planning report D&P/ 3926/01 1 September 2016 Castle Wharf Filling Station (Orchard Wharf) in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/16/01763

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

The proposal Redevelopment of the former Service Station site with a residential-led mixed use development, comprising 338 residential units, together with 376 sqm of flexible non-residential floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2), 36 sqm café floorspace (Use Class A3), set across two main buildings including a 24 storey tower with stepped blocks of 20, 17, 11 and 8 storeys, linked by a 2 storey podium at ground level, with a single basement level. The applicant The applicant is Galliard Homes, the architect is BUJ and the agent is CBRE.

Strategic issues Land-use: Residential led mixed use within the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area is supported (paras 16-17). Housing: The delivery of 338 new homes across a range of unit sizes and tenures is supported. The application currently proposes 35.4% affordable housing (by habitable room). Further information is required to ensure the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being provided. The quantity of child playspace should be increased and further details should be provided on the type of provision to ensure Policy 3.6 is being met (paras 18-34). Urban design: There have been a number of pre-application meetings to discuss design and the broad design principles are supported (paras 35-42). Air quality: In order to ensure London Plan policy 7.14 is met, further information is required including accounting for the potential impact of the MOT testing centre to the north of the development on potential residential occupants should be assessed (paras 62-66). Noise and safeguarded wharves: The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed development would not harm the operation of the safeguard wharves at Orchard Wharf, Priors Wharf and Mayer Parry Wharf (para 68).

Recommendation That London Borough of Tower Hamlets be advised that while the application is supported in strategic planning terms the application does not currently comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 85 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 85 of this report could address these deficiencies.

page 1 Context

1 On 18 July 2016 the Mayor of London received documents from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 26 August 2016 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under the following categories of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

 1C 1. “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions— (a) the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.

3 Once the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

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

5 The site (0.36Ha) was previously occupied by an Esso petrol filling station, which has since been demolished. The site is bound by Tower Hamlets vehicle testing station to the north, Silvocea Way and Bow Creek (River Lea) to the east and the A1020 Leamouth Road to the west. To the north and north-west of the site are Grade II Listed gateway and brick walls which formed part of the East India Company’s warehouses.

6 The site is located immediately adjacent to the Leamouth Roundabout to the south, which forms a junction between the A1261 Aspen Way, the Lower Lea Crossing and the A1020 Leamouth Road. The A1261 to the south west of the site and the A13 East India Dock Road to the north both form part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), and are accessed via the roundabout.

7 The East India Docklands Light Railway (DLR) station is located approximately 450m to the south west of the site, which provides links to Tower Gateway and Bank to the west, Canning Town, and to the east. The nearest bus stops are located on East India Dock Road and Saffron Avenue and these stops are served by buses on routes 277 from Leamouth to Highbury Corner, the 115 which operates between East Ham and Aldgate and the 309 between Canning Town and Bethnal Green.

8 The site is also served by the Mayor’s Cycle Hire Scheme with the nearest docking stations located at East India DLR approximately 450m south of the site providing 51 spaces. Cycle superhighway route 3 (CS3) between Barking and Tower Gateway also passes along the A13 and Leamouth Road within close proximity of the site.

page 2 9 As such, it has been estimated that the site records a good Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 4, on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 is classed as very poor, however the walking distance between the site and (DLR/Jubilee Line) will be reduced following the opening of the footbridge currently being delivered as part of the London City Island (Leamouth North) development on Leamouth Peninsula (D&P Ref: 1097).

10 The site falls within the Lower Lea Valley and Isle of Dogs Opportunity Areas, with the latter identifying a minimum of 10,000 new homes and 110,000 jobs over the London Plan period to 2036. An Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) for the Isle of Dogs is currently being drafted for consultation in mid to late 2016, which will replace the Lower Lee Valley OAPF where the two areas overlap. The site is also with the Poplar Riverside Housing Zone which seeks to accelerate the delivery of 6,404 new homes.

