planning report PDU/1376b/02 3 April 2013 Junction of Preston’s Road & Yabsley Street, Poplar in the Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA12/02107

Strategic planning application stage II 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 car park site by the erection of two buildings of 7 and 26 storeys to provide 190 residential units (comprising 78 one-bedroom, 58 two-bedroom, 50 three-bedroom, 2 four- bedroom and 2 five-bedroom apartments), 134 sq.m. of gymnasium space at upper ground level, 42 car parking spaces and 244 cycling spaces at basement level; communal open space and associated works. The applicant The applicant is Telford Homes Plc and the architects are RMA Architects.

Strategic issues The few issues brought forward for resolution from the consultation stage are: inclusive design and access; energy provisions, transport and ambient noise.

The Council’s decision

In this instance Tower Hamlets Council has resolved to grant planning permission.

Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take and does not, therefore, wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context 1 On 9 August 2012, the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

page 1 1B- “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings—(c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

1C- “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions—(a) the building is more than 25 metres high and is adjacent to the River Thames.”

2 On 20 September 2012 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1376b/01 and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 111 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 113 of the report could address those deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 24 January 2013, Tower Hamlets Council resolved to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 21 March 2013 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the interim decision to proceed unchanged, direct Tower Hamlets Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 3 April 2013 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

Update

6 At its meeting on 13 December 2012, the Strategic Planning Committee of Tower Hamlets Council indicated that it was minded to refuse planning permission for the above development against officers’ recommendation, but deferred making a resolution on the application to allow the Council’s officers to draft appropriately worded reasons for refusal. The suggested grounds for refusal related to an excessively high density that was over the indicative range provided in the London Plan density matrix; a resulting shortfall in the provision of children’s play space; and the lack of an adequate contribution to mitigate the impact of development on local transport infrastructure. Each of these issues was addressed in the stage 1 report, copied as an attachment to this document.

7 Following subsequent revisions to the scheme, the application was reported back to the Council’s planning committee on 24 January 2013; at which Members resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement to secure the obligations listed in the Heads of Terms detailed elsewhere in this report. Inclusive design and access

8 At consultation stage, the applicant was requested to submit appendix 2 of the design and access statement and ensure that the location, tenures and mix of the proposed wheelchair accessible units were clearly identified on the accommodation schedule or accompanying drawings to secure full compliance with London Plan policy 7.2.

page 2 9 The applicant has not responded to this request and neither the location nor tenure of wheelchair units have been identified on the accommodation schedule or any drawings subsequently submitted to Tower Hamlets Council.

10 Council officers have indicated that all 19 wheelchair units would be provided as two- bedroom flats to meet the 10% London Plan policy requirement, following advice from the partnering registered provider, Notting Hill Housing Group, that there is a local need for two- bedroom accessible units. Whilst officers have accepted this arrangement, the tenure mix of the units has not been confirmed and the report to the Council’s planning committee expresses a clear preference for a mix of wheelchair unit sizes in line with the London Plan policy aspiration.

11 On balance, however, a direction to refuse the application may prove difficult to sustain on appeal and the provision of 10% two-bedroom wheelchair units is accepted in this instance.

Energy provisions

12 The applicant was also requested to provide a range of details pertaining to the energy strategy for the site.

13 In particular, the applicant was requested to confirm that a site heat network would be installed and all apartments and non-domestic building uses connected to it and to provide a drawing to illustrate the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site. The applicant was also asked to confirm that the heat network would be supplied from a single energy centre and to identify the location and floor area of the energy centre.

14 GLA energy advisors have since confirmed that condition 21 on the Council’s draft approval notice fulfils these requests, in conjunction with a drawing (1317-0180 Rev D) that shows a 103 sq.m. energy centre located in the proposed basement.

15 The applicant proposes to install a 70We gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) unit sized to provide a proportion of the domestic hot water load as its lead heat source for the site heat network. Condition 21 on the Council’s draft approval notice would also secure the 57 tonnes per annum (31%) reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions expected to be achieved by this second part of the London Plan energy hierarchy.

16 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and proposes to install 56 sq.m. of photovoltaic (PV) panels on the roof of the low-rise block, for which a drawing was requested of the proposed installation.

17 The applicant’s drawing (1317-0185 Rev D) illustrates the location of solar PV panels on the roof of Block B and this is secured by condition 20 on the Council’s draft approval notice.

18 Overall, the response to these requests is satisfactory and the energy strategy is fully compliant with the policy requirements of the London Plan. Transport for London’s comments

19 At Stage 1, TfL agreed that the proposed level of car parking (including disabled parking bays) was acceptable. TfL welcomes the proposed section 106 obligation which requires electric vehicle charging points to be secured in line with the London Plan and for the applicant to enter into a ‘permit free’ agreement with Tower Hamlets Council to prevent future residents from obtaining local on street parking permits. Furthermore, the applicant has increased the total number of cycle parking spaces to make provision for visitors in line with revised London Plan standards, which is welcomed.

page 3 20 A revised travel plan was submitted following TfL’s initial response and is now considered robust. This will be secured through the section 106 agreement.

21 A range of sustainable transport mitigation including; Legible London wayfinding, bus stop upgrades and improved pedestrian links to Blackwall station were requested at Stage 1. Citing viability issues, only £30,000 has been secured for ‘TfL Highway Works’ which is regrettable but nevertheless understood. TfL has agreed with the Council that this contribution will be allocated in line with future priorities. TfL also welcomes the submission of a bus stop accessibility audit, to be secured through planning condition.

22 TfL supports conditions to require details of construction methodology and associated impact on the adjacent to be submitted to and approved by the Council, in consultation with TfL. A delivery and servicing plan has also been secured by condition.

23 TfL is satisfied that the proposals are in general compliance with the transport aspects of the London Plan.

Noise issues

24 At consultation stage, it was recommended that Tower Hamlets Council impose a planning condition to secure the submission of details of the acoustic screening of the facades, the glazing performance and the ventilation system for assessment.

