planning report PDU/2324a/02 14 July 2010 New Festival Quarter

in the Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/10/00161

Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Redevelopment of the site to provide six buildings ranging in height from three to fourteen storeys comprising 490 residential units, retail floorspace, restaurant and cafe, a creche, a community centre and leisure facilities. The applicant The applicant is Bellway Homes and Family Mosaic, and the architect is Stock Woolstencroft.

Strategic issues The principle of the redevelopment of the site to provide a residential-led mixed-use scheme is in the interest of good strategic planning in London. The design of the proposal has been improved to remove the blank facades and further information on the design, child play space, energy and transport has been submitted. As such the proposal complies with the London Plan. Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 10 February 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1A of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”. It is also referable under Category 1C: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.

2 On 12 March 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2324a/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the

page 1 London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 77 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 79 of that report could address these deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 17 June 2010 Tower Hamlets Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 2 July 2010 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Tower Hamlets Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Tower Hamlets Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 14 July 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

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

Update

Urban design

5 At the consultation stage the applicant was asked to provide further information relating to elevational treatment, single-aspect units, space standards, open space design and landscaping to ensure that the proposals comply with the London Plan.

6 Following these comments the applicant has amended the blank facades of the development to better address the public realm. Additional windows have been inserted into the eastern elevation of block C2 and the eastern and western elevation of block B4. This is welcomed.

7 The applicant has also submitted a detailed schedule of accommodation which sets out the quantum of private amenity space and a comparison of the proposed units against the space standards of the draft Housing Design Guide and the draft replacement London Plan. Overall, 56% of the units and 86% of the affordable housing units meet or exceed the space standards. Given the status of the draft standards and the overall quality of the proposal this is acceptable.

8 The applicant has also confirmed that it is not possible to reduce the level of single aspect units as this would require significant changes to the design and internal layout of the scheme which would reduce the number of units provided and affect viability. This is disappointing. However, it is noted that the residential quality of the five north facing single aspect studio units will benefit from views across the new landscaped square.

9 As a result the proposal complies with the design policies of the London Plan.

Child play space

10 At the consultation stage the applicant was asked to confirm that the proposal will provide 1,229 sq.m. of designated on site child play space for children under 5 years old.

11 The applicant has confirmed the provision of 1,229 sq.m. of on site child pay space and condition A24 of the draft decision notice requires full details and specification of the areas and equipment to be submitted to and approved in writing by Tower Hamlets Council prior to the commencement of development. As such the proposal complies with 3D.13 of the London Plan.

Climate change mitigation

page 2 12 At the consultation stage the applicant was asked to submit further information regarding the district wide heating system and possible renewable technologies.

13 Since then there has been on going discussion with the applicant and the GLA energy team. The additional information requested in the report has been submitted and is on the whole consistent with London Plan policy. However, the applicant is not proposing to provide any on site renewable technology. The applicant has identified that the only compatible option for providing renewable energy on site would be through photovoltaic panels but has discounted providing them on the grounds of viability. As such the proposal falls short of the 20% carbon dioxide target in the London Plan and the 44% target in the draft replacement London Plan. Whilst this is disappointing the proposal does comply with the Mayor's energy hierarchy detailed in policy 4A.1 which seeks energy efficient buildings, decentralised energy generation and the maximisation of combined heat and power before renewable energy provision. As such the proposal complies with the energy policies in chapter four of the London Plan. Transport for London’s comments

14 Following the consultation stage TfL is now satisfied that the outstanding strategic transport issues have been resolved. The developer has clarified how the mode split and trip rate assessment was undertaken and TfL agrees that impact on public transport will be insignificant. Given the highly accessible nature of the site, the restraint-based approach to parking was supported and TfL welcomes the restriction of access to on street parking permits. In addition the provision of electric vehicle charging points at 20% of spaces is supported. The demand for such spaces should be monitored through the travel plan with the proviso that an additional 20% of spaces should be provided when required.

