an important yet constrained location, and contribute towards meeting London Plan projections for office space demand and employment growth within the Zone.

Opportunity Area

45 London Plan Policy 2.13 sets out the Mayor’s policy on opportunity areas. London Plan paragraph 2.58 states that opportunity areas are the capital’s major reservoir of brownfield land with significant capacity to accommodate new housing, commercial and other development linked to existing or potential improvements to public transport accessibility. London Plan Table A1.1 sets out the strategic policy direction for the City Fringe Opportunity Area. This states that the City Fringe Opportunity Area contains a number of accessible, relatively central sites, including Bishopsgate and South Shoreditch, with significant development capacity and provides particular scope to support London’s critical mass of financial and business services and clusters of other economic activity and exploit public transport accessibility through Crossrail One stations at Liverpool Street and Whitechapel, and at the London Overground station.

46 The proposal would, in line with London Plan Policy 2.13, support the strategic policy direction for the City Fringe opportunity area, broadly deliver the indicative quantum of development and jobs expressed for the site within the consultation draft City Fringe Opportunity Area planning framework, and contribute towards meeting the indicative estimates for employment capacity within the City Fringe Opportunity Area. The OAPF is programmed to be adopted and published this year.

Promoting jobs and growth

47 The principle of providing a high-quality, office-led mixed use development on this CAZ site, within an opportunity area, is strongly supported in strategic planning terms. Due to the constraints to large-scale office development in City Fringe locations, suitable development opportunities, on appropriate sites, must be promoted. The provision of a significant amount of high quality office accommodation in this location would help to meet the future demands of the business and financial sector, and will enable London to maintain and expand its world city role, in accordance with national, regional and local policies. The proposal would also contribute towards meeting employment targets within the CAZ and City Fringe Opportunity Area.

48 Failure to promote appropriate development could potentially impact upon the economic health of the Central Activities Zone as whole.

Timely Decision Making

49 In its letter to the Mayor, requesting he takes the application over, the applicant has highlighted the decision making timescale.

50 The National Planning Policy Framework at highlighted para 14 states that the “presumption in favour of sustainable development… means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay…”

51 The proposals were subject to a pre-application Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) and draft post submission PPAs have been discussed with the Councils. The first draft was sent to the boroughs on 18 June 2014 and targeted a committee no later than 31 March 2015. Recognising the need to submit amendments to respond to consultation, a revised draft PPA was issued targeting a committee in September 2015, although Hackney Council indicated that the timescales were too narrow to facilitate this. A further draft was issued targeting a

o page 8 committee date no later than the end of October 2015 and suggesting committee dates of the 7 and 8 of October 2015.

52 The Councils’, in their letter to the Mayor regarding the take-over request dispute elements of this narrative (see later section on Local Planning Authorities’ Position for more detail).

53 The statutory 16 week deadline for determining the decision expired on the 29 December 2014 and 31 December 2014 for Tower Hamlets and Hackney respectively.

Key Planning Issues Matters the Mayor must take account of

54 The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, requires that the mayor takes certain matters into account when making his decision, these are covered below.

Achievement of development Plan targets for Housing, including affordable housing

55 The London Plan Table 3.1 states that the housing target for Hackney is a minimum of 1,599 units/year until 2025 and a minimum of 3,931 home/year for Tower Hamlets. The tables below set out the performance of Tower Hamlets and Hackney respectively for net conventional completions compared to the London Plan benchmark for conventional supply, noting that the target has changed (as indicated in the AMR), over the last 8 years. The applicant’s letter refers to the last five years of available data, whereas the Councils point out that a longer period is more appropriate as it covers more of the economic cycle. Fully respecting the relatively high housing targets for the boroughs in London, the tables show that Tower Hamlets delivered around 65% of the conventional homes required over the last eight years. Hackney has fared much better, delivering 138% of its target over the last eight years.

56 The tables below also show that the record of planning approvals over the past 8 years has been healthy in both boroughs, with both only falling below the London Plan target in 2010.

57 Hackney’s Core Strategy (which covers the period from 2010 to 2025) policy 3 identifies a target of 530 new homes for the South Shoreditch Area. Hackney’s 2013/14 Annual Monitoring Report notes that 454 net conventional additional dwellings were delivered in Hoxton East and Shoreditch ward between 2008/12. South Shoreditch forms the southern part of the Hoxton East and Shoreditch Ward, however, it is not possible to confirm what proportion of the 454 homes are within the South Shoreditch Area.

Hackney

Net Completions (units) Net approvals

Financial Market Social & Intermediate Total London Difference Year Affordable Plan Rent Target

2006 694 123 370 1,817 565 622 2,054

2007 1,110 274 142 1,526 565 961 1,653

o page 9

2008 1,132 414 501 2,047 1,085 962 1,248

2009 1,016 334 277 1,627 1,085 542 2,016

2010 41 197 153 391 1,085 -694 1,075

2011 572 247 183 1,002 1,124 -122 2,814

2012 585 391 184 1,160 1,124 36 1,153

2013 669 305 146 1,120 1,124 -4 2,700

Total 5,819 2,285 1,956 10,690 7,757 2303

Tower Hamlets

Net Completions (units) Net Approvals

Financial Market Social & Intermediate Total London Difference Total Year Affordable Plan Rent Target

2006 1,538 439 394 2,370 1,825 545 3,631

2007 1,443 526 94 2,063 1,825 238 9,228

2008 1,382 544 961 2,887 3,150 -263 6,172

2009 1,807 379 266 2,465 3,150 -685 3,577

2010 981 191 124 1,296 3,150 -1,854 2,984

2011 189 547 167 903 2,642 -1,559 3,485

2012 696 172 102 997 2,642 -1,465 3,596

2013 580 73 31 684 2,462 -1,778 5,448

Total 8,616 2,871 2,139 13,665 20,846 -6,821

Affordable Housing

58 The delivery of 5,010 affordable units in Tower Hamlets over the eight years equates to a rate of 36% of total completions and 24% of the total monitoring target. In Hackney the delivery of 4,241 affordable units over the eight years equates to 40% of total completions and 55% of the monitoring target. Both Councils have a 50% affordable housing target in their Core Strategies.

Office/employment targets

59 London Plan Table 4.1 identifies demand for up to 3,070,000 sq.m. of office floorspace in the CAZ and the north of the Isle of Dogs by 2031. London Plan Table 1.1 projects a 14.4% growth in employment within Tower Hamlets by 2036, and provides an adjusted triangulated

o page 10 forecast benchmark for 2011 of 246,000 jobs. London Plan Table A1.1 indicates the City Fringe Opportunity Area has capacity to provide 70,000 new jobs by 2036.

60 Tower Hamlets does not have any specific targets for office floorspace or employment levels but does have policies supporting job creation and the delivery of employment floorspace.

Offices

61 Tower Hamlets Annual Monitoring Report (2012-13), Figure 30, indicates that across the Borough office completions grossed 2,629 sq.m. between April 2012 and March 2013. This is however set against a borough-wide net reduction of 37,028 sq.m. of B1 office floorspace, should all approvals be completed, over the same period resulting predominantly from office to hotel and office to residential conversions across the borough. Figure 32 of the monitoring report indicates that, within the Borough’s portion of the CAZ, no office completions where completed between April 2012 and March 2013 and GLA held data within the London Development Database confirms that no office development has been completed within the Borough’s portion of the CAZ up until March 2015.

62 GLA held data within the London Development Database provides an insight on the longer term trends within the Tower Hamlets Borough. It is noted that London Development Database data indicates that during the period between April 2004 and March 2008 borough wide completions resulted in a net gain of 111,489 sq.m. of office floorspace and this fell to 91,106 sq.m. for the period April 2008 to March 2015.

63 The same data also indicates that within the Borough’s portion of the CAZ, completions between April 2004 and March 2011 resulted in a net gain of 92,554 sq.m. of office floorspace, however this has now fallen to a net loss of 5,257 sq.m. of office floorspace for the period April 2008 to March 2015.

64 Hackney’s Core Strategy Policy 3 identifies a target of 168,000sq.m of employment floorspace in South Shoreditch and 407,000 sq.m. of employment floorspace across the borough. The Council’s 2013/14 Annual Monitoring Report notes that for 2008/13 there was a net increase in B1 floorspace of 89,383 sq.m. However, this is mostly due to the conversion of the International Broadcast Centre in the Olympic Park, were it not for that scheme there would be a net loss of floorspace across the borough. The AMR also notes that between 2009/10 and 2013/14 there was a net increase in employment floorspace in Shoreditch of 12,578sq.m.

65 The AMR also highlights potential development pipeline, based on unimplemented permissions, noting that Shoreditch has over 70,000sq.m. of B1 consent. This is largely down to one scheme, Principal Place. However, the AMR notes that a more recent application on this site proposes significantly less employment floorspace.

Employment

66 Tower Hamlets’ Research Briefing on Local Employment by Industries briefing document (2014) cites recent figures which indicate that in 2012, approximately 240,000 jobs were located in the borough, which is an increase of 15 per cent from 2009. The City Fringe and Isle of Dogs account for approximately 81 per cent of all employment in the borough at 195,000 jobs. It is noted that the period between April 2008 to March 2009 saw a Borough-wide net loss of 6,905 jobs. Comparable local employment figures prior to April 2008 are not readily available.

67 A sectoral and spatial analysis of employment in Hackney showed that there was a 31% growth in businesses in Hackney between 2008 – 2011, but only a 1% increase in jobs (700) over the same period, although the report notes for example that the numbers working in the creative

o page 11 sector is likely to be an undercount as businesses with zero staff are not included nor are freelance or occasional employment.

Consideration of performance against development plan targets

68 Based on the above information Tower Hamlets has a high London borough target relatively but in terms of delivery of housing it falls significantly short of the London Plan and its own targets. Its performance on affordable housing falls short of its own target but is close to the current London average (34% average 2011 - 2014). Hackney’s performance in the delivery of housing is very good, exceeding the London Plan target. Its delivery on affordable housing above the London average and its own target.

69 Tower Hamlets Council has a good historic record in assessing and permitting planning applications for office floorspace in the Borough and the CAZ area, and the Borough has seen a good level of recent employment growth to offset a proportion of the losses during 2008-09. Notwithstanding this, recent trends have seen a decline in the delivery of new office floorspace both borough-wide and in the Borough’s portion of the CAZ, and the Council’s latest self- assessment within its Annual Monitoring Report (2012-13) finds that performance with respect to providing additional employment floorspace (including B1[a] office) is currently off target with a net loss of 27,073 sq.m. of approved office floorspace. It is also noted that employment levels within the Borough would currently fall short of the indicative employment projections forecast within Table 1.1 of the London Plan. It is likely that recent challenges to delivering office floorspace and employment growth are linked to broader economic trends, and within this context it is particularly important that strategic office development, in suitable but finite CAZ and City Fringe locations, is promoted to support London’s globally competitive business cluster and promote growth.

70 Hackney has made progress in delivering 168,000sq.m. of employment floorspace in South Shoreditch by 2025 (having provided some 12,578 in five years), but if this level of delivery is repeated for the next ten years it will have delivered some 38,000sq.m., well short of its target.