25 The relevant condition is included on the draft approval notice accompanying this referral. Response to consultation

26 The Council sent consultation letters to 2,029 addresses within the locality of the site. An initial 17 written replies were received, all objecting to the development. The grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:

Neighbour representations

 The proposal represented an over-development of the site.  The proposal would be unduly obtrusive on the local skyline, the street scene and the Coldharbour Conservation Area; and generally out of character with the surrounding area.  The proposal would be detrimental to local amenity by reason of excessive noise, air pollution, loss of sun/daylight, overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers in the Lumina Building situated north of the application site.  Inadequate play space would be provided for children within the development.  Noise and disturbance resulting from increased use of the riverside walkway.  Adverse impact on local facilities, health and education services and infrastructure.  A shortfall in meeting the policy targets on the proportion and tenure of affordable housing.  The proposal does not meet the adopted parking standards and is under-provided, despite local congestion from non-resident parking.  The proposal would have an adverse effect on pedestrian and vehicular access and on traffic, especially construction traffic, at the junction with Yabsley Street.  Loss of river views.

page 4 27 Fifteen additional letters of objection, an email from the Women’s Network concerned over a perceived conflict of interest and three petitions in support of the application were received after the initial consultation. These were brought to Members’ attention in update reports to the December 2012 and January 2013 meetings of the Council’s Strategic Development Committee.

28 The additional objections reiterated most of the points raised above, particularly on overdevelopment and height of the proposed building. It was further noted, however, that the proposal would lead to an oversupply of housing and reduced property prices; and that there was no point building flats that were likely to remain empty. The objectors also observed that the South Quay DLR station/service was already congested, especially during the morning peak hours.

29 Each of the objections was addressed in the officer reports to the Council’s planning committee.

30 The petitions, one signed by 42 and the other two signed by 553 local residents. Residents of Blackwall and Ward highlighted the following major benefits to the community:

 228 new affordable homes with 174 being family-sized (3 or more bedrooms).  A new 1 hectare public park that would be accessible to residents throughout the day.  A generous amount of community space that could be occupied by a youth club, with the remainder being used by the NHS Primary Care Trust or a nursery.  The creation of some 470 new jobs in addition to those associated with construction of the development- representing a three and half fold increase in the number currently employed on the site.

Statutory and non-statutory body representations

31 The following statutory and non-statutory bodies were also consulted and the following responses received by the Council:

Sport England

32 Sport England raised no objections.

Thames Water

33 Thames Water raised no objection, but requested details of a piling method statement to be submitted to and approved in consultation with its staff prior to commencement of the development on the site. It also requested the inclusion of informatives on the subsequent decision notice to require the developer to install petrol/oil interceptors in the proposed car park and a fat trap on all catering facilities. In addition, no building works should take place within 5 metres of the large water mains adjacent to the site.

London City Airport

34 The City Airport authority raised no objection to the development, subject to the inclusion of two conditions relating to the height of any cranes to be erected during construction; and details of the proposed landscaping.

Greenwich Council

page 5 35 Greenwich Council had no objection.

Canal and River Trust

36 The Canal and River Trust had no objection.

Crossrail

37 Commented that the site was outside the Crossrail safeguarded area and therefore, had no objection to the proposal.

Environment Agency

38 The Environment Agency noted the potential for flooding of the proposed basement in the event of a breach in flood defences. It requested the attachment of conditions regarding land contamination and remediation; surface water drainage and foundation designs.

Port of London Authority

39 The PLA objected to the development, commenting as follows:

 Inadequate reference in the application submissions to the safeguarded Northumberland Wharf.  Highway works or new access points should not prejudice the wharf.  Noise and air quality concerns were likely to arise and appropriate mitigation measures were necessary.  A lighting assessment was required to assess the impact of the wharf and its usage on the proposed balconies and amenity areas adjoining the site.  A condition should be imposed to secure maximum use of the River Thames for sustainable transport.

40 Each of the PLA’s comments was specifically addressed in the officers’ report to the Council’s planning committee.

The Design Council

41 CABE supported the rationale of providing two buildings of 26 and 7 storeys on the site sharing a common aesthetic; but raised two points for the attention of Tower Hamlets Council:

 The design of the tower block should be revisited; and  The nature of uses at podium level should be reconsidered.

Newham Council

42 Raised no objection.

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

43 The LFEPA raised no objection but requested that an advice note/ informative beincluded on the Council’s decision notice.

Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust

page 6 44 The NHS Primary Care Trust sought a financial contribution of £322,360 to mitigate the impact of development on the provision of local health services. For reasons of viability, a sum less than that figure has been offered, as set out in the draft legal agreement described above.

English Heritage (Archaeology- London Region)

45 English Heritage advised that a condition securing archaeological evaluation of the site and any appropriate mitigation works should be included if it were minded to grant planning permission for the development. Proposed legal agreement

46 The Council’s resolution to grant planning permission was also subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure obligations detailed in the following Heads of Terms:

Non-financial obligations

 35% affordable housing by habitable room, split on a ratio of 68% affordable rented and 32% shared ownership tenure.  Access to employment initiatives (targeted 20% local procurement, 20% local labour in construction, 20% end phase local jobs).  A permit-free on-street parking agreement.  A travel plan.  A Code of Construction Practice.  Electric vehicle charging points- 20% active and 20% passive.  8 car parking spaces allocated to on-site affordable family housing.  An on-site gymnasium to be provided as a free facility for all future residents.

Financial obligations

 £41,047 for employment training and enterprise during the construction phase.

 £41,814 towards Idea Stores, Archives and Libraries and Sports facilities.

 £754,744 in respect of education.

 £75,000 towards health provision (NHS Primary Care Trust).

 £4,905 towards sustainable transport

 £648,507 towards improvements to the Bartlett Park open space.

 £26,718 as a monitoring fee for the legal agreement.

