Committee: Date: Classification: Report Number: Agenda Item No: Development 17 March 2004 Unrestricted DC120/034 7.5 Committee
Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Customer Services Location: HERTSMERE HOUSE 2 HERTSMERE Case Officer: Simon Dunn-Lwin ROAD, LONDON, E14 4A (Columbus Tower)
Ward: Millwall
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/03/00475 PA/03/00878 Date Received: 31/03/2003 Last Amended 31/03/2003 Date: 1.2 Application Details
Existing Use: Office building occupied by Barclays and Morgan Stanley. Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of a 63 storey tower for office (B1), hotel and serviced apartments (C1 and sui generis), retail (A1/A2/A3) and leisure (D2) uses, with basement car parking and servicing. Applicant: SKMC & Farnham Properties Ltd Ownership: Barclays Bank PLC. Historic Building: N/A – adjacent to Grade II listed buildings on West India Quay, Grade I listed buildings known as Cannon Workshops, Grade I listed Dock Edge and Dock Wall. Conservation Area: Bordering West India Dock Conservation Area
2. RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Development Committee grant planning permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (and other appropriate powers) to include the matters outlined in Section 2.5 below; the conditions and informatives outlined in sections 2.6 and 2.7 below; and 5.1(22) relating to the OPDM Circular 1/2003.
2.2 That if the Committee resolve that planning permission be granted, that the application first be referred to the Mayor of London pursuant to the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, as an application for a new building exceeding 30 metres in height.
2.3 That if the Committee resolve that planning permission be granted, that the application first be referred to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and London City Airport (LCA) pursuant to the Town & Country Planning (Safeguarding LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background paper: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder Application case file, plans and Development Control 020 7364 5338 & UDP Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002. The CAA may wish to request that the application be called in for determination by the First Secretary of State.
2.4 That if the Committee resolve that planning permission be granted that the Committee confirms their decision that they have taken the environmental information into account, as is required by Regulation 3 (2) of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.
2.5 That the Committee agree that following the issue of the decision, a Statement be placed on the Statutory Register confirming that the main reasons and considerations on which the Committee’s decision was based, were those set out in the Planning Officer’s report to the Committee (as required by Regulation 21(1)(c) of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.
Legal Agreement
2.5 To secure the following:
(1) Provide £3M towards the upgrading of the Dockland Light Railway to 3-car running, to help address the pressure on the rail systems serving the development.
(2) Provide £100,000 towards the creation of a cycle network which would serve the building, to encourage locally resident workers to use this mode of transport.
(3) Provide £1M towards affordable housing (off-site), to meet the needs of employees who are unsuitably housed and who could not afford market housing to rent or buy within LB Tower Hamlets.
(4) Provide £300,000 towards training programmes for employees with Level 2 or 3 qualifications and for whom limited publicly funded training exists (see Section 6.1.2 for full details).
(5) Provide £375,000 towards the Primary Care needs of the employees at the proposed Columbus Tower, which are not catered for by the existing provision.
(6) Consent shall not be acted upon until such time as the application complies with CAA safeguarding parameters.
(7) A Green Travel Plan which promotes sustainable transport by reducing dependency on the private motor car and implements a shift towards more environmentally sustainable means of servicing the travel requirements of the occupants of the development and visitors.
(8) Obligations in relation to construction works (noise levels, hours of work, access across Canary Wharf, transport arrangements, air quality, method statements) to be secured through a Code of Construction Practice.
(9) Preparation of/compliance with an Environmental Management Plan.
(10) The provision of public art within the development.
(11) Completion of a car free agreement. (12) The use of local labour in the construction of the development.
(13) TV Reception monitoring and mitigation.
(14) Access rights to Public Viewing Gallery and Winter Garden.
Conditions
2.6 (1) Time Limit for Full Planning Permission (2) Full Planning Permission – Details (3) Landscaping Maintenance – hard and soft landscaping in accordance with LBTH Biodiversity Action Plan, replace existing trees with natives (4) Parking – Maximum Cars (5) Disabled Access – Accessibility Statement (6) Archaeological -Investigation/Excavation (7) Contamination - Soil Survey and remedial measures (8) Hrs of Construction -Mon - Sat inc. Demo (9) Ventilation – Details Reserved (10) Pile Driving (11) Wheel Cleaning (12) Access to basement ramp (13) Consent shall not be acted upon until such time as the application complies with CAA safeguarding parameters. (14) Ground Floor, foundation and basement details to be approved by Council and Cross Rail (15) Prior notice to Cross Rail regarding commencement of works (16) Surface water drainage details to be approved by Council (17) Restrictions to works adjacent to River Dock (18) Storage, collection and disposal of refuse (19) Recycling Plan (20) External Lighting and security (21) Details of Noise insulation (22) Limitation of noise and disturbance from plant and machinery to be 75dB(A) (23) Limits to construction vehicle entry points from West Ferry Road and West Ferry Circus (24) Use of barges to reduce impact of construction (25) Fire safety (26) Design detail of tower peak
2.7 That the following informatives be provided to the applicant for information:
(1) Entertainments (2) Surface Water Drainage (3) Crossing over public road (4) Design Standard (5) Landscaping Near Buildings (6) Site Notice Board (7) Refuse (8) Contact Health, Safety & Licensing (9) Environment Agency consents for works (10) Cross Rail guidelines 3. BACKGROUND
Location
3.1 The site is located on the eastern side of Hertsmere Road, at the base of West India Dock (north), within the Cabot Square precinct of Canary Wharf. The site has a total area of 3,605sqm and is currently utilised for an office building known as Hertsmere House. Hertsmere House was completed in 1987 and comprises approximately 6,913sqm of office space, occupied by Barclays Bank and Morgan Stanley.