Details of the proposal

11 The proposals are for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a residential- led, mixed-use development comprising two separate blocks, including a 24 storey tower and a perimeter block stepping in height from 8 storeys to 20 storeys consisting of:

 338 residential units  376 sq.m of flexible non-residential floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2)  36 sq.m café (Use Class A3)  Single storey basement to accommodate 33 blue badge car parking spaces, 2 car club bays and cycle storage  Associated amenities including communal open space, refuse storage and cycle parking.

Case history

12 A pre-planning application meeting was held on 24 February 2016, along with a follow- up design workshop on 24 February 2016, with a written advice report issued on 1 April 2016. An additional follow-up meeting was held on 6 April 2016, which focussed on energy and transport issues. In summary, the proposals for a high-density residential-led development were supported, together with the broad design principles; however, noting the high density of the proposals, the applicant was advised to ensure residential quality was considered throughout the detailed design process. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

13 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Principle of development London Plan;  Opportunity Areas London Plan;  Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG;  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy;  Density London Plan; Housing SPG;  Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG;  Blue Ribbon Network London Plan;  Inclusive access London Plan; Accessible London SPG;  Flooding London Plan;  Air Quality London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy;

page 3  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy;  Safeguarded wharves London Plan; London Plan Implementation Report “Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames”; Safeguarded Wharves review 2011; Safeguarded Wharves Review 2011/2012 – Further Consultation  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy;  Transport and parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy;  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy

14 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is Tower Hamlets’s Core Strategy (2010), Managing Development Document (2013) and the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016).

15 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework, Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.  Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) (2007)  City in the East (2015) Principle of development

16 The site is located within the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area as designated on London Plan Map 2.4 and Annex 1 with an indicative capacity of 110,000 new jobs and a minimum of 10,000 new homes over the plan period to 2035, as set out above. The site also falls within the Lower Lea Valley OAPF which when published by the Mayor identified the capacity for 32,000 new homes and 54,000 new jobs. London Plan Policy 2.13 states that development in Opportunity Areas is expected to maximise residential and non-residential densities and to contain a mix of uses. London Plan Policy 3.3 seeks to increase London’s supply of housing and in doing so sets borough housing targets, of which Tower Hamlets’ annual target is 3,931 additional homes per year between 2015 and 2025, which the proposals will contribute to.

17 The proposal to provide a high density residential-led mixed use development is therefore wholly consistent with the policy aspirations for this area and has strong strategic support. Housing

Housing supply

18 The proposal is for 338 homes, which is equivalent to around 8.5% of Tower Hamlets’s borough-wide annual monitoring housing target as defined by the London Plan. The proposed delivery of these new homes is strongly supported in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.3.

Unit type Market Intermediate Social Rent Total

1-Bed 178 29 19 226 (67%)

page 4 2-Bed 38 14 8 60 (18%)

3-Bed 20 - 19 39 (11%)

4-bed - - 13 13(4%)

TOTAL 236 (70%) 43 (13%) 59 (17%) -

Table 1: Residential unit breakdown by size and tenure.

Affordable housing

19 London Plan policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes. In doing so each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. This target should take account of the requirements of London Plan policy 3.11, which include the strategic target that 60% of new affordable housing should be for social rent or affordable rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. Negotiations on sites should take account of their individual circumstances including development viability, resources available from registered providers (including public subsidy), the implications of phased development including provisions for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation (‘contingent obligations’), and other scheme requirements.

20 The applicant is proposing to deliver 102 affordable housing units (30%) or 35.4% by habitable room, broken down into 58% social rented and 42% intermediate accommodation. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal in line with London Plan policy 3.12 in order to demonstrate that the level of affordable housing provision is the maximum reasonable amount the scheme can deliver. This is currently being independently assessed by consultants, on behalf of Tower Hamlets Council.

21 Both the viability appraisal and the independent assessment should be shared with GLA officers before the Mayor considers this application again, in order to assess compliance with London Plan policy 3.12, notably that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being achieved.

Mixed and balanced communities

22 London Plan Policies 3.8, 3.9 and 3.11 and the Mayor’s Housing SPG all seek to ensure that mixed and balanced communities are created in new development through, for example, the provision of a mix of tenures and unit sizes across development, including the priority need for family sized units.

