33-35 Commercial Road, Whitechapel

planning report PDU/1451a/02 29 June 2010 33-35 Commercial Road, Whitechapel

in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application nos. PA/08/01034/FUL & PA/08/01035/LBC

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 Demolition of all buildings on site except for the former St. George’s Brewery and Assam Street Warehouse and redevelopment for student housing-led mixed use development comprising a 19- storey building for student accommodation, refurbishment of St. George’s Brewery for offices and/or non-residential institution uses, refurbishment of Assam Street Warehouse for student accommodation, three and 6-storey buildings along Commercial Road for retail and/or office uses, and associated access and landscaping works. The application for planning permission is accompanied by an application for listed building consent relating to the alterations to the grade II listed former brewery. The applicant The applicant is Broadstone Ltd, and the architect is Burland TM Architects.

Strategic issues Outstanding issues relating to land use, urban design, inclusive access, strategic views, climate change, transport and employment have been satisfactorily addressed.

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 24 July 2008 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 Categories 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development…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” and ”Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London.”

page 1 2 On 3 September 2008 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1451/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 75 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 77 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 16 March 2010 Tower Hamlets Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 18 June 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 1 July 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

Update

6 At the consultation stage Tower Hamlets Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 75 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 77 of that report could address these deficiencies:

 Urban design and built heritage: the applicant should provide more information relating to proposed materials and elevational treatment, particularly for the flank elevations of the student bedroom clusters in the tower.  Inclusive access: the applicant is urged to increase the proportion of wheelchair accessible student bedrooms.  Strategic views: the applicant needs to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the proposed development on strategic views designated in the LVMF. The acceptability of the proposed development will then be assessed against London Plan policy 4B.18.

 Climate change mitigation and adaptation: the energy strategy should be revised in accordance with paragraphs 33 to 42 above. Firmer commitments in relation to climate change adaptation and sustainability measures need to be provided.

 Transport: the applicant should address the matters raised in relation to disabled car parking, the impact of the construction of the development, improving pedestrian and cycle accessibility and the provision of travel plans.

 Employment: further consideration should be given to how the proposals can improve the skills and employment opportunities for Londoners to comply with London Plan policy 3B.11.

page 2 Land use

7 At consultation stage the principle of the proposed development, comprising student housing, office and retail uses, was accepted, but the applicant was requested to clarify existing and proposed floorspace figures in order to enable a clearer understanding of the proposed land use changes. The applicant has subsequently clarified that there is currently around 8,000 sq.m. of floorspace on the site, of which 3,000 sq.m. is office floorspace and 5,000 sq.m. is retail warehousing. The proposed mix of uses comprises 15,372 sq.m. of student housing, 3,142 sq.m. of B1 office floorspace and a further 1,071 of flexible retail (A1), office (B1) or community (D1) use, plus 1,686 sq.m. of ancillary plant and storage space.

8 The proposal will result in a small increase in the quantity of office floorspace on the site, which is welcomed. It will, however, result in a net loss of retail space. The existing retail space on the site is poor quality and several units are vacant. It does not make a positive contribution to the local area and is not strategically significant to this part of the Central Activities Zone. As such, and taking into account the wider regenerative benefits of the scheme, there is no objection to its loss.

9 Since stage one the draft replacement London Plan has been published for consultation and is currently undergoing Examination in Public. Whilst the principle of student accommodation in this location continues to be supported in line with the objectives of the draft City Fringe OAPF and the Council’s Aldgate Masterplan, paragraph 3.45 of the draft replacement London Plan states that “unless student accommodation is secured through planning agreement for occupation by members of specified educational institutions for the predominant part of the year, it will normally be subject to the requirements of affordable housing policy.” However, this was not prevailing planning policy when the application was considered at stage one and was not therefore raised as an issue at that time. It should also be noted that the scheme is in close proximity to London Metropolitan University and that the Council has identified Aldgate as a location in which higher education uses will be supported towards the formation of a hub or cluster of such uses. In these circumstances, a direction to refuse planning permission based on the lack of an affordable housing contribution would be difficult to sustain. Given the particular history and circumstances of the case the proposals are on balance considered acceptable.

Urban design

10 At consultation stage, the principle of a tall building (18 storeys) in this location was accepted by virtue of its location within an emerging cluster of tall buildings at Aldgate, including the consented 61-75 Alie Street (27 storeys), 52-58 Commercial Road (17 storeys) and Aldgate Union 3&4 (22 storeys). Further information was, however, sought in respect of the materials and detailing of the tower in order to ensure that it will meet the high architectural standards demanded by London Plan policy 4B.10.