47 In all, the financial package amounts to a total of £1,592,735.

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

48 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission

page 7 with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

49 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations

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

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

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

53 It is evident from the foregoing paragraphs that the strategic concerns raised at consultation stage have been addressed to allow the delivery of a high density residential development that makes optimum use of a brownfield site and a positive contribution to the strategic planing aspirations for the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] David Blankson-Hemans, Senior Strategic Planner Case Officer 020 7983 4268 email [email protected]

page 8

page 9

planning report PDU/1376b/01 20 September 2012 Land at junction of Preston’s Road & Yabsley Street in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA12/02107

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

The proposal Redevelopment of car park site by the erection of two buildings of 7 and 26 storeys to provide 190 residential units (comprising 78 one-bedroom, 58 two-bedroom, 50 three-bedroom, 2 four- bedroom and 2 five-bedroom apartments), 134 sq.m. of gymnasium space at upper ground level, 42 car parking spaces and 244 cycling spaces at basement level; communal open space and associated works.

The applicant The applicant is Telford Homes Plc and the architects are RMA Architects.

Strategic issues The revised application modifies an approved residential scheme for 141 apartments by increasing the density and number of dwellings to 190; and raising the height of its taller building from 17 to 26 storeys. The site adjoins a waste transfer station, the River Thames, a safeguarded wharf and the Blackwell Tunnel. Strategic issues include regeneration of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area; the quality, mix, level and tenure of market and affordable housing; the appropriateness of the tall building and its design; inclusive access; and the transport, energy, flood risk, air quality, odour and noise implications for the development.

Recommendation

That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, it does not comply with the London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 111 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 113 of the report could address those deficiencies.

Context

54 On 9 August 2012, the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 19 September 2012 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

page 10 55 The application is referable under Categories 1A,1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

1B- “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings—(c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

1C- “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions—(a) the building is more than 25 metres high and is adjacent to the River Thames.”

56 Once Tower Hamlets Council has made a resolution on 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.

57 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

59 A vacant parcel of former industrial land, 0.27 hectares in size, situated on the south-east side of the junction of Preston’s Road and Yabsley Street on the north side of the River Thames, close to the Blackwell Tunnel, Poplar.

Fig 1 Location plan showing site edged in red.

60 The site, which has long been used as a temporary public car park, is bounded on the north by Yabsley Street; on the west by Preston’s Road; on the east by the Northumberland Wharf Waste Transfer Station, Re-use and Recycling Centre; and on the south by Raleana Road, which provides access to residential properties to the south.

page 11 61 The surrounding area is characterised by residential-led mixed use developments, many of which are relatively new high-rise high-density apartment blocks, with active street level frontages.

62 In terms of connectivity, the site lies on the eastern side of the Isle of Dogs, at the junction of Yabsley Street and the A1206 Preston’s Road, which are borough highways. The nearest section of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is the A1261 Aspen Way which is located approximately 260 metres to the north. Cycle superhighway route 3 operates along Naval Row which is 400 metres to the north. The nearest station is Blackwall, located 300 metres to the north which provides services on the Tower Gateway to Woolwich Arsenal branch of the DLR. Four bus routes operate within a reasonable walking distance of the site; D6, D7, D8 and 277. The nearest bus stops are located on Preston’s Road. As such, the site is estimated to have a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 4, out of a range of 1 to 6, where 6 is the highest and 1 is the lowest.

Details of the proposal

63 Planning permission is sought for the details of two, one 7-storey and one 26-storey, residential blocks to provide 190 residential units (comprising 78 one-bedroom, 58 two-bedroom, 50 three-bedroom, 2 four-bedroom and 2 five-bedroom apartments) and 134 sq.m. of gymnasium space at upper ground level; with 42 car parking spaces and 244 cycling spaces at basement level, communal open space and associated works.

Case history

64 In August 2008, the Deputy Mayor for Government Relations, acting under delegated powers, allowed Tower Hamlets Council to grant planning permission for a residential-led mixed- use development comprising the erection of seven to seventeen-storey buildings to provide 141 dwellings (76 one-bedroom, 29 two-bedroom, 22 three-bedroom, 6 four- bedroom and 8 five- bedroom apartments), 43 sq.m. of commercial space at ground floor, 49 basement car parking spaces, communal open space and associated works. The Council issued its permission notice in October 2008. (PDU/1376/03).

65 In December 2011, the GLA issued letter indicating that under article 5(2) of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the renewal of planning permission issued by the Council in 2008 raised no new strategic planning issues provided all other details remained the same as previously approved. Permission to extend the time limit for implementation of the approved development was subsequently issued by Tower Hamlets Council in March 2012. (PDU/1376a/01). Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

66 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy  Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG; draft Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG;  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG; draft Affordable Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy  Density London Plan; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG

page 12  Urban design London Plan;  Tall buildings/views London Plan, Revised View Management Framework SPG  Mix of uses London Plan  Transport/parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy;  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy;  Air quality London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy;  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy  Waste London Plan; the Municipal and Business Waste Management Strategies; PPS10  Blue Ribbon Network London Plan  Safeguarded wharves London Plan; London Plan Implementation Report “Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames”; Safeguarded Wharves review

67 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2010 Tower Hamlets Core Strategy DPD, the 2007 saved policies of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan and the 2011 London Plan.

68 The following are material planning considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework  The Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan 2007

 The draft Revised Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan

 The pre-submission draft Managing Development Plan Document (DPD)

Regeneration, land use policy and the principle of development

69 The application site falls within the coverage of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area identified in the London Plan. Policy 2.13 of the plan identifies opportunity areas as “the capital’s major reservoir of brownfield land with significant capacity to accommodate new housing, commercial and other development linked to existing or potential improvements to public transport accessibility.” Annex 1 (Opportunity and Intensification Areas) of the plan confirms that parts of the opportunity area have significant potential to accommodate new homes (10,000 within the Opportunity Area as a whole) and that there is scope to convert surplus business capacity to housing and support a wide mix of services for residents, workers and visitors.

70 Against that background, the principle of a residential development on the site was established by a grant of planning permission in 2008 (subsequently renewed in March 2012) for the erection of 141 dwellings, 43 sq.m. of commercial space at ground floor, 49 basement car parking spaces, communal open space and associated works.

