representation hearing report PDU/2350/03 7 October 2009 Hertsmere House, London, E14 4A (Columbus Tower)
in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
planning application no. PA/08/02709 & conservation area consent no. PA/08/02710 Planning application and conservation area consent Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (“the Order”)
The proposal 1) Full application for erection of a new 63-storey building consisting of, 30,871 sq.m. office space, 192 hotel rooms, 74 serviced apartments, 1,468 sq.m. of retail space, 2,731 sq.m. of leisure and fitness space, 75 basement car parking spaces, 168 basement and ground level cycle spaces, along with associated servicing, storage and plant room and public realm/landscaping improvements.
2) Conservation area consent for demolition of existing Hertsmere House
The applicant The applicant is Commercial Estates Group for and on behalf of GMV Ten Limited, and the architect is Mark Weintraub Architecture and Design. Drawing numbers and documents Columbus Tower application plans A1/PL/000 REVA, A1/PL/001 REVC, A1/PL/002 REVA, A1/PL/003 REVB, A1/PL/004 REVA, A1/PL/005 REVB, A1/PL/007 REVA, A1/PL/008 REVA, A1/PL/019 REVA, A1/PL/021 REVB, A1/PL/028 REVA, A1/PL/029 REVA, A1/PL/030 REVB, A1/PL/031 REVA, A1/PL/032 REVA, A1/PL/033 REVB, A1/PL/034 REVA, A1/PL/046 REVA, A1/PL/047 REVA, A1/PL/048, A1/PL/049, A1/PL/056 REVA, A1/PL/057 REVA, A1/PL/058 REVA, A1/PL/059 REVA, A1/PL/060 REVA, A1/PL/062 REVB, A1/PL/063 REVB, A1/PL/064 REVB, A1/PL/065 REVB, A1/PL/066 REVA, A1/PL/067 REVA, A1/PL/068 REVA, A1/PL/069 REVA, A1/PL/070 REVA, A1/PL/071 REVA, A1/PL/072 REVA, A1/PL/073 REVA, A1/PL/074 REVB, A1/PL/075 REVB, A1/PL/076 REVA, A1/PL/080 REVA, A1/PL/081 REVA, A1/PL/082 REV A, A1/PL/083 REVA, A1/PL/085 REVA, A1/PL/086 REVA, A1/PL/087 REVA, A1/PL/088 REVA, A1/PL/090 REV A, A1/PL/091 REVB, A1/PL/092 REVB, A1/PL/093 REVA, A1/PL/094 REVB, A1/PL/095 REVB, A1/PL/096 REVB, A1/PL/097 REVB, A1/PL/098 REVB, A1/PL/099 REVB, A1/PL/101 REVA, A1/PL/102 REVB, A1/PL/103 REVB, A1/PL/104 REVA, A1/PL/105 REVA, A1/PL/106 REVA, A1/PL/107 REVA, A1/PL/108 REVA,A1/PL/109REVA,A1/PL/110REVA, 1/PL/120 REVA,A1/PL/121 REVA,A1/PL/122 REVA&A1/PL/123 REVA. Conservation Area consent plans Site Location Plan and A1/PL/112A Submitted documents Environmental Statement and further Information: URS December 2008, March 2009 and May 2009. Design and Access Statement: prepared by Mark Weintraub Architecture & Design, December 2008. Planning Statement: prepared by GVA Grimley, December 2008. Transport Assessment and Interim Travel Plan: prepared by Steer Davies Gleave dated December 2008 Sustainability Statement: prepared by URS Corporation, December 2008. Consultation Sweep-Up: prepared by various authors, April 2009. Recommendation summary The Mayor, acting as local planning authority, grants conditional planning permission and conservation area consent, subject to a section 106 agreement.
page 1
Reasons for approval
1 The Mayor, acting as the local planning authority, has considered the particular circumstance of these applications against national, regional and local planning policy, relevant supplementary planning guidance and any material planning considerations. He has also had regard to the Tower Hamlets Development Control Committee report of 4 August 2009 and draft reasons for refusal. He has found this application acceptable in planning policy terms for the following reasons:
The application proposes an acceptable quantum and mix of uses on an underutilised site in the economic cluster of Canary Wharf, in the northern part of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area. This application helps facilitate London’s continued attractiveness as an international business location. The scheme accords with London Plan policy 2A.5, 3B.1, 3B.2, 3B.3, 3D.7, 5C.1 and 5G.3. At the local level the scheme accords with policies ART7, DEV3 and CAZ1 of Tower Hamlets saved UDP (1998), and policies CP8, CP13 and EE4 of Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) Core Strategy (2007), and policies IOD13 and IOD15 of the IPG Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan. A financial contribution has been secured towards the provision of off-site affordable housing in lieu of the absence of any on-site affordable housing. This is in line with London Plan policy 5G.3, which identifies Canary Wharf as an area where an off-site provision of housing should be accepted, as on-site housing could compromise the broader objectives of sustaining important clusters of business activities. Transport matters, including parking, access and servicing, are acceptable and accord with London Plan policies 3C.1, 3C.22, 3C.23 and 3C.25 and local policies ST34, T16 and T19 of Tower Hamlets UDP (1998) and policies DEV17, DEV18 and DEV19 of the Council’s IPG (2007), which seek to ensure developments minimise parking and promote sustainable transport options. This application will increase trip generation both to this site and within Canary Wharf as a whole; to mitigate any transport capacity impacts appropriate financial contributions have been secured to assist the delivery of Crossrail and bus capacity improvements. These contributions have been secured in line with London Plan policies 3C.2, 3C.9, 3C.12 and 6A.4 and emerging London Plan policies 3C.12A and the London Plan draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on the ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’. The building achieves a high quality design that complements the existing buildings in Canary Wharf. The building would provide a striking addition to the London skyline. The height, scale, bulk and the open spaces around the base of the building accord with the design policies set out in chapter 4B of the London Plan and with Tower Hamlets saved (1998) UDP policies DEV1, and DEV2 and Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies CP48, DEV1, DEV2, DEV3, CP46, DEV27 and IOD16. The introduction of a tall building onto this site in Canary Wharf would continue to preserve the existing character of the West India Dock conservation area and the setting of the various listed buildings within it, whilst the demolition of the existing Hertsmere House office building and its replacement with a building of high quality design will serve to enhance this conservation area. This accords with London Plan policies 4B.11, 4B.1 2 and 4B13 and with Tower Hamlets saved UDP (1998) policies DEV27 and DEV28 and with Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies CON1 and CON2. The introduction of a 63-storey building onto this site will serve to expand the existing cluster of tall buildings at Canary Wharf and will have an impact on views to and from the area. The building will be seen as a slender and moderate addition to this existing and growing cluster that is consistent with the character of the area. In this regard, the proposal
page 2 accords with London Plan policies 4B.16, 4B.17 and 4B.18, with London Plan supplementary planning guidance on the ‘London View Management Framework’ and with Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies CP48, CP50, CON3 and CON5. The application proposes the development of a fully accessible building, with sufficient wheelchair accessible hotel rooms, serviced apartments and blue badge car parking. The inclusive design and access arrangements for this application accord with London Plan policies 3D.7 and Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies CP.13 The development would result in some impacts on daylight and sunlight in the surrounding area, however, given the small-scale nature of these impacts along with the context of the surrounding area, these impacts are acceptable and are in line with London Plan policy 4B.10, Tower Hamlets UDP (1998) saved policies DEV2 and IPG (2007) policies DEVI and DEV27 and broadly in line with the guidance set out in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) handbook ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A guide for good practice, 1991’. The energy strategy for this application has been prepared in line with the Mayor’s energy hierarchy, London Plan policies 4A.1 to 4A.19 and with Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies CP28, DEV5 and DEV6, and is acceptable. The environmental impacts of this development are acceptable and are in line with London Plan policies 4B.15, 4A.33, 4B.10, 4A.14, 4C.11, 4A.12, 3D.14, 4A.20 and 4A.19 and with Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies DEV5 to DEV9. Contributions have been secured towards the provision of transport infrastructure improvements; open space and public realm improvements; and access to employment for local people in line with Government Circular 05/05, London Plan policy 6A.4 and Tower Hamlets UDP (1998) saved policy DEV4 and Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policy IMP1, which seek to secure contributions toward infrastructure and services required to facilitate proposed development. There are no, or insufficient, grounds to withhold consent on the basis of the policies considered and other material planning considerations. Recommendation
2 That the Mayor, acting as local planning authority, grant planning permission and conservation area consent, subject to the following legal agreement and conditions.
3 Planning application permission - PA/08/02709
Legal agreement
4 The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations: £1,155,340 towards the provision of off-site affordable housing. £4,000,000 towards Crossrail works. £180,000 towards bus capacity improvements. £332,756 towards local employment and training initiatives. £433,252 for improvements to local parks, open spaces and public realm. Travel Plan, Construction Logistics Plan and Delivery & Servicing Plan Publicly accessible pavilion and upper floor restaurant and bar.
page 3 TV and radio reception monitoring.
5 That the Assistant Director Planning, is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
Conditions
6 That the Assistant Director for Planning be delegated the authority to issue the planning permission and conservation area consent and impose the conditions (and informatives) to secure the following matters:
Requirement to implement the permission in accordance with the plans (to be listed). 5-year time limit. Hours of operation for engineering or other operations including demolition. Hours of operation for any hammer driven or impact breaking out of material. Details of hours of opening for commercial units. The buildings shall not be occupied until the relevant stages of construction are completed. Full details of materials, external appearance, fenestration, glazing to reduce glare and reflection and roof form. Hard and soft landscaping plan including details on tree replacement. Assessment and mitigation for impact on microclimate. Full details on parking plans, ensuring no more than 75 car parking spaces and no more than 42 motorcycle spaces. Full details on car parking allocation across the various uses. Full details on the provision of cycle spaces and associated facilities. Full details on access for disabled people. Minimum of 5% wheelchair accessible hotel rooms and serviced apartments. Programme of archaeological work required. The existing ground level adjacent to the river dock wall should not be altered, nor shall the river dock wall be subjected to any additional horizontal or vertical loading. Survey of the dock wall adjacent to the site. Detailed works to bring the river wall up to the design life of the development. Method statement maintaining the structural integrity of the dock wall. Full details demonstrating the structural integrity of the basement and the roof of the basement. Full details on any piling and foundation works. Restrict external artificial light spill into the watercourse. Contaminated land review. Wheel cleaning equipment maintained at all vehicle exits to the site during construction and building operation.
page 4 Ramp access to basement to include a semi-automatic signalling system. Full details of ventilation. Full details on the refuse stores. Full details on the recycling plans. Full details on the external lighting and security measures. Full details on noise outputs. Full details on an evacuation plan. Full details on the bat and bird boxes. Full details on the peregrine falcon nesting boxes. Full details on the green wall. Groundwater and gas monitoring to be undertaken during the detailed geotechnical exploration. The energy strategy to be implemented. Submission demonstrating building meets not less than BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standards. Full detail on air quality impacts and mitigation. Full details on the heating network supplying the whole development. Aviation warning light shall be provided. 90 days notification to the planning authority of the intention to start demolition and 180 days written notice to the planning authority of the intention to start piling. In the event that the Crossrail tunnels are constructed before substantive works are commenced on the construction of the approved basement, construction work shall not begin until detailed design and method statements for all of the ground floor structures, foundations, basements and other structures, including demolition of the existing building, the programming and excavation of both temporary and permanent piling works below ground level and measures for the mitigation of the effects of noise and vibration arising from the use of the running tunnels. Full details of the surface water drainage system. Full details on water supply infrastructure. Full details on structural integrity of the foundations, basement and ground floor. Barges should be utilised, where appropriate, to reduce impacts on construction traffic. Full details on impacts on the water table and any required mitigation measures for the Museum of London Docklands. Serviced apartments
7 The detailed wording of the above conditions are set out in the draft decision notice appended to this report.
8 That the Mayor agrees that approval of details pursuant to conditions imposed on the planning permission and conservation area consent be submitted to and determined by Tower Hamlets Council.
page 5 9 That the Mayor confirms that his reasons for granting planning permission and conservation area consent are as set out in this report in the Reasons for Approval section, as required by Article 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).