11 In response to comments made by the Council, CABE and the GLA, the applicant has revised the scheme. The introduction of a lighter wrap-over secondary wall and the revised expression of the four supporting flank walls down to ground level has been largely successful in strengthening the structural expression of the tower. Refinements have also been made to the top of the tower, with the wrapping of the non structural walls to cover the roof top amenity spaces; this is welcomed. It is disappointing that the flank walls themselves remain blank, but there remains an opportunity to create texture and visual interest to these elevations through the use of a finely grained brick which will be submitted and approved by condition.

page 3 Inclusive access

12 Given the shortage of wheelchair accessible student accommodation in London, at consultation stage the applicant was urged to increase amount of fully wheelchair accessible bedrooms from 5% to 10%. The applicant has resisted this but has confirmed that there is sufficient flexibility within the internal layouts for future adaptation for wheelchair users, should the demand arise. This can be accepted in line with London Plan policy 4B.5. Strategic views

13 The applicant has undertaken further work to address the concerns raised in relation to the inadequacy of the townscape and visual impact assessment, in particular its failure to demonstrate the impact of the proposed development on the strategic view from City Hall to the Tower of London (LVMF views 25). Accurate visual representations from assessment points 25A.1, 25A.2 and 25A.3 of the draft revised London View Management Framework have been provided, which demonstrate that the proposed development would be wholly obscured either by the Tower of London itself or by existing development in the background of the view. The applicant has also satisfactorily responded to queries about the development’s potential visibility in views from Westminster Bridge and King Henry VIII’s mound, Richmond Park, demonstrating that the development would not be visible from these locations. The application is now acceptable in line with London Plan policy 4B.18. Climate change

14 At consultation stage, revisions to the energy strategy and firmer commitments to climate change adaptation and sustainability measures were sought.

Climate change mitigation

15 The applicant has subsequently undertaken suitable modelling work to demonstrate baseline carbon dioxide emissions. Revised estimated baseline emissions are 954,053 kilograms of carbon dioxide per annum based on a minimum Building Regulations 2006 Part L compliant scheme. This is acceptable in line with London Plan policy 4A.4.

16 In relation to the capacity of the combined heat and power (CHP) plant, the applicant has re-examined the opportunity to provide a larger CHP system but has concluded that the size proposed will ensure maximum year-round efficiency is achieved. The proposed 105kWe CHP system will result in an estimated 18% carbon dioxide saving. A schematic of the proposed communal heat network has been provided and indicates that all uses will be connected to it and served by a central plant room. This is acceptable in line with London Plan policy 4A.6.

17 In relation to renewables, the applicant has demonstrated that 243 sq.m. of roof area is available, and that this is capable of supporting 121 sq.m. of active PV array, which will achieve a further 1% carbon dioxide saving. This is acceptable in line with London Plan policy 4A.7.

Climate change adaptation

18 The applicant has also addressed the concerns raised in respect of the climate change adaptation credentials of the scheme. The student bedrooms will be passively ventilated and will not require active cooling. The applicant has committed to meet the essential standards set out in the Mayor’s Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is acceptable in line with London Plan climate change adaptation policy.

page 4 Transport

19 At consultation stage, TfL questioned the applicant’s assessment of the proposed development on the transport network, particularly in relation to mode split, and considered that its likely impacts on the bus network and pedestrian environment were significantly underestimated. TfL is now broadly satisfied that its initial concerns have been satisfactorily addressed through the mitigation measures and planning conditions secured by the Council and discussed below.

20 Given the site’s highly accessible location, TfL recommended that the development should be car-free with the exception of one disabled car parking space. TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to convert one of the four servicing bays at the development into a disabled parking space. TfL also welcomes the removal of occupiers’ rights to car parking permits in the surrounding controlled parking zone.

21 TfL supports vehicular access to the development via the existing Assam Street junction; TfL expects this arrangement to be reflected in the final delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan, both of which have been secured by condition. This will assist in the prevention of any vehicles servicing the development from the A13 Commercial Road, which forms part of the Transport for London Road network (TLRN). The applicant is also still required to enter into a separate section 278 agreement with TfL to undertake the agreed highways works on Commercial Road, including footway works and removal of crossover points from the development.

22 TfL welcomes the applicant’s contribution of £250,000 towards upgrading the pedestrian crossing on Commercial Road close to the junction with Alie Street. The additional £250,000 contribution secured by the Council to upgrade the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the East London Mosque on the A11 Whitechapel Road is also noted.

23 TfL requested that the applicant undertake a study looking at the condition of bus stops in the vicinity of the site. Whilst it is disappointing that this has not been undertaken, TfL welcomes the allocation of £8,500 towards improvements to the northbound bus stop on Commercial Road as part of the larger £165,736 section 106 contribution to transport improvements.

24 As explained above, TfL initially considered that the likely impact of the development on the local bus network was considerably underestimated, not taking account of students travelling to other university buildings across central London. TfL is now satisfied with the contribution of £157,236 which will be allocated to bus capacity enhancements in the Aldgate area. This is acceptable in line with London Plan policy 3C.20.

25 TfL is satisfied with the provision of 362 cycle parking spaces, which complies with London Plan standards, and is secured by way of a planning condition by the Council. Although not initially requested by TfL, the £21,500 contribution to cycle improvements in the Aldgate area is welcomed.