Summary

71 There is a pressing need for regeneration of this long vacant site, which is supported by the IPG, both Councils’ site allocation policies, the draft City Fringe OAPF and London Plan. Given this, the complexities of determining a cross-boundary application, the economic benefits to Central London, the length of time that has elapsed since the application was submitted and having regard in particular to Tower Hamlets’ poor performance on housing and affordable housing delivery and Hackney’s likely ability to deliver its target for employment growth (given its performance to date) there are significant impacts in the implementation of the London Plan are sound planning reasons to intervene in this instance. Outstanding issues from Stage I & Stage I update

72 As set out in the update stage I report, issued on 9 September 2015, the keys issues raised in the original stage I report relating to employment floorspace, building height and unit mix have been resolved. The final affordable housing offer still remains an outstanding issue, along with detailed matters relating to securing affordable workspace, detailed urban design matters relating to Quaker Street and design codes and details, 106 contributions, transport and energy. Should the Mayor decide to become the local planning authority he will have to satisfy himself that these strategic matters, as well as a range of local matters under consideration by Tower Hamlets and Hackney Councils, are addresed. He will have to determine the applications in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest they possess and pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. As

o page 12 stated at paragraph 13 this report does not make any attempt to consider the planning merits of the application. Local planning authorities’ position

73 The two Councils have prepared a joint letter to the GLA officers in response to the applicant’s request (both attached), setting out why the Mayor should not take over the planning application. The Councils do not dispute the strategic importance of the application but consider that the applicant’s letter makes a number of erroneous claims about the way in which the two Councils have handled the application and presents an over simplified summary of concerns, which are far more fundamental and wide ranging.

74 With respect to decision making timescale the Councils note that there are a number of key outstanding issues that need to be resolved before a recommendation can be made and that there are a number of inadequacies with the environmental information submitted. The Councils highlight that they are currently considering significant revisions to the original submission (effectively a replacement application), requiring re-consultation (to which they have received substantial levels of objections) and have shown considerable and appropriate flexibility in accepting this.

75 The Councils reject the suggestion that they have not provided feedback on the application. Officers have worked proactively throughout the process, raising issues that are not new. The Councils also respond to the applicant’s point regarding delays around the affordable housing negotiation, highlighting additional work that their consultant has had to carry out and noting that given the significant change to the scheme it is unrealistic to expect a re-assessment within two weeks

76 The Councils consider the data on housing delivery to be misrepresented, taking a longer time period, shows that Hackney is one of the top performing boroughs and that Tower Hamlets has a substantial amount of permitted schemes and has received the highest amount of new homes bonus in the country.

77 The Councils also note that there are still outstanding clarifications relating to the environmental statement and that in respect of Hackney’s Design Review Panel, the applicant delayed the date and revised proposals have only recently been presented to both panels.

78 The Councils highlight the number of large complex schemes that both have dealt with and note that they have been working together to co-ordinate the logistics of holding two extra committees in November. The Councils consider it unlikely that the GLA would be able to resolve the outstanding issues before November.

79 All these points are fully acknowledged and in most cases appreciated. However, the application remains undetermined and uncertainty of the Councils’ position remains. Legal considerations

80 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power 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. 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.

81 Should the Mayor decide that, he does not wish to take over the application at this stage, the application would remain with the Councils thereby allowing further time for determination. GLA officers could monitor the Councils’ progress and act as facilitators between

o page 13 the Councils and the applicant. If there appears to be unreasonable delay, a further request for take over could be made by the applicant and the Mayor would reconsider taking the application over at that stage.

Financial considerations

82 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 Councils to do so). The Mayor should be aware that determining the application will require a significant level of resource within the GLA Planning team and TfL. Should the Mayor decide to act as the local planning authority officers would seek to sign an appropriate Planning Performance Agreement with the applicant, part of which could be the provision of funds to meet the costs of the Mayor and GLA/TfL to undertake detailed technical assessments and workstreams in order to properly determine the application.

Conclusion

83 This Report sets out the range of issues that the Mayor must consider in coming to his decision as to whether to become the local planning authority for this application. As set out in the report the application meets the tests to enable the Mayor to become the local planning authority.

84 The Councils have written to the Mayor giving reasons why they should be left to determine the application and these have been fully considered. In particular the Councils position on their handling the applications is acknowledged as is their performance on housing delivery.

85 Taking all of the above considerations into account this report recommends that the Mayor becomes the local planning authority. for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Stewart Murray, Assistant Director – Planning 0207 983 4271 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development and Projects 020 7983 4283 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager – Development Decisions 020 7983 4895 email [email protected]

o page 14

o o o planning report D&P/1200b&c o 12 December 2014 o Bishopsgate Goods Yard

o in the London Borough of Hackney and Tower Hamlets o planning application no. 2014/2425 & PA/14/02011 o o o Strategic planning application stage 1 referral o Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 o The proposal o An hybrid application part outline and part detailed for the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site comprising: o - Residential (Class C3) comprising up to 1,464 residential units; o - Business Use (Class B1) - up to 52,991 sq.m (GIA); o - Retail, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes and hot food takeaways (Class A1, A2, A3 and A5) - up to 18,229 sq.m(GIA); o - Non-residential Institutions (Class D1) - up to 108 sq.m (GIA); o - Assembly and Leisure (Class D2) - up to 661 sq.m (GIA); o - Public conveniences (sui generis) - up to 36 sq.m (GIA); o - Ancillary and plant space - up to 11,295 sq.m (GIA); o - Basement - up to 8,404 sq.m (GIA); o page 15 o - Formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access and means of access and circulation within the site; and o - Provision of 22,088 sq.m of new public open space and landscaping. o The application proposes a total of 12 buildings that range in height, with the highest being 180.4 m AOD and the lowest being 23.6 m AOD. With all matters reserved save that full details are submitted for alterations to and the partial removal of existing structures on the site and the erection of three buildings for residential (Class C3), namely Plot C (31-35 storeys, plus plant); Plot F (47 storeys, plus plant); Plot G (43 storeys, plus plant) comprising up to 1,038 of the total residential units; and retail and food and drink uses (A1, A2, A3, A5); and use of the ground and basement levels of the Braithwaite Viaduct for retail and food and drink uses (A1, A2, A3, A5). Works to and use of the Oriel and adjoining structures for retail and food and drink uses (A1, A2, A3, A5). o The applicant o The applicant is DP9 on behalf of Bishopsgate Goodsyard Regeneration Limited. The architects are Farrells, PLP Architecture, FaulknerBrown Architects, Space Hub, Chris Dyson Architects, and Peter Connell Associates. o Strategic issues o The strategic issues in this case are land use, social infrastructure, housing, tall buildings, urban design, heritage assets, inclusive design, and transportation. o o Recommendation o That Hackney and Tower Hamlets be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic o page 16

planning terms the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 154 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies.

o Context

86 On 18 October 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council and on 20 October 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from Hackney 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 needs to provide the Councils 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. Both referrals make reference to the same scheme and this report responds to both referrals.

87 The application is referable under the following Categorys of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

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

1C: Development which comprises or incudes the erection of a building of….more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

88 Once each 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.

89 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

91 The subject site measures 4.2 hectares in area and sits across the boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets. It is surrounded by a range of neighbourhoods including Shoreditch, Brick Lane, Spitalfields and sits within the City Fringe Opportunity Area.

o page 17

92 The site was originally assembled in 1842 to be used as the London terminus of the Eastern Counties Railway Company for its Great Yarmouth/Norwich to London line. Owing to the need for bigger passenger terminus on this line, the larger, Liverpool Street Station was commissioned and the terminus moved there in 1879. The passenger building on the site was demolished and additional land around the station was acquired and developed into a purpose built goods yard. By 1882 the goods yard was in full operation catering for 1,600 carts in and out of the station daily and was the focus for receiving imported food from Europe. The building occupied much of the large site with the main elevation facing Shoreditch High Street measuring 680 ft long and 70 ft wide, and the frontage along Commercial Street measured 400 ft divided into 13 bays. A large fire destroyed the majority of the site in 1964 after which most was vacated.

93 The site has been predominately vacant since this time but has recently been partly occupied by temporary uses including football pitches and the ‘Box Park’ pop up shopping mall. In April 2010 Shoreditch High Street London Overground Station opened in the centre of the site providing orbital rail services between Highbury and Islington, New Cross, Clapham Junction, Crystal Palace and West Croydon. The station entrance is on Whealer Street which runs north/south through the site. Other than that the site is currently impermeable. The line was ‘boxed’ in to allow for building over as part of the development (and this was funded by the developer).

94 The site is bound by Shoreditch High Street and Commercial Street to the west, which are busy main roads with shops and commercial uses. To the south of the site lie the railway lines into Liverpool Street and the City of London. The area along Norton Folgate and Bishopsgate is characterised by large scale office buildings. Planning permission has been given for tall buildings at Principal Place on Norton Folgate and ‘The Stage’ on Curtain Road and together with the existing Broadgate Tower these create a cluster of tall buildings along this route, the subject this is identified as part of this tall buildings cluster in the draft City Fringe OAPF (2008) (and the draft 2014 City Fringe OAPF currently out for public consultation). Brick Lane bounds this area to the east of the site which contains a vibrant mix of small shops, popular bars and restaurants with some residential at upper levels.

95 Bethnal Green Road sits to the north and contains a mix of former warehouse buildings converted into new uses, the new 25 storey ‘Avant Garde’ residential building, small scale industrial estates and small retail units. Beyond this to the north is the Grade II listed Boundary Estate which is a 1900s LCC residential development with streets focused on the green space at Arnold Circus.

96 There are a number of infrastructure constraints that effect the site including the Central Line and a BT communications tunnel which sit 17m and 28m below ground respectively which run across the site and the London Overground line runs above ground through the site at an elevated level which has been boxed in as outlined above. To the south of the site is the 8 tracking Network Rail suburban train line and an additional area safeguarded for two future tracks for this service.

o page 18

97 There are a number of historic structures within the site which include the Grade II listed Braithwaite Viaduct and the gates, walls and Oriel Gateway on the Bishopsgate frontage. These are currently on English Heritage’s ‘Heritage at Risk Register’. Other original features of the Goods Yard also remain, including the boundary wall on Sclater Street, parts of original boundary walls to the south and east and viaduct structures to the south and west of Braithwaite Viaduct containing coal stores, the hydraulic accumulator, rails and a single turntable. There are a number of listed structures around the site. The north east corner of the site is within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area which wraps around the site to the south. To the south west of the site lies the Elder Street Conservation Area, to the north west is the South Shoreditch Conservation Area and to the north is the Redchurch Conservation Area and the Boundary Estate Conservation Area beyond.

98 The site is also lies within the background of the protected visa of the designated panorama from Westminster to St Paul’s Cathedral (8A.1) and King Henry VIII’s Mound, Richmond to St Paul’s Cathedral (9A.1).

99 The site is well served by public transport and has a transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 6b to 5 across the site (on a scale of 1-6b where 6b is the highest).