Informatives
This permission does not imply approval of any entertainments licensing requirements of the licensing authority. Further advice should be sought from the Council’s Licensing Section. Arrangements should be made to ensure that no surface water from the proposed development would drain onto the public highway. If the development is carried out it will be necessary for a crossing to be formed over the public highway by the Borough Council and Highway Authority at the applicant’s expense in accordance with Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980. Applications for such a crossing should be made to the Council’s Highways Development Services, Southern Grove, London, E3. Having regard to the environment of the locality and the prominence of the site, a sympathetic and high standard of design is appropriate and expected by the local planning authority. The applicant must ensure that building foundations abutting areas to be landscaped are suitably designed to enable tree planting to be carried out in accordance with the landscaping scheme. During the course of site works and until the completion of the development a notice board should be affixed on the hoarding of the site in a prominent position specifying the name, address and telephone of the contractor including an emergency number. This is to allow direct communication between the Council and contractor in respect of vandalism, outbreak of fire etc., as well as ensuring the appropriate and expeditious discharge of the conditions of the planning permission. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, Section 13, and is advised that adequate storage facilities for refuse must be provided. Crossrail Limited (25 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5LQ, telephone 020 3229 9100) has indicated its preparedness to provide guidelines in relation to the proposed location of the cross rail structures and tunnels, ground movement arising from the construction of the running tunnels, and noise vibration arising from the use of running tunnels. Applicants are encouraged to discuss the guidelines with the Cross Rail Engineer in the course of preparing detailed design and method statements. Construction cranes should make every effort not to penetrate above 245 metres AOD. All contractors should be aware of the height limitation and the construction process should proceed in consultation with London City Airport. Movement of construction traffic via West Ferry Road, West Ferry Circus and Hertsmere Road should be restricted. Traffic management details will be included in the Code of Construction Practice for the development of the site. There are public sewers crossing this site, and no building works will be permitted within three metres of the sewers without Thames Water's approval. Should a building over /
page 6 diversion application form, or other information relating to Thames Water’s assets be required, the applicant should contact Thames Water Developer Services. Thames Water recommends that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking areas. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses. Thames Water recommends the installation of a properly maintained fat trap on all catering establishments. In line with best practice for the disposal of fats, oils and grease, the collection of waste oil by a contractor, particularly to recycle for the production of bio diesel is recommended. Failure to implement these recommendations may result in this and other properties suffering blocked drains, sewage flooding and pollution to local watercourses. 10 The Assistant Director for Planning be delegated the authority to include additional informatives as required.
11 Conservation area consent - PA/08/02710
Conditions
The demolition works hereby granted consent should be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this consent. The demolition works hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than as part of the completion of development for which planning permission was granted simultaneously with this consent, and a contract for such redevelopment has been made. Such demolition and development shall be carried out without interruption and in complete accordance with the plans referred to in this consent and any subsequent approval of details. The development shall be carried in accordance with the approved plans; Site Location Plan and A1/PL/112A
Informatives
The planning permission should be read in conjunction with the associated Planning Permission reference PA/08/02709.
Site description
12 The application site is 0.356 hectares in size and is located in the northern area of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area, known as Canary Wharf. Within Canary Wharf the application site is at the western end of the West India Dock and to the north-west of One Canada Square. The site is roughly rectangular in plan and is bounded to the east by West India dock basin, to the west by Hertsmere Road, to the north by converted former warehouses while further north is a multi storey car park and cinema complex, directly to the south is the ‘Credit Swiss First Boston’ building, which ranges between 10 and 20 storeys.
13 The surrounding built environment contains a number of heritage aspects. The site sits on the southern boundary of West India Quay Conservation Area, with a narrow strip of the northern frontage of the site falling within this designated Conservation Area. To the north of the site are the Grade I listed ‘Gwilts’ dock warehouses, which range between 3 and 5-storeys, and which have been converted to ground floor commercial space with residential and office floorspace above. To the east is the Grade I listed dock wall and to the west is the Grade II listed Dockmaster’s Guard House and Cannon Street Workshops.
page 7 14 The site is occupied by Hertsmere House, a part 4, part 5-storey 1980’s commercial building of brick construction and of modest architectural quality. Barclays Bank and Morgan Stanley currently operate from Hertsmere House
Image 1: Location map for application site
15 The site is south of Aspen Way, which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network. The nearest bus stops are 300 metres from the site and provide services to a range of destinations. Docklands Light Railway (DLR) services are accessible within walking distance at Westferry, West India Quay and Canary Wharf stations. The Jubilee Line station at Canary Wharf is approximately 675 metres to the east. The site has a public transport accessibility level of 4 (in a range of 1 to 6 where 6 is excellent). The future Crossrail station at Canary Wharf will further enhance the accessibility of this site when opened.
16 The site falls within the Central Activities Zone, east-west Crossrail safeguarding and designated Flood Protection Area within the adopted UDP. The site is identified as a development site within the Isle of Dogs IPG, with preferred uses that reflected the extant permission. West India Dock forms part of the Blue Ribbon Network and is a site of importance for nature conservation (grade 2).
Details of the proposal
17 The application proposes the demolition of the existing office building, which provides 6,913 sq.m. of office floorspace, and the redevelopment of the site to provide a new 63-storey speculative mixed-use building.
18 The building design includes a 3-storey podium block approximately 15 metres in height, with a taller 60-storey element rising out of the podium. The building reaches a total of 63-storeys (242 metres AOD). The building would be two metres shorter than One Canada Square (currently the tallest building in the United Kingdom).
page 8
Image 2: View of proposed building from West India Dock DLR platform
19 The proposed mix of uses is vertically stacked within the building. Floors 1 – 3 are retail (the base podium block), floors 4 – 23 are office space, floors 24 – 28 are fitness and restaurant, floors 29 – 43 are hotel, floors 44 – 50 are serviced apartments, floors 51 – 53 are restaurant, and finally floors 54 – 63 are serviced apartments and plant room. The building also includes two underground basement floors, which accommodate 75 car parking spaces (of which 7 are blue badge accessible spaces), 144 cycle spaces and the majority of the servicing arrangements. The application also includes a range of associated public realm and landscape improvements around the base of the building. The public spaces also include 14 public cycle spaces.
20 The proposed building has a total floorspace of 96,433 sq.m, with the following mix:
Use Size / No. Retail 1,468 sqm Office 30,871 sqm Leisure and fitness 2,731 sqm Pavilion amenity space 1,246 sqm Hotel rooms 192 rooms Serviced apartments 74 rooms Basement 6,992 sqm
Table 1: Proposed floorspace breakdown and mix of uses
Case history
21 On 14 April 2004, the former Mayor reviewed a formal referral for an almost identical planning application and conservation area consent for this site (also known as Columbus Tower), and agreed with Tower Hamlets Council’s draft decision to grant permission for those applications. On 2 March 2005, Tower Hamlets Council granted a five-year planning permission.
page 9 22 The existence of an almost identical extant planning permission and conservation area consent is a significant material consideration that carries substantial weight when determining these applications. However, there are some material changes to the application, which need to be assessed against current policy.
23 Since granting this original planning permission the following conditions, pursuant to that permission, have been varied; 2, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22 and 24.
24 That permission has not been implemented and the proposed building has not been constructed. The existing permissions remain extant but are due to expire on 2 March 2010.
25 Following amendments to planning legislation it is no longer possible to extend the life of an unimplemented permission. Consequently, the applicant has submitted a new application, which in effect allows them to extend the time available to commence the development. The existing building is occupied. The applicant wishes to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are in place to facilitate securing vacant possession, commencing development and the carrying out of the engineering works being carried out under the site as part of the Crossrail tunneling.
26 The applicant has made some amendments to the design of the scheme to bring the scheme in line with current planning policy and to respond to objections made during the course of the consultation process, including:
Amendments to external spaces around the building. Amendments to the podium building. Amendments to the detailed design of the roof. Alterations to elevation treatment. Incorporation of a more comprehensive energy strategy. Additional visitor cycle parking. Additional financial contributions to Crossrail and bus capacity improvements. Provision of a green wall at ground level Provision of additional transport plans and information.
27 On 25 June 2009, Tower Hamlets Council at its planning committee considered a report that recommended the granting of planning permission and conservation area consent. The planning committee deferred its decision, but indicated that it was minded to refuse permission.
28 On 4 August 2009, Tower Hamlets Council at its planning committee considered a further report of the applications that recommended refusal. The committee agreed with the recommendation and resolved to refuse the applications, subject to any direction by the Mayor. On 18 August 2009 it advised the Mayor of that decision
29 The proposed reasons for refusal of the planning application were:
The proposed development, by virtue of its design, scale and massing would detract from the setting of nearby Grade I and Grade II Listed buildings and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the West India Quay Conservation Area and as such is contrary to policies 4B.11 and 4B.12 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004), saved policy DEV28 of the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998, and policies CON1 and CON2 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007) Core Strategy and Development Control, which seek to ensure the preservation or enhancement of built heritage.
page 10 The proposed development would result in unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight to nearby residential properties and as such is contrary to saved policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies DEV1 and DEV2 of Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007): Core Strategy and Development Control, which seek to ensure development does not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.
30 The proposed reason for refusal of the conservation area consent was:
The proposed building, by virtue of its design, scale and massing would not represent a suitable replacement for the existing building. The proposed demolition of the existing office block on-site is therefore contrary to the objectives of saved policy DEV28 of the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policy CON2 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007) Core Strategy and Development Control.
31 On 26 August 2009 the Mayor considered the referred application against the policy tests set out in the 2008 Mayor of London Order and indicated that… ‘Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the committee report and the Council’s draft decision notice, the development has a significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan, has a significant effect on more than one borough, and that there are sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case and issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order 2008.’
32 In this regard, under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the Mayor issued a direction under Article 7 that he was to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application.
33 The application is referable 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 outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.” “Development which comprises of includes the erection of a building that is more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London”.