23 Table one provides the unit mix at this stage, which shows that the development will provide a mix of units up to four bedrooms. 52 of the proposed units homes would be three- bedrooms or more, which equates to 15% across the proposed development. It is noted that of the proposed affordable units, 54% would have three-bedrooms or more, and the provision of larger affordable homes is supported. Tower Hamlets should satisfy itself that the proposed mix meets local needs for family housing, GLA officers note that two-thirds of the development will be 1-bed units.

Density

24 London Plan Policy 3.4 requires development to optimise housing output for different locations taking into account local context and character, design principles set out in London Plan

page 5 Chapter 7 and public transport capacity. Table 3.2 provides the density matrix in support of this policy. For a ‘central’ setting with a PTAL of 4, the density matrix suggests a residential density in the region of 650 - 1100 habitable rooms per hectare. The proposed density is 2,377 habitable rooms per hectare.

25 As discussed at the pre-application meeting, it was accepted by GLA officers that the proposed density would exceed the ranges within the matrix. It was acknowledged the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area is identified as suitable for high densities and tall buildings, and that the area is changing rapidly.

26 Both the Housing SPG and the London Plan are explicit that in scenarios such as these, the housing should be of exemplary design quality with a high standard of residential quality and public realm. At pre-application stage, GLA officers requested that an assessment of the accommodation should be made against the standards within the Housing SPG but this has not been provided.

27 At this stage, GLA officers would comment that the proposed density, whilst relatively high, would help to deliver the objectives of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area, subject to ensuring residential quality is achieved and this is discussed further below.

Residential quality

28 London Plan Policy 3.5 promotes quality in new housing provision, with further guidance provided by the Mayor’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. In accordance with strategic priorities, it is essential that residential quality is embraced fully, and baseline standards exceeded wherever possible.

29 Overall the proposed residential quality is considered to be good, with no more than 8 units per core and a high quantity of dual aspect units. It is also noted that units have private amenity space in the form of balconies and terraces, and communal amenity space will also be provided. However, it is noted that some of the units fall below the minimum space standards of London Plan Table 3.3 e.g. Unit C 07-2 on floors 2-5 is 49.1m2. This is unacceptable and should be remedied.

30 The applicant is advised that a cross-check of all units against Table 3.3 should be made and this should be demonstrated on an accommodation schedule, as well as an assessment against the Housing SPG standards. This information should be passed to GLA officers before stage two.

Children’s play space

31 Children and young people need free, inclusive, accessible and safe spaces offering high- quality play and informal recreation opportunities in child-friendly neighbourhood environments. Policy 3.6 of the London Plan states that development proposals that include housing should make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.

32 Applying the methodology within the Mayor’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG (2012), the scheme could generate a child yield of 106 requiring a total of 1,064 sq.m of playspace.

33 The submitted design and access statement sets out the proposed play strategy for the scheme, and identifies that the scheme currently accommodates 936 sq.m. of playspace for children within the development, representing a shortfall of 128 sq.m.

page 6 34 There will be a large number of children on-site, in an area where open space and play opportunities are severely restricted. Ahead of stage 2, GLA officers will want to ensure that the 128 sq.m shortfall is being addressed and to further understand what kind of provision will be on-site, notably what will be included within the indoor/outdoor playspace which flank the courtyard, to ensure this development provides a good environment for children.

Urban design and heritage

35 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan (2016) and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within chapter seven which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 7.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage and World Heritage Sites, views, the public realm and the Blue Ribbon Network. New development is also required to have regard to its context, and make a positive contribution to local character within its neighbourhood (policy 7.4).

Heritage

36 Directly to the north of the site boundary is the Grade II Listed Entrance Gateway to the former Blackwall Goods Yard and to the west of the site is the Grade II Listed East India Dock Wall and Gateway, which sits within the central reservation of Leamouth Road. The two listed structures are not physically impacted by the proposed development.

37 The application is accompanied by a Heritage Assessment which concludes that ‘no harm’ will be caused to the heritage assets. GLA officers would agree with this assessment, and note that aspects of the proposals, notably the use of brick as the predominant material, have been designed to complement the listed structures.