26 Although the commitment to implement a green travel plan through the section 106 agreement is welcomed, TfL notes that no reference was made to travel planning in the original submission. As such, the full travel plan should be produced in line with TfL’s guidance on travel planning, both workplace and residential, to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity and draft London Plan policy 6.3 Assessing Transport Capacity.

27 In summary, TfL is now satisfied with the conditions and section 106 contributions to enhance public transport connectivity and supports the additional requirement to prepare full delivery and servicing and construction and logistics plans before occupation of the development.

page 5 Employment

28 At consultation stage further consideration of how the proposed development would contribute to improving skills and employment opportunities was requested. The Council has subsequently secured a £165,000 contribution towards cultural, community and education projects in the Aldgate Masterplan area. An obligation to use local labour in construction has also been secured. This is welcomed. Response to consultation

29 The Council consulted various statutory and non-statutory consultees and issued 634 letters to local residents.

30 In terms of statutory consultees, English Heritage, the Health and Safety Executive and Thames Water raised no objection. The Environment Agency requested standard conditions and Natural England requested a bat survey, which has also been secured by condition. CABE welcomed the way in which the tower is embedded within the urban fabric, but expressed concern that the design of the tower has not reached the high standard necessary for a tall building and that the courtyard seems claustrophobic and cluttered.

31 55 responses were received from non-statutory consultees including neighbouring residents. Fourteen of these were objections, including one from the Aldgate Residents Association. Grounds of objection include:

 An overconcentration of student housing.

 Unacceptable reduction in light levels and loss of privacy to neighbouring buildings.

 Impact of artificial light at night on neighbour’s amenity.

 Height of the tower.

 The new buildlings do not enhance the brewery and will have an overbearing and oppressive effect on immediate neighbours.

 Fire safety.

 Noise and anti-social behaviour from students.

 Impact on public transport network.

 Increased number of cyclists will cause a hazard on surrounding roads.

 Unrealistic to assume that students will not use cars.

 Drawings are inaccurate.

 Standard of living for students would not be acceptable

 Inadequate consultation and lack of meaningful engagement with residents.

32 The issues raised have been fully addressed by the Council in its consideration of the application and do not warrant a refusal of the application. In particular, the impact on levels of daylight and sunlight reaching neighbouring buildings has been thoroughly assessed and the applicant has revised the proposal to reduce the impact. Whilst there will be some failures against

page 6 BRE standards, the Council does not consider that they justify refusal of the application. This is accepted.

33 One individual and forty duplicate letters of support were also received. The individual letter of support welcomed the scheme on the grounds that it would improve the area. The duplicate letter was from local businesses welcoming the increased investment that the proposal will being to the area.

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

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

35 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

36 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.

37 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.

38 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).

page 7 Conclusion

39 At consultation stage, outstanding issues were raised in relation to land use, urban design, inclusive access, strategic views, climate change, transport and employment. The issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant as described in this report. The application now complies with the London Plan and there are no grounds for refusal.

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] Claire O’Brien, Senior Strategic Planner 020 7983 4269 email claire.o’[email protected]

page 8

PDU/1451a/01 3 September 2008 33-35 Commercial Road

in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/08/01034/FUL & PA/08/01035/LBC

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

Strategic issues The principle of a student housing-led development in this location is supported by strategic planning policy. Further information is required to assess the acceptability of the proposed mix of uses in the Central Activities Zone. In urban design terms, the proposal is broadly acceptable subject to further information in relation to materials and elevational treatment. The townscape assessment has failed to assess the impact of the proposed development on strategic views and as such is wholly inadequate. The applicant is urged to increase the provision of wheelchair accessible student bedrooms beyond the minimum required by building regulations. Further work, including revisions to the energy strategy, is required in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The transport aspects of the proposal require further consideration to ensure compliance with strategic planning policy. Further consideration should also be given to the employment aspects.

Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 75 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 77 of this report could address these deficiencies.

page 9 Context

40 On 24 July 2008 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 3 September 2008 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.

41 The application is referable under Categories 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development…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” and ”Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London.”

42 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.

43 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

45 The 0.37 hectare site is located east of the Aldgate gyratory, on Commercial Road close to the junction with Whitechurch Lane. The site is bound to the north by the rear of properties at 15 Adler Street, to the east by the rear of properties at 1 to 13 Adler Street, to the south by Commercial Road and to the west by the rear of 16 to 40 Whitechurch Lane. The main frontage of the site is to Commercial Road, with additional access via Assam Street. Existing buildings on the site include the former St. George’s Brewery, which is grade II listed and dates from the mid- nineteenth century. The area surrounding the site is characterised by a mix of uses including offices, retail, residential and educational uses associated with London Metropolitan University.

46 The site is located in the City Fringe Opportunity Area, which has an indicative capacity of 80,000 new jobs and a minimum of 5,000 new homes in the period 2001-2026. The Draft City Fringe OAPF was out to public consultation in February 2008 and the responses to that consultation are currently being considered. It is also on the edge of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). The area is undergoing rapid change and several other sites nearby have recently gained planning permission for redevelopment. These include 52-58 Commercial Road, which received planning permission in December 2005 for redevelopment of thirteen and seventeen storeys for office and residential use and land bound by Whitechapel High Street, Colchester Street, Buckle Street and Braham Street which received planning permission in August 2007 for office and retail development ranging from four to 22 storeys. The Draft City Fringe OAPF sets out a framework for the coordination of these developments.