34 The Mayor carried out a site visit on 25 September 2009.
35 This report and the Mayor of London’s decision on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk.
Relevant policies and guidance
36 In determining this application, the Mayor must have consideration to planning policy at the national, regional and local levels. The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:
37 Land use principle National PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing PPS6 Town Centres Draft PPS4
London Plan 3B.1 Developing London’s economy
page 11 3B.2 Office demand and supply 3B.3 Mixed use development 3D.1 Supporting Town Centres 3D.7 Visitor Accommodation 5C.1 The strategic priorities for North East London 5C.3 Opportunity areas in North East London London Plan supplementary planning guidance on ‘Housing’
Tower Hamlets 1998 Unitary Development Plan (as saved September 2007) ST1 Addressing needs of all residents ST12 Encourage range of cultural activities ST15 Facilitate expansion of local economy ST34 To support range of shopping ST41 To encourage new arts and entertainment facilities DEV3 Mixed Use development CAZ1 Location of Central London Core Activities S1 Shops in District Centres S7 Special Uses ART1 New facilities ART7 Location Major Hotel Development ST47 To support training initiatives
Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control CP7 Job Creation and Growth CP8 Global Financial and Business Centre CP11 Sites in Employment Use CP13 Hotels, Serviced Apartments and Conference Centres CP16 Vitality of Town Centres EE2 Redevelopment /Change of Use of Employment Sites EE4 Serviced Apartments IOD8 Infrastructure capacity IOD10 Infrastructure and services IOD13 Employment Uses in the Northern sub-area IOD17 Site allocations in the Northern sub-area
38 Transport National PPG13 Transport
London Plan 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity 3C.12 New Cross-London Links 3C.22 Improving Conditions for Cycling 3C.23 Parking Strategy 3C.25 Freight Strategy draft alterations: use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail draft Crossrail SPG
Tower Hamlets 1998 Unitary Development Plan (as saved September 2007) ST28 Restrain unnecessary use of private cars ST30 To improve safety for all road users T1 Improvements to rail services T16 Impact of Traffic
page 12 T18 Pedestrian Safety and Convenience T26 Promoting of Waterways for Freight
Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control CP40 A sustainable transport network CP41 Integrating Development with Transport CP43 Better Public Transport CP44 Sustainable Freight Movement CP46 Accessible Environments DEV16 Walking and Cycling Routes and Facilities DEV17 Transport Assessments DEV18 Travel Plans IOD2 Transport and movement IOD8 Infrastructure capacity IOD10 Infrastructure and services
39 Design London Plan 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.2 Promoting world-class architecture and design 4B.3 Enhancing the quality of the public realm 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 4B.9 Tall buildings - location 4B.10 Large-scale buildings – design & impact
Tower Hamlets 1998 Unitary Development Plan (as saved September 2007) ST17 To promote high quality work environments ST37 To improve physical appearance of parks and open-spaces DEV1 Design Requirements DEV12 Provision of Landscaping in Development DEV15 Retention of Mature Trees
Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control DEV2 Character & Design CP4 Good Design CP48 Tall Buildings IOD5 Public open space IOD16 Design and Built Form in the Northern sub-area
40 Strategic and local views London Plan 4B.9 Tall buildings - location 4B.10 Large-scale buildings – design & impact 4B.16 London view management framework 4B.17 View management plans London View Management Framework SPG draft replacement London View Management Framework SPG
Tower Hamlets 1998 Unitary Development Plan (as saved September 2007) DEV8 Protection of local views
Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control CP50 Important Views
page 13 CON5 Protection and Management of Important Views
41 Heritage and conservation area impacts National policy PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment PPG16 Archaeology Draft PPS15
London Plan 4B.11 London’s Built Heritage 4B.12 Heritage Conservation 4B.15 Archaeology
Tower Hamlets 1998 Unitary Development Plan (as saved September 2007) DEV32 Buildings worthy of protection DEV43 Protection of Archaeological Heritage DEV46 Protection of Waterway Corridors
Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control CP49 Historic Buildings CON1 Listed Buildings CON2 Conservation Areas CON4 Archaeology and Ancient Monuments
42 Access and inclusive design London Plan 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.6 Safety and Security Accessible London SPG
Tower Hamlets 1998 Unitary Development Plan (as saved September 2007) ST1 Addressing needs of all residents ST17 To promote high quality work environments
Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control CP1 Creating Sustainable Communities CP2 Equality of Opportunity DEV3 Accessibility & Inclusive Design DEV4 Safety & Security
43 Daylight and sunlight impacts National guidance Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice, BRE, 1991
London Plan 4B.9 Tall buildings - location 4B.10 Large-scale buildings – design & impact
Tower Hamlets 1998 Unitary Development Plan (as saved September 2007) ST1 Addressing needs of all residents ST17 To promote high quality work environments DEV1 Design Requirements DEV2 Environmental Requirements
Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control
page 14 CP4 Good Design DEV1 Amenity
44 Energy and climate change National policy PPS22 Renewable Energy
London Plan 4A.2 Mitigating climate change 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 4A.4 Energy assessment 4A.6 Decentralised energy: heating, cooling and power 4A.7 Renewable energy
Tower Hamlets 1998 Unitary Development Plan (as saved September 2007) DEV2 Environmental Requirements
Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control DEV5 Sustainable Design DEV6 Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
45 Environmental impacts National policy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS16 Archaeology PPS25 Development and Flood Risk
London Plan 3D.14 Biodiversity and Conservation 4A.2 Mitigating climate change 4A.12 Flooding 4A.13 Flood risk management 4A.16 Water supply and resources 4A.18 Water and sewerage infrastructure 4A.19 Improving Air Quality 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing townscapes 4C.1 Blue Ribbon Network 4C.23 Docks Sustainable Design and Construction SPG
Tower Hamlets 1998 Unitary Development Plan (as saved September 2007) DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV46 Protection of Waterway Corridors DEV50 Noise DEV51 Soil Tests DEV51 Contaminated Land DEV55 Development and Waste Disposal DEV56 Waste Recycling DEV57 Sites of Nature Conservation DEV69 Water Resources U2 Consultation Within Areas at Risk of Flooding U3 Flood Defences
Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control
page 15 CP31 Biodiversity CP33 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation CP36 The Water Environment and Waterside Walkways CP37 Flood Alleviation CP39 Sustainable Waste Management DEV7 Sustainable Drainage DEV10 Disturbance from Noise Pollution DEV11 Air Pollution DEV12 Management of Construction DEV13 Landscaping and Tree Preservation DEV15 Waste and Recyclables Storage DEV21 Flood Risk Management DEV22 Contaminated Land IOD7 Flooding
Responses to consultation
46 In assessing this planning application, Tower Hamlets Council has carried out a consultation process, consulting all relevant departments within Tower Hamlets Council, statutory bodies and the local public.
47 Tower Hamlets Council internal comments
Air Quality The Council is satisfied with the submitted Environmental Statement and following a number of discussions with the applicant is now satisfied with the following: The location and height of stack for boiler plant. Verification of nitrogen oxide concentrations. Conditions for air quality mitigation requested.
LBTH Officer comments: Suitable planning conditions would address any outstanding air quality issues.
Cultural Services The proposed development will increase the daytime population in the Canary Wharf area significantly. As such the development will impact on existing social infrastructure and open space provision. To address this, contributions should be sought to mitigate for this impact to ensure there is sufficient capacity for both residents and resulting daytime population. This should include a contribution towards improving capacity of open spaces / sports pitches.
LBTH Officer comments: Financial contributions have been agreed for education, training and employment initiatives for residents and improvements to the Mile End Park and other local leisure and recreational and open space facilities, which address officers original concerns.
Energy The applicant has followed the Mayor’s Energy Hierarchy and includes the following: The energy strategy achieves a reduction in carbon emissions by 17.6% through energy efficiency measures Development should be assessed against BREEAM ratings and should achieve a minimum ‘excellent’ rating.
page 16 A 240-kilowatt Fuel Cell is proposed as part of CHP system to meet 20% on-site renewable energy requirement (powered by gas in the interim). The fuel cell would achieve a carbon saving of 23% initially when running from natural gas and then rising to 37% when switched to Hydrogen fuel. The development could be connected to a district heat system in the future The scheme also includes 40 square metres of photovoltaic panels A number of planning conditions are recommended to ensure compliance with the proposed Energy Strategy.
LBTH Officer comments: Suitable conditions would be imposed on any permission, which would address any energy issues.
Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) The Council is satisfied with the submitted ground conditions report. However, conditions are required to carry out further investigation works.
LBTH Officer comments: Suitable conditions would be imposed on any permission, which would address any contaminated land concerns.
Environmental Health (Noise and Vibration) The site is within noise exposure category A in relation to road traffic noise, which does not raise any objections. The site will be affected by noise and vibration from future Crossrail network. Further survey work and mitigation would be required by condition. Further information required in relation to noise and ventilation of A3/A4 uses, therefore conditions would be required to limit hours of construction activity.
LBTH Officer comments: Suitable conditions would be imposed on any permission to ensure that future occupiers, and occupiers of neighbouring properties do not suffer from adverse noise or vibration (particularly from Crossrail and any retail / commercial users operating on site).
Environmental Health (Daylight and Sunlight) Vertical Sky Component losses to Mary Jones House, Matthew House and Riverside House exceed 25% Average Daylight Factor losses at Garford Street, Mary Jones House, Matthew House and Riverside House excessive Daylight Distribution Contours (No Sky Line) acceptable Average Probable Sunlight Hours acceptable with the exception of Riverside House where there are significant failures. Developer should provide mitigation or amend scheme to improve the impact.
LBTH Officer comments: This matter is discussed under the amenity section of the report.
Highways Site accessibility is good Vehicle access via privately owned Hertsmere Road. Scheme has no significant impact on highways Applicant advised to convert some car-parking spaces to motorcycle spaces. Cycle parking adequate
page 17 Contributions may be required to mitigate for impact on public transport
LBTH Officer comments: These matters are discussed under the Transport Section of this report, and are considered to be acceptable.
Primary Care Trust The PCT did not raise any objections to this scheme. The application does not propose any permanent residential accommodation so no healthcare or section 106 financial contribution is required.
LBTH Officer comments: None
48 Statutory body comments and tower Hamlets planning officer response
British Waterways Concerned that the scale of building may adversely affect the adjacent listed buildings and appear overbearing. Assess the potential to move freight by water Maintenance service charge requested for additional impact of pedestrian footfall on dock. The feasibility of dock water for heating and cooling should be investigated. Appropriate planning conditions should be secured regarding Risk Assessment and Method Statement for works adjacent to water.
LBTH Officer comments: A planning condition requiring the applicant to assess the potential of moving freight by water is proposed. In addition, officers do not consider that the relatively limited additional pedestrian footfall from the development would justify any form of maintenance surcharge to British Waterways.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment CABE has not raised any objections to the height of the proposed building. The scheme relates fairly convincingly to the existing cluster in most visualisations provided, particularly in longer views and CABE notes that this relationship would become even stronger in the event that other proposed additions to skyline are built. The proposal would be a distinctive and elegant addition to the skyline at Canary Wharf, and through the provision of viewing areas and public space it has potential to offer significant benefits to the public realm in the area. The scheme is generally well considered, distinctive and attractive in terms of overall form and massing. The proposed sleek and elegant design provides a pleasing contrast to block towers that dominate the rest of Canary Wharf CABE is pleased to note the mix of units and the commitment to public access to various points in tower, which make scheme unique in Canary Wharf cluster. The impact on dwellings nearby should be considered particularly in relation to overshadowing.
LBTH Officer comments: The design of the building is considered in more detail under main issues of the report.
page 18 City of London The proposal would have no detrimental impact on City of London
LBTH Officer comments: None
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) The CAA noted a potential impact on London City Airport and that comments should be sought from Airport licensee. The building would require an aviation warning light.
LBTH Officer comments: A suitable planning condition would be imposed on any permission that would satisfactorily address this concern.
Crossrail Raised no objection to the proposal providing that a condition is imposed requiring details of foundation construction methods, noise/vibration mitigation measures and provision of notice to Crossrail for commencement of works.
LBTH Officer comments: The applicant has undertaken a detailed consultation with Crossrail’s engineers who are satisfied that the two developments are compatible. The required condition would be imposed on any permission.
Environment Agency Has not raised any objections on flood risk grounds subject to the inclusion of appropriate planning conditions requiring a survey of the dock, scheme of improvements to dock wall, structural integrity of basement, assessment of potential groundwater contamination and mitigation, and prevention of light spill onto waterway.
LBTH Officer comments: Appropriate planning conditions would be secured with any permission to address this concern.
English Heritage
Re-iterated comments made previously in 2003, specifically stating that: Supports Canary Wharf as an appropriate location for tall buildings and it does not have an objection to the proposal to add to this existing cluster of high buildings within the northern sector of Isle of Dogs. The proposal would have a damaging impact on the setting of grade I Listed West India Dock warehouse, Dockmaster’s House and the Cannon Workshops. The increased overshadowing of historic buildings and public spaces is regrettable. The proposed podium building is over-burdened with dubious historical and architectural references. However, the area is already characterised by tall buildings and so these comments would not constitute an objection.
LBTH Officer comments: Design is discussed under main issues. It should be noted that the scheme was amended to improve the design of the podium and subsequently English Heritage withdrew its concerns relating to the podium building. English Heritage has not raised an ‘in principle’
page 19 objection to the scheme. English Heritage was re-consulted on the amended design and no further comments have been received.
English Heritage- Archaeological Division The site is located in area with a high potential for archaeological remains. It is recommended that an appropriate planning condition be secured to ensure that a programme of archaeological work is carried out.
LBTH Officer comments: A suitable planning condition would be imposed on any permission.
English Partnerships – Homes and Community Agency No comments received
LBTH Officer comments: None
Greater London Authority Stage I response received. Issues raised: The principle of new mixed-use building with office, hotel, serviced apartments, retail and leisure space is acceptable. The proposed mix of uses would require an affordable housing contribution The sculpted tower would be a striking addition to the London skyline and would blend into the Canary Wharf cluster. The proposed building would be a slender addition that has modest and complementary impact on strategic views. Insufficient detail has been provided on energy efficiency measures, insufficient detail of climate change adaptation Financial contributions requested towards o £1M off-site affordable housing o £5M towards Crossrail o £3M towards DLR o £180K towards bus routes Low provision of wheelchair accessible hotel rooms and serviced apartments. Further information required on size and location of blue badge parking. The scheme provides high level of car-parking and low provision of cycle parking spaces.
LBTH Officer comments: Additional information in relation to accessibility and energy has been submitted. These issues are discussed in more detail under main issues, and are considered to be satisfactory subject to appropriate conditions. The requested financial contributions are discussed in more detail under the section 106 paragraphs of this report. It was, however, accepted by Officers that there is no longer a requirement for a DLR contribution.
Greenwich Council Welcomes the further regeneration of Docklands and creation of job opportunities. Identifies a concern over the excessive height and elevational treatment of the building and the detrimental impact it would have on panoramic views from the General Wolfe Monument in Greenwich Park. The existing skyline rises and falls from east to west and proposed development, by reason of its excessive height, would disturb the arrangement.
page 20 The views of English Heritage and the Mayor should be sought
LBTH Officer comments: Design is discussed under main issues. It is noted that neither English Heritage nor the Mayor expressed any objection to the height of tower or the impact on views from Greenwich.
London City Airport Does not raise any safeguarding objections The construction methods and the use of cranes to be agreed with airport and secured by an appropriate condition
LBTH Officer comments: A suitable informative would be imposed on any permission
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Note that submitted documents indicate provision of water supply and Fire Brigade access not likely to be problematic and notes that this issue will be addressed at Building Regulations stage.
LBTH Officer comments: None
Southwark Council Does not raise an objection, some detailed comments made on building and views.
LBTH Officer comments: None
London Development Agency No comments received.
LBTH Officer comments: None
London Underground Ltd Responded to consultation stating no comments.