Details of the proposal

100 The application has been submitted as a hybrid scheme with part all matters reserved (the outline component) and part no matters reserved (the detailed component). The site has been divided into 11 ‘plots’ within which a number of buildings would be developed. As outlined above, the site covers two Local Authority boundaries. Building plots C, D, E, H, I and J are wholly within Tower Hamlets, plots A, F and L are in Hackney and the borough boundary runs directly through plots B, G and K.

101 The detailed component of the scheme covers plots C, F, G, L and the ground and basement levels of plots H, I, J. The remaining plots of A, B, D, E, the park level of H, I, J and K are submitted with all matters reserved. The outline submission seeks approval for the maximum and minimum amount of development in each development plot. While all matters are reserved for this element, an indication of the means of access, scale parameters, indicative layout and indicative landscaping have been provided. A site-wide design guidelines document is submitted for approval which includes additional detail on parameter plans, layout, appearance and landscaping. A site-wide design and access statement has also been submitted.

102 In addition, applications for Listed Building Consent have been submitted to each Borough for the works to the relevant listed structures within their boroughs.

103 The total maximum floorspace proposed is 262,870 sq.m GEA (including the basement). This would cover the following uses:

o page 19

104 These uses would be positioned across the development plots which would broadly comprise the following:

Plan 1: Plan of development plots.

 Plot A and B: The outline proposals identify these two plots being built out together. Plot A is located within London Borough of Hackney and B straddles both Hackney and Tower Hamlets. They have both been submitted in outline. The London Overground viaduct intersects the plots in the east/west direction. The Grade II listed gateway to the original station sits partially within plot A and it is located within the Westminster pier viewing corridor. The Shoreditch High Street London Overground station box is located within plot B.

The buildings on plots A and B would contain office (maximum of 54,607 sq.m (GEA) and minimum 40,880 sq.m (GEA) of B1 floorspace) with retail at ground floor (maximum of 3,673 sq.m (GEA) A1, A2 and A3 use). The requirement to span the station creates wider floorplates which provide optimum commercial floorspace.

o page 20

The design and access statement outlines an illustrative scheme for the plots which identifies eleven storeys in plot A and thirteen for plot B. They reduce in height towards Shoreditch High Street and appear as two distinct buildings. This scheme presents a simplified architectural response working within the framework of a base, middle and top to the building.

 Plot C: This plot covers an area of 0.6ha, it is located in Tower Hamlets and is submitted in detail. The London Overground viaduct passes east-west through the centre of the plot and the entrance to Shoreditch Station is on its boundary.

It would comprise a six storey podium spanning the entire plot around the train tunnels with two residential towers of differing height rising above. The west tower would comprise 28 residential storeys with the east at 24. The building would be faced in brick with articulated details of balconies, windows and lift shafts.

The ground floor would comprise residential entrance lobby and retail fronting the roads (Braithwaite Street, Bethnal Green Road, Sclater Street and Farthing Lane) and ancillary uses such a plant, refuse store, and retail service yard in the centre of the block. Above the ground floor the buildings would provide 418 residential units.

 Plot D and Plot E: These plots are treated together and are submitted in outline. They are both located on the north east of the site within Tower Hamlets. The London Overground viaduct intersects both plots in the east/west direction.

These buildings would be predominately residential with the ground floor used for a mix of retail, SME, residential entrances, Class D1 and D2 uses and services entrances provided on the Sclater Street frontage. The design and access statement outlines that the buildings on plot D can be positioned in such a way they can span the London Overground Line whilst providing a 18 metre gap between them to allow adequate daylight and sunlight to penetrate between the buildings.

 Plot F and G: Plot F covers a site area of 0.32ha and sits within Hackney and plot G has a site area of 0.39ha and straddles the boundary between Hackney and Tower Hamlets. Both plots have significant constraints at ground floor and below. Specifically The Central Line and a BT communications tunnel sit below this part of the site restricting foundation depths, and the tunnel containing two sets of Network Rail suburban line tracks runs directly below the southern portion of the plots where no buildings can be located. The safeguarded space for two future additional sets of tracks sit in this location, and if built over, would have to be contained in a structural box.

The proposal for plots F and G are submitted in detail. A two storey podium block would cover the two plots which would have two residential towers rising above. Plot F tower would comprise 45 residential storeys (180.4m AOD) and 324 units and plot G would comprise 41 storeys (167.6 AOD) and 290 units.

These would be the tallest buildings on the site. Each building is broken down into three layered volumes. The buildings are proposed to be faced in brick with crafted fenestration details of different sized window openings and external and internal balconies. The two towers would be finished with the same detail, but different coloured brick. Selected external faces of the blocks (southeast on plot F and northwest on plot G) would be finished with a higher proportion of glazed openings.

o page 21

The ground floor would be arranged with retail uses on the external perimeter of the block facing Shoreditch Place (the entrance to the station). To the south of the ground floor would contain the residential lobby and library, with a vehicular entrance provided from Commercial Street. At the first floor, the retail space would continue along the northern edge with both internal and external shared amenity space. At this level, there is also a residential access to the highwalk which would lead directly to the new park.

 Plot H, I and J: These plots comprise the Grade II listed Braithwaite Viaduct which sits east-west on the site between Brick Lane and straddling Braithwaite Street. The plots are located within Tower Hamlets and are subject to a listed building application.

The ground floor of these plots contain the majority of heritage assets on the site which the ground floor has been carefully designed around. London Road would be retained in its historic alignment with the listed and non-listed arches either side being used as commercial premises. This would also form the east-west route through the site from Brick Lane to Shoreditch High Street. Accesses would also be provided through the site north to south via Braithwaite Street and north along Farthing Lane and Cygnet Lane.

A 0.97ha new public park would be provided above the listed and non-listed arches of the Braithwaite Viaduct. This would be accessed from Commercial Street (via the highwalk), from Braithwaite Square, from Farthing Lane (off London Road) and from Brick Lane. It would contain a largely landscaped piece of open space with paths and seating throughout. A number of pavilions would be placed across the park providing for additional commercial (cafe/restaurant) space. Across the entire park oculi funnels would project from the ground which would give light to the spaces underneath. A plinth is proposed at the end of the new Braithwaite Square that would provide space for a piece of art. On the other end, facing Brick Lane is the signal box which would space for a future use such as a classroom or cafe. The new residential units would also have direct access to this park level.

 Plot K: This plots sits on an island separated from the rest of the development site by the open railway line. The site measures approximately 400 sq.m and is likely to comprise a two storey small retail building. The design and access statement identifies that this site could provide additional access under the railway arches to the wider development site.

 Plot L: This plot contains the Oriel Gateway, forecourt walls, gates and gateposts. The site is within Hackney and is submitted as a Listed Building Consent application. The proposal seeks to restore the Oriel Gateway and to open up the original arches to provide pedestrian permeability into the site. Case history

105 There is a range of planning history across the site. Across both the boroughs temporary planning permission has been granted to use part of the site for a shopping facility contained in shipping containers, and a temporary football facility.

106 Over the past ten years a number of masterplans have been brought forward at pre- application stage but none have been formally submitted. These have al contained a mix of residential and office uses in varying proportions and quantums. They have all contained proposals for tall buildings.

o page 22

107 The principle of the regeneration of this site has been established for some time. The draft City Fringe OAPF (2008) identifies the site as a major mixed use development opportunity and suitable location for tall buildings. Given the complex nature of the proposals across the two boroughs and the number of significant constraints the site is subject to, Tower Hamlets and Hackney Councils together with the Mayor of London produced the Bishopsgate Goods Yard Interim Planning Guidance (IPG). This was adopted by Hackney Council in November 2009, Tower Hamlets in December 2009 and approved by the Mayor in December 2009 it is consistent with the then draft version of the 2008 City Fringe OAPF. The document sets out the key principles for the site as:

 Contribute to supporting London’s financial and business services  Strengthen the local economy in Shoreditch and Spitalfields  Significantly contribute to local housing need  Provide an existing place to live, work or visit  Be a place to be enjoyed by existing and new communities

108 The document also outlines key development principles including; how the development should connect with the existing surrounding development, the importance of new open spaces, the requirement for sustainable transport and sustainable design, the re-use of historic structures and the need to strengthen local character. In relation to building heights, the document highlights that larger scale buildings should be focused around the station with medium scale buildings on the transition to Shoreditch High Street, and towards the centre of the site reducing to a ‘street’ scale to the east. The document details design guidelines for the proposals and the importance of local and strategic views. It supports the creation of a park on the Braithwaite Viaduct and identifies that the sites development capacity is 1000-2000 new homes and 75,000 – 150,000 sq.m of non- residential floorspace. It indicated that the land use layout should provide for commercial to the west of the site within Hackney and residential space to the north of the site predominately in Tower Hamlets, and retail at ground floor around the site. It also included a park to the south of the site and a new public square diagonally across the site from Bethnal Green Road to Commercial Street. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

109 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Mix of uses London Plan  Social Infrastructure London Plan  Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, SPG  Strategic views London Plan, LVMP SPG  World Heritage Site and heritage London Plan; World Heritage Sites SPG  Urban design and tall buildings London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, SPG; Housing SPG;  Inclusive design London Plan; Accessible London SPG  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy  Transport London Plan

o page 23

110 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 Tower Hamlets Core Strategy, the 2013 Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document, the 2010 Hackney Core Strategy, 1995 Hackney ‘saved’ UDP Policies, and the 2011 London Plan (with 2013 alterations).

111 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework  Draft Hackney Development Management Local Plan  2010 Bishopsgate Goods Yard Interim Planning Guidance  2008 Draft City Fringe OAPF  2014 Draft City Fringe OAPF (currently issued for consultation)  The draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (intend to public version 15 December 2014)

Mix of uses

Residential

112 The application proposes a maximum 1,464 units across the site. 620 of these units would be within Hackney and 844 in Tower Hamlets. The units, based on the maximum parameters, across the both boroughs would be as follows:

Plot Studio 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom 5 bedroom Total

LBTH 196 235 288 102 18 5 844 (23%) (28%) (34%) (12%) (2%) (1%) LBH 175 196 189 60 0 0 620 (28%) (32%) (30%) (10%) Total 371 431 477 162 18 5 1,464

113 The proposed residential units would assist in achieving the housing targets for both boroughs and is welcomed. The detail of the quality of the housing offer is discussed in detail below.

Employment

114 The Bishopsgate Goods Yard Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) in point BG18 states that the proposal should create opportunities for the local economy to grow and that new employment opportunities should meet the needs of both the new and existing local communities. It goes onto state that given the accessibility of the western end of the site (the area predominantly in Hackney), this would be the most appropriate location for larger scale office buildings. This is supported by figure 50 of the IPG ‘indicative land uses for Bishopsgate Goods Yard’ which suggests the west area would provide employment-lead mixed uses, although does not provide a definition of what employment lead development would be.

o page 24

115 The site is located within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) which constitutes the strategic location for commercial and leisure activities. The provision of commercial floorspace and the job creation associated with it would be a welcome addition to the CAZ.