47 The site is located just east of the City of London boundary and is surrounded by a wide range of public transport services including buses, rail, underground and DLR stations. As a result, the site records an excellent public transport accessibility level of 6a. Aldgate East is the nearest

page 10 underground station from the site and is located at approximately 250 metres to the west. Aldgate underground and bus stations are also five minutes walking distance to the west. Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, Fenchurch Street, Shoreditch and Tower Hill stations are also all within acceptable walking distance of the site. Numerous bus services, including bus routes no. 15, 115, 135, 25 and 205 are within immediate vicinity. Although not within acceptable walking distance from the site, a number of additional bus services are located around Liverpool Street station. The site is also near to numerous key roads which are part of the Transport for London road network including the A13 Commercial Road and the A11 Whitechapel Road, which connects directly to the A1202 Commercial Street at the Aldgate Gyratory to the west of the site on the inner ring road.

Details of the proposal

48 There are four main elements to the proposed development:

 Refurbishment of and alterations to the grade II listed former St. George’s Brewery for use as offices and/or non-residential institutions. The alterations include removal of non- original features including a 1970’s lift core and internal staircase, and reinstatement of original window openings.

 Refurbishment and alterations to the Assam Street Warehouse for use as 24 studio rooms of accommodation for postgraduate students.

 An 18-storey building on the northern part of the site (currently a surface level car park) to provide 383 rooms of student accommodation and associated uses.

 3-storey and 7-storey buildings fronting Commercial Road for use as retail and/or offices and/or non-residential institutions.

49 The development will provide 15,371 sq.m. gross internal area (GIA) of student accommodation (407 units in total), 3,971 sq.m. GIA of office floorspace and 1,287 sq.m. GIA of retail and/or office floorspace.

Case history

50 Planning and listed building consent applications for redevelopment of the site were submitted to Tower Hamlets Council in June 2006. The proposal included a 35-storey building to provide 782 units of student accommodation and associated retail and leisure facilities. The applicant appealed on the grounds of non-determination in November 2006. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn in May 2007. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

51 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG;  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Mix of uses London Plan  Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13;  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13  Retail London Plan; PPS6; PPG13

page 11  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Equal opportunities London Plan; Planning for Equality and Diversity in Meeting the spatial needs of London’s diverse communities SPG; Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide (ODPM)  Tall buildings/views London Plan; London View Management Framework SPG  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS 1, PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Historic Environment London Plan; PPG15

52 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 1998 and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

53 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The Aldgate Masterplan and the City Fringe Area Action Plan, both adopted by the Council as Interim Planning Guidance in 2007.  The draft City Fringe Opportunity Planning Framework. Land use

54 London Plan policy 3A.25 Higher and further education seeks, among other things, to support the provision of student accommodation. The site is located in an area identified in the Council’s Aldgate Masterplan Interim Planning Guidance as being suitable to be developed as a focus for higher education, specifically to accommodate the various functions of London Metropolitan University and to consolidate and strengthen its presence in Aldgate. The Draft City Fringe OAPF identifies the area as one in which there could potentially be exceptions to the London Plan mixed use policy.

55 The proposed student housing is expected to primarily accommodate students registered at London Metropolitan University (LMU). Purpose-built student accommodation has the potential to relieve pressure on open market housing, particularly in the private rented sector, currently occupied by students. The provision of student housing and associated uses is therefore supported in this location.

57 Para 3.53 of the London Plan states that “where a proposal for development relates solely to student housing, it will not normally be appropriate to apply a planning obligation for an element of social rent or intermediate housing.” As such, there is no requirement to provide a proportion of affordable housing in association with the proposed student housing.

58 The application also seeks permission for flexible retail and/or office and/or non-residential institutions, which will be concentrated in the former brewery and along the Commercial Road frontage. Central Activities Zone policies 2A.4, 3B.3, 5G.2 and 5G.3 encourage the provision of mixed uses, including housing where there are increases in office floorspace. There is an increase in office floorspace within this scheme and the scheme is mixed use- comprising student accommodation, retail and office uses. The Draft City Fringe OAPF suggests that where schemes are not commercially led, that they are at least designed to provide a continuous office frontage onto the main street elevations, which the scheme achieves. It is therefore considered to be compliant with relevant London Plan policies and the emerging planning framework for the City

page 12 Fringe. However, it would be useful if the applicant could clarify existing and proposed floorspace figures by use. This will enable a clearer understanding of the proposed land use changes. Urban design and built heritage

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

60 London Plan policies 4B.9 and 4B.10, which relate to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings, are of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. These policies set out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor. Also relevant are London Plan policies 4B.11-4B.13, the latter of which supports schemes that make use of historic assets including where they bring redundant or under- used buildings and spaces into appropriate use. The Draft City Fringe OAPF identifies this site as being suitable for tall buildings as part of an emerging cluster around the Aldgate Gyratory.