LBTH Officer comments: None
Thames Water Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing wastewater and water supply infrastructures to accommodate the needs of the proposal. In this regard appropriate conditions are requested requiring the submission of impact study and a drainage strategy for approval prior to the commencement of any development. A number of informatives are also recommended.
LBTH Officer comments: Suitable conditions and informatives would be imposed on any permission.
National Air Traffic Services No safeguarding objection
page 21 LBTH Officer comments: None
Natural England Concerns about adverse impacts of the dock water-cooling system on Millwall and West India Docks site of borough importance for nature conservation. Additional ecological enhancements should be secured.
LBTH Officer comments: The dock water-cooling system no longer forms part of the application. Additional ecological enhancements are also proposed including the provision of a green wall along the southern flank of the pavilion facing the Credit Suisse First Boston building, bird and bat boxes within cladding system and moveable planters on terrace levels. The detail of this mitigation would be secured by condition on any permission.
Port of London Authority No objection but suggests that consideration be given to the use of the river for transporting during construction.
LBTH Officer comments: A condition would be imposed on any permission requiring the feasibility of utilising freight by water to be investigated.
Transport for London TfL has requested a range of financial contributions: Circa £5M contribution requested for Crossrail £3M contribution initially required for introduction of 3-car operation on DLR Contribution of £180k towards increased bus capacity required In addition, information on a range of other measures was also requested: Additional data on line capacity constraints required Transport assessment flawed in relation to conclusion that only two additional bus trips generated. More robust assessment of trip rates required. More data required on trip-rate assumptions in relation to leisure/fitness centre. Concerns about methodology of transport assessment, however trip generation not expected to have significant impact on Transport for London Road Network. Development, including serviced apartments, should be car-free. Retail leisure use should not require parking. Car-club suggested Amount of motorcycle parking high Additional cycle parking requested Works to improve principal routes to public transport facilities should be implemented as part of travel plan.
LBTH Officer comments: Additional information has been submitted in response to the above requests. The level of dedicated car parking has also been reduced by one space with the use of shared motorcycle / car-parking spaces now included. TfL is still disappointed with the proposed level of car parking and that the full 100% Crossrail contribution could not be secured. but accepts that a DLR contribution is no longer required.
page 22 49 Local representations
50 A total of 532 neighbouring properties were notified about the application and invited to comment. The application has also been publicised in East End Life and on site. An additional round of consultation took place on 30 March 2009 after Regulation 19 information was submitted. A further round of consultation took place on 1st June 2009 after the submission of additional Regulation 19 information.
51 Tower Hamlets Council received ten responses to the public consultation process. These responses comprised of nine objections [one has subsequently been found to relate to another application] and one supporting response.
52 The following groups and organisations responded.
Museum of London: Docklands Construction may cause vibration, which would damage building Water levels could be changed causing damage to historic quayside Rights of light and air diminished Outside terrace will be overshadowed Infrastructure required to support increased traffic and pedestrian flow required Construction impacts, noise and dirt etc will have an adverse impact on Museum’s popularity. Boats belonging to the Museum’s floating collection moored in dock. Re-assurance required that these would not be affected.
LBTH Officer comments: A condition would require the submission of a construction management plan, which would detail vibration and noise control measures. This would be sufficient to ensure that excessive noise and vibration does not occur. The small level of additionally displaced water from the basement excavations ensures that the development is unlikely to result in any significant changes in ground water in the vicinity of the site. The outside terrace area would not suffer from any permanent additional overshadowing. Transitory overshadowing will increase, however the terrace will still receive direct sunlight during work lunch hours (12pm to 2pm and after working hours (5pm onwards). Other matters are discussed in main issues section of report.
Canary Wharf Group Does not raise an objection Has suggested a contribution towards Crossrail is sought The applicant has not sought agreement for access across Canary Wharf Group land. Additional detail should be submitted.
LBTH Officer comments: None
Local objections Proposed building is too large and is over dominate and is out of scale Does not respect conservation area or listed buildings Style of architecture inappropriate Overdevelopment Skyline dramatically altered Adverse impact on views
page 23 Proposal will block sunshine and cast shadow Air conditioning plant will cause noise and disturbance Increased congestion Increase in traffic volume Flood compensation should be provided Overcrowding of local transport during rush hour TV and radio interference Loss of privacy Impact on Crossrail tunnels / development Too many flats in area. Small extension to dwelling refused. Likely to increase risk of terrorism.
LBTH Officer comments Addressed in the main body of report.
Local support One letter of support was received that stated the development was a ‘stunning tower that will give a much needed boost visually to the current rather old fashioned dull blocks of the Canary Wharf estate’.
LBTH Officer comments: Addressed in the main body of the report.
53 Representations made to the Mayor
54 The Mayor has directly received three representations (two were made by the same person) from members of the public. These representations have raised planning concerns in relation to:
The proposed scale and height of the building Its relationship with the surrounding Conservation Area Impacts on daylight and sunlight Impacts of an aviation light on local residents on the top of the building The need for the Mayor to carry out a site visit in advance of the public hearing
Material planning considerations
55 The main planning issues raised by these applications that the Mayor must consider are:
Land use principle Transport Design Heritage Views Access and inclusive design Daylight and sunlight Energy Environmental impacts
page 24 Land use principle
56 The application proposes a mix of uses vertically stacked within the building, as set out in table 1.
World city status
57 London Plan policy 3B.1 recognises and supports London’s role as a world city and identifies the need to facilitate London’s continued attractiveness to international business through the supply of appropriate floorspace.
58 The site is located within the London Plan identified Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area. This area plays a key role in complementing the international offer presented by the London Plan identified Central Activities Zone, whereby planning policy promotes finance, specialist retail, tourist and cultural uses and activities, and should aim to accommodate at least 150,000 jobs by 2016. London Plan policy 2A.5 on ‘Opportunity Areas’ requires development in this area to maximise transport accessibility, promote social and economic inclusion, take account of community, environmental and other distinctive local characteristics, while also ensuring the delivery of good design and a high quality public realm.
59 The Tower Hamlets 1998 UDP identifies the site as falling within the Tower Hamlets Central Area Zone. Policy ST10 sets out the strategic objectives for Tower Hamlets Central Area Zone and includes the need for the area to contribute towards London’s role as an international, national, and regional centre for commerce. This policy states that planning permission will normally be granted for Central London core activities of a scale and type compatible with fostering London’s role as a financial, commercial, tourist, and cultural centre.
Office use
60 London Plan table 3B.1 identifies a demand for 3.7million sq.m. of office floorspace to be provided between the Central Activity Zone and Canary Wharf by 2026.
61 The existing building on-site provides a total of 6,913 sq.m. of office floorspace. This application would replace the existing office building and would provide a total of 30,871 sq.m. office floorspace. The office space would be located between floors 4 to 23.
62 The proposed office space represents a net increase of 23,958 sq.m. beyond the existing building. The proposed increase in office space would provide a large increment to the current office stock in Canary Wharf. It would contribute to increasing the offer presented by this key London office location as required by London Plan policy 3B.1 and 3B.2 and would further complement Canary Wharf’s role with the City, which are key economic policy objectives of the London Plan.
63 In line with London Plan 3B.1 the application proposes ‘Grade A’, flexible office space with floorplates smaller than that which is traditionally provided in Canary Wharf, thus increasing the flexibility of office space in Canary Wharf and ensuring that this building would be suitable for multiple lettings.
64 Tower Hamlets saved UDP policies DEV3 and EMP1 and Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) policy CP8 are also relevant to the office component of this application. The redevelopment of existing outdated office buildings on this underutilised site in Canary Wharf is in- line with the objectives of these policies.
page 25 65 In this regard, the development of a high quality, high density yet flexible office space on this underused site in Canary Wharf, which is a site identified as an economic cluster by both the London Plan and Tower Hamlets UDP, is supported.
Hotel use
66 The application proposes 192 hotel bedrooms. London Plan policy 3D.7 identifies the need to provide 40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms across London by 2026.
67 The application also proposes 74 serviced apartments. Serviced apartments are a specialised form of accommodation that is akin to hotel use, rather than permanent residential accommodation. As set out in London Plan policy 3D.7, the development of serviced apartments will help support London’s tourism economy. However, the maximum duration of occupation in serviced accommodation is 90 days, which is to be secured via condition.
68 London Plan paragraph 3.292 states that ‘To reduce pressures on central London… increase London’s tourism attractions and contribute to broader regeneration and sustainability objectives, other locations should in future play a much greater role in provision for visitors. Town Centres and Opportunity Areas with good public transport access will be especially important’.
69 Tower Hamlets saved UDP policies ART7 and CAZ1 state that the Council will normally give favourable consideration to major hotel developments within the Tower Hamlets identified Central Area Zone. In addition, Tower Hamlets IPG policy CP13 states that large-scale hotel developments and serviced apartments would be supported in major centres such as Canary Wharf.
70 Supporting information to Tower Hamlets IPG policy EE4, states that serviced apartments are able to provide short-term accommodation for the international business sector, which operates in the north of the Isle of Dogs and the, Tower Hamlets identified ‘Central Area Zone’. This form of accommodation supports business tourism. Policy makes it clear that serviced apartments should have similar impacts to hotels, which are more suited to employment areas.
71 Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policy IOD15 for the Isle of Dogs area states that tourism uses, in particular the development of business tourism, will be promoted in and around Canary Wharf and the northern sub-area to take full advantage of the existing economic cluster and transport accessibility.
72 In this regard the development of hotel bedrooms and serviced apartments in this accessible Major Town Centre of Canary Wharf, within the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area, is acceptable.
Retail, restaurant and leisure uses
73 The application proposes 1,468 sq.m. of retail space located between the ground and third floor; and 2,731 sq.m. of leisure and fitness space located between floors 23 and 25
74 PPS6, draft PPS4 and London Plan policy 3D.1 encourages retail, leisure and other related town centre uses in town centres and discourages them outside of town centre. In addition, London Plan policy 3D.2 states that the scale of the proposed retail, commercial and leisure development should relate to the size and role of the centre.
75 In this regard the quantum and scale of the retail and leisure space proposed is in keeping with the context of the surrounding Major Town Centre of Canary Wharf. In addition the location of the lower level retail spaces would help activate West India Dock, both on the dockside and the road, which is consistent with the street level uses within the West India Dock Conservation Area.
page 26 76 However, to ensure the proposed retail and leisure spaces are acceptable and to mitigate impacts from the proposed development on the surrounding area, planning conditions are proposed to limit the hours of future operation in line with other commercial operations in West India Quay and to require the submission of detail of extract flues and ventilation equipment.
Employment
77 London Plan table 5C.1 indicates that the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area has the capacity to provide 110,000 jobs by 2026, whilst paragraph 5.74 states that, subject to transport improvements; this employment capacity could rise to 200,000 jobs by 2026.
78 The application proposes the development of a range of land uses, as set out in table 1. The proposed quantum and mix of uses has the potential to provide between 2,300 and 2,400 jobs.1
79 Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policy IOD1 for Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan seeks to secure off-site small employment space from large-scale office developments in the Isle of Dogs Major Centre. The scheme does not make a contribution towards off-site employment space, however, on balance a greater priority has been placed on securing an affordable housing contribution.
80 It should be noted, however, that the applicant has committed to the provision of a financial contribution to the amount of £332,756 for local employment and training initiatives. In accordance with London Plan policy 3B.11, the finalised legal agreement should ensure that local residents and businesses benefit from jobs created by this proposal during construction and within the completed commercial elements of the scheme.
Affordable Housing
81 The application proposes an office floorspace uplift of 23,958 sq.m. London Plan policy 3B.3 states that where increases in office floorspace are proposed within the northern section of the Isles of Dogs, developments will provide for a mix of uses, including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other London Plan policies.
82 London Plan policy 5G.3 and paragraph 5.178 identify Canary Wharf as an exception to this rule, where mixed-use development may compromise the importance of sustaining clusters of business activities. Consequently, a financial contribution should be provided either directly or through a planning obligation to provide off-site affordable housing.
83 To address this policy requirement, the original section 106 legal agreement connected to the March 2005 consent, required the applicant to provide a financial contribution of £1million towards off-site affordable housing. The previous Mayor accepted this level of affordable housing as an appropriate financial contribution.
84 A pro-rata increase on this previous contribution has been agreed with the applicant and results in an off-site affordable housing contribution of £1,155,340 which is acceptable.
Conclusions
85 In assessing this application against national regional and local planning policy, the proposed mix and quantum of uses (as set out in table 1) is acceptable. In addition, the quantum of employment created is supported, along with the identified affordable housing contribution.
1 Applying ‘ARUP Economics Planning – Employment Density a full guide, 2007’ and ‘London office – Policy review, 2007, GLA publications’.
page 27 Transport
86 The main transport issues to be considered relate to public transport capacity on the Jubilee Line, DLR, bus services and Crossrail (in the future), impacts on the highway network including car parking, walking and cycling routes, arrangements for access and servicing as well as the adequacy of supporting measures including the travel plan.