116 The site is also located within the City Fringe Opportunity Area as identified in the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan Policy 2.13 and Table A1.1 which identifies the City Fringe/Tech City as capable of providing an indicative employment capacity of 70,000 and 8,700 new homes. A revised Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) for the City Fringe is currently being prepared and goes into more detail regarding the commercial character and needs of the area. This revised OAPF, as distinct from the 2008 draft, is just recently commenced consultation (which expires 13 February 2015).

117 Within the current draft OAPF, the Goods Yard site is identified as being within the inner core growth area where demand for employment floorspace is expected to be highest and where employment led developments will be promoted.

118 The approach of the current draft OAPF reflects Hackney Council’s emerging site allocations document. Draft Policy DM17 states that proposals in the priority employment areas (which this site is within) for mixed use developments should have the majority of floorspace in commercial use. It also states that only in exceptional circumstances, where there are strong planning reasons or other material considerations and a significant uplift in commercial floorspace, should residential floorspace exceed commercial.

119 Across the whole site, a maximum of 55,200 sq.m (GEA) and minimum of 41,156 sq.m (GEA) B1 floorspace is proposed (plus 7,193 sq.m of retail floorspace1) compared to the greater quantum of 172,024 sq.m (GEA) residential floorspace.

120 Of the proposed employment floorspace, the key B1 floorspace would be located within Hackney, which is in line with the wording of IPG point BG18. The submitted development specification document outlines that within Hackney, the proposal for B1 and retail space combined would be a maximum of 40,338 sq.m (GEA) and a minimum 27,336sq.m (GEA) compared to the 69,291 sq.m (GEA) of residential floorspace within Hackney. Taking the maximum figures, the residential floorspace would represent 59% of development and commercial would be 35% (this is based on the figures in the development specification excluding the basement floorspace) within Hackney. While this balance would be contrary to the balance of development anticipated within Hackney’s emerging policy, the significant increase in employment space from the existing situation, and the benefits of this site coming forward for regeneration could demonstrate the exceptional circumstances allowed for in Hackney’s draft Policy DM17 if the quantum of employment floorspace was increased.

o o 1 Hackney Core Strategy states that A1 can be considered as an employment generating use when part of a development that includes one or more of the following uses B1, B2, B8, C1, D1. London Plan paragraph 4.47 highlights the employment benefits of the retail sector.

o page 25

121 In conclusion, while officers note the scheme would represent a significant enhancement of employment floorspace as there is none on the site at present; that it would make a significant contribution to London Plan job targets; that there is no policy requirement for a specific quantum of commercial space on the site, and acknowledge the significant site constraints across the Goods Yard, the balance of uses is weighted towards residential. The quantum of uses across the site will need to be reviewed to increase the commercial offer given the significant residential floorspace proposed and to reflect the policy emphasis that supports employment and mixed uses in the City Fringe area.

122 Notwithstanding the quantum of development, the applicant has completed an office space demand assessment which would help to formulate a possible marketing strategy for the office space proposed. In relation to the type of business offer, the IPG states that the proposal should comprise flexible accommodation including small to medium businesses, including managed work spaces which would meet the needs of small and medium sized enterprises. The applicant’s office space demand assessment confirms that the demand in the area is focused on three main areas; large media and tech industries looking to be located in or near to Shoreditch, occupiers looking for spaces between 5,000 to 10,000 sq.ft, new start-ups and small business of 2,500 sq.ft and below.

123 The submission confirms that there would be a letting strategy for the site which would be based around securing an office pre-let for approximately 150,000 sq.ft which would meet one of the identified need groups, act as an anchor job creator and would assist in funding the scheme. The applicant has committed to investigating the leasing strategy for the remaining space once this pre-let has been secured, and that the incorporation of incubator or co-working style space would be investigated if there were sufficient demand.

124 Officers acknowledge the outline nature of the commercial proposals in the scheme, but require confirmation on how this employment offer would be secured to meet the identified needs of the local area, specifically GLA officers will require a proportion of floorspace for SME and start- up companies to be secured and managed appropriately (including any incentive rent arrangements) in the detailed and outline permissions. Officers also request details of communication and progress with interested businesses to date.

Retail

125 London Plan Policy 2.10 states that within the CAZ the Mayor will support and improve the retail offer for residents, workers and visitors. Policy 2.11 requires an identification and enhancement of retail capacity to meet strategic and local need and that this is focused on CAZ frontages. More generally Policy 4.7 states that retail should be focused on Town Centres and where they are proposed on the edge or out of town centre, they will be subject to an assessment of impact. While the site is not in an identified Town Centre, it is in the CAZ within which retail development is supported.

126 The IPG seeks active uses at ground floor that will strengthen the retail character of Shoreditch High Street. It also states that no more than 25% of all retail floorspace should be taken up by cafes, restaurants and bars. The Tower Hamlets Core Strategy identifies that the Goods Yard site is a major opportunity for mixed use development, and supports the promotion of town centre uses in these areas. The Hackney Core Strategy focuses retail and commercial uses around transport hubs. The draft Development Management Local Plan, in the supporting paragraphs for proposed Policy DM7 acknowledges that the CAZ provides a mix of uses, but notes that as the Hackney CAZ is not a designated town centre, retailing and other town centre uses will not be encouraged.

o page 26

127 The scheme proposes 7,193 sq.m (GEA) of retail floorspace (over A1, A2 and A3 use classes) in the outline scheme and 12,855 sq.m (GEA) in the detailed component (Class A1, A2, A3 and A5). While the site has been allocated for a mix of uses, including retail, the applicant has completed an impact assessment on the proposed retail offer. This includes an assessment of other sites in the local catchment on the basis of their availability, suitably and viability for a similar scale scheme.

128 The retail assessment identifies that there are no alternative sites available for this scale of development. It also addresses the impact on other local shopping areas as a result of the proposed uses. It identifies that as a result of the scale and character of the development there would be no significant adverse impacts or significant trade draw on existing local centres (such as Angel, Hackney, Whitechapel and Mile End) or from large centres such as the West End and Stratford (Westfield) from the proposed development. The quantum of retail development would be acceptable in accordance with Policy 4.7. It would work well providing a key link between the existing retail offers on Brick Lane and Shoreditch High Street significantly improving the connectivity between the two enhancing the existing retail function.

129 The submission provides an outline retail strategy, which describes the retail provision as a hub which attracts and eclectic mix of independent retailers and restaurants that would serve local residents and workers as well as attracting people from a wider London area and tourists. It aims to complement and connect the specialist shopping areas of Spitalfields market to the south and Brick Lane to the north. This variety would be encouraged by the range of unit sizes proposed which includes anchor stores (700 sq.m and above), standard retail units (up to 700sq.m) and start up retail/small and medium enterprise units (150 sq.m). The addition of A3 and A5 uses around the edges of public squares would activate frontages and on the upper level fronting the public park.

130 The range and mix of units would support the function of the CAZ and would activate the ground floor of the proposed site. The provision of space for small independent and start-up companies would encourage retail uses that would have character which would be key to realising the unique opportunity for retail the Goods Yard has and would enhance the special character of the City Fringe area. While these aims are supported and would deliver the objectives of London Plan Policy 4.9, the detail of how this would be achieved will be integral to its success, this is particularly true of how the small up-start companies will be encouraged and incentivised to locate here. Further details are required as to the management strategy for the units will work to meet the aim of the retail leasing strategy. Details of how this would be secured and monitored through the phases of development are also required. Social Infrastructure

131 London Plan Policy 3.16 seeks protection and enhancement of social infrastructure to cater for the needs of the cities growing and diverse population.

132 The IPG suggests that high density residential development on this site would only be acceptable where it can be supported by an appropriate level of social infrastructure including health, education, childcare, community, leisure, cultural and sports facilities, and point BG23 specifically requires space for a new community health centre in a prominent and accessible location within the site.

o page 27

133 The proposal includes a maximum provision of 112 sq.m (GEA) of class D1 floor space. The applicant suggests that this would be provided as a GP surgery in one of the buildings along Sclater Street. The applicant should demonstrate that this meets the requirements of the NHS/CCG and is offered to the NHS on terms that meet its funding arrangements. The allocation of this space specifically for a GP surgery should be secured in any permission.

134 Within the planning statement, the applicant has acknowledged that there would be an additional demand for early years education as a result of the increased accommodation and children on site, and that this is proposed to be mitigated through the payment of an education s106 contribution which would be put towards education improvements. GLA officers seek confirmation that there is an identified capacity in the local schools for the projected child yield in the development and that there is an identified programme within which to spend the S106 funds. GLA officers also seek additional clarification that the scheme does not result in the requirement for other social infrastructure mitigation.

135 The application proposes the inclusion of a public toilet provision which would be classified as a piece of social infrastructure and has arisen as a direct response to public consultation on the proposals. Details of the level of provision and if changing facilities are included should be provided to officers. Housing

Housing Mix

136 London Plan Policy 3.8, together with the Mayor’s Housing SPG seeks to promote housing choice and seek a balanced mix of unit sizes in new developments, with particular focus on affordable family homes. The proposal provides a range of different sized units including family sized units as outlined in the table below:

Plot Studio 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom 5 bedroom Total

C 76 140 157 40 5 418

D 120 74 108 33 335

E 21 23 29 13 5 91

F 91 104 101 31 327

G 84 92 88 29 293

Total 371 431 477 162 18 5 1,464

% 25% 29% 33% 11% 1% 0.3%

o page 28

137 While there is some variety in the mix, 25% of all units (371) would be studios with 54% of all units being 1 bedroom and under. Whilst an element of studio provision may be acceptable, the applicant should note paragraph 2.3.18 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG which states that such units should be of exemplary design and be exceptional in the context of the overall housing provision. GLA officers acknowledge that there is an identified local need for smaller units in this location by the boroughs but the quantum of small units does not provide a mix that would provide for future need on a London wide level and the mix. The proportion of small units, particularly the studio units should be reduced to comply with the guidance within Housing SPG.

138 The location of the larger units should also be carefully considered and identified for the outline element. The site benefits from the proposal for the large park. Locating the larger family units here, with direct access onto this new public amenity space would maximise the benefit of the space for future occupiers, whilst also providing another level of activation.

Affordable Housing

139 Given the strategic policy afforded to maximising affordable housing delivery in London Plan Policy 3.12, any proposed affordable housing contribution should represent the maximum reasonable amount. The IPG states that the development should provide a minimum of 35% affordable housing on site. The scheme proposes 10% affordable housing across both sites. While GLA officers understand the constraints of the site, an affordable offer of 10% is disappointing, particularly given the scale of development proposed, and noting the Inspectors comments in the Tower Hamlets CIL examination. It is understood that both Hackney and Tower Hamlets are carrying out an independent assessment of the applicant’s viability assessment to verify if the proposed 10% is the maximum reasonable amount. The conclusions of the independent assessment of the viability assessment should be shared with officers and further discussion had on this point prior to any decision on the current application is made and with an expectation of a significantly improved contribution.

