planning report PDU/2427a 15 May 2012 Skylines Village, Marsh Wall, Isle of Dogs in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA-11-03617

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 Erection of buildings with heights, varying from 5 to 45-storeys, comprising 749 residential units, flexible business space, retail space, community space, a new urban square, public open space and basement parking/servicing.

The applicant The applicants are ZBV (Skylines) Ltd and Skylines (Isle of Dogs) Ltd. The architect is Farrells Architects.

Strategic issues The principle of a residential-led mixed-use development in the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area is in the interest of good strategic planning in London. However, concern is raised over the design of the proposal. Further information is also required on density, access, affordable housing, play space, climate change and transport to ensure compliance with London Plan policies.

Recommendation

That Tower Hamlets be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 86 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 87 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 16 April 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 25 May 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.

2 The application is referable under Categories, 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or

page 1 houses and flats”. “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 outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres”. “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.

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

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

5 The 1.44 hectare triangular shaped site is located on the Isle of Dogs, just south of West India Dock and Canary Wharf. The site is bounded by Marsh Wall to the north, 3-storey residential blocks to the southeast and Limeharbour to the west. The site contains 59 small scale business units ranging from two to three storeys in height and vegetated bank which drops down to the residential properties behind.

6 The development site is located to the south of Marsh Wall at its junction with Limeharbour. Part of the A1206 Preston’s Road Roundabout, some 0.9 kilometres from the site, is the nearest section of the Transport for London Road Network. Canary Wharf underground station (Jubilee Line) is approximately 0.6 kilometres to the north, while South Quay Docklands Light Railway station, which has recently been relocated to accommodate the 3-car train upgrade, lies 200 metres to the east. Crossharbour DLR station (served by the same line), is around 250 metres to the south. Five bus routes can be accessed within 300 metres (135, D3, D6, D7 and D8), with the nearest stops located on Marsh Wall and Limeharbour. The site has a good public transport accessibility level of 4 (out of 6, where 6 is the highest).

Details of the proposal

7 Permission is sought for the erection of five buildings with varying heights from 5 to 45- storeys. Comprising:-

 749 residential units of which 242 will be affordable,

 a 6,390 sq.m. B1 use business centre, 1,480 sq.m. of flexible retail floorspace uses A1- A5/B1,

 a 1,440 sq.m. community/leisure space,

 0.96 hectares of open space at ground level,

 189 car parking spaces and 1,060 cycle spaces,

 a biodiversity strip to the south eastern boundary.

8 The proposal has been amended since the previous refusal in 2010. The amendments include:-

 The school and hotel have been omitted.

page 2  Block B has been reduced by 15 storeys to 25-storey.

 Block B1 has been reduced by 5 storeys to 45-storeys.

 Block A has been reduced in height and width and has been pulled back from the southern boundary.

 Block C has been reduced in height and width and has been pulled back from the eastern boundary.

 The level of affordable housing has increased to 38% on habitable rooms.

 The open space has increased to 0.96 hectares.

 Blocks B and B1 have been placed further apart to increase the size of the public square.

 A larger gap has been provided at the upper levels between buildings B1 and C.

 The buildings have been pulled back from the boundary creating a 25 metre wide boulevard along Limeharbour and Marsh Wall.

 The pavilion has been relocated to the base of building B. Case history

9 In 2010 an application for the erection of buildings ranging in height from 2 to 50-storeys comprising 806 residential units, 123-bed hotel, 2,020 sq.m. of retail/commercial floorspace, 6,900 sq.m. of office floorspace, a school and crèche for 584 pupils with sports hall and a community centre was referred to the Mayor.

10 On 12 March 2010, the Mayor advised Tower Hamlets that :-

 The proposal was inconsistent with policies 4B.1, 4B.9 and 4B.10 of the London Plan. In particular the material submitted does not demonstrate that the proposed buildings would attain the level of design quality expected of tall buildings in London. Concern was also raised over the scale of the buildings adjacent to the existing residential development to the south of the site. The proposal would result in awkward and inappropriate spatial relationship. Whilst the site may be suitable for tall buildings these will need to form part of a robust masterplan that considers the wider site context.