87 The submitted transport assessment estimates that the development will generate 4,890 one-way person trips per day by all modes of transport. The Jubilee Line would cater for 1,765 (36%) trips per day; the DLR for 1,390 (28%) trips per day and bus services 270 (5%) trips per day.
88 Taking into account existing demand and additional trips from developments that already have planning permission, the combined capacity assessment for the Jubilee Line and DLR shows that by 2013 eastbound morning trips on rail services would be operating in excess of planned capacity. The assessment takes account of planned increases in capacity on the Jubilee Line and the 3-car DLR capacity enhancement project due for completion in 2010.
Crossrail
89 From 2017, the delivery of Crossrail with a station at Canary Wharf would provide additional public transport capacity sufficient to accommodate the additional trips from Columbus Tower and other committed developments. As part of the funding package for Crossrail, contributions are to be secured from developments, which contribute to the transport needs that the project will wholly or partly address.
90 The Mayor’s original comments identified a requirement for a contribution to Crossrail in accordance with the Mayor’s emerging policies. When the application was submitted, draft London Plan alterations and Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on the ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ had been published for consultation with the London Assembly and functional bodies. Given that the two documents have subsequently been the subject of public consultation, they can be seen as material considerations in relation to the determination of applications.
91 Policy 3C.12A of the Proposed London Plan Alterations states that “In view of the strategic regional importance of Crossrail to London’s economic regeneration and development, developments which contribute to the transport needs that the project will wholly or partly address will be required to contribute towards its funding through the use of planning obligations, in accordance with relevant legislation and policy guidance”. This is underpinned by London Plan Policy 6A.4, which establishes the strategic priorities for planning obligations by stating that ‘Affordable housing; supporting the funding of Crossrail where this is appropriate ...; and other public transport improvements should be given the highest importance. Where it is appropriate to seek a Crossrail contribution ..., this should generally be given higher priority than other public transport improvements.’
92 The public consultation version of the draft SPG states that “a contribution at a higher level than that sought in central London will be sought in respect of all office development involving a net increase of more than 500 square metres in the part of Isle of Dogs shown in figure 3. Recent agreements for Crossrail contributions in respect of sites in the area have been on the basis of £218.30 per square metre GEA, and this will be used as a benchmark for negotiation in this area.” The site lies within the main business area of the Isle of Dogs designated by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as the ‘Northern sub-area’ in the Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan (IPG) and would therefore require a contribution to Crossrail. The standard contribution based on
page 28 a net increase in office floorspace at a rate of £218.30 per square metre, would equate to a total contribution of £4.87 million.
93 Negotiations have taken place with the applicant and their consultants to reach agreement on the total contribution for Crossrail. Before the application was reported to Tower Hamlets committee, the applicant had agreed that the funding previously earmarked for the DLR 3 car upgrade works and a cycleway extension would be redirected towards Crossrail in line with the Mayor’s priorities for transport contributions. Taking account of index linking, this resulted in a total contribution of £3.58 million. This figure was included in the draft Heads of Terms for the section 106 agreement when first presented to Tower Hamlets committee. However, this would still fall short of the standard contribution of £4.87 million. Following consideration by Tower Hamlets committee the applicant offered to increase the Crossrail contribution to £4 million. Following the Mayor’s decision to take over determination of the application, the offer of £4 million has been confirmed in correspondence and is included in the draft section 106 Heads of Terms. This amount is acceptable because it would represent over 80% of the standard contribution, and is therefore considered to be above the level of contributions already secured for comparable developments on the Isle of Dogs. Inclusion of the Crossrail contribution would secure compliance with policies 3C.2, 3C.9 and 3C.12 of the adopted London Plan, draft policy 3C.12A and amended policy 6C.4 as proposed in draft London Plan alterations (May 2009).
DLR
94 DLR provides an important alternative to the Jubilee Line, while also providing more local rail connections. The introduction in 2010 of 3-car operation on the route from Bank to Lewisham will provide additional rail capacity, which will be important in the short-term until the delivery of Crossrail in 2017. In recognition of its importance, an index linked sum of £3 million was secured, as part of the previous section 106 agreement signed in 2005, towards 3 car upgrade works at DLR stations at Westferry or West India Quay. TfL had previously identified a need for a contribution towards this project. However, the works to extend DLR platforms at Westferry and West India are now nearing completion and so this would no longer apply. Taking account of the higher priority given to Crossrail contributions, the funding previously earmarked for DLR works are to be redirected towards Crossrail in accordance with policies 3C.2, 3C.9 and 3C.12 of the adopted London Plan, draft policy 3C.12A and amended policy 6C.4 as proposed in draft London Plan alterations (May 2009).
Station capacity
95 Although there was no information on station capacity provided in the submitted transport assessment additional information has now been provided by the applicant to satisfy TfL’s concerns about station capacity at Canary Wharf and there is no requirement for any mitigation to address this issue.
Bus capacity
96 The transport Assessment estimates that there will be 60 additional bus passenger trips in the peak hours. However, the conclusion that this will lead to two additional trips per bus is flawed. It is inaccurate to assume that passengers arrive at regular intervals and travel on different routes. Bus services on the Isle of Dogs are already operating at capacity and based on the 60 additional bus passenger trips in the peak hour, TfL has identified a requirement for a contribution of £180,000 towards increased bus capacity.
97 Although no contribution towards bus capacity had been secured in the original 2005 section 106 agreement, TfL had initially raised this as a concern and a contribution had been
page 29 requested. Since 2005, demand for bus services in the Isle of Dogs area has continued to grow and all developments in the area that generate additional trips on the bus network are now expected to contribute to additional capacity. The required contribution of £180,000 is commensurate with other developments in the surrounding area and is needed to mitigate the impact of the additional bus trips and ensure compliance with policies 3C.2, 3C.9 and 3C.20 of the London Plan. This was discussed with the applicant and was included in the draft heads of terms when first presented to Tower Hamlets committee. This amount has now been confirmed in correspondence with the applicant following the Mayor’s decision to take over determination of the application and is acceptable and will be secured through the s106 legal agreement.
Trip generation
98 The submitted transport assessment estimates that the development would generate approximately 684 vehicle movements a day. Of these 67 would be in the morning peak and 59 during the evening peak. The Mayor previously raised concerns about the methodology used for the trip rate assessment. In response the applicant has provided additional information and has confirmed that assumptions have been checked against similar developments in the area and validated using the Isle of Dogs Cordon Survey. Although some objectors have raised concerns about traffic congestion, TfL is satisfied that the application will not have a significant impact on the operation of the strategic or local road network. Tower Hamlets officers also considered that the level of vehicle trip generation would not have a significant impact on the local highway network and would be acceptable.
Car parking
99 A total of 75 vehicle parking spaces were originally proposed in the basement including seven disabled spaces. This is unchanged from the 2005 planning permission but is a slight reduction on the 76 parking spaces for the existing Hertsmere House. It exceeds the amount normally permitted under the London Plan or Tower Hamlets interim planning guidance. The issue had not been addressed at the time the application was presented to Tower Hamlets committee. Following the Mayor’s decision to take over the application the applicant has now agreed to ensure that no more than 50 spaces will be allocated for employment use, 5 spaces will be provided as electric charging spaces and the remaining spaces will be provided for the other uses. Because the parking is at basement level it has not been possible to make provision for a car club. As part of the Travel Plan details of car park management including the allocation of parking spaces between the different uses will be required. Clauses in the proposed section 106 agreement will ensure that occupants of the serviced apartments are not eligible for local parking permits.
Cycle parking
100 The application originally proposed 168 cycle parking spaces. Of these, 144 would be in the basement and fourteen at ground level for visitors. Plans also show the provision of shower and changing facilities in the basement adjacent to the secure cycle stands. This would meet minimum requirements for the office, hotel, retail and leisure uses but no provision had been made for the serviced apartments. This issue was outstanding when the application was presented to Tower Hamlets committee but in subsequent negotiations the applicant has agreed that 10 additional cycle spaces will be provided for the serviced apartments and a condition has been secured requiring full details on the cycle parking to be submitted for approval to ensure compliance with policies 3C.22 and 3C.23 of the London Plan.
page 30 Access and servicing
101 The majority of vehicles are likely to approach the site from the north and would travel via Westferry Circus Lower Level. Vehicle access to the site would be provided from Hertsmere Road. Service vehicles and cars will travel via a ramp to the loading and parking areas in the basement. Autotrack diagrams have previously been provided to highways officers at Tower Hamlets to demonstrate that access to the basement for heavy goods vehicles can be achieved safely. A taxi and drop off area would be provided at ground floor level on Hertsmere Road. This lay-by would also be large enough to allow coach drop offs without obstruction to the highway. The feasibility of coach parking being provided in the basement will be investigated and proposals submitted as part of the travel plan.
102 The submitted transport assessment included an analysis of access to the site and principal destinations for pedestrians and cyclists. It also included a comprehensive audit of walking and cycling routes. Following discussions with the applicants it has been agreed that measures to address the deficiencies in walking routes identified through the audit would be taken forward as part of the travel plan.
Additional transport plans
103 An interim Travel Plan was submitted alongside the application including modal split targets for employees. The proposed Section 106 Heads of Terms will secure a comprehensive Travel Plan covering all proposed uses to be prepared in accordance with TfL guidance. The applicant’s consultants have confirmed that construction logistics, delivery and servicing and construction workers’ travel plans would all be provided prior to commencement of construction. These will need to take account of Crossrail construction impacts and timescales and will be secured through the Section 106 agreement in accordance with policy 3C.25 of the London Plan.
Safeguarding for Crossrail
104 As the development site lies above the safeguarded Crossrail alignment, the applicant has held detailed discussions to ensure the building is compatible with the tunnels running underneath. Crossrail has no objection to the development subject to a condition requiring the submission of additional detail on the type of foundations and to prevent construction works taking place when the construction of Crossrail tunnels is underway. A condition, which has been agreed with Crossrail, is proposed to address this issue to ensure compliance with policies 3C.4 and 3C.11 of the London Plan. Design
105 Good design is central to the objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which encompass both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage, views, and the Blue Ribbon Network.
106 London Plan policy 4B.9 states that tall buildings will be promoted where they create attractive landmarks enhancing London’s character, help to provide a coherent location for economic clusters of related activity and where they are also acceptable in terms of design and impact on their surroundings. London Plan policy 4B.10 goes on to provide detailed guidance on
page 31 the design and impact of such large scale buildings, and requires that these be of the highest quality of design.
107 Tower Hamlets saved UDP (1998) policies CP1, CP48, DEV2 and DEV27 of Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies state that the Council will, in principle, support the development of tall buildings, subject to the proposed development satisfying a list of specified criteria. These include consideration of the proposed design, siting, the character of the locality, views, overshadowing in terms of adjoining properties, creation of areas subject to wind turbulence, and effect on television and radio interference. The document ‘Guidance on Tall Buildings’ produced by English Heritage / CABE is also a relevant consideration.
108 Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policy IOD16 states that the northern sub-area of the Isle of Dogs will continue to be a location for tall buildings, and that new tall buildings should help to consolidate the existing cluster of tall buildings in Canary Wharf and provide new landmarks consistent with the national and international role and function of the area.
109 In addition, Tower Hamlets saved UDP (1998) policies DEV1, DEV2 and CP4 state that the Council will ensure that development shall create buildings and spaces of high quality design and construction that are sustainable, accessible, attractive, safe and well integrated with their surroundings.
Building form and height
110 The proposed building would comprise a tall, slender, east-west oriented tower of 63 stories (242 metres high). The tower tapers at both ends to create a wing, or aerofoil form, that helps create a discernable silhouette, ending in a point tower rather than a simple slab. The tower rises out of a 3-storey podium building, which includes a large covered and publicly accessible ‘pavilion’ space at ground level.
111 Canary Wharf is recognised as an area suitable for the development of tall buildings and development that would support the key economic role of this location. The character of the surrounding area is one dominated by tall buildings, both permitted and existing. Canary Wharf is readily identifiable as a cluster of tall buildings within the London skyline. The tallest building in Canary Wharf is an office building located at 1 Canada Square which is 50-storeys in height (244 metres AOD) and is located approximately 670 metres south east of this application site.
112 The sculpted tower would help differentiate this building from the typical block form that makes up the majority of the Canary Wharf cluster and would be a striking addition to the London skyline. The proposal would blend visually with the existing Canary Wharf cluster when viewed from the north, east, and south. When viewed from certain locations in the west, particularly in perspectives from Shadwell Basin, the City of London, and Tower Bridge the proposed building would appear somewhat separated from the existing cluster, however, this visual separation is unlikely to remain indefinitely as permitted developments at 1 Park Place, Newfoundland and Riverside South would fill in this gap.