3.2 A mix of predominantly commercial uses surrounds the site. To the south the site fronts West India Dock North, a Grade I listed Dock Edge and Dock Wall and a Grade II Borough listed area of Importance for Nature Conservation. The Grade I listed Napoleonic Warehouses, known as Port East Apartments are located immediately to the north. This is a low scale warehouse conversion with mixed retail on the ground floor and residential above. The Docklands Museum is also contained within this development. To the north east adjacent to the Port East Apartments is the 30 storey West India Tower, currently under construction.
3.3 To the south is medium scale office development fronting Columbus Courtyard. The scale of office buildings increases to approximately 20 storeys to the south east of the site, with No.1 Canada Square currently the tallest structure at 245.81m. To the west of the site across Hertsmere Road is the low scale Cannon Workshops, designated as Grade II listed buildings containing commercial uses.
3.4 The site is well served by public transport links being located in walking distance to a number of DLR stations, the Canary Wharf Jubilee Line Underground station and various bus services. It is also located above the proposed route for Cross Rail 1. The site has a PTAL Level of 3.
History
3.5 A series of pre-application discussions took place from November 2002, with inputs from both the applicant and Council’s planning and urban design officers. During this time pre-application consultation also took place with the following organisations: Greater London Authority (GLA); Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); London City Airport (LCA); Cross Rail; Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment (CABE); and English Heritage.
3.6 The applicant has made a number of amendments to the scheme as a result of the pre-application discussions; the consultation process and the Environmental Statement (ES) review. These amendments have addressed the majority of the issues and concerns raised by the relevant parties.
Current Proposal
3.7 Full planning permission is sought for a proposed 63-storey, 245m tower over a podium. The proposal includes 93,423sqm of floor space comprising the following uses: 30,085sqm of office space; 192 hotel rooms; 74 hotel suites (serviced apartments); 2,246sqm of retail uses on the ground and mezzanine levels; 24 hour Winter Garden accessible to the public at ground level, incorporating landscaped open spaces; bars; restaurants; a public viewing area; and a leisure and fitness centre; and Two levels of basement carparking with a total of 75 spaces.
3.8 The proposed floor space will be predominantly allocated to hotel and office accommodation. The hotel component will be located within the ‘high rise zone’ of the building, with 22 floors of 5 star accommodation. A mix of standard rooms and hotel suites is proposed, with 4 additional floors of luxury suites at the top of the tower. Below the hotel accommodation is the hotel reception, a restaurant, conference facilities and back of house facilities over 3 levels, with 5 levels above the hotel comprising further a restaurant, bar and meeting rooms and public viewing gallery.
3.9 The office accommodation is proposed within the ‘low rise zone’ of the building, comprising 20 floors of office space, with an average of between 1,080sqm and 1,135sqm of net lettable floor space per floor.
3.10 A leisure and fitness centre is proposed over 2 floors in the ‘mid-rise zone’, between the office and hotel uses.
3.11 Retail uses at the 2 lower levels will include three main areas: a small supermarket; small concession type retail units fronting public amenity space and moveable retail concession stalls within the public amenity space.
3.12 The proposed Winter Garden at the ground level will provide weather protected public space, to be accessible 24 hours a day. The proposal also includes the expansion of the external quayside amenity space at the western end of the Dock.
3.13 Plant is proposed over 5 levels in locations at the top, middle and bottom of the tower. The three levels of plant at the apex of the tower constitute only partial floors.
3.14 Vehicular access for both service vehicles and cars is proposed from Hertsmere Road, with a taxi and car drop zone at the ground level. Pedestrian access will be available from the northern, eastern and western frontages, with additional office entrances at the southeastern corner of the building. Enhancement of the existing public dockside walkway is proposed along the eastern and northern frontages of the site.
3.15 Based on the height of the proposal and taking into account Circular 02/99, the proposal falls under the Town & County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999. Therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment was submitted with the application and advertised in compliance with the Regulations.
3.16 The proposal is accompanied by an application (PA/03/00878) to demolish the existing building located on the border of the West India Dock Conservation Area. English Heritage has been consulted and has not objected to the demolition of the existing structure. 4. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The following Unitary Development Plan proposals are applicable to this application: (1) Central Area Zones (2) Flood Protection Areas
4.2 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable to this application: (1) Location of Central London (CAZ1) (2) Core Activities (CAZ2) (3) Requirements of Mixed Use Scheme (CAZ3) (4) Design Requirements (DEV1) (5) Environmental Requirements (DEV2) (6) Mixed use developments (DEV3) (7) Planning Obligations (DEV4) (8) High Buildings (DEV5) (9) Public Art (DEV18) (9) Development Adjacent to Conservation Areas (DEV29) (10) Development Affecting Setting of Listed Building (DEV39) (11) Development Adjacent Water Areas (DEV47) (12) Riverside Walkways and New Development (DEV48) (13) Noise (DEV50) (14) Contaminated Land (DEV51) (15) Encouraging New Employment Uses (EMP1) (16) Retaining Existing Employment Uses (EMP2) (17) Employing Local People (EMP6) (18) Development in the CAZ (EMP9) (19) Strategic Policy Transport (ST28) (20) Strategic Restraint (T9) (21) Transport Planning Standards (T17) (22) Tourist Accommodation (ART7)
London Plan
4.3 The London Plan was adopted on 10 February 2004. Although the application was lodged prior to the adoption of this plan, the GLA’s draft London Plan was published during the assessment period. Subsequent consultation took place with the London Boroughs and other bodies and an Examination in Public (EIP) was held in March and April 2003 to consider this Plan and the consultation responses. The conclusions and recommendations arising from the EIP were published in 22 July 2003 by the Government Panel, which was set up to deal with this matter. Therefore, given the formal consultation process that has taken place and the recent adoption of the London Plan, the Plan and the Panel’s report should be taken into consideration in determining applications of this nature.