 Whilst the proposal has a high standard of accessibility, further details of wheelchair accessible units and hotel bedrooms are required to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 3A.5 and 4B.5.

 That further technical information is required to assess whether the proposed energy strategy complies with London Plan energy policies in chapter 4A of the London Plan.

 Further information and discussion is required with the applicant and Tower Hamlets Council is required to ensure the proposal complies with the transport policies of the London Plan detailed in chapter 3A.

page 3 11 Pre application meetings were held on 22 September 2011 and 16 November 2011 between the applicant and the GLA to discuss an amended scheme for the site. Advice note PDU/2427aSW04 issued on 2 December 2011 concluded that :-

“Further to the pre-planning application advice given in September 2011, there have been some changes to the scheme in terms of layout and the heights of the development however, the scale and massing of the development remain largely comparable. The design and appearance of the scheme is welcomed, so too the amount of open space being offered. Further discussion will be necessary in relation to the affordable housing offer that is being made, together with comments in relation to access, residential quality”.

Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

12 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Principle of development London Plan  Density London Plan; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG  Tall buildings/views London Plan, Revised View Management Framework SPG  Urban design London Plan;  Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Child play space 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; draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan  Climate change 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  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Transport London Plan; draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

13 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 Tower Hamlets Core Strategy 2010, the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and the 2011 London Plan.

14 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework  The Managing Development DPD (Pre-Submission Stage)  The Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan

page 4 Principle of development

15 The site is located within the emerging indicative boundary of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area, which is identified in the London Plan as being capable of accommodating at least 10,000 additional dwellings and 110,000 new jobs. It states the “there is scope to convert surplus business capacity south of Canary Wharf to housing and support a wider mix of services for residents, workers and visitors”. (page 267). Mixed-use developments and densities which support the Isle of Dogs interdependence with central London and the Central Activities Zone are also supported.

16 The provision of residential accommodation on the site is further supported by London Plan policy 3.3, which seeks to increase London’s supply of housing. Policy 3.4 seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with the local context, the design principles in chapter 7 of the London Plan and with public transport capacity.

17 The principle of a mixed-use redevelopment of the site is therefore supported in strategic planning terms. Density

18 London Plan policies 3.4 and 3.5 outline the need for development proposals to achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context, the principles of good design and public transport accessibility. Table 3.2 of the London Plan provides guidelines on density in support of policies 3.4 and 3.5.

19 The planning statement states the proposal has a residential density of 1,660 habitable rooms per hectare. This exceeds the guidance range provided in table 3.2 of the London Plan which identifies central sites with a public transport accessibility level of five as being suitable for developments between 650 – 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare.

20 Paragraph 1.3.39 of the Mayor’s draft Housing SPG explains “Research suggests that while combining residential uses with other uses can lead to more effective use of common infrastructure (e.g. water, sewerage, power), if density is measured in units per hectare or habitable rooms per hectare (as in the Density Matrix) it can underestimate the ‘massing’ impact of the development. In vertically-mixed schemes (i.e. where housing is on top of non-residential uses), non-residential floorspace should be deducted from the total floorspace indicated by the housing density matrix to avoid creating development out of scale with its context”.

21 It is not clear if the applicant’s suggested density of 1,660 habitable rooms per hectare includes the non residential uses. As such the applicant should provide a plot ratio to ascertain the true density of the proposal. Urban Design/tall buildings

22 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan, in particular the objective to create a city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods to which Londoners feel attached whatever their origin, background, age or status. Policies contained within chapter seven specifically look to promote development that reinforces or enhances the character, legibility, permeability and accessibility of neighbourhoods. It sets out a series of overarching principles and specific design policies related to site layout, scale, height and massing, internal layout and visual impact as ways of achieving this.

23 The proposed scheme has been discussed at two pre-application meetings and written comments for each provided to the applicant. Whilst previous comments outlined that the scheme

page 5 is generally well designed, a number of concerns were outlined with regards to the layout, height and massing of the development which have not been addressed. The following comments re- iterate some of these issues and where appropriate provide suggestions for improvement.