15 In order to improve conditions for walking, TfL endorses the contribution that has been secured by the borough to improve the public realm around the site and to extend traffic calming to their entire highway adjacent to the site. In addition undertaking for a wayfinding strategy for the site has been secured by planning condition.

16 TfL welcomes that other measures to ensure sustainable travel including cycle parking, travel plan, delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan, will be secured by condition.

17 TfL notes that £665,691 has been secured for improvements to which will include the closure of a section of Upper North Street. As this is a bus route, the borough is reminded that TfL must be party to any ongoing discussions in order to ensure continuity of services.

18 In summary, TfL is now satisfied that the conditions and section 106 contributions will ensure that the development is compliant with the transport policies in the London Plan. Other comments

19 English Heritage believes the Blessed John Roche School is an important part of the historic fabric of the Lansbury Estate Conservation Area and was raised concern over the its loss and the heavy and ungainly appearance of the proposed replacment blocks.

20 Notwithstanding its concerns English Heritage has requested the existing sculpture, foundation stone, coat of arms and cross are retained and included in the public realm of the new proposal. The applicant has agreed to this and Tower Hamlets Council has secured their relocation to the church green by condition.

21 The Environment Agency raises no objection subject to the inclusion of suggested conditions and in formatives.

page 3 22 CABE supports the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential use but is disappointed that its precious comments on the previous panning application have not been taken on board. Its concern over the site plan, building typology, open space strategy and quality of accommodation. As such they are unable to support the proposals in its current form.

23 Natural England note that the proposal results in a loss of tress. If possible it would like to see the trees retained or new trees planted as part of the new proposal to mitigate the loss. Tower Hamlet Council’s Parks and open spaces department raise no objection to the loss and have secured £43,5000 from the applicant to plant new trees and planting to mitigate the loss. Response to consultation

24 Tower Hamlets Council received 13 letters of objection, one petition with 33 signatories and 6 letters of support.

25 The letter of objection relate to: -

 Over development  Impact on social infrastructure  No need for commercial uses  Loss of the school building  Out of character with the Conservation Area  Buildings are too tall  Opportunities for vandalism  Loss of 37 tress  Noise, dust and air pollution during construction  Exacerbate existing parking problems  Increased local traffic

26 The letters of support relate to the: -

 Need for additional housing.  Good use of a long-standing vacant site.  Good standard of gardens and amenity space.  Improvements to the local environment.

27 Matters relating to the loss of the school, the proposed uses, the design and transport have been addressed in this and the previous report.

28 Matters relating to the Conservation Area, the loss of trees, localised pollution, vandalism and transport problems are not in this instance strategic and have been assessed by Tower Hamlets Council.

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

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

page 4 Legal considerations

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

31 Should the Mayor direct refusal; he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

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

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

34 The principle of the re-development of the site to provide a residential-led mixed-use scheme is in the interest of good strategic planning in London. The design of the proposal has been improved to remove the blank facades and further information on other design, child play space, energy and transport has been submitted. As such the proposal complies with the London Plan.

page 5

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Kim Hoffman, Case Officer 020 7983 6589 email [email protected]

page 6

planning report PDU/2324a/01 12 March 2010 New Festival Quarter

in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/10/00161

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Redevelopment of the site to provide six buildings ranging in height from three to fourteen storeys comprising 490 residential units, retail floorspace, restaurant and cafe, a creche, a community centre and leisure facilities.

The applicant The applicant is Bellway Homes and Family Mosaic, and the architect is Stock Woolstencroft.

Strategic issues The principle of the re-development of the site to provide a residential-led mixed-use scheme is in the interest of good strategic planning in London. The concerns relating to urban design and the loss of the school building have been resolved. However, further information is requested regarding urban design, child play space and transport to ensure compliance with the London Plan.

Recommendation

That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 77 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 79 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

35 On 10 February 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 23 March 2010 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

page 7 36 The application is referable under Category 1A of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”. It is also referable under Category 1C: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.

37 Once Tower Hamlets 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.

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

39 The site is located to the north of the East India Dock Road and the and to the south of Bartlett Park in Poplar. It is bounded by Linfield Street to the north, Upper North Street to the east, Canon Street to the south and three storey residential blocks to the west.