71 Whilst the principle of the use of the site is acceptable, the revised application seeks to increase the number of dwellings from 141 to 190 would significantly increase the approved

page 13 housing density and the height of the taller building from 17 to 26 storeys. Thus the key issue for consideration is whether the details of the current proposal represent an appropriate form of residential development that is in line with the relevant policies of the London Plan.

Figure 2: Proposed scheme looking south along Preston’s Road. Source: Applicant’s Design and Access Statement.

72 In terms of site context, the area surrounding the site has been transformed in recent years by a cluster of relatively new, tall, high-density, residential-led mixed-use buildings. On the north side of Yabsley Street, directly opposite the application site, is Nova Court- a residential development ranging from 7 to 12 storeys high. Further north of that is a 25-storey development on the site of the former Alberta House, now known as Streamlight. The New Providence Wharf Estate (site of the former Charrington’s Wharf oil depot), which lies north-east of the application site, has been redeveloped for mainly residential and hotel purposes, with buildings ranging from 8 to 30 storeys and it includes a final phase (Quebec Tower) which will rise to 44 storeys. Blackwall Reach, north of the A1261 Aspen Way, has outline planning permission for a residential-led mixed- use development rising up to 40 storeys. Similarly, outline planning permission has been granted for a mixed-use development with buildings rising up to 200 metres (45 storeys) at Wood Wharf, which lies south-west of the application site.These developments are interspersed with several listed buildings, with the Coldharbour Conservation Area adjoining the southern boundary of the application site and some two-storey terraced houses, such as those on St Lawrence Street, just north of Nova Court. Housing issues

73 London Plan policy 3.3 (Increasing housing supply) affirms the Mayor’s determination to work with relevant partners to increase London’s housing supply by an average 32,210 net additional homes to meet the need identified in the plan, enhance the environment, improve housing choice and affordability, and to provide better quality accommodation for Londoners. To achieve that figure, the London Plan indicates a target of 28,850 new homes, in Tower Hamlets (the highest of any London Borough) over the ten-year period from 2011 to 2021, with an annual monitoring target of 2,885 units.

74 Tower Hamlets Council’s Core Strategy DPD (spatial policy SP02) affirms the London Plan target to deliver 43,275 new homes (2,885 units per annum) in the borough from 2010 to 2025.

75 The proposed development would make a modest contribution of 190 new homes (568 habitable rooms) towards the strategic target for the borough.

page 14 Density

76 The requirements and form of new residential development is guided by London Plan policy 3.4 (Optimising housing potential), which states that taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2 of the plan. It adds that development proposals, which compromise this policy, should be resisted.

77 The supporting text for policy 3.4 provides, in paragraph 3.28, that the density ranges for particular types of location are broad, enabling account to be taken of other factors relevant to optimising potential. They also provide a framework within which London borough Councils can refine local approaches to the implementation of the policy through their local development frameworks and a tool for increasing density in situations where there are proposals to increase public transport accessibility in the future.

78 The proposed development would be built to a density of 704 units (or 2103, habitable rooms) per hectare, which significantly exceeds the upper limit of the indicative range (215-405 units or 650-1100 habitable rooms) per hectare provided in the London Plan density matrix and the Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan) for a site set in a central location with a public transport accessibility level of 4.

79 Nonetheless, an assessment of the scheme against the density matrix is only part of the consideration of the development acceptability. The scheme may therefore be acceptable if it meets the size standards, residential quality, children’s play space, amenity and design criteria set out in other relevant policies of the London Plan; and does not exhibit any of the typical indicators of an over development. These are assessed further on in this report.

80 The applicant has cited a number of consented developments in the vicinity of the site, with densities well in excess of the indicative range; including:  No.1 The Gateway at 2,259 hr/ha.  The Elektron Tower on Blackwall Way (near the East India DLR station) at 1,196 hr/ha.  Streamline (formerly Alberta House) at 1300 hr/ha.  Building C (Quebec Tower) on the New Providence Wharf Estate, at 1,256 hr/ha.  2 Trafalgar Way, just south of Aspen Way, at 2,557 hr/ha.

Housing quality

81 London Plan Policy 3.5 promotes quality in new housing provision and sets out minimum space standards at Table 3.3. The Mayor has produced a new draft Housing SPG (on the implementation of Policy 3.5 for all housing tenures, drawing on his London Housing Design Guide, paragraphs 3.37–3.39 provides further guidance on indicators of quality that the proposed SPG will cover.

82 The following table illustrates an assessment of the proposed apartments against the minimum sizes provided in table 3.3 of the London Plan.

apartment type GLA minimum size- proposed balance (+/-) gross internal area development (sq.m.) 1 bedroom (2 person) 50 50 0

page 15 2 bedroom (4 person) 70 70 0 3 bedroom (4 person) 74 84 +10 3 bedroom (5 person) 86 90 +4 4 bed duplex (6 person) 99 107-125 +8 to +26 5 bed duplex (9 person) n/a 137-150 n/a

83 As the table shows, the proposed apartments would meet, or in the case of the larger family units, exceed the minimum sizes specified in the London Plan.

Affordable housing

84 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 and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. The Mayor has published an early minor alteration to the London Plan to address the introduction of affordable rent, with further guidance set out in a draft Affordable Rent SPG. With regard to tenure split the Mayor’s position is that both social rent and affordable rent should be included within the 60%.

85 While the Mayor has set a strategic investment benchmark that across the affordable rent programme as a whole rents should average 65% of market rents, this is an average investment output benchmark for this spending round and not a planning policy target to be applied to negotiations on individual schemes.

86 Policy 3.12 is supported by paragraph 3.71, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit or other recognised appraisal methodology is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified. Paragraph 3.75 highlights the potential need for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation.