140 Notwithstanding the quantum of the affordable housing proposed, the proportion in Tower Hamlets would be provided on site in line with Policy 3.12. However, the Hackney proportion would be in the form of a payment in lieu. The submission suggests that this is due to the high service charge associated with tall tower developments and the requirement for separate social rented cores. This does not represent a robust exceptional case for the off-site provision of affordable housing, or demonstrate that the cash contribution would have demonstrable benefits in furthering the affordable housing or other planning policies. Alternative affordable housing arrangements should be investigated, such as providing the cumulative affordable housing requirement outside the towers (within Tower Hamlets) and developing an apportionment agreement across the two boroughs. As a minimum an alternative site within Hackney for the provision of affordable housing should be identified and secured.

Tenure

141 London Plan Policy 3.11 establishes a strategic tenure mix for affordable housing of 60% social rent to 40% intermediate housing. The application submission does not make a commitment to the tenure split of the affordable housing, noting that it will be determined on viability grounds. The affordable housing tenure should be agreed in the outline scheme and details of it discussed with GLA officers prior to any planning decision being made to confirm compliance with Policy 3.11.

Housing Quality

o page 29

142 London Plan Policy 3.5 sets the strategic priority of securing high design quality in housing developments, with further guidance provided in the Mayor’s Housing SPG. The residential quality of the scheme is generally high. The frequency of cores ensures a limited number of units on each floor, encouraging good sense of ownership over landings and low requirements for complex maintenance and security measures. The overall proportion of dual aspect units appears high which is welcomed. It appears that the number of single aspect north facing units has been kept to a minimum, and officers request that the number and location of these units are confirmed prior to the stage 2 referral.

143 The residential buildings to the north of the proposed park create a well-defined and enclosed edge to it and the provision of maisonettes is welcomed. However, further work needs to be done to improve the interface between these units to the park. In particular, the applicant should consider providing direct access from park level units onto the park, so as to create a good distribution of activity onto it, helping the space feel safe and well used. Consideration also needs to be given to locating bedrooms on the upper storeys of the maisonettes so as not to compromise their privacy and improve overlooking on to this space. o 144 Whilst the indicative floorplans of the proposed buildings of the outline plots illustrate a high residential quality, key aspects of the residential layout such as number of units sharing the same landing, direct entrances to ground floor units, maximum proportion of single aspect units, minimum clear floor-to ceiling heights and minimum unit sizes would need to be secured in the design guidelines to ensure this is built through. The proposed design guidelines document should be updated to reflect this.

o Amenity Space o 145 The majority of units would have their own amenity space, in the form of a balcony or terrace, which would meet or exceed the standards set out in the London Plan and supporting guidance. Within plots F and G all units would have a private balcony or terrace and access to range of shared amenity spaces. Internal amenity space is proposed at level 1 (181 sq.m) and level 2 (222sq.m) that would provide communal space for residents all year round which is a welcome addition to this scheme, particularly given the high quantity of small units proposed within the towers. In addition two residents gardens are proposed with 134 sq.m provided at level 1 adjacent to the highwalk and 302 sq.m at level 2.

146 In block C there is a range of shared amenity space provided which includes a large external space at the fourth floor and internal ‘cubs’ at the sixth floor which would provide for future occupiers. All but four of the 418 units would have private amenity space. Of these units, three would be 1 bedroom and one would be 3 bedroom. The applicant should seek to provide space for all the units.

Children’s Play Space

147 The design guidelines confirm that the development would have a maximum child yield of 161 children. The Shaping Neighbourhoods SPD states that the required children’s play provision would equate to over 1,000 sq.m, and should include space for under 5s and on-site youth space. The Development Guidelines document confirms that a total area of 2,200 sq.m of play space would be provided which would include, doorstep playable space, neighbourhood playable space, local playable space and youth space. In addition, the scheme proposes a direct link with the Allen Gardens recreation grounds which is over 1ha in area and would provide additional opportunities for play. While this provision is welcome and the play space strategy represents a quality offer, the final mix and tenure of units should be confirmed once viability discussions have concluded to check the calculated child yield and to ensure the proposal would remain in line with Policy 3.6.

o page 30

Residential Density

148 Public transport accessibility levels (PTAL) are ranged on a scale of 1-6 (where 6b is the most accessible). The site has a PTAL of 6b at Shoreditch High Street reducing to 5 towards Brick Lane. The whole site is classified as being central in character. The London Plan requires density to be considered in line with the overall quality of the development including townscape, local character, spaces between buildings and public/private amenity spaces. The London Plan density matrix (Table 3.2 in support of London Plan Policy 3.4) suggests a residential density of between 650 and 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare is suitable for a site such as this.

149 The submission confirms the proposed development would have a density of 1,340 habitable rooms per hectare. GLA officers seek clarification that this density figure is based on the net residential area as outlined in London Plan Policy 3.4 and paragraph 1.3.47 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG. Where density figures go above the indicative thresholds of the London Plan matric then the overall quality of the scheme needs to be of a high standard. As discussed, the residential quality is considered to be high and detailed urban design considerations including its impact on its immediate and wider context are set out below.

o Strategic views o Strategic views

150 London Plan Policy 7.11 and 7.12 establish the London View Management Framework (LVMF), which seeks to designate, protect and manage 27 views of London and some of its major landmarks and the LVMF SPG seeks to provide a method to understand and protect the characteristics. In accordance with Policy 7.12 new development is expected to make a positive contribution to the characteristics and composition of the designated views. The application documentation includes a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) which provides accurate visitations from all relevant points set out in the LVMF SPG, together with assessments on the potential impact on the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate the strategically important landmarks(s).

151 Part of the application site lies within the background of the protected visa of the designated panorama from Westminster to St Paul’s Cathedral (8A.1) and King Henry VIII’s Mound, Richmond to St Paul’s Cathedral (9A.1). The height and form of the buildings have been influenced by the viewing plane. The proposal would not be visible from either of these views. o 152 However, the development would be visible from a number of other LVMF views; Alexandra Palace (LVMF 1A.1), Parliament Hill (LVMF 2A.1), Kenwood (LVMF 3A.1), Primrose Hill (LVMF 4A.1), Greenwich Park (LVMF 5A.1), Blackheath Point (LVMF 6A.1), Tower Bridge north bastion (LVMF 10A.1), Waterloo Bridge Downstream (LVMF 15B.1/2), Gabriel’s Wharf (LVMF 25A.1/.2/.3) and St James’s Park Bridge (LVMF 26A.1). In all of these viewpoints there would be a minor change to the views as a result of the proposal and the impacts would be neutral due to the distance of existing and consented development.

World Heritage Sites and heritage assets

World Heritage Site

o page 31

153 Policy 7.10 states that development within the setting of World Heritage Sites should conserve, promote, make sustainable use of and enhance their authenticity, integrity and significance. It also states that any development should not comprise the viewer’s ability to appreciate the assets Outstanding Universal Value.

154 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the tests for dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions. In relation to listed buildings, all planning decisions should ‘have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which is possesses’ and that this should be given significant or special weight in the balance of making planning decisions. The NPPF identifies that the extent and importance of the significance of the heritage asset is integral to assessing the potential impact, and therefore the acceptability. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Where a development will lead to less than substantial harm, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. These aims are transposed in London Plan Policy 7.8 which requires the identification, conservation, restoration and re-use of heritage assets.

155 The Tower of London World Heritage Site is just over a mile to the south of the development site and when this national monument is viewed from the south bastion of Tower Bridge, the top storeys of the proposed towers would be visible above the crenelated parapet of the White Tower. Although the applicant has lowered the height of these towers following advice from English Heritage and officers, there would still be a moderate impact upon this important heritage asset. It is acknowledged that the reduced height does partly mitigate the impact, that the view is already compromised to some extent by other recent developments, and that this is not a designated view within the LVMF. However, it would appear in the background view of the Tower and is considered to result in less than substantial harm and this harm will need to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

156 The development would provide up to 55,200 sq.m of commercial space, approximately 1,450 new homes and would involve the redevelopment of a key central London site which has lain vacant for a number of years. In addition to this, the development would preserve, and give future use to heritage assets on site (see below), and provide a significant quantum of open space, in the form of a large public park. While significant weight has been given to the effect on the setting of listed buildings, in this case, on balance, the impact on the setting of the Tower of London is not so great to outweigh the significant benefits of the scheme and the less than sustainable harm to the World Heritage Site is acceptable.

Designated Heritage Assets

157 On site heritage assets include the Grade II listed Braithwaite Viaduct and Grade II listed former forecourt walls and gates to the Goods Yard. The site is also surrounded by a number of designed heritage assets.

158 Within the site, the proposal would preserve the heritage assets in the site. The proposal includes the repair of the Braithwaite Viaduct and its conversion into retail units. This would also include the unlisted vaults to the south which adjoin London Road. These proposals would secure the long-term future for the listed structure and ensure its on-going conservation.

o page 32

159 London Road which runs to the south of the Braithwaite is unlisted but forms an important part of the setting of the listed viaduct and contains many original features associated with the Goods Yard including a wagon lift, brick jack arches and granite cobble stones which have rails set into them. In the pre-application proposals these would have been significantly altered, undermining the character of the building and harming the setting of the listed structure. The applicant has responded positively to requests to retain the integrity of these features and the original alignment of London Road and the current proposals should enhance the setting of the Braithwaite Viaduct. The proposals will introduce retail into the structure without over restoring the building thereby retaining its patina of age and gritty industrial character.

160 The listed forecourt walls, gates and the Oriel at the entrance of the site are also listed and would be repaired as part of the scheme. This would open up the historic entrance to the site and focus the east-west route across it. The ground floor of the forecourt would be opened up to provide the opportunity for additional retail units.

Plan 2: Heritage assets

161 While unlisted, the illustrative scheme for plots D and E identify the renovation of the derelict Weaver’s Cottages to provide an entrance into the retail ground floor of the development. Each cottage would be converted into two SME office units providing additional small pockets of commercial uses in Tower Hamlets. The Mission Hall would also be repaired and incorporated into the wider scheme.

162 The preservation and restoration of these elements of the scheme would enhance the significance of the heritage assets. Their inclusion in the scheme is well thought out and allows the heritage assets to be brought back into active use and would be accessible to the public. These elements provide a genuine benefit for the scheme and would be in accordance with Policy 7.8.

o page 33

163 In relation to conservation areas, the Planning Act states that ‘special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area’. The development would affect views from number conservation areas. The height and scale of the development would have varying degrees of impact upon the setting of the South Shoreditch, Boundary Estate, Redchurch Street and Elder Street Conservation Areas and on the character and appearance of the Brick Lane & Fournier Street Conservation which includes part of the site. The tall buildings of the eastern part of the City already form part of the setting of most of these conservation areas, as does the existing Shoreditch High Street Station concrete box and bow- string bridge. In addition, parts of the Goods Yard site have been derelict and deteriorating for many years which has an existing effect the appearance of the surrounding conservation areas, but also means that any form of development is likely to have a significant effect on local views.

164 Of the views outlined in the TVIA there are several where the impact should be noted.

I. South Shoreditch Conservation Area In the long view down Epworth Street the development would be screened by ‘The Stage’ development which gained permission in 2013. The view along Great Eastern Street would also be not be harmed as the townscape comprises the views of the existing City towers form an intrinsic part of the setting of this conservation area. The view of the towers from Worship Street which, would appear above the Grade II* listed 91-101, this isn’t considered to harm the background settings of these buildings, given the scale of buildings that can already be seen in this context ; particularly when consideration is given to the consented schemes for ‘The Stage’ and ‘Principle Place’ developments.