4.4 The following policies are of particular relevance to this application: Density of developments and encourage mixed developments Urban design Transport/parking Access/equal opportunities Tall buildings/views Sustainable development
5. CONSULTATION
5.1 The following were consulted regarding this application: (1) Transport for London - Street Management
No comments received.
(2) English Heritage
English Heritage continues to believe that Canary Wharf is an appropriate location for tall buildings and has no objection in principle. The development would have an impact on the setting of existing listed buildings and the conservation area, particularly with increased overshadowing, but as these areas are already over dominated by existing tall buildings, it is not considered that this proposal will worsen the situation. Opportunity should be made to make a greater compensating contribution to the public realm. The form and design of the podium building is overburdened with dubious historical and architectural references and poorly integrated with its surroundings.
(3) London Fire & Civil Defence Authority
No objection has been made but the following points have been raised: The existing fire certificate should be cancelled upon completion of demolition of existing building; Location of a second fire fighting lift is not clear from the plans – needs clarification; Proposed evacuation strategy is not acceptable. The alert condition is only acceptable on actuation of one smoke detector. Actuation of a break glass call point or sprinkler head should automatically evacuate the floor of origin; Query use of fire fighting lift for Basement 2 parking; Recommend further discussions with Design Team, Building Control or Approved Inspector
(4) Countryside Agency
No objection.
(5) Commission for Architecture & Built Environment
CABE’s original concerns with the application related to: The elevational treatment; The unsatisfactory form of the base of the tower.
Consultation with CABE throughout the course of the assessment process has ensured that they are now supportive of the design of the proposal.
CABE considers the proposal to be a generally well considered design, particularly in relation to the following points: Overall form and massing; Height; Mix of uses; and Commitment to public access.
(6) London Borough of Southwark
No comment. (7) London Borough of Greenwich
The Borough welcomes further regeneration of the Docklands area but expresses concern at the quality of the elevational treatment of such a significant development. The proposal is located within the Docklands panorama from the Wolfe Monument in Greenwich Park and therefore only the highest architectural quality is expected. The views of both English Heritage and Mayor of London should be sought.
(8) British Waterways
No reply received.
(9) London Underground
No reply received.
(10) English Nature
No comments.
(11) Director of Property, BBC Reception Advice
Any building this tall will cause some disruption to TV reception but the convex shape and cladding proposed is beneficial, as is the orientation as it is possible to do something about reflection from the rear of an aerial, either by screening or a better aerial. Would be well advised to survey areas of interest before hand, and also after completion. Should bear in mind that constructional phases can also be disruptive due to use of cranes taller than the building.
(12) Greater London Authority
The GLA has indicated that the proposed building would be of world class design and meet a demand for flexible office floorspace and hotel accommodation, contributing to role of London as a World City. It would not affect strategic viewing corridors nor cause harm to adjoining listed buildings or conservation areas.
The GLA considers the application to be acceptable, subject to the agreement of a Section 106 package that includes contributions towards improvements to public transport capacity and affordable housing (provided off-site). This application is also subject to a final Direction from the GLA, if approved by Council’s Development Committee.
(13) Environment Agency
No objection in principle, subject to conditions relating to site foundations details, construction of surface water drainage system and retention of ground level adjacent to the dock wall.
(14) Head of Highways Development
Car parking layout, coach and cycle storage provision are acceptable and within the UDP requirement. The proposal will require a 'car free agreement' and the Section 106 should also include a proportion of funding for the cycle network improvements identified in this area. The following concerns were raised: No motorcycle parking is provided. This should be accommodated in the scheme. Autotrac plots should be provided to demonstrate manoeuvring space for lorries in the basement. Ramp access width is not sufficient for lorries –more details are required regarding how movements are to be controlled Reference is made to Hertsmere Road being a local distributor road which it is not, it is a private road. Service deliveries assumed should be checked/recalculated using more up to date information. Should provide modifications to West Ferry Circus to address problem of angle of slip road, subject to recommendations of a Road Safety Audit Forecasts of public transport should be reassessed to take account of comments by TfL and DLR. Financial contribution to public transport improvements should be considered. Movements of construction traffic via West Ferry Road and West Ferry Circus should be restricted. A travel plan should be provided to minimise car travel.
Additional information provided for transport assessment satisfactorily addresses points raised.
(15) Environmental Health
The Environmental Statement was reviewed and is considered to include the information required to determine the potential environmental impact of the development. A number of recommendations were made to provide clarification, in particular the sections on transport and air quality. (The ES is addressed under Section 6.2 below)
(16) Regeneration Group
No comments.
(17) Urban Design and Conservation
Columbus Tower is architecturally world class in design. This is a very well put together building proposal and is arguably the most exciting building in London in terms of its striking design and its creative mix of uses. It will form an exciting component of a dramatically evolving skyline as each of the new schemes in the immediate vicinity is completed. It sets a new design standard at Canary Wharf where there is currently an over dominance of North Western America Corporate Architecture.
It is a truly mixed-use scheme and as such will sit very well with the London Plan/ Mayoral aspirations to focus intensity of development on key sites/opportunity areas. Mix of uses should be welcomed and the application favorably supported.