87 Tower Hamlets Council has set an overall target as required by Policy 3.11. Spatial policy SP02 of its Core Strategy DPD aims to achieve an affordable housing output of 50% until 2025, by:  Requiring 35%-50% affordable homes on sites providing 10 new residential units or more (subject to viability).  Securing additional affordable homes from a range of public-sector initiatives directly with Housing Associations as identified in the Council’s Housing Strategy.  Bringing long-term vacant properties back into use.

88 In addition, the Core Strategy promotes an overall strategic tenure split of 70% social rented and 30% intermediate for affordable homes from new development.

89 The Council’s emerging Managing Development DPD also supports the delivery of affordable rent housing of up to 80% of open market rent, where it can be demonstrated that the provision of social housing would not be viable. The GLA has raised general conformity issues with the DPD, which will be subject to an Examination in Public over the coming weeks.

90 In this instance, the developer proposes to allocate 59 dwellings as affordable housing, which represents 31% of the total 190 units, or 35% of the habitable rooms within the

page 16 development. The affordable housing would comprise affordable rent and shared ownership tenures only, with a split of 68:32 in favour of the former. The split falls marginally short of the Council’s Core Strategy policy, but is significantly above the strategic target of 60:40, which is acceptable.

91 The applicant has submitted a financial viability appraisal in support of the application. Its overall conclusion is that with the provision of 35% affordable housing and financial contributions towards off-site benefits to the local community, the development would return a residual value of less than the current alternative use value. As such, any requirement to provide social rented housing or increase the level of contribution towards off-site benefits would render the scheme unviable.

92 The applicant has indicated some engagement with the Council’s Housing Department and the Notting Hill Housing Group in respect of the internal accommodation standards and the appropriate rent levels. The registered provider is said to be supportive of the scheme and satisfied that the proposed rent levels are appropriate and affordable for its tenants.

93 Given that the affordable housing contribution meets the minimum 35% specified in policy SP02 of the local Core Strategy DPD, the Council is unlikely to commission an independent review of the applicant’s viability appraisal to verify that the offer is the maximum reasonable amount that can be provided without compromising its delivery. Should the Council chose to do so, however, it is requested that its results be shared with the GLA on a strictly confidential basis to allow a more robust assessment against the requirements of London Plan policy 3.12.

Housing choice

94 London Plan Policy 3.8 and the associated supplementary planning guidance promote housing choice and seek a balanced mix of unit sizes in new developments. The London Housing Strategy sets out strategic housing requirements and Policy 1.1C of the Strategy includes a target for 42% of social rented homes to have three or more bedrooms. The draft revised London Housing Strategy (public consultations on which ended in March 2012) sets out that 36% of affordable rented homes allocated funding between 2011 and 2015, should have three or more bedrooms.

95 Policy SP02 of the Council’s Core Strategy DPD provides a target for 30% of all new housing to be of a size (three bedrooms or more) suitable for families.

96 The proposed development offers the following mix of dwelling types and tenures:

apartment type affordable housing open market sale total affordable rent shared ownership - 1 bedroom 6 (20%) 16 (55%) 56 (43%) 78 (41%) 2 bedroom 8 (26%) 9 (31%) 41 (31%) 58 (31%) 3 bedroom 12 (40%) 4 (14%) 34 (26%) 50 (26%) 4 bedroom 2 (7%) 0 - 0 - 2 (1%) 5 bedroom 2 (7%) 0 - 0 - 2 (1%) total 30 (100%) 29 (100%) 131 (100%) 190 (100%)

page 17 97 No social rented housing is proposed within the development and although the overall percentage (28%) of three or more bedroom units falls marginally short of the 30% Council’s Core Strategy policy requirement, 54% of the affordable rented accommodation would have three or more bedrooms, thereby exceeding the 36% indicated in the Mayor’s draft revised London Housing Strategy. Children’s play space

98 Policy 3.6 of the London Plan sets out 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.” Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 61 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 610 sq.m. of playspace.

99 The requirement would be met by the provision of 200 sq.m. of dedicated play space, including playground furniture and a further 414 sq.m. of space towards the northern boundary of the site. These are in addition to door-step play areas and gardens for the larger units in block B. It is evident from this that, in quantitative terms, an adequate amount of children’s play space would be available to meet the London Plan policy and SPG requirements for the development.

Tall buildings/views

100 London Plan (2011) policy 7.7, which relates to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings, are of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. This policy sets out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor. Policies 7.10 and 7.11, which set out the Mayor’s approach to protecting the character of strategic landmarks as well as London’s wider character, are also important considerations.

101 The site is close to a number of developments containing existing and consented (but not implemented) tall buildings, including those within the New Providence Wharf and Wood Wharf developments. This proposal has a similar footprint to the consented scheme, but raises the height of the tower element by nine storeys, from 17 to 26 floors. The scheme would be within the London Panorama viewed from Greenwich Park as identified within the London View Management Framework SPG, but would form part of the emerging tall buildings cluster on the Isle of Dogs, as viewed to the right of the main cluster, and would appear as an appropriate addition. The development would not detrimentally affect the setting of the Greenwich Maritime World Heritage Site, as it would not be visible behind any of the identifiable/recognisable features of the WHS as viewed from the General Wolfe statue within the park.

102 Within local views, the site is close to the location of several listed buildings and would be visible from these, and of views incorporating their wider settings. A conservation area also abuts the southern boundary of the site. The applicant’s views assessment demonstrates that the additional strategic impact of the new development, when compared with the consented scheme and cumulative approved development would not be detrimental. Urban design

page 18 103 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan (2011) 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).

104 As with the consented scheme, the irregularly shaped site affords limited scope in terms of the spatial layout of development, but the proposed layout, massing and scale responds satisfactorily to the site’s context, with the low rise block to be built parallel to Preston’s Road, providing improved definition to this route. The tower – in terms of its massing, height and form – would relate appropriately to the nearby high density development.

105 The appearance of the tower is generally similar to previous proposals, with the main elements being light grey rainscreen cladding with white concrete panels and glazing. A similar theme would be used on the lower building, albeit with a darker grey cladding. Limited colour flashes would be used to denote entrances and other architectural features. The treatment would be appropriate and contemporary with the other buildings in the area. The slope of the land means that the development is built on a brick podium which abuts the footpath; the height of the podium adjacent to the street is not excessive and would not create inactive frontage issues.