Site Layout

24 The proposed development is located on a triangular site at the corner of Marsh Wall and Limeharbour. Development is laid around courtyard with buildings running parallel to both streets. A small square is located where the streets converge creating a gap in the built form and allowing access into the courtyard.

25 Of particular relevance to this proposal is London Plan Policy 7.1, that sets out the requirement for developments to reinforce or enhance the permeability and legibility of neighbourhoods, so that communities can easily access community infrastructure, commercial services and public transport; and London Plan Policy 7.3 that sets out a series of overarching principals to ensure that the design of a development should look to reduce the opportunities for criminal behaviour by maximising activity throughout the day and night, clearly articulating public and private spaces, enabling passive surveillance over public spaces and promoting a sense of ownership and respect.

26 The perimeter block approach of the development is strongly supported as it creates a clearly articulated threshold between the communal courtyards and the public realm, as well as providing enclosure and overlooking onto the surrounding streets and spaces. However, the proposed approach turns the courtyard into a public space. Whilst this is not an issue in itself, and there has been a welcomed effort to provide active frontages looking on to it, there are still a number of elements that are likely to undermine the quality and use of the space. These are listed below:

 There is concern with how the residential units interface with the space. The provision of large private gardens is likely to require significant boundary treatments to ensure their privacy, which in turn will undermine the amount of activity and overlooking on to the main space. These edges need to be designed as the front entrance to these units, with no more than a narrow privacy strip interfacing the public and private realm.  The narrow lanes linking the courtyard to the surrounding street make it difficult to secure the space if needed, and there is little indication any active frontage or activity generators to make these routes safe.  The landscape design includes large swathes of greenery labelled that appear to lack any function other than visual amenity, further discouraging their use.

27 The development provides good quality frontage on both Marsh Wall and Limeharbour which is supported. Concern expressed at pre-application stage on the risk of how dual aspect retail units are occupied has been addressed.

Housing layout

28 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

page 6 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.

29 The overall design quality of the residential aspects of the scheme is of a high quality. The small and varied footprint of the proposal allows a high number of dual aspect units as well no north facing single aspect units which is welcomed.

30 Whilst a small number of floors in the proposed development have up to ten flats per circulation core per floor, the majority have eight or less in line with the Mayor’s guidance which is supported. This ensures that people feel a strong sense of ownership over shared communal spaces improving safety and reducing need for maintenance which is welcomed. All units will meet the space standards outlined in the Mayor’s guidance and policy 3.5 of the London Plan.

Scale, height and massing

31 The scale, height and massing of a development will have an impact on the legibility, character and adaptability of its surrounding urban area. London Plan Policy 7.4B sets out the requirement for buildings to provide a contemporary architectural response to the site whilst having regard to the pattern and grain of development in the wider area and being human in scale. London Plan Policy 7.6B sets out the requirement for development to be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances activates and appropriately encloses the public realm. London Plan Policy 7.7 sets out 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. The policy includes requirements for buildings to emphasize points of civic or visual significance and have ground floor activities that provide a positive relationship to surrounding streets and to incorporate the highest standards of architecture.

32 The proposed development is made up of a series of vertical elements varying from seven to forty-nine storeys in height arranged in an ‘L’ shaped footprint. The shorter elements are farthest from the corner and the tallest (82.2 metres) sits to the east of the public space on the corner.

33 The location of the site is rightly identified by the applicant as playing an important role in interfacing between the built and proposed towers to the north and west of the site and the low rise residential development to the south. However, whilst the arrangement of taller elements towards the north-west of the site reflects this transitory role, the height of the tallest elements does not. This difference in height between this and the adjacent terraces to the south is dramatic and abrupt, creating a development which is alienating to neighbouring residents and that re- enforces the unhealthy distinction between recent incomers and existing residents.

34 Notwithstanding the concern above about the overall height of the taller element, the massing of the development creates the impression of a cluster of separate buildings which are slender and attractive in their own right.