The scheme also provides public access in the form of a glazed Winter Garden space at the base of the tower and a restaurant at the top of the tower, which will contribute greatly to the public acceptance of tall buildings.
Main issues to be addressed include: access to office extra lifts to accommodate disabled access need to ensure that public access is gained to the crown of the tower Section 106 should include a proposal to allow for flexible use of the Winter Garden as high quality spill out space for adjacent occupiers eg: Docklands Museum.
(18) Corporate Access Officer
Given the current level of detail shown on the plans it is difficult to make a thorough assessment of access requirements. Therefore, as part of the Building Application, the applicant will be required to prepared and submit an Access Statement addressing issues including but not limited to: access and circulation; surface treatments; landscape design; parking; step-free routes; designated entrances and provision of toilet facilities. The Access statement should address these issues covering the range of impairments: physical, sensory, learning and mental distress.
The GLA has published a draft SPG on Accessible London to support the London Plan. This draft SPG advises that ‘Boroughs should require that all proposals for hotels meet or exceed the English Tourism Council’s best practice national accessible standards’ (p31). It is noted that the requirement for an Access Statement under Part M of the Building Regulations will become a legal requirement within the next few months.
(19) Head of Planning Policy
The proposal is for a complementary mix of uses, which are encouraged within the CAZ as it is currently defined in the 1998 UDP. Canary Wharf is also identified in the London Plan as having potential to become LBTH’s major town centre. As such, a mix of higher density development should be encouraged in the vicinity to ensure the area remains vibrant and to take advantage of the public transport system.
It is important however, that the Environmental Impact Assessment has considered the cumulative impacts such tall buildings may have on the waterway, view corridors and the surrounding environment as well as ensuring it meets sustainability standards as a stand-alone proposal.
In terms of government guidance and current and future policy direction, the move towards higher density complementary mixed-use development in town centres, where there is good public transport, is in keeping with the objectives of sustainable development and good planning practice, and as such the proposal is supported in principle.
Although the proposal is supported, energy efficient devises and fit-out should be encouraged throughout the entire building, as well as making the most use of natural lighting and ventilation wherever possible. Public art within the public viewing area should also be encouraged.
(20) Government Office for London
Acknowledgement letter received.
(21) Docklands Light Railway
No reply received. (22) London City Airport
London City Airport has objected on the basis that the proposed development penetrates the 139.95m horizontal and 154.95m Approach Safeguarded obstacle limitation surfaces as stated within “Safeguarded Surfaces – London City Airport” dated 15 January 2004. This CAA publication states that an objection should be issued if a proposed development infringes any of the stated levels or the Approach Surface. The proposed height is 245m AOD, therefore the proposal exceeds the horizontal and approach heights by 105.05m and 90.05m respectively.
London City Airport has also objected on the basis of a Cumulative Risk Assessment that highlights the level of risk of Columbus Tower when compared to the existing obstacle environment to the west of the airport and specifically the Canary Wharf area. This risk assessment indicates the additional risk to be at a level that London City Airport considers unacceptable.
Council’s Planning Officers are currently seeking amplified information from London City Airport regarding their objection. Officers are also seeking expert advice from the GLA, regarding the technical assessments, which it is hoped will be resolved by the time the Committee sits to consider the report. Officers will advise verbally with a tabled item on this very issue on the night.
If Council is minded to approve this application, under ODPM Circular 1/2003, it will need to be referred to both the CAA and London City Airport.
This referral requires the preparation of the following information: A copy of the application; A copy of advice from London City Airport; A Statement demonstrating an assessment of the application in the light of the guidance in Annex 2 of ODPM Circular 1/2003 (NAFW Circular 1/2003) Joint Circular from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Transport and the National Assembly for Wales; and A statement of reasons for proposing to grant planning permission, or to grant permission subject to conditions, contrary to the advice of consultees.
A consultation period of 28 days will then apply, in which time the application may be called up by the First Secretary of State for determination. If the CAA and London City Airport have no objections, Council may grant formal consent.
(23) City of London Corporation
No objection to proposal.
(24) London Development Agency
No reply received.
(25) Canary Wharf Group Plc
No objections to the proposed land use, however the application represents a massive amount of development on a small site. Concern with the relationship of the proposal to the boundary of the property, infrastructure, amenity space and likely level of traffic generation. (26) Cross Rail
The applicants have discussed the planning application with Cross Rail and have established in engineering terms that the proposal could be implemented in a manner that is compatible with the Cross Rail tunnel alignment design. This would require the existing building to be demolished, the supporting foundations removed and new foundations built to a mutually agreed design before Cross Rail works commence. Conditions to control these works have been suggested.
(27) Head of Building Control
No comments.
5.2 Responses from neighbours were as follows:
No. Responses: 14 In Favour: 1 Against: 13 Petition: 0
5.3 Comments:
Excessive height of tower would destroy character of area/out of scale with area Inappropriate location for tower of this size Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties Loss of sunlight and daylight to homes as well as sitting out areas Ventilation and plant facing Garford Street - noise and disturbance Insufficient parking provided Should be in keeping with conservation area Will undermine leisure and business uses in West India Quay Increase in traffic and congestion on Hertsmere Road Should seek cultural benefits from developers Architecture does not belong to this country The designs of the base and tower do not fit together Need assurance of noise and vibration disturbance during construction and level of water table Affect on newly opened museum Already sufficient hotels in area Security risk posed by tall building (construction and longer term terrorist threat) Will impair Canary Wharf skyline Solar glare from cladding Potential noise from plant rooms Wind tunnel affect between proposed building and CSFB building (lateral loads etc) Impact on listed buildings Over supply of office accommodation Lack of capacity of utilities to accommodate development Requires amenity space to accommodate level of development proposed Should support 3 car upgrade of DLR Transport assessment appears to underestimate impact of servicing and no assessment has been made of additional vehicle trips on signalled junction at Limehouse Link and West Ferry Road. No analysis of adequacy of taxi, coach and service parking and drop off provisions. Support development of site in general and not opposed to tall buildings providing no unacceptable effects on microclimate (particularly overshadowing), increased traffic movements and noise and vibration associated with servicing requirements. 6. ANALYSIS
6.1 Land Use
6.1.1 The site is within the Central Area Zone (CAZ) under the UDP and is also designated within a Flood Protection Area. The site is currently utilised for B1 office use and is located within a predominantly commercial area, interspersed with mixed retail and residential uses. The site is located on the southern boundary of the West India Dock Conservation Area.