II. Shoreditch High Street The proposal would be clearly visible in views down the high street from the South Shoreditch Conservation Area, and would be higher than the Tea Building. The latter would mediate the increase in scale moving south towards the City and while visible at the northern end of the High Street, it would not affect the setting of Grade I listed St Luke’s Church.

III. Boundary Estate Conservation Area Most of the key LCC mansion blocks are Grade II listed. The scheme would be visible along Camlet Street from Arnold Circus, during the winter months when the large plane trees are not in leaf (in the summer they would be obscured by the trees). This is an urban environment and the towers would be seen as distant elements, the profiles of which would be not greatly higher than the existing roof profile of the estate. When moving onto the pavements of Camlet Street the views of the buildings would be much diminished and largely obscured by the trees even in the winter. The setting of the listed buildings is not considered to be harmed in this view. The view from Arnold Circus along Club Row would also be affected, but the Avant Garde tower fills much of this view and the impact is unlikely to be great. There would be a change to the views of the Boundary Estate across the churchyard of St Leonard’s Church from Austin Street, though the Broadgate Tower already intrudes, albeit to a lesser extent, on this view.

IV. Redchurch Street Conservation Area Views along Chance Street and Bethnal Green Road would alter the background setting of the conservation area but are not considered to harm them, given the distance to the towers along Bethnal Green Road. The towers would clearly mark the boundary of the city and would enhance the setting of the conservation areas.

o page 34

V. Commercial Street: junction with Hanbury Street In this view the two towers complement and form an attractive composition with the two faience Art Deco buildings to the right of the view. The setting of the conservation areas and listed buildings in this view would be enhanced.

VI. Brick Lane and Founier Street Conservation Area Some views from within the conservation area would be altered, include those of St Matthew’s Church from Hereford Street where there would be a moderate impact on the background in the middle distance. Along Commercial Street the towers would rise above the Grade II listed Spitalfields Market halls and Commercial Tavern but would not harm their setting. The view down Elder Street is of great quality given the listed Georgian terraced houses and the proposal would have an adverse impact on this view by virtue of the tallest towers terminating this vista which is currently closed by low level buildings, and the expanse of visible sky which would be lost. However it needs to be borne in mind that any development on the Goods Yard site is likely to be visible in this view and that prior to its demolition the historic Goods Yard structure would have had a significant presence in this view for a period of 100 years.

VII. Geffrye Museum In longer distance winter views the southern wing of the museum would be affected, but given the distance would be no harm.

VIII. Elder Street Conservation Area The view down Blossom Street would be changed with the current backdrop of this vista being transformed from sky to the south elevation of one of the towers. It is considered that the change to this view is positive with the introduction of a high quality symbol of London’s regeneration.

165 This impact to some of the conservation area views and the setting of listed buildings needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. While the balance in relation to the World Heritage Site is accepted, the impact on some local views would be more significant as set out above. The provision of additional homes, jobs and the redevelopment of the vacant site are welcomed and specifically for existing local residents and visitors to the site, the increased levels of access across the Goods Yard would allow for enhanced local permeability, and the new park would offer a high quality amenity space. The resolution of an improved affordable housing offer, a housing mix that meets and identified need in the local area, and increased commercial offer would further enhance the schemes public benefit and if these issues are addressed, would be considered to provide sufficient public benefit to outweigh the harm identified in these views. Urban design and tall buildings

166 The design of the proposed scheme is strongly supported. It significantly increases permeability through the area, provides a good mix of uses to activate the public realm day and night, celebrates and enhances the existing heritage assets on the site and accommodates a large 0.97 hectares public open space.

Layout

167 The existing site is vacant and has been for a number of years. Careful redevelopment of the site would repair the existing gap in the urban fabric, facilitate extensive regeneration and integrate the site with the wider area from which it is currently largely physically disconnected.

o page 35

168 The layout of the scheme provides a new east west route running parallel to Quaker Street and Sclater Street between Shoreditch High Street and Brick Lane which is strongly supported. The London Road part of this route has remained covered to retain the existing heritage elements on the site. This is a very welcome change from early pre-application iterations which uncovered it. It is well flanked by retail units ensuring it would feel safe, active and well used which is welcomed. However, it is important that this route feels like an integral aspect of the public realm, without being overly managed or enclosed, and feels inviting for all to use. A retail strategy that looks to encourage local independent businesses will be key to ensuring this character is achieved and overly controlling the way in which the tenants can brand and design their shop fronts is discouraged.

169 Braithwaite Square successfully guides pedestrians between the London Road section of this route through to Shoreditch Place ensuring the route feel legible and continuous, and creating a small public open space at street level which is strongly supported. This would also provide a legible and high quality improved entrance to Shoreditch High Street Station which is welcomed.

170 The proposed layout also reinforces the role and importance of Braithwaite Street, connecting Commercial Street to Bethnal Green Road. This is flanked by retail uses along its eastern edge and the new Braithwaite Square, where this route crosses the new east-west route described above. An element of the historical arches overhangs this route, but officers are satisfied that this won’t undermine its legibility.

171 The proposed Phoenix Place provides an alternative route from Commercial Road to Braithwaite Street parallel to the proposed Shoreditch Place further adding to the permeability of the area. However, officers are concerned that this route might feel isolated and hostile after dark given the amount of blank frontage, impact of the arches and the vehicular drop-off point located along it. Further information on how this space would feel inviting and well used to ensure its safety needs to be provided.

172 The retention of the historical elements of the site is strongly supported as set out in the heritage section above, and the incorporation of this to provide a new public open space at upper level is particularly welcomed. The raised height of this space and the positioning of buildings to the north of it would ensure the space receives ample amounts of sunlight, and excellent views across the city, encouraging it to be used by the wider community,

173 The layout is well considered with a clear and legible street based concept which establishes a much needed piece of townscape. It considerably improves wider integration, knitting the significant amount of development into the existing streets improving accessibility for existing and future residents.

Scale and height

o page 36

Plan 3: Plan of development plot heights.

174 The proposed scheme carries forward the IPG principle of a height transition from west to east. Through pre-application negotiation and discussions, the overall scale of the site has altered. The key reduction in the overall heights of the highest buildings has the knock on effect of increasing the heights of the buildings which would ideally serve as more intermediate scale buildings. The result of the additional scale reduces the effectiveness of the scale gradient. Whilst the efforts of the design team to provide relief and differentiation along Bethnal Green Road are acknowledged as is the significant reduction in scale of the block adjacent to Brick Lane the overall scale of plot C a needs to be reviewed and discussed with officers.

175 London Plan Policy 7.7 sets out that tall buildings should be part of a plan-led approach to changing or developing an area and should not have an unacceptably harmful impact on their surroundings. The IPG and 2008 draft City Fringe OAPF both identify the site as suitable for tall buildings.

176 The site is within the CAZ, close to Liverpool Street Station, the new Crossrail Station and has an Overground Station on site. It is therefore well placed for a development of significant ‘city’ scale. The initial work done on the detailed elements and design guidelines document identifies that the street level, on the whole, is well thought out. The protection of the listed buildings and elements and the opening up to the arches would enforce the character of the site within the redevelopment and would be carefully tied in to the provision of the new retail hub. The ground floor uses would also improve the townscape in the area positively improving the permeability of the site and the wider area. Overall the scheme would provide a high number of homes and a large quantum of commercial floorspace, bringing forward a significant level of regeneration in the area which would have benefits for both boroughs which would be wide reaching.

177 GLA officers welcome the reduction in the scale of the tallest towers following pre- application discussion. As outlined in the views assessment above, the scale, mass and bulk would impact on a number of key views, including the setting of listed buildings. However the overall public benefit of the scheme as outlined in the heritage section above is generally considered to outweigh this harm.

Appearance

178 The appearance of a development of this scale at such a prominent location is important as it will play a significant part in the image of London and the City Fringe in the future. Officers are satisfied that this has been taken into account in the design of the scheme and that its architecture is of a high enough quality to reflect this.

o page 37

179 The relatively small footplate of the taller elements ensure they appear slender and elegant and significant care has been given in their location and orientation to ensure they each appear as distinct elements and do not amalgamate to a single indistinct mass of development.

180 The predominant use of brick is supported, maintaining a visible contrast between this area and the more corporate glass and steel environment in the City. The use of brick also reflects the residential character of the buildings and creates a scheme which has a robust materiality. Careful attention to detailing including deep window reveals, well detailed balconies and subtle variations in brick type further add to creating the appearance of a high quality set of buildings that will add positively to the London skyline.

181 The articulated podium and plinth approach provides continuity between the existing buildings and the new development, reinforcing the existing townscape scale and character whilst allowing the taller elements to rise above. The tri-partite design of the elevations reflect this approach and ensure the towers, whilst significantly taller than the plinth, feel integral to the design which is welcomed.

182 A set of design codes accompany the application in the design guidelines document, which ensures that the principles and quality will be translated to the outline elements of the scheme. However, the local planning authority will need to scrutinise the detailing and quality of materials when these aspects are submitted to ensure that they retain the quality and standards set by the detailed elements of the proposal. Open Space

183 The site is located in an area where there is a deficiency of public open space, green space and play-space. The provision of a park on top of the listed Braithwaite viaduct was a key aim within the IPG.

184 This park would measure 0.97 hectares and is central to the success of the masterplan for the site. It has good orientation, facing south, and while it would be located at first floor, would be a strong visual focal point for the local community with the proposed art and access routes. It would be flanked by residential accommodation, some of which has direct access to it, promoting activity at different times of day. The park would be accessible and a significant benefit of the scheme and the wider community.

185 Below the large park, the ground floor layout has been designed around a number of shared and public uses. Three new public squares are proposed; one at the entrance to the site from Shoreditch High Street, one around the residential entrances within plots F and G, and a new Brick Lane square on the east boundary which would allow for a piece of public open space, but also an enhanced footpath. To the south east boundary of the site, the remaining arch wall would be transformed in a highwalk with stair access from Commercial Street providing a piece of public realm and access into the new park. These spaces would assist in creating opportunities for dwelling in formal and informal ways in connection with the commercial offer of the ground floor and would assist in connecting the various sections of the development.

186 Overall the open space created within the scheme is high quality and well thought out and would provide a significant benefit for future occupiers of the site, local people and visitors to the area. The proposal is in line with Policy 7.1 and would provide a central role in creating this new neighbourhood. Public access to the park should be secured though the S106 agreement. o Inclusive design o

o page 38

187 London Plan Policy 7.2 together with the Accessible London SPG aim to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum). Inclusive design principles, if embedded into the development and design process from the outset help to ensure that all of us, including older people, disabled and Deaf people, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity.