Open spaces and activity
113 A south-facing, linear open space runs between West India Dock and the Grade I listed ‘Gwilts’ warehouses. This open space affords views of the dock and the tall buildings of Canary Wharf. The linear open space along the dock edge is made up of a variety of spaces, used by restaurants, retail units and the public. This space also operates as a route connecting Hertsmere Road to West India Dock DLR, and the pedestrian footbridge that in turn links into Cabot Square.
page 32 114 The existing office building on-site helps define the street edge along Hertsmere Road, which is positive. However the existing building offers little to the public realm as it is built up to the plot edge on all sides with the only access point into the building off Hertsmere Road. The building currently turns its back on the dock.
115 The proposed building design seeks to maintain current street definition, but is also seeking to better integrate the building into its surroundings and to increase the level of activity around it. The building design and arrangement at ground level will introduce additional spaces around the base of the building. In particular the building includes a new space on the dock edge, along with a new, ground level public ‘pavilion’ space within the building. A range of retail units would surround this pavilion space. The ground floor of the proposed building includes entry points on three sides of the building thus helping to activate the spaces around the building and the dock edge.
116 The ground level and public realm proposals are supported and would complement ground floor uses in the wider area and around the dock edge. The location and design of the ground floor spaces ensure a connection with the existing open spaces along West India Dock and also help to reinforce and encourage movement around the dock.
Heritage
117 PPG 15, London Plan policies 4B.11 to 4B.13, Tower Hamlets saved UDP (1998) policies DEV27, DEV28 and Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies CON1 and CON2, identify the need to protect or enhance London’s historic environment. In particular PPG15 identifies the need to pay ‘special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area’. Draft PPS 15 introduces the concept of heritage assets and designated assets and expresses desirability of enhancing the significance of heritage assets, respecting the setting and reinforcing the distinctiveness of the asset.
118 In considering the second report to its planning committee Tower Hamlets Council concluded that the setting of nearby Grade I and II listed buildings would be detracted by the proposed development by virtue of its design, scale and massing and would fail to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the West India Quay Conservation Area.
119 There are a number of heritage aspects in the surrounding area. The site sits on the southern boundary of the West India Dock Conservation Area, with a narrow strip of the northern frontage of the site falling into the conservation area. Consequently the applicant has applied for conservation area consent. There are also a number of listed buildings in the nearby area;
Grade I listed ‘Gwilts’ Georgian warehouses, built in 1814. The warehouse buildings are located to the north west of Hertsmere House and are arranged as joined pavilions, ranging in height from 3-storeys on the western end and rising to 6-storeys (including residential loft conversions) on the eastern end adjacent to West India Quay tower. The warehouses include ground floor retail and restaurant space fronting onto West India Dock, with residential space on the floors above. The Museum of Docklands is also located within the warehouses.
Grade I listed West India Dock wall, located to the west of the site.
Grade II listed Canon Workshops, constructed in 1824, are located to the east of the site. The workshops are arranged as a single storey quadrangle building with a further square of buildings at its centre. The workshops are used as commercial and retail space.
page 33 Grade II listed Guard House, built in 1803, acts as an entry point into the conservation area. This building is now used as a shop.
120 The replacement building at 63-storeys in height, would impact upon, and be visible from within the West India Dock conservation area.
121 The West India Dock conservation area sits within a context of tall buildings in Canary Wharf. Existing building heights in the immediate area range between 3 and 50-storeys. On the southern side of West India Dock there are a number of established tall buildings at; 1, 8, and 25 Canada Square, with permitted tall buildings at 1 Park Place, Riverside South, Wood Wharf and Heron Quay. On the northern side of West India Dock, and immediately adjacent the listed ‘Gwilts’ warehouses, is the West India Quay Tower (Marriott Hotel) at 33-storeys / 111metres, along with two tall buildings permitted at North Quay (38 and 44-storeys / 221metres and 208 metres respectively). The character of the surrounding area is one dominated by tall buildings of an entirely modern and contemporary design that make little reference to the Dock’s heritage. In this regard, the introduction of an additional tall building into the Canary Wharf cluster would continue to preserve the existing character of this area.
122 In considering the impacts of new development on this area, Tower Hamlets Council has prepared a West India Dock Conservation Area Appraisal, which provides an analysis of the existing built environment. The appraisal states that the current Hertsmere House office building does not make a positive contribution to the existing conservation area. Development guidelines for the area state that any new development on this site should ‘respect the historic and architectural significance of the dock warehouses and include detailed proposals for high-quality public realm at ground level’.
123 The applicant proposes the demolition of the existing Hertsmere House office building and proposes the development of a high quality, tall building with an elegant curved form that differentiates itself from the bulkier built forms that typify Canary Wharf.
124 The existing Hertsmere House building relates poorly to the dock edge and to the Grade I listed dock wall. The proposed podium building is arranged so that the new spaces around the base of the podium have been designed to improve the public realm. The public realm proposals would improve the setting of, and access to, the dock edge. In this regard, the proposed building achieves a high quality of design that is an enhancement beyond that of the existing building on site and supports the design objectives for the Blue Ribbon Network.
125 The proposed building sits at the western end of the listed ‘Gwilts’ warehouses, with the existing West India Quay Tower (Marriott Hotel) sitting at the eastern end. These two modern tall buildings act as bookends, helping to ‘bracket’ and define this row of listed warehouses. This building would provide a quality modern backdrop to these listed buildings.
126 The application site sits at a transition point between the highly modern, commercial centre of Canary Wharf and the more historic conservation area of West India Dock. The site presents an opportunity to mark the transition between the two areas. The applicant has sought to mark this transition by setting the building on top of a 3-storey base podium building. At street level the podium relates well in terms of height, scale and massing to the Grade I listed ‘Gwilts’ warehouses, and the Grade II listed ‘Cannon’ workshops. The podium is a modern design that would be constructed primarily from glazing and metal, materials that contrast with, and emphasise the nature of the listed warehouse buildings.
127 Given the nature of the surrounding area, the form and height of the tower and podium along with the design measures taken at the lower levels of the building this proposal would
page 34 continue to preserve and enhance the character of the West India Dock conservation area and would not harm the setting of the listed buildings. Therefore the conclusions of Tower Hamlets Council are not accepted.
Views
128 Canary Wharf contains an existing cluster of tall buildings that act as a highly visible and easily recognisable feature in the London skyline. The proposed building, at 63-storeys in height, sits on the north-west edge of this existing cluster, thus perpetuating its growth and further increasing the clusters visual prominence. In assessing the impacts of the proposed building on the surrounding area consideration must be given to how the building sits within identified strategic and local views. The applicant has carried out a detailed visual assessment of five long distance and seven short distance views of the proposed building.
129 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, and its draft replacement, provide further guidance on the implementation of these policies and assessment of the impact of new developments.
130 The proposed development does not fall within any of the strategic viewing corridors of St. Paul’s Cathedral or the Palace of Westminster. However, the building does affect the strategically important panoramic view from Greenwich Park (LVMF 5A.1).
131 The applicant has undertaken a qualitative visual assessment as to the impact of the proposed development on this view. The methodology and submitted visual assessment is broadly consistent with guidance contained in the LVMF and provides an adequate basis for assessment.
132 This Greenwich Park view provides important views across the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. The foreground is dominated by open green space, the Greenwich Royal Naval Hospital and the Queen’s House are the principle buildings in the middle ground, and the background is characterised by the cluster of tall buildings at Canary Wharf.
133 The proposed building is visible within the identified view and would serve to expand the cluster of tall buildings further east. From the LVMF identified Greenwich Park view the proposed development would be seen as a slender addition to the existing cluster at Canary Wharf siting slightly to the west of Heron Quays, but appreciated as being part of the existing cluster. The application would result in a moderate change to the view. Given the slender design of the building along with the number of already consented schemes for new tall buildings to the west of this site (namely Riverside South, 1 Park Place, Newfoundland and the Pride), this application’s contribution to the cluster would be modest and complementary.
page 35
Image 3: Current view from Greenwich Park LVMF view 5A.1
Image 4: Proposed view (with building) from Greenwich Park LVMF view 5A.1
Image 5: Proposed view (with other consented schemes) from Greenwich Park LVMF view 5A.1
page 36 134 The proposed building would also be partially visible in the panoramic view from Primrose Hill (LVMF 4A.1) as well as the river prospect from Waterloo Bridge (LVMF 15B.1). The applicant has considered the impact of the development on these views and while a detailed qualitative visual assessment from these vantage points has not been provided, it is accepted that this scheme will have a very minor impact on these views and the proposed building will sit as part of, and be indistinguishable from, the existing and emerging Canary Wharf cluster of tall buildings.
135 Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies CON3 and CON5 require that development protect important views, including those from World Heritage Sites. Tower Hamlets saved UDP (1998) policy DEV8 seeks the protection of views of local importance. The applicant has prepared seven local, or short distance, views. Those views in which the proposed building is most readily evident are within the West India Dock conservation area, and from Wren’s landing (looking towards the conservation area). Neither of these represent views from World Heritage Sites.
136 In assessing the impacts of the proposed building, it is clear that this scheme would impact upon these local views. However, as examined in the heritage section above, the nature of the surrounding area is one dominated by tall, modern buildings. In this regard the introduction of an elegant tall building, rising out of a podium, whilst altering these local views, would continue to preserve the character of this area.
Image 6: Proposed view from Wren’s Landing – looking towards West India Dock Conservation Area Access and inclusive design
137 There is no direct planning policy on the minimum provision of wheelchair accessible units for hotel and serviced apartments. However, Part M of the 2006 Building Regulations, states that a minimum of 5% of hotel rooms and serviced apartments are required to be wheelchair accessible.
page 37 138 In addition to this, London Plan policy 3D.7 of the London Plan states that there is a shortfall in the supply of wheelchair accessible hotel rooms across London, which is an increasingly important issue to address in advance of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The policy goes on to state that councils should support an increase, and improvements to, the quality of fully accessible wheelchair hotel rooms.
139 Tower Hamlets IPG policy CP13 acknowledges this shortfall in accessible hotel accommodation. It identifies the English Tourist Council’s National Accessible Standard as best practice to make hotel accommodation more accessible. All new hotel developments are required to meet the National Accessible Standard.
140 The applicant is seeking to comply with the minimum 5% accessible room required by building regulation requirements and will provide a total of thirteen wheelchair accessible hotel and serviced apartments. The applicant has now provided detailed plans showing a representative example of the design and layout of these accessible rooms. In line with London Plan policy 3D.7 the Mayor previously raised concerns with this level of provision. However, in the absence of any specific planning policies requiring a certain amount of wheelchair accessible rooms the proposed level is acceptable.
141 The application includes 75 car parking spaces and includes a total of seven blue badge accessible spaces for use by staff and visitors, which equates to 9.5%. These spaces are located in the basement of the proposed building. In addition, a taxi and wheelchair drop off point is located at the main entrance to the building off Hertsmere Road, which is acceptable. Daylight and sunlight impacts
142 There is no specific national guidance on the impacts from new development on daylight and sunlight. London Plan policy 4B.10, Tower Hamlets UDP (1998) saved policies DEV2 and IPG (2007) policies DEVI and DEV27 require large-scale buildings, including tall buildings, to be sensitive to their impact on micro-climates in terms of sunlight, daylight and overshadowing and also state that development is required to protect, and where possible improve, the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants, as well as the amenity of the surrounding public realm.
143 In considering the second report to its planning committee Tower Hamlets Council concluded that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight to nearby properties.
Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance
144 In addition to the above policies, a methodology for measuring the impacts of development on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing is set out in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) handbook ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A guide for good practice, 1991’. This document is not mandatory and should be used as a guide. BRE guidance should be applied flexibly, and the interpretation of results will vary depending on the surrounding context
145 BRE guidance includes a series of quantitative tests that are used to assess impacts on daylight and sunlight, which if all are failed, the development would normally be considered unacceptable in terms of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties.
146 The first test used is the ‘Vertical Sky Component’ (VSC). This test measures the amount of daylight received at a particular window, taking account of the existing and proposed buildings. BRE guidance indicates that, with the proposed building in place, if the Vertical Sky Component were greater than 27% then enough daylight would reach the existing windows. However, if the
page 38 Vertical Sky Component falls below 27% then the level of change between the existing situation and the proposed must be assessed. If this level of change is more than 20% then occupants of the existing building would notice a reduction in the amount of daylight. If a proposal fails to meet either of these Vertical Sky Component tests then a second test is required, known as the ‘Average Daylight Factor’ (ADF). Where a proposals fail to meet the Vertical Sky Component test by up to 3% it can be considered to have only marginally failed the test. In a densely developed urban area greater flexibility in interpreting these results can be permitted.