Layout

38 Throughout the pre-application discussions, it was recognised that the site sat within a ‘harsh’ environment, with the constraints of the Leamouth Road and the Grade II Listed East India Dock Wall to the west, the roundabout to the south, the MOT centre to the north and the softer environs of Bow Creek and the Peninsula Park to the east. The challenge to the architectural team was to ensure the layout was not too defensive and didn’t turn its back on its surroundings to face Bow Creek.

39 In response, the proposed scheme has sought to activate all the frontages and this is welcomed. Along Leamouth Road there are duplex units with their own on-street entrances, as well as communal residential entrances and a clear public footway, lined with street trees. The northern edge is landscaped, with flexible non-residential uses proposed. A very small café (36 sq.m) is proposed at the southern tip of the site, but it is queried how viable a use of this size would be, in this particular location, where passing footfall is low, and it is felt a larger café would likely work better to serve the growing community on-site and in the other developments coming forward around the site.

Height and massing

40 The proposal is for a 24-storey tower, and a perimeter block, stepping from 8 to 20 storeys. The proposed heights are consistent with those permitted in the area, and the emerging townscape.

page 7

Architecture and materials

41 The design is proposed in brickwork, with aluminium window frames and zinc cladding on the inner shell of the ‘protective edge’ facing the courtyard.

42 The architectural approach has responded to the Leamouth Road and Grade II listed gateway, with a ‘protective’ edge and a plinth at street level to create a readable scale for pedestrians along the lower floors with the proposed duplex units.

Inclusive design and access

43 The aim of London Plan Policy 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, not just the minimum. Inclusive design principles help to ensure that all of us, including older people, disabled and deaf people, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity.

44 As of 1 October 2015 the Government’s technical housing standards came into effect. These standards require that 90% of homes to be built to meet building regulations M4 (2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings ’and 10% to be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair uses to meet building regulation M4 (3)’ wheelchair user dwellings’. As a consequence Policy 3.8 of the London Plan has been updated accordingly (March 2016).

45 The applicant advises that all units will meet M4 (2) of the building regulations, and 10% (35 units) will meet M4 (3) and this should be secured by condition. It is noted that of the 35 units identified, only 10 are affordable, and all are either 1 or 2 bedroom. Tower Hamlets should ensure the provision of wheelchair units meets any identified local need.

46 The landscaped communal garden has been designed to ensure there is level access throughout, and from Silvocea Way. There will be level access to residential entrances. Full details should be secured by condition. Climate Change

Energy

47 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include low energy lighting and the incorporation of Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery (MVHR) units. The domestic overheating checklist, which is included in the GLA’s energy guidance, has been provided.

48 An Overheating Analysis using thermal dynamic modelling has been undertaken to assess the overheating risk within the conditioned areas of the building; its results demonstrate that the entire sample set of residential units comply with the CIBSE TM52 and TM49 overheating criteria through the application of passive design and low energy strategies alone and as such no comfort cooling is required in these areas. However, all flexible non-residential floor space overheats during the summer months and therefore an Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) system is required to provide high efficiency comfort cooling to meet the requirement of Policy 5.9.

page 8 49 Having reviewed the BRUKL files provided, the actual building’s cooling demand is higher than the notional building’s demand. Further passive measures should be considered in order to reduce the cooling demand as well as address the issue with solar gains (Criterion 3 compliance). These measures should be introduced in the design before the inclusion of a cooling system, in line with the Cooling Hierarchy.

50 The applicant has identified that the proposed network expansion which will connect to the Lee Valley network in time is within the vicinity of the development. The applicant has contacted the operator (Engie) who has noted that there are significant physical barriers in the area that inhibit a connection. Evidence of communication has been provided. The applicant has additionally stated that communication will be progressed with Engie once the development secures more certainty following planning consent. This is welcomed and encouraged.

51 The applicant has moreover done a research of other large developments going live in the vicinity with the potential to connect to one of the proposed schemes. None of these options have been found feasible as a result of physical barriers along with the complexities of programme and project delivery. The applicant has, however, provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available.

52 The applicant should clarify if a site heat network is being proposed and should confirm that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided. A single energy centre is being proposed. Information on the area, the size and the location of the energy centre has been provided.