40 The site is located in the Lansbury Conservation Area and contains a single building, the former Blessed John Roche Roman Catholic Secondary School, built in 1952 and extended in the 1970s. The surrounding area is dominated by post war residential blocks erected as part of the 1951 and the ‘Live Architecture’ Exhibition.

41 The nearest DLR stations are Westferry and Langdon Park, at a distance of some 500 to 700 metres. The closest bus stops to the site are on Cordelia Street and East India Dock Road, serving routes 15, 115, D6 and D8. The site has a good level of accessibility with a public transport accessibility level ranging from 3 in the north to 4 in the south (in a range of 1 to 6 where 6 is excellent).

Details of the proposal

42 Permission is sought for demolition of the existing school buildings and the erection of six buildings ranging in height from three to fourteen storeys. Comprising 490 residential units, 684 sq.m. of non-residential floorspace in building A for retail, creche and leisure uses and a community centre of 214 sq.m. in building B.

43 A breakdown of the residential units is shown below.

Type Social rented Intermediate Market Total % Studio - - 20 20 4 1 bedroom 19 25 115 159 33 2 bedroom 33 19 164 216 44 3 bedroom 27 10 43 80 16 4 bed house 6 - - 6 1 5 bed house 9 - - 9 2

Total 94 54 342 490 % 19 11 70 100

page 8 Case history

44 On 16 December 2008 and 23 January 2009 pre-application meetings were held between the applicant and the GLA to discuss the proposed re-development of the site. An advice note reference PDU/2324LF04, was issued on 10 February 2009.

45 The Mayor was consulted on an application for the redevelopment of the site to provide six buildings ranging in height from three to sixteen storeys comprising 535 residential units, retail floorspace, a community centre and leisure facilities was submitted in August 2009. PDU report PDU/2324/01 was sent to Tower Hamlets Council on 23 September 2009.

46 The Mayor also requested that the evidence behind Tower Hamlets Council’s letter, which states the site is no longer required for educational purposes, be submitted for evaluation. He also requested illustrations demonstrating how the proposal will appear in the local views and the reduction in height of building A from seven to five-storeys and asked this information and the amendment to the building height be made before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

47 The application was withdrawn by the applicant. This application is an amended version of the withdrawn proposal.

48 The amendments include:-

 A reduction of 45 residential units.  Block A has been redesigned. The upper floors have been reduced and set back to reduce the impact of the building on the Church of St. Mary and St. Joseph.  Block B has been reduced in height by two storeys and in width by 7.6 metres.  Block D has been reduced and pulled back 6.25 metres from the park to align with the building line of the base block. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

49 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Principle of development London Plan; PPS1  Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SP; draft revised interim Housing SPG  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; draft revised interim Housing SPG  Child play space London Plan; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG,  Climate change London Plan; PPS1, PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG

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

page 9 51 The Tower Hamlets Core Strategy submission document and Interim Core Strategy and Draft Replacement London Plan 2009 are also material considerations.

Principle of development

52 Policy 3A.18 of the London Plan and policy 3.17 of the draft replacement London Plan seeks to resist the net loss of, and increase the provision of, social infrastructure and community facilities such as schools to meet future demand and existing deficiencies.

53 The provision of residential accommodation on the site is supported by London Plan policy 3A.1 and policy 3.3 of the draft replacement London Plan, which seeks to increase London’s supply of housing. Policy 3A.3 seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with the local context, the design principles in policy 4B.1 of the London Plan and 3.5 of the draft replacement London Plan and with public transport capacity.

54 In 2000 the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster made the decision close the Blessed John Roche School and to use the money from the sale to redevelop the Bishop Challoner School in Whitechapel in conjunction with Tower Hamlets Council, for a mixed secondary school. This new state of the art school is now open.

55 When consulted on the 2009 application. The Mayor raised concern over the loss of a former school site. As such he requested the evidence behind Tower Hamlets Council’s letter stating the site is no longer required for educational purposes be submitted.