6.1.2 The proposal would provide employment opportunities substantially in excess of the existing office use, consistent with Policies EMP1 and EMP9. In accordance with Policy EMP6, a Section 106 obligation towards training programmes for employees with Level 2 or 3 qualifications is also proposed. By way of explanation, Level 2 qualifications or NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) are equivalent to GCSE and to 'O' levels, typically completed at about age 15-16. The agreed training would be for people with more than minimum, but still quite modest qualifications, and hence people that are quite modestly paid. The aim of the training programme is to raise people to Levels 2 and 3, where Government funding does not exist or has been cut back. Without training, people seeking employment at Columbus Tower or similar office developments would be unable to do so without these qualifications.
6.1.3 The provision of hotel accommodation within the CAZ is in accordance with Policy ART7 and the inclusion of serviced apartment accommodation will serve the needs of local businesses within the Canary Wharf area.
6.1.4 The foundations of the existing building would currently obstruct the proposed Cross Rail tunnel. Any new foundations on the site would be constructed through consultation with Cross Rail, so as to accommodate the tunnel works.
6.2 Environmental Impact Assessment
6.2.1 The review of the Environmental Statement by LBTH Environmental Health highlighted a number of issues to be addressed. The applicant’s Environmental Consultants have submitted further information, which addresses the key concerns.
6.2.2 In relation to daylight and sunlight, Gordon Ingram Associates, through reference to the BRE criteria, has concluded that there will be no material impact upon residential properties surrounding the site. Gordon Ingram Associates has also indicated that shadows cast by the proposal will be moving constantly, so all adjacent properties will receive direct sunlight for most of the day.
6.2.3 In relation to glare, Gordon Ingram Associates has indicated that there will be no material impact to adjacent properties.
6.2.4 The wind impact assessment has concluded that all locations tested, except the First floor terrace of the Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), will be tolerable or acceptable, in terms of their expected use. Unacceptable wind conditions are likely at the café on the First floor terrace of the CSFB building, particularly from December to February. However, given the climatic conditions during the Winter months within the UK, it is unlikely that external spaces are suitable for outdoor eating and therefore, the tower is unlikely to have an impact on the use of the café terrace during this part of the year.
6.2.5 In relation to security, the tower will incorporate its own security measures, which will complement those on the Canary Wharf Estate.
6.3 Key Policy Issues
London Plan
6.3.1 The London Plan details the need for world class architecture and design, promotion of sustainable design and construction, enhancement of the quality of the public realm, respect to the local context and communities, and provides advice on the location, design and impact of tall buildings.
6.3.2 Under the London Plan, the site is within the East London Sub-region and Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area. In this area developments are anticipated to maximise plot ratio, include mixed uses and due to the scale of development are expected to result in substantial planning obligations.
6.3.3 The GLA has indicated that “the provision of a significant amount of office space in a landmark building, combined with five star hotel accommodation will help to meet the future demands of the business and financial sectors. This will enable London to maintain and expand its world city role in accordance with national, Strategic and Local policies”. The GLA considers the application to be acceptable, subject to the agreement of a Section 106 package that includes contributions towards improvements to public transport capacity and affordable housing (provided off-site).
Key UDP Issues
6.3.4 The site is located within the Central Area Zone. In accordance with policies CAZ1, CAZ2 and CAZ3 the proposal is of a scale and type compatible with fostering London’s role as a financial, commercial, tourist and cultural centre and will provide an integrated mixed use scheme, consistent with the character and function of the surrounding area.
6.3.5 The proposal substantially complies with DEV1, DEV2 and DEV3, in terms of minimising impacts on the local amenity and environment. Non-compliant issues of plot ratio and access are addressed under Sections 6.4.5 and 5(18) respectively.
6.3.6 Compliance with other relevant UDP policies listed in Section 4.2 above is discussed throughout Section 6 of this report.
draft UDP
6.3.7 The replacement to the 1998 UDP is currently being drafted and is anticipated to go to first deposit in May 2004. This document will provide an Area Action Framework for the Isle of Dogs, given that it is identified as an Opportunity Area within the London Plan. This action framework plan will address the issues of tall buildings and the future role of the area in terms of a direction for tourism, water and land based leisure, residential and business/mixed-use proposals. In essence, the plan will support the development of tall buildings and mixed-use schemes. Therefore, the subject development is in accordance with Council’s future policy directions.
6.4 Height and bulk
6.4.1 The height of the existing building is four storeys, with the height of the proposal being 63 storeys, at maximum AOD of 245m. The proposed height exceeds the horizontal and approach safeguarding heights set down by the CAA by 105.05m and 90.05m respectively. 6.4.2 The impacts of high buildings on views is addressed under DEV5, which allows the development of buildings over 20m in height, provided that: the potential environmental impacts of the proposal are fully addressed; views are preserved; and infrastructure capacity can cope with the increased demand. The assessment of the ES for the application has indicated that all these issues are satisfactorily addressed by the proposal.