53 The applicant is proposing to install a 35 kWe / 62 kWth gas fired CHP unit. The CHP is sized to meet the base-load electrical demand with a proportion of the residential heating demands in order to ensure its financial viability. The predicted savings achieved (106 tonnes per annum) are considered significantly high for the size of the CHP. Moreover, a number of the DER figures provided through the DER worksheets do not match the Calculations Table in Appendix C. The applicant should review their calculations and ensure that the correct savings have been provided.

54 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install Photovoltaic (PV) panels and Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) systems. In order to demonstrate compliance with the energy hierarchy the use of CHP should be optimised before considering the use of renewables for heating. Further information should be provided on how the ASHPs proposed will not impact on the optimisation of the CHP system and on ensuring that the development is designed to connect to district heating in the future. The applicant should also provide information on the control strategy for ensuring that any air conditioning system installed on site is only used when needed.

55 Based on the energy assessment submitted, a reduction of 164 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions is expected, compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 40%.

56 The carbon dioxide savings exceed the target set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan; however, the comments above should be addressed before compliance with London Plan energy policy can be verified.

page 9 Climate change adaptation

57 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) accompanies the application and confirms that the site is located within flood Zone 3 and is well protected by the existing Thames Tidal Flood Defences. The FRA also confirms that the site has a low risk of surface water flooding and that any surface water flooding will be conveyed away from the site along the highway network.

58 The FRA states that in the event of a breach or overtopping of the flood defences the occupants of the building should remain within the building (due to the potential for the surrounding areas to be flooded) and the following measures will be used to mitigate flood risk:

 Finished floor levels to be set at a minimum of 5.13m AOD;  No sleeping accommodation below 5.59m AOD;  No self-contained basement dwellings;  Dry pedestrian access to be provided to areas at 5.59mAOD and higher, from all residential areas, non-residential space and the basement;  Car park flood sensor and barrier to prevent the removal of vehicles during a breach event;  Flood resilient/resistant construction methods;  End users to sign up to the EA flood warning system.

59 The listed measures are acceptable and the applicant is advised to ensure that the flood resistant construction methods include the provision to protect building utility services from flooding, to ensure that in the unlikely event of flooding, occupants will be able to remain in the building in relative comfort.

60 Subject to securing conditions, the proposed development should comply with London Plan policy 5.12.

61 In terms of sustainable drainage, the FRA states that the development will be designed to reduce surface water run-off from the site up to the 1 in 100 year storm by at least 50%. The FRA goes on to state that this requirement will be met without the inclusion of the extensive green roofs into the calculations, and that therefore the actual reduction will be in excess of 50%. The proposed destination of the discharge is to the nearby River Lea. This is welcomed and considered to be the most sustainable destination for the residual surface water. Given the nature and location of the proposals this approach is considered to be an acceptable approach to London Plan policy 5.13.

Air Quality

Air quality impact assessment (AQIA)

62 The AQIA indicated that the impacts of both the energy centre and traffic impacts had been modelled on a grid as well as a number of heights. However these are not included in the report. All results generated should be provided prior to stage two to ensure that the full impacts of the scheme can be understood. Additionally the outside amenity space provided at the roof level for each tower element of the design should be considered as discreet receptors when considering the energy centre impacts

63 There are two omissions in the AQIA that should be justified in detail, prior to stage two:

page 10

 The non-residential element of the development is not considered to generate any road trips – this should be explained either by specific reference to the transport assessment or by provision of more details.  The council operated vehicle testing centre and access road to the rear and side of the side could represent a significant source of pollutants. The reason for excluding these potential sources should be justified in detail

Acceptability of the development

64 The AQIA indicates that a number of the properties on the ground and first floor will be exposed to unacceptable levels of pollution, and some on the higher floors will only marginally meet the air quality standards.

65 Mechanical ventilation is proposed to actively mitigate this issue (at least at the lower floors); however this is the least preferable option to mitigate. The applicant should consider whether there are design options available, either in the location of the buildings within the site or by adjusting the internal layout to place habitable rooms on the least exposed facades of the building.