56 Since then the applicant has submitted a letter detailing the decisions made by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster. The applicant has also submitted the policy context for the proposal which includes extracts from the council’s core strategy. The core strategy identifies areas of search for new schools to meet the needs of the residents, none of which are within the catchment area of the application site. It can therefore be concluded that the application site is not required to meet the educational needs of Tower Hamlets residents.

57 As such the principle of residential accommodation with ancillary retail, community and leisure facilities is acceptable. Density

58 London Plan policies 4B.1 and 3A.3 outline the need for development proposals to achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context, the design principles of the compact city, and public transport accessibility. Table 3A.2 of the London Plan provides guidelines on density in support of policies 4B.1 and 3A.3. The density matrix is repeated in the draft replacement London Plan, although the draft policy seeks to optimise rather than maximise density.

59 The proposed residential density of the development is 796 habitable rooms per hectare. This is within the guidance range of 650-1,100 habitable room per hectare for central sites with high public transport accessibility. Affordable housing

60 London Plan Policy 3A.10 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mix-use schemes. In doing so, each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of

page 10 affordable housing provision. Policy 3A.9 states that such targets should be based on an assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply, and should take account of the London Plan strategic target that 35% of housing should be social and 15% intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. In addition, Policy 3A.10 encourages councils to have regard to the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development, and to the individual circumstances of the site. Targets should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements. Policies 3.12 and 3.13 of the draft replacement London Plan also seek to maximise affordable housing provision when negotiating on individual residential and mixed-use schemes.

61 Policy 3A.10 is supported by paragraph 3.52, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified.

62 Where borough councils have not yet set overall targets as required by Policy 3A.9, they should have regard to the overall London Plan targets. It may be appropriate to consider emerging policies, but the weight that can be attached to these will depend on the extent to which they have been consulted on or tested by public examination. The target of 25% affordable housing as set by the Tower Hamlets UDP was not saved by the Secretary of State in September 2007 as part of the saved policies exercise.

63 The proposal provides 148 affordable units. Overall, 35% of the total number of habitable rooms and 30% of the total number of units will be affordable. The applicant has submitted a financial appraisal, which uses the Three Dragons Toolkit appraisal. This concludes that the scheme cannot sustain 35% affordable housing; even if the housing is grant funded and other section 106 costs are reduced to zero. However, this is a joint venture between Bellway Homes, a house builder and Family Mosaic, a housing association. Family Mosaic has confirmed that the quantum of affordable housing has been specified to meet its operational requirements and the proposal must therefore provide 35% affordable housing. GLA officers consider it likely that the applicant will wait for improvements in the market before commencing development rather than supplement the development from its own funds.

64 As it stands the proposal appears to provide more than the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, thereby complying with London Plan policy. However, should the market improve significantly over the next few years it may be possible for the proposal to provide more than 35% affordable housing. Tower Hamlets Council is therefore advised not to allow an extension to the standard three-year life of a planning permission and to consider mechanisms for securing the completion of the scheme, such as front-loading section 106 agreements to be paid on commencement rather than completion of development.

65 The applicant proposes that 70% of the affordable housing units will be social rented accommodation and 30% intermediate housing. This complies with existing London Plan policy, but falls short of the proposed ratio split of 60% social rented and 40% intermediate in the draft replacement London Plan.

66 The applicant has submitted a housing provision strategy to justifies the proposed mix of unit sizes and tenure. The Mayor’s Housing SPG provides a London wide target for the mix of unit sizes within developments. The table below compares the proposed mix of units against the targets within the SPG.

page 11 Overall Social rented Intermediate Market SPG Scheme SPG Scheme SPG Scheme SPG Scheme 1 bed 32% 33% 19% 20% 66% 46% 25% 34% 2/3 bed 38% 60% 39% 64% 0% 54% 75% 61% 4 bed + 30% 3% 42% 16% 34% 0 0 0

67 The Mayor’s London Housing Strategy seeks to increase the number of family sized units and seeks 42% of all social rented housing and 16% of intermediate housing to have three bedrooms or more. The proposal provides 45% of all social rented units with three bedrooms or more, of which 35% are four and five bedroom houses, and 19% of all intermediate units with three bedrooms or more.