6.4.3 Policy 4B.8 of the London Plan ‘Tall Buildings-Location’, states that “tall buildings will be particularly appropriate where they create attractive landmarks enhancing London’s character, help to provide a coherent location for economic clusters of related activities, or act as a catalyst for regeneration.….major clusters could be located in the CAZ and the Isle of Dogs…..In considering applications for tall buildings the Mayor will take into account the potential benefit of public access to the upper floors”.
6.4.4 The height of the tower would result in the creation of a landmark building within an already established building cluster on the Isle of Dogs. The proposal has been specifically endorsed by CABE and GLA and is acceptable in this location immediately to the north of Canary Wharf. In line with the above policy, public access to upper floors will be available, with a public viewing platform a restaurant, bar and meeting room facilities located over floors 53-56.
6.4.5 In terms of bulk, the small site area results in a very high plot ratio. Under DEV1(2), Planning Standard No.1 refers to a maximum permitted plot ratio of 3.5:1, however the proposal has a plot ratio in the realm of 24:1. This is approximately seven times the UDP standard and therefore a departure from DEV1(2). This non-compliance requires the application to be referred to the Secretary of State.
6.4.6 Visually however, the amenity space within the proposed glazed structure at the ground and first levels has been designed to integrate the development with the surroundings. It also serves as a transitional device to mediate between the scale of the tower and the human scale at ground level. Further, the tower has an architectural slenderness ratio of approximately 1:1.7, meaning that it is just less than eight times higher than it is wide. This will present a particularly slender symmetrical structure from the east or west, with an asymmetrical and slightly less narrow view from the north or south.
6.5 Views
6.5.1 The building will present a different character from a variety of different viewpoints. When viewed from afar, the building sits within the Canary Wharf cluster. In terms of local views, the east-west axial alignment and orientation of the building at the western end of West India Dock provides a dramatic termination to the dock vista. From the immediate area, the predominant feature of the building will be the base or Pavilion.
6.5.2 With respect to views from the Wolfe Monument and the World Heritage Site of Greenwich Park, item 23 of the GLA report indicates: “ the effect of the very high quality Columbus Tower building would however be a positive one, that would not cause material harm to the setting of the World Heritage Site, with the tower merging into the existing cluster of tall, modern buildings on the Isle of Dogs”.
6.6 Public realm
6.6.1 DEV47 and DEV48 address new developments having water frontage and the provision of waterfront walkways respectively. Public access to the water is an important issue to the community and to the Council. It is also considered important that the ‘open’ nature of the waterways be retained as far as possible.
6.6.2 The proposal is set back from the edge of West India Dock, with public access available from the proposed Winter Garden onto West India Quay on the eastern side of the site. The Winter Garden is within a glazed pavilion structure at the base of the tower, providing sheltered space that is publicly accessible. The development will enhance the primarily pedestrian route that links to West India DLR station and also serves as an outdoor seating area for bars, restaurants and the weekly market. It is considered that the shape and siting of the proposed building on the site helps to maintain an ‘open’ feel as far as possible, for a building of this height.
6.6.3 Policy 4B8 of the London Plan promotes access to the upper levels of tall buildings. The proposal complies with this policy in that it provides a public viewing area a restaurant, bar and meeting room facilities located over floors 53-56. Level 53 incorporates a terrace on the western side of the building.
6.7 Design
6.7.1 The proposal provides a mix of uses and delivers a tall building of high quality design, in accordance with strategic and local planning policies. Statutory consultees including CABE, the GLA and LBTH have all commented on the positive qualities of the design.
6.7.2 In particular, CABE in their letter to Council dated 20 June 2003, stated “In the round, this strikes us as a generally well-considered design which is distinctive and attractive in terms of its overall form and massing”. In their letter dated 16 July 2003, the GLA stated “ the Mayor has concluded that the building would be of world class design” and “will create an attractive landmark that will enhance London’s skyline”.
6.8 Parking and Transport
6.8.1 Following the review of the Transport Impact Assessment by LBTH Highways, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed key points raised.
6.8.2 The applicant accepts that a Travel Plan will need to be prepared for the building. This will form part of the s.106 agreement. LBTH Highways have agreed that the wording for this plan can be derived from the Millennium Quarter Masterplan s106 Agreements. Further details regarding transport contributions under s.106 are addressed in Section 6.9 below.
6.8.3 Extensive discussions have taken place with Cross Rail, resulting in an in-principle agreement. An associated set of parameters has also been agreed, to ensure a co- ordinated design solution to integrate the Cross Rail tunnels with the Columbus Tower substructure and ground works. Cross Rail has no objections to the proposal, but have identified two conditions for consideration.
6.9 Impact on Conservation area and listed buildings
6.9.1 The site is immediately adjacent to the West India Dock Conservation Area and as such DEV29 applies. This policy requires proposals to avoid detriment to the character and appearance of a conservation area and its setting. The site is also immediately adjacent to both Grade I and a Grade II listed buildings. To the south the site fronts West India Dock North, a Grade I listed Dock Edge and Dock Wall and a Grade II Borough listed area of Importance for Nature Conservation. The Grade I listed Napoleonic Warehouses, known as Port East Apartments are located immediately to the north. To the west of the site across Hertsmere Road is the low scale Cannon Workshops, designated as Grade II listed buildings containing commercial uses.