Air Quality Neutral

66 In order to meet the air quality neutral benchmarks and emissions limits a number of assumptions have been made in the air quality assessment, these should be secured by condition or within the s106, specifically:

 Car free development: the assessment of the transport element assumed that there would be no vehicle movements other than those associated with the parking spaces within the development.  CHP/boiler details: The AQIA modelled units that comply with the emissions limits in our SPG, compliance with these limits and post installation testing should be secured by condition.

Blue Ribbon Network and Biodiversity

67 The River Lea (Bow Creek) is part of the Blue Ribbon Network identified within the London Plan and is also a Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). In line with London Plan policy 7.19, the enhancement measures within the ecology report including bat tubes and bird boxes should be secured by condition. The planting scheme across the site should maximise foraging opportunities for pollinators. Any opportunity for contributions to the Bow Creek Ecology Park should be explored. Noise and safeguarded wharves

68 The application site is located in close proximity to noise generating activities including the DLR, London City Airport and a number of safeguarded wharves – Orchard Wharf, Priors Wharf and Mayer Parry Wharf. Noise assessments have been undertaken; however the acoustic assessment contains no reference to the safeguarded wharves. The operation of the wharves is safeguarded by the Secretary of State through an Article 10 (3) Direction and the applicant should demonstrate that the proposed development would not harm the operations of these wharves, prior to Stage 2 referral. Any required mitigation and conditions should be agreed with the Port of London Authority (PLA).

page 11 Transport

Impact assessment

69 The applicant has undertaken multi modal impact assessment which is welcomed. The applicant should however, confirm the level of detail within the census data used to obtain a mode split for this scheme. TfL notes the relatively high modal share for walking to work where there is limited commercial employment close to the site and expects that the bus mode share could therefore be greater.

70 Given the former use of the site as a petrol filling station and the ‘car free’ nature of the proposal, TfL acknowledges that vehicular use will be low and therefore agrees that junction analysis will not be necessary.

Car parking

71 The development will be ‘car free’ with the exception of 33 Blue Badge spaces located within the basement, 6 of which will have active electrical vehicle charging points (EVCP), whilst a further 7 will make passive provision for ECVPs. TfL welcomes the approach to car parking in line with London plan standards. The provision of EVCPs should be secured by condition along with the provision of two car club spaces. TfL requests that occupiers are prevented from securing on street parking permits for any existing or future controlled parking zones through the section 106 agreement. TfL also notes and welcomes that the development will be supported by a car parking management plan, secured through a planning condition. The plan should prevent spaces being let on a separate commercial basis.

Cycle parking

72 The applicant proposes 472 long-stay basement cycle spaces which should be increased to at least 479 spaces to comply with London Plan policy 6.9. That said TfL welcomes the proposal for 38 spaces that could accommodate larger cycles TfL requests that the applicant clarify the type of the stand used for long stay cycle parking; the basement plan indicates two tier stands will be used; these tend not to be suitable for all users. The applicant should also clarify that racks will be electronically controlled to ensure ease of access and that any door to a cycle parking area should be automated.

73 The applicant proposes cycle access to the scheme via a cycle lift to the basement. TfL request further clarification regarding cycle parking access, including reference to the London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS). Lifts should have minimum dimensions of 1.2 by 2.3 metres. With a minimum door opening of 1000mm.

74 The applicant proposes 12 visitor cycle spaces in Sheffield stands which TfL welcomes. The applicant should clarify the provision of staff parking for the non- residential uses in the scheme in line with the LCDS.

Public transport

75 The proposed development is predicted to generate only 7 two- way bus trips in the morning peak and 9 two-way trips in the evening. Subject to any clarification about the bus mode split, referred to above, TfL may request a contribution to mitigate the site specific impact on the capacity of the bus network. Similarly, given the proximity of Canning Town station and routes thereof, journeys from this station may begin or end with a bus trip. TfL therefore welcomes further discussion about this matter.

page 12

Infrastructure protection

76 At the pre application stage, TfL noted the proximity of the proposed basement to the A13 East India Dock tunnel. As such, the applicant will have to satisfy TfL’s technical approval criteria prior to construction, details of which should be secured by condition.