61 The proposal includes a 53 metre high tower, which is significantly taller than the majority of surrounding existing buildings. There are, however, other existing and consented tall buildings in the vicinity, such as the Aldgate 3&4 office development immediately to the west, which rises to a height of a 103 metres and is currently on site, and the Allie Street hotel development (80 metres). There are also recently completed residential schemes on either side of Commercial Road which rise to 35 to 40 metres in height. The site is identified in the emerging City Fringe Opportunity Area planning framework as being suitable, in principle, for a tall building, subject to detailed design and them not having a harmful impact on the backdrop of the Tower of London World Heritage Site.

62 The new student accommodation, with ancillary uses, is arranged in several blocks. Because the floorplate of the tower is similar to the previous proposal, the decreased height results in a silhouette that is less slender in proportion. The visual quality of the tower will, therefore, depend on the detailed architecture and the use of materials. The tower consists of different elements that, while using a regular floorplan with 5-student room sections, have the potential to form an interesting three dimensional shape. More information, however, is required on the quality of the materials and the detailing.

63 Given the site’s general context associated with the manufacturing industry and its specific context of the retained warehouses, the design of the new buildings, and in particular the tower, should provide a positive visual relationship with these buildings. The large flanks of each student room cluster could provide interesting spatial elements but this will be dependent on the materials. Brick would give it a fine grain that would reflect well on its context, but the metal panels could give it a defensive appearance. Further work should be done to demonstrate that the scheme is in line with policy 4B.10 of the London Plan.

64 Subject to the resolution of the architectural design of the building, the impact of its height, mass and bulk on the Whitechapel High Street Conservation Area is not considered to be adverse. The impact on the conservation area and listed buildings is also dependent on the detailing of the tower, which will be conditioned by the local planning authority.

page 13 65 The plans to redevelop the listed warehouse into modern workspace appear contemporary whilst preserving the historic character of the brewery. This aspect of the scheme is particularly welcomed as the listed buildings are currently in very poor condition and the proposals would meet London Plan policies relating to heritage (4B.11, 4.B12 and 4B.13). The retention of the connected, unlisted, warehouse on Assam Street is in line with London Plan policy 4B.4 London’s buildings: retrofitting, which supports measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by retrofitting existing buildings. It will also provide a high quality urban backdrop for the new buildings. The retention of the small period building on Commercial Road, which in the previous planning application was proposed to be demolished, is also welcomed. Inclusive access

66 London Plan policy 4B.5 requires all future development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion and requires design and access statements to explain how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development and how inclusion will be maintained and managed. Further guidance to this policy is provided in the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment.’

67 In line with minimum Building Regulations Part M requirements, the applicant proposes that 5% of the student bedrooms will be wheelchair accessible and will be dispersed from ground to fifteenth storey level of the student accommodation tower. Given the shortage of wheelchair accessible student accommodation in London, the applicant is strongly urged to increase the proposed number of wheelchair accessible bedrooms to 10%. Providing the minimum required by building regulations does not accord with the London Plan policy requirement to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion. Illustrative layout plans of a typical wheelchair accessible unit should be provided.

68 The access statement otherwise demonstrates that the development will be fully accessible to all users. Strategic views

69 London Plan policies 4B.16 to 4B.18 along with table 4B.1 provide the policy framework for the management of strategically important views. The London View Management Framework (LVMF) Supplementary Planning Guidance provides further guidance on the implementation of these policies and assessment of the impact of new developments on designated views.

70 The applicant has submitted a townscape and visual impact assessment which assesses the impact of the proposed development on nine locally identified views. In its current form the townscape assessment fails to demonstrate the impact of the proposed development on strategic views contained in the London View Management Framework (LVMF). As such it is wholly inadequate and the application cannot be deemed compliant with London Plan policy 4B.18 Assessing development impact on designated views.

71 Potentially affected strategic views include, but are not limited to, the townscape view from City Hall to Tower of London (LVMF view 25). There is one viewing place but two assessment points for this view, being 25A.1 and 25A.2 in the LVMF. The views from both assessment points are managed by qualitative visual assessment (QVA) and the one from 25A.1 is also managed by geometric definition and is subject to a direction issued by the Secretary of State. The geometry of the landmark viewing corridor from this assessment point is defined by the objective of maintaining the clear view of the sky in the backdrop to the White Tower. The threshold plane for

page 14 the background assessment area extends 2.5 kilometres behind the Tower of London and crosses the north-western corner of the application site.

72 In accordance with London Plan policy 4B.18, a development proposal in the backdrop of this view to the Tower of London will only be acceptable when it can be demonstrated that it preserves or enhances the ability to recognise and appreciate the landmark building. This test applies to each of the two assessment points 25A.1 and 25A.2.