188 While an access statement has been provided in the documentation, there is no clear inclusive design strategy for the whole masterplan. An additional document should be provided which sets out the vision for ensuring inclusive design is integrated into the masterplan from the beginning of the design process. This should establish appropriate mechanism, inclusive accesses design standards and identify how disabled and older people have been consulted with on the design proposals. The statement and design guidelines document should also the lifetime neighbourhoods principles outlined in London Plan Policy 7.1. Given the scale of the development it may be appropriate to establish an ongoing consultation access group, which should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

Residential units

189 All units would be designed to Lifetime Homes standards and 10% would be wheelchair accessible which is welcomed and in line with London Plan Policy 3.8. Further details of the wheelchair adaptable units are required including an accurate figure of the percentage of wheelchair accessible homes. In the detailed drawings for plots C, R and G, the identified layouts of the sample wheelchair accessible units do not meet the recommended guidance in the following areas:

 Figure 6.1.4.321 – the transfer area block access to the kitchen and the bathroom does not confirm to figure 11.1.5/11.1.7 of the Wheelchair Housing Design Guide and as such cannot be deemed compliant  Figure 6.1.4.320 – the transfer area/changing area blocks access to the living room space and is not compliant with the design guide  Plot C Wheelchair Accessible Suite; the bathroom does not confirm to Figure 11.1.5/11.1.7 of the Wheelchair Housing Design Guide – dwelling plans should demonstrate that dwellings would accommodate the furniture, access and activity space requirements relating to the declared level of occupancy.

190 Within plots F and G, access to the mezzanine level would be provided via two escalators and a platform lift. Given the scale of the scheme, and the quantum of residential units proposed in these buildings, a platform lift is not considered to be the most appropriate way of making this element of the scheme accessible. This arrangement should be reviewed prior to reporting the scheme back to the Mayor.

Public Realm

191 The design of the landscaping and the public realm is crucial to how inclusive the development is for many people. Overall the public realm would be high quality which is welcomed. However, the use of reclaimed cobbles raises accessibility issues for wheelchair users. The applicant should consult specifically with disabled people regarding the landscaping and reuse of historic elements to ensure the scheme does not create barriers to disabled people. Recent public realm improvements at Clink Street in Southwark represents an excellent solution to balancing accessibility and heritage.

o page 39

192 In relation to the access to the first floor park, the proposal for lift access across the space is noted; however, further clarification is required to ensure that approaches to the access points are both accessible and safe. For example, the access at Commercial Street is indicated as having an exposed soffit which could be hazardous to partially sighted people, and the public lift at Braithwaite Square only has access via a narrow passageway.

193 Confirmation of type and location of accessible seating to be provided in the public realm should be provided to GLA officers to fully understand the proposed strategy for public realm seating. Further detail of the inclusive play strategy should also be provide indicating how the spaces identified for children’s play space would also provide inclusive play opportunities.

Accessible Parking

194 The parking strategy identifies that the car parking would be built out in the final phases of the development. GLA officers request that the parking strategy is updated to clearly include details of how and where parking would be provided for residents of wheelchair units in the interim to confirm compliance with London Plan Policy 3.8. This should secure that the parking is restricted to the use of disabled residents only and not sold to individual units. Parking spaces should be made available on short leases and allocated to residents of wheelchair accessible units on the basis of individual need. The low parking provision on site could be mitigated through the provision of secure storage space and charging points for mobility scooters, in accordance with 2.3.7 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG.

195 Access to disabled parking for disabled staff and visitors will need to be provided in the scheme and should be located at ground level and vehicle charging points should be provided in accordance with table 6.2 of the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan.

196 The cycle parking for blocks F and G is provided via stepped access only. This is contrary to the Mayor’s guidance on cycling infrastructure and step-free access to cycle parking should be provided. In addition, further detail is required on the provision of inclusive cycle storage with the ability to store adapted cycles or trikes to encourage their use by disabled and older people.

Heritage Assets

197 The retention and reuse of the heritage assets on site is welcomed; however, opportunities should be taken to improve the access to retained assets where possible. Given the lowering of the basements in the Weavers’ Cottages further justification should be provided as to why they cannot be made step-free. In addition, the new signal box is proposed to have a platform lift which is a compromised accessibility option, details of why standard lift options have not been investigated should be provided. Sustainable Development

Energy

198 In accordance with the principles of Policy 5.2 the applicant has submitted an energy strategy for the development which sets out how the scheme proposes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the London Plan energy hierarchy.

o page 40

199 In relation to the ‘lean’ stage the applicant aims to achieve a reduction of 600 tonnes per annum (17%) in regulated CO2 emissions across the whole site compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. These figures should be reviewed using Part L 2013 and commitment should be made to meeting the baseline by efficiency measures alone for phase of the detailed application.

200 The demand for cooling would be minimised through the provision of openable windows. The applicant has committed to ensuring that the detailed design would meet criterion 3 of Part L 2010 on high summer temperatures. Full details of how this would be achieved should be provided. The dewellings are proposed to have solar control glazing but also active cooling. Given the scale of the development, the applicant should set clear design guidelines and targets on passive design features to be included in the detailed design of phases to ensure the cooling hierarchy in London Plan Policy 5.9 has been addressed. It is recommended that dynamic thermal modelling is used to set these guidelines. The application should also demonstrate that future climate projections are considered to ensure that the development is future proofed (please refer to CIBSE TM49 and TM52).

201 The potential for heat recovery from the 33kW substation on the site is being considered which is welcome.

202 The ‘clean’ stage has been addressed by the application in relation to district heating, heat networks and CHP. In relation to district heating, the applicant has identified that Citigen district heating network is in close proximity to the site. While the site is too far away to make a connection to this network at this point, the applicant has committed to ensuring the development allows for future connection should a new network become available. Further details should be provided of how this would be achieved in practice (i.e. location of space safeguarded for heat exchangers and pip runs connecting to a wider network).

203 The site heat network is welcomed. Confirmation should be provided that all apartments and non-domestic building uses would be connected to the network.

204 Three energy centres are proposed to be included on site that would be linked together. Further information is required on the phasing schedule for the development to justify this approach. The applicant should investigate the possibility of making energy centre 2 the main centre for the whole development, with temporary boilers installed to serve phase 1 in the interim.

205 The proposal includes the installation of three CHP engines (with the capacity of 200 kWe, 275 kWe and 150 kWe) in each of the energy centres. They would meet the domestic hot water load and a proportion of space heating. This would achieve a reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 650 tonnes (22%) per annum. In line with the investigation of one ‘main’ energy centre, the applicant should consider consolidating the number of CHP engines in the interest of optimising plant efficiency and carbon savings in the long term as well as facilitating retrofit of district heating connections in the future. This could include utilising gas boilers in the first phases until enough demand is established through the phasing of the development.

206 The ‘green’ stage has been addressed with the inclusion of 35-40kWp of solar PV on the roof of the proposed buildings. This would achieve a reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 25 tonnes per annum (1%).

207 Overall, the carbon emissions savings would result in an overall carbon saving of 1275 tonnes per year. This would be equivalent to a saving of 35% against 2010 Building Regulations. These emissions should be reassessed under Part L 2013 to assess the scheme against London Plan Policy 5.2 targets.

o page 41

208 Whilst it is accepted that there may be little further potential for carbon dioxide reductions on site, the applicant should ensure the shortfall in carbon dioxide reductions is met –off site. Further discussion with GLA and borough officers should be had in relation to achieving this. Given the phased and outline nature of the scheme, it may be that a condition for a reserved matter on each phase should be imposed to ensure that Part L 2013 is met by energy efficiency measures alone, and that mitigation for any shortfall in overall reduction is calculated separately on each phase.

Waste

209 Policy 5.16 aims for London to manage the equivalent of 100% of its waste by 2026, minimising waste and achieving high reuse and recycling rates. Policy 5.17 outlines that all new development should provide suitable waste and recycling facilities. Details should be provided confirming that adequate storage space provisions have been provided within the site, which could include split-bin design for kitchen fit outs, communal waste storage with separated recycling storage per type, or separate chute systems or waste compactors. Provision should also be made for storage of bulky waste.

Water

210 Policy 5.13 seeks that developments utilise urban drainage systems to work towards achieving greenfield run-off rates and to manage water run-off in urban areas. The proposal includes provision of a sustainable urban drainage system which utilises the position of the park, and new soft landscaping areas, green roofs and attenuation tanks, in line with Policy 5.13 Transport

Servicing

211 There are three access points from the northern site boundary, a single access from Bethnal Green Road and two from Sclater Street. An occasional point of access from Brick Lane is also proposed, but only for emergency access and shop fit out. All servicing is due to take place within the site accessed from local roads within servicing yards which would allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward gear. Any proposals for on street servicing will be opposed. The vehicular access point into the site will be subject to a stage 1 safety audit. This arrangement should be secured across all land uses through the S106 agreement.

212 Ad hoc drop off and pick up on the street, especially by taxi would have a significant harmful effect on the surrounding road network. Dedicated space for drop off should be provided within the site with on street facilities restricted to disabled visitors.

213 A site-wide delivery and servicing plan would need to be secured through the section 106 agreement with detailed plans for each phase. All servicing should avoid peak hours. This plan should be agreed by both boroughs and TfL.

Car parking

214 No car parking should be provided for general needs. All spaces should be allocated for disabled parking as detailed above. This should be accompanied with a permit free agreement to ensure that future residents are not eligible for on street parking. A car parking management plan to demonstrate how the disabled parking will be allocated and managed should also be provided.

Cycling

o page 42

215 2,918 cycle spaces are proposed in total. Depending on the quantum of development proposed, this may or may not meet the minimum requirements set out in table 6.3 of the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP). For residential units a minimum of 1 space per studio/1 bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2 bedroom or larger units will be required.

216 Cycle parking requirements of the commercial uses will depend on the type of use. Offices should provide 1 space per 90 sq.m for long stay and additional spaces for short stay. These should also include shower and changing facilities. Visitors and short stay users should also be provided for, and given the site’s location this should be provided in excess of the FALP minimum standards to cater for future increases in demand.

217 Confirmation should be provided with any stage 2 referral that the S106 contains a commitment to provide cycle parking in line with FALP minimum requirements for each phase of development across the residential and commercial sectors.

218 The transport assessment provides a description of the existing and planned cycle network in the locality but cycle counts at key locations have not been undertaken. The assessment details predicted cycle trips but they are not broken down into an analysis of how the trips would be distributed across the network, making it difficult to estimate the likely demand from improved cycle infrastructure as a result of the development. No specific indication has been given as to how the expected increase in cycling numbers would be accommodated. These details should be provided and how they link into the current work the boroughs are doing on the east/west cycling link along Scrutton Street, Holywell Land and Bethnal Green Road.

219 Given the desire to retain London Road as a covered route and its likely nature as a busy covered shopping arcade, it is not appropriate to require cycle access. Unfortunately this means that an additional east west cycle route cannot be achieved. To offset this, a significant contribution should be made to improving the routes for cyclists in the local area around the site boundary.

220 The reduction in the capacity of the docking station on Bethnal Green Road would result in significant harm to the cycle hire network given that this is one of the busiest stations in the whole network. Suitable alternative provision should be made in the surrounding area before the capacity is reduced. Any temporary loss of docking facilities would incur a penalty charge so the provision should be secured through condition.

