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).