73 Other potentially affected views include the river prospect from Westminster Bridge (LVMF view 18) and the linear view from King Henry VIII’s Mound, Richmond Park to St. Paul’s Cathedral (LVMF view 9). The applicant needs to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development on these and other strategic views using the methodology contained in the LVMF.

Climate change mitigation and adaptation

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

Climate change mitigation

75 London Plan policies 4A.4-11 focus on mitigation of climate change and require a reduction in a development’s carbon dioxide emissions through the use of passive design, energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. The London Plan requires developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures and prioritising decentralised energy, including renewables.

Baseline carbon dioxide emissions

76 The applicant has used CIBSE guide F benchmarks to estimate total energy consumption of the proposed development, which suggest baseline carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will be 1,261,445 kilograms of CO2 per year.

77 Benchmark figures are not however sufficient to demonstrate the baseline CO2 emissions of the scheme. The applicant must undertake modelling work for all uses using building regulations-approved software. This should be based on representative units of development. CO2 emissions should be expressed by emissions from electricity, heating and cooling demand. A whole energy approach should be taken, with unregulated usage, e.g. appliances and IT equipment, included in the baseline calculations.

Energy efficient design

78 A number of energy efficient design measures are proposed, including improved U-values, increased air tightness and passive design to optimise solar gains. The applicant aims to achieve 10% CO2 savings from energy efficiency measures alone. Whilst the intention to reduce CO2 emissions beyond building regulations requirements is welcomed, the level of information provided is not sufficient to substantiate this. CO2 savings from energy efficiency measures should also be modelled using building regulations-approved software and expressed as a percentage improvement over building regulations target emissions rate.

79 Information should be provided in relation to the lighting needs of the development and how the standards to be adopted will exceed the baseline assumptions.

page 15 Heating and cooling

80 A communal heating network with a single energy centre is proposed. Whilst this is supported in principle, the energy strategy is lacking in detail. The applicant needs to confirm that all parts of the development, i.e. all buildings and all uses, will be linked into one network served from a central plant room where all energy-generating plant will be located. A simple schematic of the community heating network, including the location of the energy centre, should be provided.

81 A 110kWe gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) system is proposed, which will result in an estimated 15% reduction in CO2 emissions. Whilst an estimated domestic hot water load has been provided, monthly thermal demand profiles need to be supplied to enable a fuller understanding of the proportion of hot water and heating demand that will be supplied by the CHP and gas boilers, and in order to demonstrate that the CHP system has been sized to its thermal maximum. Details of the operational arrangements of the CHP should also be provided.

82 The energy strategy lacks detail in relation to cooling. The applicant needs to clarify which parts of the development have an active cooling load and should explain how this will be provided.

Renewable energy

83 The applicant has undertaken a brief renewable energy feasibility study. This concludes that the only feasible renewable energy technology for the development is photovoltaic (PV) panels, and it is proposed to provide a total 200 sq.m. of PV panels on the roof of the student accommodation tower and the 4-storey student block. This will provide an estimated 0.9% reduction in CO2 emissions.

84 As proposed, the percentage CO2 reduction from renewable energy technologies falls substantially short of the 20% target set by London Plan policy 4A.7. Whilst it is acknowledged that achievement of the target is unlikely to be technically feasible in the context of the proposed energy efficiency measures and CHP system, further information is required. The applicant needs to demonstrate how the proposed 200 sq.m. of PV panels relates to the available roof space. To this end, diagrams of available roof space and PV coverage should be provided. If there is a small active cooling load, consideration should be given to the potential for ground source cooling.

Summary

85 Whilst the energy strategy has broadly followed the energy hierarchy set out in London Plan policy 4A.1, further work is required in relation to baseline emissions, energy efficiency measures, the proposed CHP system, cooling requirements and renewable energy before the application can be deemed compliant with London Plan energy policies.

Climate change adaptation

86 London Plan policy 4A.9 outlines five principles for ensuring effective adaptation to climate change in new developments. Further guidance is given in the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Sustainable Design and Construction,’ which sets out the Mayor’s essential and preferred standards for sustainable design and construction.

87 The sustainability statement indicates that 536 sq.m. of green/brown roofs will be provided. This is welcomed in line with London Plan policy 4A.11 Living roofs and walls and will assist in reducing surface water run off rates and flood risk. The Council should ensure the provision and details of the green and brown roofs are secured by condition.

page 16 88 London Plan policy 4A.10 requires new developments to avoid internal overheating. It is not clear how the development has been designed to minimise the potential for overheating and the need for mechanical ventilation. The proliferation of single aspect student bedrooms within the development, many of which are due north or due south facing and have no potential for through ventilation, is of concern, and the applicant needs to provide more information to demonstrate that they will not be susceptible to overheating.