Travel plan

77 TfL welcomes the submitted Travel Plan, the content of which is acceptable. The final Travel Plan should be secured, enforced, monitored and reviewed as part of the s106 legal agreement.

Freight

78 The applicant has submitted a framework Delivery and Servicing plan which outlines how the site will be serviced. Servicing and refuse will take place from an on street lay-bye located in Silvocea Way. Residents will have to coordinate deliveries with site management. TfL have no objection to this, however the proposed on street lay-by should be agreed with Tower Hamlets Council as the highway authority for Silvocea Way. A final Delivery and Servicing Plan should be secured by condition.

79 The applicant has also submitted a framework Construction Logistics Plan (CLP). The full CLP should also be secured be condition. The CLP should detail the construction vehicle routing to address the loading restrictions on Leamouth Road, resulting from the proximity of the Leamouth tunnel, referred to above.

80 The CLP should include a feasibility assessment of using the nearby docks for water freight during the construction period.

Community Infrastructure Levy

81 In accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3 the Mayor commenced CIL charging for developments on 1 April 2012. Within London Borough of Tower Hamlets, the charge is £35 per square metre. Local planning authority’s position

82 The position of London Borough of Tower Hamlets is not yet known. Legal considerations

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

page 13 Financial considerations

84 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

85 London Plan policies on land use, housing, urban design, inclusive access, climate change, air quality, Blue Ribbon Network, noise, safeguarded wharves and transport are relevant to this application. Whilst the scheme is supported in principle, the application does not fully comply with the London Plan where flagged below:  Land Use: The proposed development for residential-led mixed-use within the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area is supported, in line with London Plan policies 2.13 and 3.3

 Housing: The proposed new housing is welcomed in line with London Plan policy 3.3. The application currently proposes 35.4% affordable housing (by habitable room). Further information is required to ensure the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being provided in line with London Plan policy 3.12. Further details and amendments to the scheme will be required in relation to housing quality and child playspace provision to ensure the development meets London Plan policies 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6.

 Urban design: The broad urban design principles are supported, and the applicant has sought to activate the ground floor frontages. In line with the comments, the size of the proposed café on the southern point is questioned.

 Inclusive access: The broad approach to access and inclusion is supported and the scheme should comply with London Plan policies 3.8 and 7.2, with suitable conditions.

 Climate Change: Whilst the proposed energy strategy would meet London Plan Policy 5.2 comments are made on the approach and further details are requested which should be provided ahead of Stage 2 to verify the proposed strategy. London Plan policies 5.12 and 5.13 on flood risk are complied with, subject to securing conditions.

 Air Quality: Further information on air quality is required, notably the impacts of the adjacent vehicle testing centre to the north and mitigation measures to ensure London Plan policy 7.14 is met.

 Blue Ribbon Network and Biodiversity: In order to meet London Plan policy 7.19, the enhancement measures within the ecology report should be secured by condition. Planting should maximise foraging opportunities for pollinators.

 Noise and safeguarded wharves: The application site is located in close proximity to a number of safeguarded wharves – Orchard Wharf, Priors Wharf and Mayer Parry Wharf however no noise assessment data is included within the acoustic assessment. The operation of the wharves is safeguarded by the Secretary of State through an Article 10 (3) Direction and the applicant should demonstrate that the proposed development would not harm the operations of these wharves, prior to Stage 2 referral. Any required mitigation and conditions should be agreed with the Port of London Authority (PLA).

 Transport: In order to comply with the transport policies of the London Plan the following is sought: Car parking management plan, Blue Badge and EVCP, delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan should be secured via condition; the applicant is advised that the

page 14 number of cycle spaces should be increased marginally to comply with the London Plan (2016) and to talk to TfL with regards to bus services and a possible contribution..

The resolution of the above matters could lead to the application becoming acceptable in strategic planning terms. The applicant is advised to engage with GLA officers and TfL, prior to any Stage 2 referral, alongside the LPA.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Sarah Considine, Strategic Planning Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 5751 email [email protected] Jon Sheldon, Senior Strategic Planner (Case Officer) 020 7983 5852 email [email protected]

page 15