147 The Average Daylight Factor is a more rigorous assessment that of the Vertical Sky Component assessment. It measures the level of internal daylight within a room, using a number of variables, including the size of windows, the glazing, the size and type of room and any surface reflections within the room. BRE guidelines suggest that it is more important to receive more daylight in kitchens and living rooms than in bedrooms. In this regard, the guidelines identify satisfactory levels for interior day lighting for kitchens (2%), for living rooms (1.5%) and for bedrooms (1%). Should the Average Daylight Factor fall below these guides then the details of the building and its design as well as the site and its context must be taken into account.
148 A third test, the No Sky Component (NSC), examines the amount of sky that is visible from within a room. The No Sky Component test is the least scientific of the three tests. As a guide, it is assumed that if the proposed building causes a reduction, greater then 20%, in the amount of sky visible within an existing room then this is considered to have a negative impact for occupants.
149 The fourth test, Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH), measures the amount of sunlight that is received by the window. This assessment is carried out in the same way as the Vertical Sky Component process as set out above. Where a proposals fail to meet the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours test by up to 3% it can be considered to have only marginally failed the test. In a densely developed urban area greater flexibility in interpreting these results can be permitted. Only those windows that are within 90 degrees of due south are assessed in determining Annual Probable Sunlight Hours.
Impacts on the surrounding area
150 The submitted Environmental Statement provides an impact assessment on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing for neighbouring properties, as set out above. The assessment considers the impact of the proposal on the ‘worst-case’ properties closest to the application site. Assessments have been carried out for the following properties:
1 – 19 Garford Street 10 – 18 Garford Street Flynn Court Grieg House Mary Jones House Matthew House Port East Buildings Riverside House
151 The Dockmaster’s House, Cannon Workshops and the offices to the south within the Canary Wharf Estate have not been subjected to detailed assessment as these buildings are in commercial use, and as such would not be significantly affected by loss of daylight or sunlight. Other existing residential properties are further away from the site than these properties and as such would receive a lesser impact.
page 39 152 The scheme’s potential shading impacts have been assessed as part of the submitted Environmental Statement against established Building Research Establishment (BRE) standards. The proposed tower would create a shadow over a considerable area; however, the tower’s slender form means that this shadow will move quickly and as a consequence any shadowing effects will be short-lived. It should be noted that the proposal generates considerably less shadowing than a lower building with a larger footprint.
1 – 19 Garford Street (odd)
153 These properties are some distance from the application site and the resultant Vertical Sky Component and No Sky Component results comply with BRE guidelines. The impact on available sunlight also meets BRE guidelines. The impact on these buildings is acceptable.
10 – 18 Garford Street (even)
154 The results show that 16 of the 19 windows (84%) assessed achieve the levels of Vertical Sky Component recommended by the BRE guidelines. The 3 windows that do not achieve this level (located at 10 and 12 Garford Street) do not currently comply with BRE guidelines. The three windows experience losses of between 0.92 and 3.5% which is marginally outside of BRE targets.
155 The Annual Probable Sunlight Hours results show that 16 of the 17 (94%) windows meet BRE guidelines. The one window that fails, fails only marginally. This impact is not considered significant.
Flynn Court, Grieg House, Port East Building
156 The results for these buildings shows full compliance with the Vertical Sky Component, and the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours targets as set out in BRE guidance, which is acceptable.
Mary Jones House
157 This property is currently under construction. The results show that 40 of the 58 windows (69%) assessed achieve acceptable BRE Vertical Sky Component levels. It should be noted that the remaining 18 windows that do not achieve BRE guidance, do not currently achieve BRE targets even without the proposed building in place. Even though these 18 windows currently fail, they are only marginally outside of BRE targets. These 18 windows fail largely due to the design of the Mary Jones building itself, including the design and location of balconies and recessed window.
158 As rooms fail the Vertical Sky Component test the more rigorous Average Daylight Factor test has been applied, which demonstrates that 88% of rooms assessed achieve the recommended minimum standards, whilst the No Sky Contour test demonstrates that 98% of the rooms meet recommended levels.
159 Aside from those rooms / windows that do not currently achieve BRE targets, each of the rooms / windows affected by the proposed building would pass at least one of the BRE daylight tests, which is acceptable.
160 In addition, for the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours 49 out of 58 (84%) of rooms assessed comply with BRE guidance. Of the remaining 9 that do not comply, 4 do not currently comply with BRE guidance and the other 5 are only marginally outside the recommended BRE targets.
page 40 Matthew House
161 This block of flats is located in reasonably close proximity to the application site. The results show that 22 (44%) of the 50 windows achieve BRE Vertical Sky Component guidelines, which leaves 28 windows that do not comply. Of these 28 windows, 21 windows do not currently comply with BRE targets without the proposed building in place, largely due to the design of the current building (recessed windows and overhanging balconies). Of the remaining 7 windows that fail as a result of this development, 2 windows are only marginally outside of BRE targets, whilst 5 windows are between 3% and 13% outside BRE targets.
162 The Average Daylight Factor show that 18 of the 20 rooms assessed comply with BRE targets, whilst 2 rooms fall marginally outside BRE targets. All of the rooms assessed comply with the No Sky Contour test.
163 For the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours test, 34 out of the 40 (85%) of the rooms assessed comply with BRE targets. Of the 6 rooms that do not comply 2 do not meet BRE targets with the existing situation, as such only 4 windows would fail the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours test.
Riverside House
164 The results show that of the 81 windows assessed, 51 (62%) meet the BRE Vertical Sky Component guidelines. Of the 31 windows that fail, 13 windows do not currently meet BRE targets, leaving 18 windows that fail due to this development. 8 of these windows are only marginally outside of BRE guidelines, while 10 windows are between 3% and 13% outside these guidelines. Those windows / rooms that fail these tests, these rooms are served by small windows. In this regard, 100% of the rooms assessed meet the No Sky Contour test.
165 In addition, the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours results show that all the principle living rooms will meet BRE guidelines.
Conclusions
166 It is noted that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer raised concerns about the impact of this development in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight.
167 To ensure that the submitted daylight, sunlight and overshadowing report has been prepared in an appropriate manner, and that the information provided is accurate, the Greater London Authority commissioned an independent review of the report. This assessment concluded that the scope, methodology, technical approach, calculations and the conclusions are fair and reasonable.
168 In considering the impacts of the development on daylight and sunlight, the assessment generally shows a good level of compliance with BRE guidance. The majority of neighbouring residential units comply with BRE (daylight) Vertical Sky Component and BRE (sunlight) Annual Probable Sunlight Hours guide levels with the proposed development in place, and most properties would not experience a noticeable effect.
169 However, the development would, in certain cases, result in breaches of the BRE guidance. The overall significance of the development’s daylight impacts should be considered in the context of the following factors:
The proportion of neighbouring residential properties that are likely to experience levels of daylight and sunlight below the guide levels is low. The impacts are therefore relatively localised and do not extend across all residential properties.
page 41
BRE guidance indicates that, in interpreting results a degree of flexibility is required, which will be influenced by the surrounding context. BRE tests are based on suburban models of development and it is reasonable to assume that expectations of levels of daylight and sunlight will be different in an urban situation, and particularly within the high density, urban environment of Canary Wharf.
An extant planning permission exists on this site for the development of a building of a comparable scale, height and envelope to that of the current application.
The site is currently occupied by a 4-storey, low-rise building and, as such, the baseline daylight and sunlight levels at several neighbouring properties are higher than might otherwise be expected in this built up urban area. This exacerbates the degree of change in natural light levels resulting from the proposal.
A number of the windows in existing properties that would not adhere to the BRE guide levels would receive daylight levels below guide levels is due to their own design, as they comprise recessed windows or rooms are located directly below projecting balconies.
Both strategic and local planning policy of relevance to this site’s redevelopment encourages the development of higher density developments and schemes, which maximise the use of accessible sites. The weight that is attached to the BRE guidelines therefore needs to reflect the existing and emerging policy framework, which in turn reflects the location of the site within a high density, urban location.
In addition, Canary Wharf includes a number of existing and emerging developments of a broadly similar scale and height to that of Columbus Tower. Planning applications in Canary Wharf with comparable daylight and sunlight impacts, in which Tower Hamlets Council has granted planning permission include; Columbus Tower (2005), City Pride, Heron Quay West, Wood Wharf and Riverside South.
170 In conclusion, whilst it is acknowledged that this development would have an impact on daylight and sunlight in the surrounding, given the small-scale nature of these impacts along with the context of the surrounding area, the impacts are on balance considered to be acceptable. Therefore the conclusions of Tower Hamlets Council are not accepted. Energy
171 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 4A and within Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policies CP28, DEV5 and DEV6 collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures, prioritising decentralised energy supply, and incorporating renewable energy technologies with a target of 20% carbon reductions from on-site renewable energy. The policies set out ways in which developers must address mitigation of, and adaptation to, the effects of climate change. Policies 4A.2 to 4A.8 of the London Plan focus on how to mitigate climate change, and the carbon dioxide reduction targets that are necessary across London to achieve this.
Modelling baseline carbon dioxide emissions (policy 4A.4 of London Plan)
172 The applicant has provided sufficiently detailed modelling work, which has been prepared in line with part L of the 2006 Building Regulations. The results of the modelling work demonstrates that the proposed energy efficiency measures reduce carbon emission by a 17.6% beyond the minimum requirements of the 2006 building regulations, which is acceptable.
page 42 Energy efficiency standards (Policy 4A.3 of the London Plan).
173 The applicant has provided detail as to the measures proposed to achieve these energy efficiencies, which include improved air tightness levels and insulation values, energy efficient lighting and controls and the use of ventilations systems with heat recovery. The applicant is seeking to meet BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standards, which has been secured by planning condition.
Heating infrastructure and plant space (policies 4A.6)
174 The applicant has provided a commitment that a single communal energy centre connecting all elements of the building, which is welcomed, would link the entire scheme. To ensure adequate delivery at the detailed design stage, an appropriate planning condition has been secured.
175 In addition, and in response to the Mayor’s original comments, the applicant has now provided plant room drawings to show that sufficient space has been allocated for the proposed energy equipment, which is acceptable.
Combined Heat and Power (Policy 4A.6)
176 The application includes a 240-kilowatt electric fuel cell CCHP (Combined Cooling, Heating and Power) that would initially operate with natural gas, which would shift to a hydrogen fuel cell when feasible. This system would achieve a further carbon dioxide saving of 23%, over and above the savings achieved due to energy efficiency measures. The applicant has provided heating and cooling profiles to support the sizing of the CHP and this information is acceptable. To ensure adequate delivery at the detailed design stage, an appropriate planning condition has been secured.
Cooling infrastructure and Absorption cooling (Policies 4A.6)
177 In response to the Mayor’s original concerns, the dock-water cooling system has been abandoned due to regulatory issues and environmental concerns. Cooling would now be provided through CCHP fuel cell and electric chillers, which is acceptable.
Renewable energy technologies (policy 4A.7)
178 There is limited scope for incorporating appropriate renewable technologies within the development. Nonetheless the proposal does include approximately 40 sq.m. of photovoltaic panels, which would further reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 0.18%. Roof plans have been provided to support the proposed layout and the fact that there is limited roof area compared to the total building size, which is acceptable. Environmental impacts
179 As required by Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, the applicant submitted a detailed environmental statement with the application. On 11 February 2009 Tower Hamlets Council issued a Regulation 19 request, requiring the applicant to provide additional environmental information on a range of issues, and then again issued a second request for further environmental information on 22 April 2009. The applicant submitted additional information on both occasions and this information has been taken into account in the consideration of this application.
page 43 Noise
180 PPG24 provides national planning guidance regarding noise impacts. It advises that wherever practicable, noise sensitive developments should be separated from major sources of noise. When separation is not possible, local planning authorities should consider whether it is practicable to control or reduce noise levels or to mitigate the impact of noise through conditions.
181 London Plan policy 4A.20 seeks to reduce noise, by minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, or in the vicinity of development proposals. In addition Tower Hamlets saved UDP (1998) policy DEV50 states that the Council will consider the level of noise generated from developments, while policy DEV2 seeks to preserve the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
182 The Mayor previously noted that the application did not raise any strategic noise concerns. However, as recognised in the submitted environmental statement, the detailed design of the building would need to include noise mitigation measures to address the potential for perceptible vibration and structure-borne noise inside the building from the Crossrail tracks that will be built immediately below the site it in the future. To address this concern, a suitable noise mitigation condition has been secured, which is acceptable.