89 The sustainability statement is somewhat weak in terms of commitments to meet the essential standards in the SPG. For example, the applicant must commit to the use of at least 50% timber and timber products in construction from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) sources with the remainder from a known temperate source, and commit to achieve average water use of less than 40 cubic metres per bedspace per year. These and other concerns raised above should be addressed before the application is referred back to the Mayor at stage two. Employment

90 The proposed development is in accordance with Policy 3A.25 of the London Plan, which supports the provision of student accommodation in order to take account of the future development needs of the higher and further education sector. The provision of student accommodation is also consistent with the aims of the emerging City Fringe OAPF. The proposed commercial uses are supported as a means of developing London's economy in accordance with Policy 3B.1 of the London Plan, which seeks to provide a range of workspaces of different types, sizes and costs to meet the needs of different sectors of the economy.

91 Limited information has been provided regarding the level of existing commercial floorspace and whether the proposal will lead to a net loss of commercial floorspace, or whether there has been any consideration of the impacts of displacement of existing businesses. Nevertheless it is understood that the existing site employs approximately 30 people, and the proposed development will result in an estimated 136 construction jobs and between 234 and 251 employment jobs in the operational phase of the development.

92 Policy 3B.11 of the London Plan aims to improve the skills and employment opportunities for Londoners. Local residents and businesses should benefit from the creation of jobs resulting from the construction and operational phases of the development. London's Economic Development Strategy encourages sustainable procurement in a way which can maximise the benefits of success to London enterprises, including developing local supply chains, and building capacity of local, small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for and secure contracts. Procurement contracts particularly resulting from the student accommodation also has the opportunity to benefit local businesses including SMEs. The borough is therefore encouraged to consider how these initiatives to create training and employment opportunities and to utilise the goods and services of SME's and local businesses could be most effective. The London Development Agency is happy to discuss the scope and detail of this initiative with the borough.

93 The borough council should consider the impacts on existing businesses operating on the site, the employment and training initiatives which could apply in the construction and operational phases of the proposed development, and how procurement opportunities could benefit SMEs.

Community facilities

94 Policy 3A.18 of the London Plan requires that community facilities and social infrastructure needs be assessed, including healthcare. The Environmental Statement submitted by the applicant identifies a need for healthcare and the London Development Agency would therefore encourage the Council to consider the scope for requesting a financial contribution to address community

page 17 needs through the s106 Agreement, as a means of reducing disparities in labour market outcomes between groups. Financial contributions required to meet the needs of the community should also be considered. Transport

Car parking

95 The proposed development is ‘car free’ and in view of the excellent public transport accessibility level, this is strongly supported by Transport for London (TfL). Whilst the removal of the existing surface level car park (80 spaces) at the northern end of the development site is also welcomed, it is understood that from the four spaces provided for delivery, service and maintenance vehicles, only one will be designed to double up as a disabled parking bay. This is not in line with strategic planning policy and this disabled parking bay must be allocated for the sole use of disabled drivers as stated by the London Plan, which requires at least one disabled bay for all new developments. TfL would however strongly suggest that the inclusion of additional disabled bays be considered by the applicant and that students be exempted from any on-street residents parking permit scheme.

Site Access

96 It is understood that all vehicular access to the site will be via Assam Street. Being off the Transport for London road network, this is supported however it remains unclear whether the existing two vehicular accesses on Commercial Road will be removed as part of the proposals. Whilst clarification should therefore be provided on this, the permanent closure of the two Commercial Road accesses is required due to the strategic nature of the highway. As such, the applicant is recommended to enter into a Section 278 Agreement for providing the necessary highway works, including footway repaving, dropped kerbs removal and footway reinstatement on occupation of the building.

Public transport

97 Given the lack of parking provision on site, the development is expected to generate significant additional public transport trips. In order to improve bus services accessibility, the applicant is requested to carry out a review of all bus stops located within 400 metres of the development site, with the exception of stops within the extent of the works for the Aldgate Gyratory removal. This review should consider if the existing stops comply with TfL’s bus stops accessibility standards and where improvements are required, contribution will need to be sought.

98 Additionally, a financial contribution of up to £8,500 will be sought to fund the enhanced bus stop on the northern side of Commercial Road. This should also be secured via Section 106 Agreement to mitigate the transport impacts of the proposed development.

Construction & servicing

99 The proposed construction arrangements are supported ‘in principle’, provided that the two existing vehicular accesses on Commercial Road are closed for construction traffic. The submission of a swept path analysis is required to demonstrate that the largest construction vehicle can manoeuvre into and out of the junctions in forward gear.

100 Short-term closures of Assam Street and / or Commercial Road will also be required in order to establish and remove the tower cranes and to deliver large items of building plant. Whilst TfL will not accept the temporary closure of Commercial Road (both carriageway and footway) during the construction period, and further justification of why other means of crane and plan

page 18 access are not viable is therefore required. Due to the nature of the highway, the priority is to maintain free flow of traffic on Commercial Road at all times.

101 Clarification is also required regarding the potential impacts of the development site on Commercial Road during all construction phases, and submission of a construction logistic plan to include any potential use of public highway and mitigation. This should be secured as a planning condition attached to the application. Additionally, the provision of a demolition and construction method statement is supported. Given that no on-site car parking for construction staff will be provided, it is essential that car parking be made available and as such the inclusion of a ‘contractor’ Travel Plan as part of the construction logistics plan is recommended.