68 Overall, the proposed mix of unit sizes is good, all of the larger four and five bedroom properties are assigned for affordable rent and the proposal includes a large number of affordable three bedroom units. However, Tower Hamlets Council should ensure it is satisfied the applicant’s assumptions on local need and the Housing Department’s requirements are correct. Urban design

69 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B, which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to specific issues. London Plan policies 4B.9 and 4B.10, which set out specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage, views, and the Blue Ribbon network. London Plan Policy 5.113 and 5.114 set out the overall design aspirations that are specific to the application site.

70 The draft replacement London Plan reinforces these principles, with new development required to have regard to its context, and reinforce or enhance the character, legibility and permeability of the neighbourhood (Policy 7.1).

Context, layout and design

71 The proposals would provide opportunities to capitalise on the varying urban character areas of the area, and create a lively and unique scheme that responds to its urban context. The scheme would also help to integrate the site with the surrounding green network. The re-provision and enhancement of Church Square is considered a positive feature of the scheme, as is the creation of new routes to the park.

72 At the consultation stage of the previous application concerns were raised over the height of block A, and the quality of some of the proposed amenity space, as their daylight and sunlight would be constrained by the orientation and scale of some of the buildings. Following various meetings with GLA officers, the applicant subsequently revised the design and the height of block A, and officers consider the relationship between block A and the locally listed Church of St. Mary and St. Joseph to be much improved. However, the applicant is asked to demonstrate the lighting quality of the proposed amenity areas, and how they meet the BRE guidelines on overshadowing (which allow up to 25%). Tower Hamlets Council will assess the implications of the proposal on sunlight and daylight for the proposed and existing residents.

page 12 73 In general, the siting, mass and bulk of the development is acceptable and the reduction in height and width of block B is supported. The massing of the blocks, the elevational treatment, the built form and the materials proposed for the facades, are of high quality and sensitive to the context, with building heights lowered in sensitive areas to the south of the site and taller elements positioned in locations that are considered appropriate and would function well as landmarks. This design approach is considered to be an appropriate response to the park setting and the scale of adjoining development. The architecture of the proposed buildings generally respects the character of the surrounding conservation area and this is supported.

74 Whilst the proposed elevations are generally designed to a good standard, there are areas of blank facades that should be revised to better address the public realm, these include the south elevation to block C; east elevation to block B (part of the mews development); east elevation to block B (corner facing the Park Square and the Western approach).

Quality of residential accommodation

75 There is limited information on the details of private amenity spaces proposed to the flats. The applicant is therefore asked to include further information in the design and access statement to enable officers to assess the quality and quantum of private amenity space to ensure that the scheme is in accordance with policies 3A.6 and 4B.10 of the London Plan. The Mayor has published the Draft Housing Design Guide (July 2009) for social housing and the draft replacement London Plan includes a new policy (3.5) on space standards, set out in Table 3.3. Paragraphs 3.31 to 3.33 of the draft replacement London Plan state the Mayor’s intention to produce guidance contained on the draft Housing Design Guide.

76 The applicant should also submit an analysis of proposal against the draft London Housing Design Guide space standards. The applicant should also confirm that, as with the previous application, all residential circulation corridors are 1.5m wide, that all blocks over eight storeys are served by two lifts, with the exception of building D1 where the upper three storeys are served by one lift. Of the 490 units proposed, 267 (over 50%) are single aspect units and 5 of which are north facing. Further evidence should be provided to demonstrate provisions of adequately sized balconies and good outlook. The applicant should modify the layout to eliminate any north-facing single aspect units and should seek to increase the number of dual aspect units, particularly in larger units.