6.9.2 The relationship between the proposed Columbus Tower and the Conservation Area and listed buildings has been reviewed extensively by English Heritage, CABE, the GLA and the Urban Design Officer at LBTH. The views from the statutory consultees has ranged from the proposal having little negative impact on the listed building and conservation area to it having a positive relationship. In particular, the GLA has stated in items 32 and 33 of their 16 July 2003 report:
6.9.3 “the proposal will therefore ‘bracket’ the row of warehouses between the two towers and will provide a stunning modern backdrop to the listed buildings” and “In the case of the proposed Columbus tower, it is considered that there is no strategic harm to the historic environment or heritage issue. English Heritage has been consulted on the scheme and does not oppose the development….”.
6.10 Planning obligations
6.10.1 Fordham Research was appointed in December 2003 to consider the impacts of the proposal, with regard to potential planning obligations. An analysis of the planning obligations, as provided in the Fordham Research report dated February 2004, is paraphrased below:
6.10.2 The main impacts of the proposal are through employment. The proposal will employ approximately 1,500 additional office workers, and about 2,100 overall.
6.10.3 In the case of transport, the present situation is that the transport system is effectively ‘full’, assuming the building of Riverside South and North Quay. Although there is nothing more that can be done to extend the capacity of the Jubilee Line, the DLR can be upgraded. The proposed upgrade is expensive (£130M) and so any contribution will only be a partial mitigation. There is also a case for a cycle network contribution as a consequence of Columbus Tower.
6.10.4 Both the office and hotel employees will, in large part be unable to afford market housing to rent or buy. They will also, in principle, be ‘new workers’ in that the proposal will provide a net addition to London’s stock of such floor space. The examination of this aspect has been confined only to those households likely to enter LBTH. As these extra employees will be drawn into the area by the proposal, it will therefore generate an extra need for affordable housing, which is in critically short supply in London. This will need to be provided off site.
6.10.5 In the case of office workers, there is a hole in training provision. It does not affect the bottom end of the salary scale, but somewhat up from the lower end. Government programmes are being cut back and are not sufficient to meet the need for training. In the same way, healthcare provision, although well provided for by new hospital facilities, does not meet the local primary care needs fully. Both these impacts require some mitigation.
The following details summarise the cost of these impacts:
Transport: DLR - £3 M - The cost of extending one station to 3-car use
Transport: Cycle - £0.1 M - Integration of cycle network with the proposal
Affordable Housing - £1 M - This addresses only the net new employees to enter LBTH Training - £0.3 M - The non-B1 workers training is likely to be met by Government programmes, and so this requirement is limited.
Care needs - £0.375 M - A new hospital is planned to serve the area, but the care needs at primary level are considerable, since existing facilities do not cater for the worker aspect.
6.10.6 Thus the estimated cost of mitigating the impact of the proposal, under the rules of Circular 1/97 and the case law, is £4.775 M. This is a conservative estimate, since it is focused in many cases on the LBTH impact only and the London wide impact cannot be fully taken into account by the Council.
6.10.7 The applicant had argued that, since they had to put in extra piling for Cross Rail they were entitled to a ‘rebate’ of planning gain since there was an ‘enabling’ argument. Enabling arises where a public purpose is judged to have such weight that normal planning rules are waived. No such case arises here. The only situation in which the applicant could have made such a claim is if the existing office block (Hertsmere House) were going to remain in the long term. In that case Cross Rail would have had to pay for demolishing and rebuilding it. However as the decision to replace Hertsmere House has come before Cross Rail, there is no argument on this point. The ‘enabling’ argument has therefore been ignored.
7. SUMMARY
7.1 This application has been subject to extensive negotiations with the applicants, the GLA, CABE and English Heritage. In particular these negotiations have addressed the issues raised concerning the design of the lower levels and the impact on the adjacent conservation area. In addition some concerns were raised relating to the design of the top of the tower. These have been resolved in principle but it is recommended that these details be subject to a condition, should this scheme be granted permission. Overall the design is considered to be of a high quality and appropriate to this location.
7.2 A full Environmental Statement was submitted with the application, which has been reviewed by the Council’s officers. Following this, further information was submitted which, together with the Environmental Statement is considered to satisfactorily identify any significant impacts and the necessary mitigation measures. In particular the sunlight/daylight impacts were assessed for the neighbouring buildings, public spaces and neighbouring residential properties. Due to the slenderness of the proposed tower, these assessments demonstrated that it would not have a significant impact.
7.3 A transport assessment was also submitted. This was supplemented with further information, following comments by the Council’s officers. It is now considered to satisfactorily demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on the public transport system or the local road network.
7.4 The proposal is considered to meet the Council’s strategic regeneration objectives through the provision of a mixed use development incorporating a hotel and an enclosed public space as well as a significant contribution towards DLR improvements, a cycle network and social and community projects.
7.5 This proposal is therefore considered to meet both Council and GLA objectives and policies. It will provide a high quality building with significant regeneration benefits.
Site Map
B
P M lat of 4 rm .