102 As four loading bays are proposed for delivery and maintenance vehicles on site, and a forecast of ten to 20 servicing vehicles are expected per day, TfL requires the submission of a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) to be secured through planning conditions. This plan should seek to rationalise servicing with the aim to avoid peak traffic periods on the road network and therefore reduce the total number of trips made.

Pedestrians & Cycles

103 In light of the trip rate assessment presented in the transport assessment, the site is likely to generate up to 240 two-way trips during the traffic peak and as such, it is expected that the site will therefore increase the footfall on the surrounding Transport for London Road Network.

104 As such, the report’s conclusions stating that any pedestrian flows impact from the development will be negligible are questioned. Whilst the results of the Level of Service assessment are currently missing from the supporting information, it is difficult to accept that such impact would be negligible given the significant numbers of pedestrians and the already congested nature of the footways in the area. Further details on pedestrian impacts should therefore be submitted.

105 TfL has recently completed a study along Commercial Road which highlighted a number of areas in need of improvement for pedestrians (including crossing, footway width and condition, etc), cyclists and other road users. TfL therefore requests that the applicant works with TfL to take these improvements forward and potentially through s106 contributions.

106 In light with the Aldgate gyratory works, located in the immediate vicinity of the development site, TfL also requests a contribution towards the design, development and subsequent implementation of a proposed removal and the re-introduction of a 2-way working system along Whitechapel High Street. This will allow the removal of vehicular rights on Braham Street to include a public space towards its western end to address the existing poor pedestrian, cyclist and streetscape environments.

107 Given that cycle routes 194, 34 and 32 pass nearby and will therefore benefit the site, the applicant is requested to improve these facilities. Although a number of traffic management measures have been identified at the traffic signals on the Aldgate Gyratory, to further assist cyclists, significant safety issues associated with the heavily traffic dominated environment still remain and need to be addressed.

108 The level of cycle parking provision on site is consistent with TfL’s cycle parking standards and therefore considered acceptable. Clarification on the cycle parking use designation is however required as well as the provision of suitable showering and changing facilities for employees and staff on site. Clarification of the facilities location would also be welcomed. TfL recommends that

page 19 a cyclist entrance, segregated from vehicular traffic, should be provided along with simplified layout in the basement. Additionally, additional cycle parking provision for visitors at ground level should also be considered.

Travel Plan

109 There is no indication that any Travel Plan will be incorporated as part of this development and this is not acceptable. Due to the size and nature of the development, TfL requires that Travel Plan be provided, through s106 or condition, as a necessary and integral measure to educate site users on sustainable travel alternatives. A statement of intent should be submitted detailing how sustainable travel to and from the proposed development will be promoted.

110 In line with the above comments, there are a number of matters that require further consideration to ensure compliance with strategic planning policy on transport. Local planning authority’s position

111 As yet unknown.

Legal considerations

112 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

113 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

114 London Plan policies on land use, urban design and built heritage, inclusive access, strategic views, climate change mitigation and adaptation and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Urban design and built heritage: the scheme broadly complies with London Plan design policies, but further information is required in order to demonstrate compliance with policy 4B.10.  Inclusive access: the scheme broadly complies with London Plan policy 4B.5 but the applicant is urged to increase the proportion of wheelchair accessible student bedrooms.

page 20  Strategic views: the applicant has failed to assess the impact of the proposed development on strategic views identified in the London View Management Framework. The application cannot therefore be deemed compliant with London Plan policy 4B.18.  Climate change mitigation and adaptation: revisions to the energy strategy are required before the scheme can be considered compliant with London Plan policies 4A.1-4A.11. The provision of living roofs complies with London Plan policy 4A.11, however other commitments to climate change adaptation measures are weak.  Transport: there are a number of matters relating to disabled car parking, the impact of the construction of the development, improving pedestrian and cycle accessibility and travel plans that require further consideration to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 3C.1, 3C.2, 3C.3, 3C.9, 3C.11, 3C.19, 3C.20, 3C.21 and 3C.22 on transport.  Employment: the proposed commercial uses comply with Policy 3B.1 of the London Plan, however further consideration should be given to how the proposals can improve the skills and employment opportunities for Londoners to comply with London Plan policy 3B.11. 115 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

116 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 and built heritage: the applicant should provide more information relating to proposed materials and elevational treatment, particularly for the flank elevations of the student bedroom clusters in the tower.  Inclusive access: the applicant is urged to increase the proportion of wheelchair accessible student bedrooms.  Strategic views: the applicant needs to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the proposed development on strategic views designated in the LVMF. The acceptability of the proposed development will then be assessed against London Plan policy 4B.18.

 Employment: further consideration should be given to how the proposals can improve the skills and employment opportunities for Londoners to comply with London Plan policy 3B.11.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Frameworks) 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Claire O’Brien, Strategic Planner 020 7983 4269 email claire.o’[email protected]

page 21