77 Hardcopies of elevations demonstrating the elevational treatment to all facades proposed, and typical floor plans to all buildings together with the locations of single-aspect units, to enable officers to assess the quality of the accommodation of the proposed units should also be submitted. Access

78 Policy 4B.5 of the London Plan and 7.2 of the draft replacement London Plan expects all future development to meet the highest standard of accessibility and inclusion. This, together with the London Plan’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment’, underpins the principles of inclusive design and the aim to achieve an accessible and inclusive environment consistently across London. Policy 3A.5 of the London Plan and policy 3.8 of the draft replacement London Plan requires all new housing to be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards and 10% of all new housing to be designed to be wheelchair accessible to meet the full range of housings needs.

79 The design and access statement confirms all residential units will meet the 16 Lifetime Homes criteria and how proposal will meet the 20 Building for Life criteria. It also details the 49

page 13 (10%) residential units which have been identified as easily adaptable for wheelchair use. The range in both tenure and unit size is supported.

80 As part of the Mayor’s representation on the 2009 application concern was raised over the adaptability of the residential units. Since then the applicant has amended the internal arrangement of the units in accordance with the Mayor’s best practice guidance document ‘Wheelchair accessible housing’. As such the proposal complies with policies 3A. and 4B.5 of the London Plan. Child play space

81 Policy 3D .13 of the London Plan and policy 3.6 of the draft replacement London Plan sets out that “the Mayor will and the boroughs should ensure developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs”. Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 200 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 2000 sq.m. of playspace.

82 The applicant has submitted a landscape proposals and play strategy document, which uses the methodology in the Mayor’s SPG to assess suitability of surrounding parks and play spaces to supplement the proposed play space for older children. The findings of which suggest there is an adequate amount of existing facilities within a 400 metres for children under eleven and 800 metres for children under eighteen to supplement the proposal. The applicant has also committed to enhance the existing play facilities in Bartlett Park to serve the new and existing residents. The applicant should enter into discussions with Tower Hamlets Council to establish what contributions will be required toward to upkeep and improvement of the surrounding existing facilities as well as the improvements to Bartlett Park.

83 The play strategy also states the development will provide 1,229 sq.m. of child play space for children under the age of five. However, the design and access statement states the proposal will provide 310 sq.m. of designated play space for children under five. The applicant should confirm the higher provision of 1,229 sq.m. to comply with policy 3D.13 of the London Plan. The provision of which should be secured by condition. Climate change mitigation

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

Be lean

85 Baseline emissions have been calculated using a suitable modelling tools (SAP 2005) and is estimated to be 1,405 tonnes (includes unregulated energy) of carbon dioxide per year for a building regulations 2006 part L compliant development.

86 Energy efficiency and conservation measures are applied beyond that normally incorporated into a 2006 Building Regulations compliant design. This incorporates measures such as passive designs, enhanced thermal performance of the building fabric, energy efficient lighting etc. The

page 14 applicant estimates that this will achieve a carbon emission reduction of 11% on the baseline emissions.

87 The applicant proposes to go beyond minimum Part L requirement for air tightness and U- values for the glazed elements and walls. This is welcomed, however the applicant should aim to exceed minimum U values for all elements of the building envelope i.e. floors, roof and pedestrian doors.

Be clean

88 The applicant is proposing that a communal heat network will be installed linking the apartments is the development. The network pipes will be sized such that later phases of the development can be connected into the same heat network as they are built out. The 15 houses will be served by individual heating plant within the dwellings. The proposed installation of this heat network infrastructure is welcomed; however, the applicant should confirm that the non- domestic elements of the development, e.g. the leisure facility, will also be connected to the communal heat network.

89 The communal heat network will be served from a single energy centre of 220 sq.m. located in the basement plant area of Block B. Drawings have been provided indicating that this provide sufficient space to house the plant serving the development

90 The applicant highlights that the current Poplar HARCA district heating scheme surrounding the proposed site will be removed as part of the proposed redevelopment of the Poplar site and will unavailable for connection. The Poplar site is currently disused/decommissioned.