4 Trinidad 2 PH m House W 8 11 P a 2 9 lat r d 8 0 fo Westferry Station B d2 4 1 r 6 1 to 51 TR m d PENNY FI 6 7 TCB I y 8 N C ELDS S ID R dd TR A d dd
d E D TC d ddd
d E
T B 4
3.2m 4
0
s 2 3.7m 6 5 1
0
3 POPL
2
2 AR H
2 3 1 4
8 IGH STR
6 4 1 4
BM 4 d EET 1
4 9 6 5 1
8 0
3.90 m d 1
6
d 0
W dd 1 8 1 dd 1 Y E d dd A S dd E W dd B M4 S T ddd .33m renada House A U dd d 1 G C I dd dd E N dd S d HOU D 5
CAU IME IA 4 SEW L 1
AY D EET d
O TR El 2 2 1 4 S 2
4 C G
0 IN Su b Sta 1
K 2 6 t M 1 6 2 o b Sta D R El Su 3.6m d Bo unda ry Sto ne A O d 7 d 9 d O A dd D
R 2 dd 11
2 4
2 2
d Y 4
8
R 1 2 1 2 1 8 3 0
R 4 0 El 1 8d
8 2 10 E 0 F 3.8m 0 Su b 3 12
T 5 3 2 1 to 26 dd 2 a S Po sts d b 3 3
Sta Po st d 2 2 d
1 E d c
0 d d
Limehous e 6 3a 1 2a 1 2b 23a d
3
t 3
W d 3 o
4
4 1
b Club a
1 l e MING 3 k STR
c c EET
8 Fonda y a
1
9 r d 0
0 C
4 d 1 to 11 T 2 t Court d d
o d 4
3.3m 3a WEST
0
1 to 21 1 to 11 Po st I ND d 4
d
Welles IA 8
V D 3
b 8 c
3a 12a 12b i O 8
3
d 3.8m 3
3
a CK 3
d
dd 3a d 6 d
4
Court d R 4
a 8
d 3
f O e
b 6
u A 3 d c 6
d c D 3
Bogart W 3
a Rogers t 6 E 3
o ol d Cdourt E S d
h C Court T 1 c d d 2
S A l) I
ry L e N 9 a D 9 d n 0 r im P n I ) tu ts d 2 P ing ( o s A on ld E P D d ks Bui NK O d ac outh R LI W C
J S 8 E E 9 E K 8 o
il ( t I S 1 S
yr 7 d T R
2 M 0 C OU d 2 IND O ASP E H 2.6m I E N W R E d A D AD A IM d O Y P L C 1 to 21 Grieg House K R LIME
d 3a 1 2a 12b d O H O
8 d REET 1 (SA Hoste l) AD U SE D ST LI Garland RF OR H NK d A E d G LIM Court R E
H O
T U
0 1 d 1 SE d S LI 2.5m d M NK
7 d 0 E
d R
6 d d
6 E
o t
d 6 d 2 31 8 ddd d d R d O A 4 8 D
1 to
4 1 2 d Fl dynn Cou rt d d1 to 10 AS e P Ke l y Cou rt Mary Jones s E N W 1dto 15 ou A Y
d House H d
8
4 e 0 4 l )
8
3 d id ost e
Premiere Place rs H
2
3 e A
8 2 S 0
5 iv (
o
t 6 d 6
1 R 0 1 d d 119 d Mul tisto rey Car Park d dd ddd 3.7m d ddd d d 128 3 d 1 d d d 1
d 5 Ci ne ma
8 1 d d 0 d 1 11 1 to 42 1 Horizon d B uildin d d d g HER d TSM dd E R
151 E ROAD d 4 d 154 WB d d d 155 d 136 d TCBs d d6 d 0 3 1 1 135 d d d d d d dPort EasdtdA par tments d 167 d d 165 d Statu e d d 149 4.6m d POPLAR
d West India and Mil lwall Docks 5.1m d d 2
B 0 M
1 0 3 0 North Quay . 2 d 1 d d 6 d 3.0m m 6 dddd9 d 92 W d d West India Quay E
Ci rcu s Apa rtme nts S 2
T W d
F E Hertsmere House Eaton House E S 5 Bank d R T F CANN 38 39 R ON E DRIVE R d Y d R d R Y
O
R
d A O Quay
D A
D El Su b Sta Bo l ard s ONT d ARIOW A West India Dock North Foot Bridge d Y d Ho tel d d
W D West India Quay Station A E d
S O
T W R
F E 6 E Wes t India Dock N orth
E S Ho tel 4 R R T
R F E E Y M
R S R R T d O Y
R A R E D
O H A D d Foot Bridge 9.4m d 17 1 d t o 8 Fi she r
Berkdeley man 's Wa lk 6 3
o t 5
2 4
Tower 2 PH
t o
1 d 1 50 d8 4
d
r
a d Y
Hanover House t 2 e
g
2 o
d r t 0 e a
s u g 6 s
a a o
s P
r C d s 5 e d a d h d to s s P i 9 Wren 1 b d to u y o r 1 d b Land b ing F d PCs 1 h d g d
m u
lo d u l l i d
o 1 W
C d TCPs 10 WES TFERRY CIRCUS WES TFERRY 1 to 13 CIRCUS 25 to 3 5 Canary Wharf
B M
1 0 THE N . OR 7 TH 5 CO m LON WE NADE ST INDIA d AVEN UE d
Jetty M e 10.3 m a 10.9 m n H ig d
El Su b Sta h
W
2 3
o t
a 6 Cabot Cabot t 2 Canary Whar f e r d d Hall Place d Station d West dd
1
P d A
R K CAB OT W P SQUAR E L E S A
T C
F E E
6
R 2 THE
o t
Cargo Fleet 2 SO R 1 BM9 .90 m UTH C Wharf Y d OLON R TCP NADE
O 8.6m 0
AD d 2 1:3000 4 1 t o 2
2 Cu bi tt d Step s d 1 Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address
This Site Map displays the Planning Application Site Boundary and the neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as part of the Planning Application process. The Site Map was reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Tower Hamlets LA086568 HERTSMERE HOUSE 2 HERTSMERE ROAD, LONDON, E14 4A