106 The proposed landscaping is appropriate, although communal space is limited. Much of the ground floor area is given over to private gardens, both as a result of the need to provide defensible space outside dwellings, and the shape of the site. Roof space is offered as private terraces.

Residential standards

107 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan introduces a new policy on the quality and design of housing developments. Part A of the policy states that housing developments should be of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to the wider environment. Part C of the policy states that new dwellings should generally conform with the dwelling space standards set out in Table 3.3, have adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts. Part E of the policy states that the Mayor will provide guidance on implementation of this policy including on housing design for all tenures. The reasoned justification provides further guidance and explanation. In particular, paragraph 3.32 makes clear that “Securing new housing of the highest quality and protecting and enhancing residential neighbourhoods are key Mayoral priorities”. The Mayor’s draft Housing Design Guide (July 2009) and the draft replacement Housing SPG (December 2011), provides further guidance on the implementation of these policies.

108 The internal layout of properties within the low rise block would benefit from both an east and west aspect, with an access deck on the eastern side overlooking Northumberland Wharf while the living rooms would be located on the western side of the block with balconies overlooking Preston’s Road. As per the previous application, a number of units within the proposed tower would directly look out over the waste management facility.

109 Core entrances would be welcoming and legible. Although some units would be north- facing, these would be limited and located in the tower block, benefitting from views from the higher levels. The proportion of dual-aspect units is acceptable, and all flats would meet or exceed the space standards as set out within London Plan policy.

page 19 Inclusive design and access

110 The London Plan (policy 7.2) requires all new development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum required under the Building Regulations); and to ensure from the outset that the design process takes all potential users of the proposed places and spaces into consideration, including disabled and deaf people, older people, children and young people. This, together with the Supplementary Planning Guidance- ‘Accessible London achieving an inclusive environment’, underpins the principles of inclusive design and aims to achieve an accessible and inclusive environment across London. In addition, these policies require all referable planning applications to be accompanied by a design and access statement, following engagement with relevant user groups, to demonstrate how the principles of inclusive design and accessibility have been integrated into the proposed development, whether relevant best practice standards such as British Standard BS8300:2009 have been complied with, and how inclusion would be maintained and managed.

111 The application is supported by a design and access statement, which confirms, with a checklist of compliance with the 16 criteria, that the new dwellings would be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards. The accompanying planning statement indicates that 10% of all dwelling would be adaptable to wheelchair accessible standards but the relevant units and details have not included as appendix 2 in the design and access statement, as suggested elsewhere in the text of that document. These should be provided.

Transport for London’s comments

Car parking

112 The quantum of car parking proposed has been reduced from 49 spaces (a ratio of 0.35 spaces per unit) , proposed as part of the extant planning permission, to 42 spaces, inclusive of 6 disabled parking bays (a ratio of 0.22 spaces per unit). This reduction is welcomed in line with the site’s good access to public transport. In addition, to ensure full conformity with London Plan policy 6.13 ‘Parking’ 20% of all parking spaces should be fitted with active electrical vehicle charging points (EVCPs) with a further 20% with passive EVCP infrastructure to allow for future conversion if required.

113 In order to prevent overspill parking, the developer should enter into a ‘Permit free’ agreement with Tower Hamlets Council to prevent future residents from obtaining local parking permits.

Cycle parking

114 Cycle parking, located in 8 secure storage units, is proposed in line with the London Plan minimum standard of 1 space per 1 and 2 bed unit and 2 spaces per 3 bed unit. However, the applicant should be aware that an additional 1 space per 40 units will be required to serve visitors, in line with emerging policy contained in the London Plan alterations which is now out for consultation. This equates to an additional 5 spaces required, which should be located within the public realm and be secure, covered and accessible.

Trip generation

115 A trip generation exercise has been provided in the transport assessment which is welcomed. Having reviewed the predicted number of trips anticipated by the proposals, TfL does not consider those will have a detrimental impact on the local highway or public transport network,

page 20 and as such, no mitigation is requested in order to comply with London Plan policy 6.3 ‘Assessing effects of development on transport capacity’.

Bus stops

116 To ensure compliance with London Plan policy 6.7 ‘Better Streets and Surface Transport’ and to promote inclusive accessibility to all users of the proposed development, an audit of the two closest bus stops, including any schedule of works required to bring them up to current accessibility standards, is required. Upon TfL’s receipt of the audit, a capped contribution of up to £10,000 may be requested to ensure full compliance with accessibility guidelines.

Walking

117 A section 106 contribution of £30,000 towards the upgrading of pedestrian links to Blackwall Station was previously secured as part of the extant permission. Taking into account the higher quantum of development proposed and greater number of associated trips, TfL accordingly seeks a pro rata increased contribution of £40,500 to ensure conformity with London Plan policies 6.9 ‘Cycling’ and 6.10 ‘Walking’.

118 In addition, a PERS style audit of the pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the site should be undertaken, focussing in particular on routes to public transport access points and local trip attractors. Any deficiencies, such as the lack of dropped kerbs, tactile paving or appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities at junctions, should also be identified so that appropriate mitigation can be secured to address those deficiencies.

119 To further encourage walking in accordance with London Plan policy 6.10 ‘Walking’, TfL suggests that these proposals should promote the ‘Legible London’ initiative to improve pedestrian wayfinding. As such the applicant should note that the erection of a pair of signs within this site will cost around £15,000.

Blackwall Tunnel

120 From the details submitted, it appears that the Blackwall Tunnel (TLRN) runs beneath part of the northern eastern part of the site. As such, details of any construction methodology within this area should only be approved in consultation with TfL in order to safeguard the integrity and operation of the tunnel. This should be secured by condition. Further comments are awaited from TfL’s Tunnels and Structures team, which may require additional advice to the applicant in due course.