183 In addition, appropriate noise conditions have been secured to ensure that both the construction and operational phases of this building would not have adverse noise impacts, which is acceptable.
Air Quality
184 London Plan policy 4A.19 and Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policy DEV11 require the potential impact of a development on air quality to be considered. IPG policy DEV12 requires that air and dust management is considered during demolition and construction work. The submitted environmental statement includes an assessment of the impact of the development on air quality.
185 The study concludes that during the construction phases, the development may have some adverse impacts in terms of dust emissions. It is considered that this matter can be controlled via an appropriate construction management plan, which has been secured by planning condition. Once completed the development is unlikely to generate any significant emissions.
186 The Council’s air quality officer has reviewed the submitted information, including; the impacts of the proposed CCHP plant on air quality (powered by fuel cell technology and gas-fired in the interim), as well as future emissions from the proposed serviced apartments. Following the provision of additional environment information, the Council’s air quality officer has been satisfied with the proposed development, subject to the inclusion of appropriate air quality conditions.
187 Council officers originally indicated that they were satisfied that suitable air quality mitigation measures could be included at the detailed design stage and that these measures would be secured by appropriate air quality conditions. The Greater London Authority has no sound planning reason to disagree with this initial recommendation and is content to address any remaining detailed air quality issues via an appropriate planning condition.
188 The technical review of the air quality assessment, along with the recommendation made by Tower Hamlets Council air quality officer that this development is acceptable, subject to conditions, is appropriate and does not raise any concerns. As such appropriate air quality mitigation conditions are included.
page 44 Living roofs and walls
189 In line with London Plan policy 4A.11 the applicant was requested to further examine the potential to include living roofs or walls within the development. In response to the Mayor’s original request the applicant has since demonstrated that the design of the building; the tall element, the podium and the roof would not be able to accommodate the inclusion of any living roofs and has provided sufficient justification, which is acceptable.
190 However, the application now includes a new green wall at ground level on the southern elevation of the building overlooking the Credit Swiss car park. The inclusion of this green wall is welcomed and has been secured by planning condition.
Biodiversity
191 PPS 9 and London Plan policy 3D.14 identify the need to conserve wildlife and promote access to nature, while London Plan policy 3D.12 seeks the protection of trees and woodland. Tower Hamlets UDP (1998) saved policies DEV57 and DEV63 require development to retain and enhance the Borough’s wildlife and natural resources, policy DEV12 seeks the provision of landscaping in new development and policy DEV15 seeks the retention of mature trees in development proposals.
192 There are no sites of national nature conservation importance within two kilometres of the site. However, the site is located immediately adjacent the Millwall and West India Dock ‘Site of Borough Interest’ grade 2, and would impact upon it.
193 The existing site is largely hard standing with some small planting beds around the site boundary. There are, however, mature Elm, Beech and Plane trees around the perimeter of the site. The application proposes the removal of the shrub beds as well as six London planes that are located between this development site and West India Dock. These trees are not covered by Tree Preservation Orders. The applicant has not proposed to replace these trees, which is disappointing. There is limited opportunity to introduce replacement landscaping within the site boundary.
194 To mitigate impacts of this development on the Millwall and West India Dock ‘Site of Borough Interest’ and the loss of six trees, the applicant has proposed a number of measures:
A new green wall at ground level along the southern side of the site Planters on the higher levels and on the terraces Bat and bird boxes introduced into the buildings cladding system Contribution of £433,252 for open space / biodiversity improvements Planning condition to prepare a detailed landscape plan Planning condition to prevent light-spill onto the dock water
195 Council officers originally recommended in their planning report to their borough committee that they were satisfied with the proposed tree and biodiversity remediation measures and that their detail could be secured by appropriate conditions. The Greater London Authority has no sound planning reason to disagree with this initial recommendation and is content to resolve any outstanding biodiversity impacts via appropriate planning conditions and legal agreement.
Flood risk
196 PPS 25 on Development and Flood Risk, London Plan policy 4A.12 and Tower Hamlets Council UDP (1998) saved policy U3 and Tower Hamlets Council IPG (2007) policy DEV21, seek
page 45 appropriate flood risk assessments and flood protection where redevelopment is permitted in areas at risk of flooding.
197 The site is located in an area with a high flood probability, in flood zone 3, and so the applicant submitted a detailed flood risk assessment.
198 The local planning authority has carried out a sequential test to demonstrate that alternative sites less at risk of flooding are not available. The sequential test and flood risk assessment have also been reviewed by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is satisfied that, subject to the imposition of conditions requiring survey work of the dock wall and demonstrating the structural integrity of the basement, the development is acceptable in terms of flood risk. The proposed conditions would be imposed on any permission.
199 The submitted flood risk assessment acknowledges that the site is located within zone 3a and that it is protected to a high degree by existing flood defences. It also states that any impacts on the (non-listed) dock walls would be addressed, which is acceptable.
200 The Mayor originally commented that the submitted flood risk assessment did not sufficiently consider how the building would cope with residual risk if it were subject to a flood. The applicant has proposed to deepen the basement, however, the applicant was requested to set out measures to mitigate and manage an extreme flood event including flood warning, evacuation (if appropriate) and recovery. Further consideration should also be given to the location of, and protection of, vital services such as electrical supplies and lift gear that are often found in such basement areas.
201 Following these comments, the applicant has now responded and has committed to the inclusion of the following measures to manage these identified risks: A lip or ramp provided at the entrance to the basement A positive drainage system within the basement An alarm/early warning system alerting building maintenance to a flooding situation
202 These flood risk concerns have now been addressed through conditions requiring the provision of further detail on the flood risk mitigation measures and an evacuation plan, which are acceptable.
Blue Ribbon Network
203 In line with London Plan policy 4C.11, the applicant’s proposal to increase the width of the public route and space on the western side of the dock edge from 9 to 15 metres is welcomed and will help improve access to the London’s Blue Ribbon Network.
Sustainable drainage
204 PPG 25 requires that priority be given to the use of sustainable urban drainage systems. In addition, London Plan policy 4A.14 sets out a drainage hierarchy. In this regard the applicant has provided flood risk and drainage information and has indicated that surface water will be routed into the docks. This proposal is welcomed as it reduces the loading on the combined sewer network. In addition, the applicant is proposing the use of rainwater harvesting system as well as a range of grey water recycling measures to reduce on-site water use, which have been secured by an appropriate planning condition.
page 46 Wind microclimate
205 London Plan policy 4B.10, Tower Hamlets Council saved UDP (1998) policy DEV2 and Tower Hamlets IPG policy CP1, CP3 and DEV5 require that development should be sensitive to their impact on micro-climate in terms of wind, sun, reflection and overshadowing. To address these policy requirements the applicant has submitted a microclimate wind study.
206 The study examines wind impacts from the proposed development on 23 locations around and within the site. The overall study concludes that wind impacts are likely to be negligible.
207 The study examines wind impacts on the currently well-used public spaces in front of the West India Dock listed warehouses and concludes that this area will remain suitable for long-term external sitting. The study examines the ground level external spaces around the outside of the building, and indicates that these spaces would be suitable for pedestrian and business walking throughout the year. The internal pavilion spaces would be suitable for long-term sitting throughout the year, whilst the first floor terrace cafe that faces onto the Dock would require some additional wind barriers to ensure that the terrace would be suitable for long term sitting throughout the year.
208 Council officers originally recommended in their planning report to their borough committee that they were satisfied that suitable wind mitigation measures could be included at the detailed design stage and that these measures would be secured by appropriate landscape conditions that would consider wind impacts on public spaces. The Greater London Authority has no sound planning reason to disagree with this initial recommendation and is content to resolve any outstanding wind impacts via an appropriate planning condition.
Site contamination
209 In accordance with the requirements of PPS23, Tower Hamlets saved UDP (1998) policy DEV51 and Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) policy DEV22 the applicant has provided an assessment of ground conditions to assess whether the site is likely to be contaminated. Tower Hamlets Council’s environmental heath officers have reviewed the study and have concluded that there is a potential threat of ground contamination. The study identifies the need for further intrusive investigations and mitigation, which needs to be carried out post clearance of the site. As such these works have been secured via an appropriate planning condition. In addition, it should be noted that the remediation of contaminated sites is supported by London Plan policy 4A.33.
Archaeology
210 PPS16, London Plan 4B.15 along with Tower Hamlets saved UDP (1998) policies DEV42, DEV43 and DEV44 seek to ensure that development proposals do not have an adverse impact on archaeological remains. In this regard the applicant has submitted a desktop archaeological assessment that considers the potential of this site housing any archaeological remains.
211 English Heritage has considered the study and concluded that the site is located in an area with a high potential for archaeological remains. In this regard a planning condition requesting further site works has been secured.
212 Council officers originally indicated that they would be content to secure a planning condition to ensure that archaeological policy requirements are satisfactorily addressed. The Greater London Authority has no sound planning reason to disagree with this initial recommendation and is content to resolve any archaeological concerns via an appropriate planning condition.
page 47 Legal considerations
213 Under the arrangements set out in Article 7 of the Order and the powers conferred by Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Mayor is acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the purposes of determining this planning application and the connected conservation area consent.
214 Section 35 of the Greater London Authority Act 2007 inserts section 2F into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a requirement that for applications the Mayor takes over, the Mayor must give the applicant and the LPA the opportunity to make oral representations at a hearing. He is also required to publish a document setting out:
Who else may make oral representations The procedures to be followed at the hearing Arrangements for identifying information, which must be agreed by persons making representations
215 The details of the above our set out in the Mayors Procedure for Representation Hearings which reflects, as far as is practicable, current best practice for speaking at planning committee amongst borough councils.
216 In carrying out his duties in relation to the determination of this application, the Mayor must have regard to a number of statutory provisions. Listed below are some of the most important provisions for this application.
Statutory duties in relation to the Development Plan
217 In determining any planning application, the Mayor is required by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan (in this case Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004) so far as is material to the application and to any other material considerations. The Mayor must determine the application in accordance with the Development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Central Government guidance will always be a very significant material consideration.
218 Other guidance, which has been formally adopted by Tower Hamlets and the GLA (e.g. Supplementary Planning documents, conservation area statements, planning briefs), will all be material considerations of some weight (where relevant.) Those that are relevant to this application are detailed in this report.
219 As this application is for a renewal of an almost identical extant planning permission on the site, this will carry considerable material weight. However, this is still a new application and therefore needs to be reviewed in light of current planning policy and decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The material changes to the application will therefore need to be looked at in the light of current planning policy.
Specific duties in relation to land within conservation areas
Section 72 of the Listed Buildings Act 1990
220 In the exercise of various functions under the Planning Acts in relation to land in conservation areas (including determination of planning applications) the Mayor is required to pay
page 48 special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the Conservation Area.
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)
221 When determining this planning application, the Mayor is under a duty to take account of the provisions of the HRA as they relate to the development proposal and the conflicting interests of the applicant and any third party affected by, or opposing, the application, in reaching his decision. These include the following:
(a) Article 6: Right to a fair trial
6(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (b) Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (c) Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. (d) Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status.
222 It should be noted however, that most Convention rights are not absolute and set out circumstances when an interference with a person's rights is permitted.
Conclusion
223 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 requires that if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of a determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
224 When assessing the planning application the Mayor is required to give full consideration to the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations. He is also required to consider the likely significant environmental effects of the development and be satisfied that the importance of the predicted effects and the scope for reducing them, are perfectly understood.
225 In preparing this Report Officers have taken into account the likely environmental impacts and effects of the development and identified appropriate mitigation action to be taken to reduce any adverse effects. In particular, careful consideration has been given to the proposed conditions and planning obligations which will have the effect of mitigating adverse impacts.
page 49 226 The proposed building achieves a high quality design that would provide a quantum and mix of uses that is acceptable in local and strategic planning policy terms. The impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings and on the character of the West India Quay conservation area has been assessed, particularly in light of Tower Hamlets planning committee decision, and found acceptable. The impact of the development on the daylight and sunlight to nearby residential properties has also been assessed in light of Tower Hamlets planning committee decision and found to be acceptable. The proposal satisfactorily meets required environmental standards and the transport impact is acceptable, subject to suitable conditions and a section 106 agreement. In assessing this application all other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account, in particular substantial weight has been attached to the fact that there is an extant permission which establishes the principle of a tall building in this location. The new application takes account of material change in planning policy, such as energy requirements. Planning permission and conservation area consent should be granted for the reasons set out at the beginning of this report in the Reasons for Approval. The details of the decision are set out in the Recommendation with a detailed assessment of the planning issues set out in the Material Planning Considerations.
for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Assistant Director, Planning 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Senior Manager (Planning) 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Michael Mulhern, Case Officer 020 7983 6535 email [email protected]
page 50