91 The applicant should officially engage with the Poplar development to establish the status of the existing district heating scheme to see if a connection is possible. Evidence of these discussions should be provided as part of the energy strategy submission. The applicant should none-the less ensure that the development is designed in a manner that will enable it to connect to future district energy networks. The applicant should also investigate the potential to connect to adjacent new or existing developments.

92 The proposals include a 200kWe combined heat and power plant which will provide the majority of the apartments domestic hot water demand. Load profiles have been provided to support the sizing of the combined heat and power plan, although there may be further scope to meet a proportion of the space heating requirements and the applicant should investigate this.

93 The combined heat and power plant will be designated as the lead boiler followed by heat discharge from a phase change heat storage unit, with peak demands met by top-up gas fired boilers. The combined heat and power plant would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a further 21.5% over and above the reductions due to energy efficiency measures.

94 While it is accepted that some of the combined heat and power plant electricity will be used onsite for landlord supplies, these demands are likely to be small. The applicant should provide further information on how the additional electricity available from the combined heat and power plant will be used, or demonstrate how the combined heat and power plant electricity matches the landlord demands.

95 Proposed passive design measures to achieve comfort cooling include thermal mass, balconies providing shading and provision of dual aspect flats to achieve cross ventilation. The applicant states that due to low cooling demand of the proposed development the incorporation of a combined cooling heat and power system was not deemed viable and this is accepted. The

page 15 applicant should clarify where in the development there would be a need for active cooling and how this would be provided.

Be green

96 The renewable contribution is proposed to come from 60 sq.m. of solar collectors for 15 affordable houses in Block B meeting the majority of each dwelling requirements with the remaining demand provided by air source heat pumps. This will produce associated savings of 0.3% in carbon dioxide emissions over and above the clean baseline scheme.

97 The applicant should provide an estimate of the heating and/or cooling energy the air source heat pump would provide the development and the electricity the heat pump would require for this purpose. Details of the coefficient of performance and energy efficiency ratio of the proposed heat pumps should be provided.

98 While the solar collectors and air source heat pumps will provide a renewable contribution for the small number of houses on the development, it appears that there will be no renewable contribution to meeting the energy requirements of the vast majority of the development i.e. the apartment buildings. While it is accepted that most renewable technologies will not be suitable for these buildings, there does appear to be some potential for photovoltaic panels, even allowing for the space allocated for green roofs.

99 The applicant should provide detailed drawings showing the amount of roof area available within the development and that could be used to install photovoltaic panels with suitable orientation and free from shading. Climate change adaptation

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

101 The proposal includes green roofs, a rainwater harvesting system, sustainable urban drainage and water efficient and low flow fittings. The provision of which should be secured by condition. Comments from Transport for London

102 In recognition of the site’s good accessibility and to accord with London Plan policy 3C.23 parking strategy and draft revised London Plan policy 6.13 ‘parking’, TfL welcomes the low level of car parking with the provision of 172 spaces and 2 car club spaces for 490 dwellings. TfL also supports the borough’s intention to restrict access to on-street parking permits by residents and visitors to this development. The proposed car club spaces should however be located in order to be accessible to those both outside and within the development.

103 TfL queries the mode split used in the transport assessment, as it does not appear to include any walking trips. Given the proximity of the site to employment and retail centres, this lack of walking trips seems unlikely and the assessment should be adjusted accordingly. Similarly the number of DLR trips is likely to have been underestimated and should probably include those that are currently assigned in the assessment to rail. Until this matter is clarified, TfL is unable to

page 16 fully consider the impact of the development on the public transport network. Notwithstanding this, initial assessment would suggest that the majority of trips would be from the development to Westferry station. TfL therefore recommends that the developer should provide a contribution to upgrade the pedestrian crossing over West India Dock Road and welcomes further discussion about this matter. As with the previous proposals for this site, TfL agrees that there is unlikely to be an increase in bus trips compared with the previous use as a school.