Servicing, deliveries and freight

121 Deliveries and servicing will occur from Yabsley Street and are expected primarily to consist of small and medium sized vans. These proposals are considered satisfactory. However, a delivery and servicing plan (DSP) which identifies efficiency and sustainability measures to be undertaken once the development is operational is required. It should be secured by condition and submitted to Tower Hamlets Council for approval prior to occupation.

122 To ensure full compliance with London Plan policy 6.14 ‘Freight’ a construction and logistics plan (CLP) will also be required. The CLP should be a standalone document that enables construction impacts to be managed, minimising impact on the highway network and transport system. This will need to be secured by condition and approved by LB Tower Hamlets in consultation with TfL prior to the commencement of any construction.

page 21 Travel planning

123 A residential travel plan has been submitted, which is welcomed. Regrettably however, the Travel Plan has been reviewed in accordance with the ATTrBuTE assessment tool and has failed. The content of the travel plan must therefore be improved before they can be deemed acceptable. TfL is satisfied however, that this can be undertaken at the implementation stage. It is expected that Tower Hamlets Council secure, enforce, monitor, review and ensure the funding of the travel plans through the section 106 agreement to ensure conformity with London Plan policy 6.3 ‘Assessing transport capacity.’

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

124 In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3, Community Infrastructure Levy, the Mayor agreed to commence CIL charging for developments permitted on or after 1 April 2012. It is noted that the proposed development is within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, where the Mayoral charge is £35 per square metre Gross Internal Area (GIA). The levy will raise £300 million towards the delivery of Crossrail. Further details can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayoral-community-infrastructure-levy.

Crossrail

125 The mechanism for contributions to be made payable towards Crossrail has been set out in the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ (July 2010) and the London Plan policy alteration. The SPG states that contributions should be sought in respect of uplift in floorspace for B1 office, hotel and retail uses (with an uplift of at least 500sqm). Whilst the site is located within the Isle of Dogs charging area, no chargeable land uses are proposed and therefore a contribution will not be sought.

126 In summary, TfL is satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the capacity of the local transport or highway network. Nonetheless, the application does not currently comply with a number of London Plan policies. Various issues are highlighted in this report including, visitor cycle parking, EVCPs, local bus stop audit, contribution towards Legible London and pedestrian improvements, revised Travel Plan and a DSP and CLP, all to be secured by condition. These matters should be resolved before the application can be deemed to be acceptable in strategic transport terms.

Climate change mitigation

127 Chapter 5 of the London Plan sets out the approach to climate change and requires developments to make the fullest contribution to minimizing carbon dioxide emissions. The policies as 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. Energy

Be Lean Energy efficiency standards

128 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

page 22 will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include low energy lighting, mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) and a building energy management system to control common areas. The demand for cooling will be minimised through façade design and low thermal mass.

129 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 4 tonnes per annum (2%) in regulated CO2 emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

Be Clean

District heating

130 The applicant has carried out an investigation and there are no existing district heating networks (DHN) within the vicinity of the proposed development. However, there are a number of planned DHN such as Greenwich Peninsula, Wood Wharf and an extension to the existing Barkantine DHN. 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.

131 The applicant should confirm that a site heat network will be installed and 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).

132 The applicant should confirm that a site heat network will be supplied from a single energy centre. Further information on the floor area and location of the energy centre should be provided.

Combined heat and power

133 The applicant proposes to install a 70We gas fired CHP unit as the lead heat source for the site heat network. The CHP is sized to provide a proportion of the domestic hot water load. A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 57 tonnes per annum (31%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy. Be Green Renewable energy technologies

134 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and proposes to install 56sq.m. of photovoltaic (PV) panels on the roof of the low rise block. The applicant should provide a drawing of this proposed installation.

135 A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 3 tonnes per annum (2%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

Overall carbon savings

136 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 124 tonnes of CO2 per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account.

137 This equates to a reduction of 64 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 34%. Climate change adaptation

page 23 138 Developments are also required to be adaptable to the climate London will experience over their lifetime and should be designed for the warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers and to withstand possible natural hazards (such as heatwaves, flooding and droughts) that may occur. Chapter 5 of the London Plan considers climate change adaptation, specifically policies 5.9 through to policy 5.15.

Flood risk

139 The site is identified on the Environment Agency flood map as being within the defended flood zone 3, wherein the probability of flooding is 1 in 200 for a tidal event and 1 in 100 for a fluvial event, if the benefits of flood defence are ignored.

140 The most significant source of potential flooding is from tidal flooding in the River Thames. The site is defended to a standard in excess of the 1 in 1000 year flood event in the river, and is not expected to flood in such an event. The severity of flooding for any given return period is expected to reduce over time despite predicted sea level rise as a result of climate change, due to increased operation of the Thames Barrier.

141 The modelled flood water level in the River Thames for the 1 in 1000 year flooding event is 4.78m AOD. The statutory defence level along this reach of the River Thames is 5.23m AOD, and therefore under normal operating conditions, the site is protected and should remain dry and wholly accessible throughout such an event.

142 The submitted plans and supporting statements provide assurance that all the residential accommodation would be at upper ground floor level or above, and situated above current levels at the southern, higher end of the site. There will be a raised area surrounding the southern building at the level of the upper ground floor.

143 Although the site may experience flooding if the defences were to fail in a 1 in 1000 year event, the ground floor of the proposed development would be situated above the flood water level in the river, and there would be no flooding of the residential development or emergency access routes in that event.

144 Whilst the flood risk assessment confirms that the development would be appropriately protected against tidal or fluvial flooding throughout its life, it would be particularly useful if a copy of the response to consultation from the Environment Agency could be provided to the GLA as part of any subsequent referral of this case back to the Mayor. This is to ensure that any necessary mitigation measures are appropriately secured, in accordance with the requirements of London Plan policy 5.12 (D).

Surface water run-off

145 At present the site covered with impermeable surfaces. Surface water currently either ponds on site, or drains overland to the surface water collection systems in Preston’s Road and Yabsley Street. The proposals will result in a net increase in permeable surfaces, thus reducing the net surface water runoff during rainfall events.