221 The provision of additional cycle hire docking facilities is supported. However, it only represents an increase of 36 spaces which is inadequate to be able to deal with the likely demand. TfL has recommended that a minimum of 50 additional docking points should be provided, with an ideal provision of 80-90 new docking points spread across two to three sites. The majority of these spaces should be opened as soon as feasible and in the first phase of the development.

222 The identified sites for the docking stations will need to be subject to site visits and detailed design work by TfL and should be discussed with officers as soon as possible. It is likely that three new docking stations each providing 30 docking points on land owned by the applicant would cost approximately £600,000 based on current day costs. TfL expects that the land required for the docking stations and the financial contribution should be secured through the S016 agreement.

Trip generation

223 Overall, the trip generation assessments are agreed for the residential trip rates. The assessment of the mode split should be reassessed given the recent publication of the 2011 census data.

o page 43

224 The assumptions underpinning the assessment of retail trip generation are acceptable and the addition of survey date from the Spitalfields Market survey provides a useful supplement to the trip rates from Westfield, Chatham Place in Hackney and Covent Garden from the scoping report.

Public Transport

225 The overall scale of impact of the development on the transport network would be significant. While the aggregation of rail and Underground trips is sensible, TfL is concerned about the methodology used to allocate trips to specific corridors. It is likely that Shoreditch High Street station would attract a much higher proportion of trips than reported, even where this involves interchange to/from other services. This is particularly relevant given the location of Crossrail at Whitechapel once the service is running. A more robust estimate should be provided within the transport assessment to ensure that the need for mitigation can be considered to cater for the additional trips.

226 During pre-application, the proposal for a second entrance to Shoreditch station was discussed. While this would provide benefits of greater visibility and greater links, this would be outside TfL’s land ownership and while TfL are willing to work with the applicants to investigate this, it is acknowledged it is not part of these proposals. A priority is to ensure that the visibility of Shoreditch High Street station from Bethnal Green Road is maintained and enhanced as the development is built out.

227 In relation to buses, the site benefits from an intensive bus network in the surrounding area and additional bus trips from the development can be accommodated within existing provision. The relocation of the existing eastbound bus stop on the north side of Bethnal Green Road to the east is acceptable in principle. However, any relocation would require significant enabling works to be carried out with the agreement of the local highway authority. Details of the discussions between the parties involved should be provided to TfL to consider who will also need to give their approval to the scope of works proposed.

Highways

228 The use of existing turning count data for the proposed traffic distribution on the road network is reasonable. The scope of the detailed highways modelling was discussed at pre- application stage. TfL has recently completed VISSIM modelling for this area which may be used as a starting point (for which a nominal fee will be charged), and Transyt/Linsig models will be required for all regions for model optimisation.

229 TfL have been investigating improvements to this part of Shoreditch Triangle. There are key elements of this scheme that relate directly to the proposed development, including:

 Rationalising crossing facilities around the Shoreditch High Street/Great Eastern Street/Commercial Street junction to allow pedestrians to cross in a smaller number of movements  Introducing a new pedestrian crossing over Shoreditch High Street on the southern arm of its junction with Bethnal Green Road  Improving the east-west cycling link from Bethnal Green Road to New Inn Yard with the possibility of making New Inn Yard a through route for cyclists and pedestrians only

o page 44

 Providing segregated cycle lanes, particularly on Shoreditch High Street

230 The modelling of these design options has not yet been undertaken and their feasibility is yet to be established. The delivery of any proposals will be subject to approval by TfL under the Traffic Management Act (2004) as well as further stakeholder and public consultation. However, an initial estimate of the cost of that part of the project that provides mitigation for the impact of the subject development which the developer can reasonability be expected to fund is £5.9 million. This includes construction, TfL staff time and utility costs. Inflation at 10% and risk at 40% have been applied to this figure. The scope of this work should be discussed and agreed between the applicant, boroughs and TfL prior to this application being determined.

Walking

231 The applicant has carried out extensive pedestrian surveys for the daytime period, but these do not extend to midnight on Friday and Saturday where there are currently high pedestrian bus/traffic flows. These details should be added into the assessment.

232 A baseline pedestrian comfort level audit has been undertaken on pedestrian links and crossings as recommended by TfL at pre-application stage, and is supplemented by a pedestrian environment review system audit which reviews existing pedestrian infrastructure. The study confirms that the key need is to improve the pedestrian improvements on the western edge of the site, particularly at the junction of Shoreditch High Street, Great Eastern Street and Commercial Street. This reinforces the need for the Shoreditch Triangle improvements.

233 To improve pedestrian wayfinding, Legible London infrastructure should be installed in and around the site. This will require the location and funding of signs to be agreed with TfL. As a guide, a single standard sign installation can cost £7,000 but this can vary depending on size.

Plans

234 The submission and approval of a further Travel Plan should be secured in any approval. This should include specific measures which would need to address site wide issues as well as specific details for individual phases.

235 A separate site wide delivery and servicing plan would also be required. This should include details of i) booking system, ii) consolidated or re-timed trips, iii) secure off street loading and drop off facilities, iv) the use of operators committee to best practice. This should also include swept paths for vehicles that would serve the site and how the impact of the movement of large delivery vehicles would be mitigated, particularly on cyclists and venerable road users.

236 A new site wide construction logistic plan should be submitted which is supported by detailed plans for each individual phase or block. It is anticipated that the construction phase could require up to 100 heavy vehicle movements per day which would need to be carefully managed in relation to cyclists and pedestrians. London Overground also has a number of specific requirements which would have to be taken account of.

237 The plans should be secured and monitored through the s106 and conditions for individual plots.

Infrastructure protection

238 London Underground and London Overground infrastructure and assets in and around the site must be safeguarded during and after construction. TfL has already provided further information and proposed conditions directly to the local planning authorities.

o page 45

Crossrail SPG, Community Infrastructure Levy and S106

239 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and it will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater London that was granted planning permission on or after that date. The Mayor's CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail

240 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands. The rate for Hackney and Tower Hamlets is £35/sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised. See the 2010 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents as amended by the 2011 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/987/made .

241 The site is also within the Central London charging zone as identified in London Plan 2013 SPG ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy’. This sets an additional charge of £140 per square metre for office development in the zone and £90 per square metre for retail development. The applicant should ensure that the details of proposed floorspace, expressed in square metres GIA are included with the transport assessment in order for the correct sum to be calculated, noting that the CIL payment will act as a credit towards the SPG payment.

242 It is noted that the Tower Hamlets CIL Inspector has recently issued his report, which recommends a nil rate for all uses within the Tower Hamlets part of the site. The Hackney CIL examination has taken place, but not yet reported. The consequence of a nil rate across the whole site or split rates will need to be addressed in apportioning contributions. Local planning authorities position

243 The position of the boroughs is not yet known.

Legal considerations

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

245 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion

o page 46

246 London Plan policies on land use principles, housing and affordable housing, strategic views, World Heritage Sites and heritage assets, urban design and tall buildings, open space, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport are relevant to this application. In general, the application complies with these policies, however, further discussion is needed on the following points prior to referring the application back to the Mayor:  Land use: The mixed use scheme would be support the function of the CAZ and provide regeneration of a site which is currently standing vacant. The provision of a maximum of 1,464 units on site is welcomed.

While the inclusion of commercial floorspace is also welcomed, the quantum of commercial floorspace should be increased to ensure the balance between residential and commercial is in line with emerging policy for this key ‘City Fringe’ area. Further detail is also required on the type of commercial offer proposed including how the provision would meet the need for commercial space in the area.

The inclusion of retail uses within the site is welcome and would create a vibrant ground floor and would not compete with existing shopping areas. Further details of the management and letting strategy for these units should be provided.

Further evidence should be provided which details the scheme is providing sufficient social infrastructure required as a result of the quantum of development.

 Housing: While the quantum of housing is welcomed, the provision of 10% affordable housing across the site is disappointing. This should be reviewed and the results of independent viability work shared with GLA officers. Affordable housing should be provided on site unless a robust exceptional case for off-site provision can be made, this has not been done in relation to the affordable housing provision within Hackney. Details about the tenure of units should also be provided.

The scheme proposes a large quantum of small units which should be reviewed in line with the Housing SPG which requires a London wide approach to mix and a low proportion of studio units.

Confirmation of the proportion of single aspect north facing units should be provided and details reviewed of the layout of units facing the park. The commitment to all units meeting the guidelines in the Housing SPG should be secured through the design guidelines document.

The final quantum, mix and tenure of units should be provided to officers to confirm the child yield from the development.

The residential density of the scheme should be calculated using the net residential area of the site.

 World Heritage Site and heritage assets: The significant public benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site. The degree of harm to the views within the surrounding conservation areas would be outwieghed by the public benefits of the scheme.

 Urban design and tall buildings: The design of the scheme is well conceived and strongly supported. The scheme provides a piece of public realm that is currently missing from this part of the city and would provide new permeable routes through the area.

o page 47

Further details are required on the treatment of Phoenix Place to ensure it doesn’t feel isolated after dark.

The reduction in the height of the tallest towers are welcome, but the scale of block C should be reviewed.

 Inclusive design: Further detail is required on the accessibility rational of the whole master plan. The details of the wheelchair units should be reviewed and the true quantum of units confirmed. The accessible access to upper floors across the scheme should avoid platform lifts and the plans for the public realm should be reviewed to ensure it is accessible Details of consultation with the accessible community should also be provided.

Details of the accessible car parking arrangements should be updated in the car parking strategy including how they would be arranged during the phasing of the development and how visitor parking would be secured.

 Sustainable Development: The energy strategy should be reviewed to be based against Part L 2013 baseline. This should be met through energy efficiency measures alone. The method for cooling should be addressed with dynamic thermal modelling. The investigation of the heat network is welcomed but details of how future connections would be provided on site should be detailed. The provision of a site heat network is welcomed but confirmation that all domestic and non-domestic space would be attached to this should be provided. The three proposed energy centres should be reviewed in conjunction with the CHP proposal. The provision of solar panels is welcomed.

 Transportation: Servicing provided on site is welcomed, but this should include taxi drop off to avoid ad hoc stopping on the highway. All car parking spaces should be for use as disabled parking only.

The cycle provision should be reviewed in relation to FALP standards. The site has an opportunity to improve cycling across the site but this is not proposed so a contribution to local cycling measures could mitigate this. The proposed increase in cycle hire docking station points should be increased. The reduction in capacity of the Bethnal Green station should replaced before the existing docking points are removed.

The assessment of trip rates should be reviewed in line with 2011 census data. The allocation of public transport trips should also be reviewed.

Further modelling is required for highway impact. The improvement works to Shoreditch Triangle would improve the environment for the proposed site. The applicant is required to make a contribution to these works totalling £5.9 million.

Legible London infrastructure should be installed for pedestrian wayfinding in and around the site at an estimated cost of £7,000 per sign.

A travel plan, site wide delivery and servicing management plan, car parking plan, site wide construction logistics plan should be submitted for each phase and block as necessary. All plans should be secured and monitored through the S106.

o page 48

o o for further information, contact GLA Planning Decision Unit (Developments and Projects Team): o Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects o 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] o Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) o 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] o Sarah Scannell, Case Officer o 020 7983 5852 email [email protected] o

o page 49