104 TfL welcomes the detailed assessment of existing pedestrian area and the proposed improvements put forward. In order to accord with London Plan policy 3C.21 ‘improving conditions for walking’, TfL would normally recommend the widening of Lindfield Street to meet the minimum width requirement of 2 metres. It is understood however; that the council propose to pedestrianise it and set back the building line along the proposed northern site frontage in order to create an open public area. Confirmation of this matter is therefore welcomed. TfL also welcomes the western extension of the existing traffic-calming scheme to cover all highways adjacent to the site and the provision of new traffic free routes through the site core. In order to assist with wayfinding, TfL encourages the developer to develop a strategy using the principles of TfL’s ‘Legible London’ wayfinding system and understands that this will be secured by planning condition.

105 TfL welcomes the provision of 775 cycle spaces for the residential units, 10 spaces for the commercial/community element, and 26 for general purpose as this meets TfL’s cycle parking standards and therefore complies with London Plan policy 3C.22 ‘improving conditions for cycling’ and draft revised London Plan policy 6.9 ‘cycling’. As access to the cycle parking is proposed via Canton Street, Hind Grove and Upper North Street, cycle routes should be provided along these streets. Those should also provide a direct link from the surrounding cycle network.

106 In order to manage travel demand and to accord with London Plan policy 3C.2 ‘matching development to transport capacity’ and draft revised London Plan policy 6.3 ‘assessing transport capacity’, TfL expects the development to be accompanied by a travel plan that sets objectives for the residential and community uses. The plan submitted is not currently in line with TfL guidance as it does not provide preliminary targets for mode shift, nor adequate monitoring or review.

107 In order to minimise vehicular traffic in the peak and to accord with London Plan policy 3C.25 ‘freight strategy’ and draft revised London Plan policy 6.14 ‘freight’, TfL expects the development to be accompanied by a construction logistics plan and a delivery and service plan. They should be secured by planning condition. Amongst other things the construction logistic plan should address the management of construction traffic to avoid conflicts with residents and pedestrians. Local planning authority’s position

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

109 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

page 17 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

110 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

111 London Plan policies on education facilities, density, affordable housing, urban design, access, child play space, climate change and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Principle of development: The proposed site is surplus to educational requirements. As such the provision of a residential-led mixed-use development complies with London Plan policies 3A.18, 3A.1 and 3A.3.  Density: The proposed residential is within the guidance range contained in table 3A.2. As such the proposal complies with policies 3A.3 and 4B.1 of the London Plan.

 Affordable housing: The proposal provides 35% affordable housing despite the financial viability statement suggesting this would be unviable. As such the proposal appears to be providing more than a reasonable amount of affordable housing and complies with policies 3A.10 and 3A.9 of the London Plan.

 Urban design: Further information relating to elevational treatment, single-aspect units, space standards, open space design and landscaping is required to ensure that the proposals comply with the London Plan.

 Access: The proposal has been designed to be accessible by all. 10% of units will be built as accessible from the outset and all units will comply with the Lifetime Homes criteria. As such the proposal complies with policies 3A.5 and 4B.5 of the London Plan.

 Child play space: The application documents contradict the amount of on site play space to be provided for children under the age of five. Until this is confirmed it is not possible to assess whether the proposal complies with policy 3D.13 of the London Plan.

 Climate change mitigation: Further information is required to assess whether the application complies with the London Plan energy policies in chapter 4.

 Climate change adaptation: The proposal includes green roofs, sustainable urban drainage, a rainwater harvesting system and water efficient and low flow appliances. As such the proposal complies with the climate change adaptation policies contained within chapter 4A of the London Plan.

 Transport: Until the additional information requested has been submitted it is not possible to assess whether the proposal complies with the transport policies of the London Plan.

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

page 18 79 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:  Urban design: The further information requested in this report should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

 Child play space: The applicant should confirm that the proposal will provide 1,229 sq.m. of designated on site child play space for children under 5 years old. The provision of which should be secured by condition.

 Climate change mitigation: The further information requested in this report should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

 Transport: The additional information requested should be submitted to TfL before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Kim Hoffman, Case Officer 020 7983 6589 email [email protected]

page 19