146 The on-site drainage system will be designed to contain the 1 in 30 year rainfall event, and there will be no flooding of buildings or access routes during a 1 in 100 year rainfall event. A 30% increase will be applied for the drainage design to account for climate change as recommended in the Technical Guidance to the NPPF. Volumes and mechanisms for the drainage infrastructure will be finalised at the detailed design stage.

page 24 147 The proposals would result in a higher proportion of landscaped area on the site, and the provision of green roofs will additionally improve the quality and quantity of surface water runoff. The flood risk assessment shows that the site would remain safe during a 1 in 1000 year tidal event in the Thames, even with a failure of the defences. The safeguarded wharf

148 The site abuts the boundary of the safeguarded Northumberland Wharf, which London Plan policy 7.26 aims to retain and protect for increased use in the transportation of freight by the River Thames, especially given its location adjacent to a waste transfer and recycling station.

149 The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice the operation of the wharf, subject to the issues raised in paragraphs 97 to 104 being adequately dealt with. The wharf could be particularly useful for the transportation of construction materials to the site. Air quality, odour and noise

Air quality and odour

150 London Plan policy 7.15 requires development proposals to minimise the existing and potential impacts of noise on, from, in or within the vicinity of sites; and for major sources of noise to be separated from noise-sensitive developments wherever practicable.

151 The location of the development in close proximity to the Blackwall Tunnel and the Northumberland Waste Transfer Station raises concern about potential residential exposure to air pollution, odour and noise.

152 An environmental statement was submitted in support of the application. Its air quality monitoring and modelling suggests that the waste transfer station does not have a significant effect on local air quality and does not produce odours that would be a nuisance to local residents. The air quality standards are not predicted to be exceeded by activity at the waste transfer station and daily average particulate matter (PM10) standards were not exceeded during the monitoring period. The waste transfer station is deemed to make a minor to insignificant contribution to local particulate concentrations, with the dominant source of particulates being traffic on Preston’s Road.

153 No mitigation is deemed necessary to reduce the impact of local emissions sources on the development.

Noise

154 For dwellings facing Preston’s Road, a level of protection against noise commensurate with achieving acceptable internal noise levels could be provided by the suitable design and construction of new external building facades. Sound reduction performance requirements and indicative commensurate constructions for external facade elements have been given.

155 A BS 4142 noise assessment of activities at the nearby Waste Transfer Station site indicates that potential complaints are most likely to come from residents of the nearest facades of the proposed development. Noise mitigation measures are therefore necessary to reduce the likelihood of such complaints.

156 The most feasible noise mitigation measure would appear to be attenuation of the Waste Transfer Station site noise levels at the receiver (the proposed development) via suitable design and construction of new external facades. It has been determined that reasonable resting and

page 25 sleeping conditions could be achieved in rooms facing the waste transfer station, provided windows are closed and the various elements of the external facade achieve certain minimum acoustic performance requirements. However, when windows are opened e.g. for rapid ventilation, suitable internal acoustic conditions would not be provided and complaints would be likely, hence other means of providing rapid ventilation would be required e.g. a mechanical system. Details of the acoustic screening of the facades, glazing performance and the ventilation system should be provided for assessment and secured by planning condition. However, the applicant’s noise assessment report is being considered in greater detail and further discussion may be required.

157 Calculations have been undertaken to assess the impact on daytime noise levels at the proposed development site due to increased aircraft movements at the nearby London City Airport until 2015 and 2030. It is understood that aircraft do not operate from London City Airport during night-time periods and that no night-time flights are intended before 2030; the expansion of the airport should not therefore affect night-time noise levels at the proposed development site. Community Infrastructure Levy

158 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and it will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater that date. The Mayor's CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail.

159 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands. The rate for is £35/sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised. See the 2010 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents as amended by the 2011 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/987/made

160 London borough councils are also able to introduce CIL charges which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Tower Hamlets Council has yet to adopt a scheme. See the council’s website for more details. Local planning authority’s position

161 At the time of writing it could not be ascertained when this application would be reported to the Council’s planning committee or what the officer recommendation was likely to be. Legal considerations

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

page 26 163 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

164 London Plan policies on regeneration of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area; the quality, mix, level and tenure of market and affordable housing; the appropriateness of the tall building and its design; inclusive access; and the transport, energy, flood risk, air quality, odour and noise implications for the development. on are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reason:

 Inclusive design and access: The applicant has not identified the exact location, tenure or mix of the wheelchair adaptable units proposed within the development.  Transport: Additional information, actions and financial contributions are required to ensure full compliance with the transport policies of the London Plan.

 Energy: Aspects of the submitted energy strategy require clarification to be fully compliant with the energy policies of the London Plan.

 Noise: The applicant’s noise assessment report is being assessed in greater detail on behalf of the GLA and further discussion may be required.

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

166 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Inclusive design: The application should submit appendix 2 of the design and access statement and ensure that the location, tenures and mix of the proposed wheelchair accessible units are identified on the accommodation schedule to ensure full compliance with London Plan policy 7.2.  Transport: The applicant and the Council should ensure that the issues raised by TfL in paragraphs 59 to 73 of this report, particularly in relation to visitor cycle parking, electric vehicle charging points, a local bus stop audit, financial contributions towards Legible London and pedestrian improvements; a revised travel plan, a delivery and servicing plan; and a construction logistics plan are fully and satisfactorily resolved prior to any further referral of this case back to the Mayor.  Energy: The additional details required in the energy section (paragraphs 75 to 84) of this report should be provided before any further referral of this case back to the Mayor, to ensure full compliance with the energy policies of the London Plan.

 Noise: The applicant should provide further details of the acoustic screening of the facades, the glazing performance and details of the proposed ventilation to facilitate assessment of the noise implications for the development.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] David Blankson-Hemans, Senior Strategic Planner (case officer) 020 7983 4268 email [email protected]

page 27

page 28