Appearance

35 The development is characterised by two separate building clusters, a series of seven slender glass towers along marsh wall and more solid and stout concrete buildings on Limeharbour. This approach breaks up the scale of the overall development which is welcomed. The elevations of both sets of buildings are playfully designed with interlocking shapes that create a subtle but distinctive elevation to the whole development which is also welcomed.

page 7 World Heritage Site

36 The proposed development sits within view of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. In July 2009, the Government published a Circular on the Protection of World Heritage Sites (07/2009). The Circular establishes the Government’s objective to protect each World Heritage Site through conservation and preservation of its outstanding universal value. It sets out that World Heritage Sites and their settings, including any buffer zone should be protected from inappropriate development. The Circular identifies the setting of a World Heritage Site as the area around it (including any buffer zone) in which change or development is capable of having an adverse impact on the World Heritage Site, including an impact on views to or from the site.

37 The London Plan has a number of new and enhanced policies in relation to World Heritage Sites. Policy 7.10 ‘World Heritage Sites’ states: “Development should not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites or their settings (including any buffer zone). In particular, it should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or significance. In considering planning applications, appropriate weight should be given to implementing the provisions of the World Heritage Site Management Plans”. This is supported by the draft for consultation SPG ‘London World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings’. Policy 7.11 ‘London View Management Framework’ also stresses the need to identify and protect aspects of views that contribute to a viewer’s ability to recognise and to appreciate a World Heritage Site’s authenticity, integrity, significance and Outstanding Universal Value. Implementation Point 13 on page 65 of this document sets out the process of how this assessment needs to be undertaken which is required from the applicant. Access

38 Inclusive design principles, if embedded into the development and design process from the outset, help to ensure that all individuals, including older people, people with disabilities, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity. The aim of London Plan policy 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, not just the minimum as required by building regulations.

39 The design and access statement confirms there will be graded access routes across the site with level landings at each section. All graded sections will be 1:21 or shallower, seating, resting places, signage and lighting will be used to make the space legible and comfortable.

40 The applicant is proposing to provide 10% (19) of the car parking spaces as wheelchair accessible spaces and 10% (75) wheelchair accessible residential units. All residential units will be designed to meet the 16 Lifetime Home Criteria.

41 The design and access statement also details how each proposed use will meet the Building Regulations 2000 part M, BS 8300:2009 + A1:2010. Play space

42 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 406 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be

page 8 provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 4006 sq.m. of playspace.

43 The applicant has submitted a play strategy that suggests the development will have an estimated child population of 289 based on Tower Hamlet Council’s SPG guidance. The planning statement also states that using the Mayor’s guidance the estimated child population is 380. This is incorrect. The estimated child population for the proposal is 406.

44 The play strategy also stats that 3000 sq.m. of the 3,600 sq.m. communal amenity space will be child play space. This is misleading. The applicant is double counting the communal amenity space and the public square. Whilst it may be possible to play within these areas for the purposes of policy 3.6 and the Mayor’s Guidance these are not designated child play spaces that makes provision for play. Looking at the plans it would appear that only the area shown in pink qualify as child play space. Details of these areas including the size, type of equipment and play to be encouraged and target age group are required to ascertain their suitability. It is noted that children over the age of 11 are expected to use St John’s Park for play and recreation. A map showing the distance and route to the park along with the type of facilities on offer are required to justify this assumption. It may also be necessary for the applicant to contribute to the upkeep or renewal of these facilities; this will need to be discussed with Tower Hamlets Council. Affordable housing

45 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 it’s 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%.

46 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.

47 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.

48 Where borough councils have not yet set overall targets as required by Policy 3.11, they should have regard to the overall London Plan targets. It may be appropriate to consider emerging policies, but the weight that can be attached to these will depend on the extent to which they have been consulted on or tested by public examination.

49 The proposal includes 249 affordable units (38% by habitable room). A breakdown of the residential units is shown below.

Social Intermediate Market Total %

page 9 Studio 0 0 53 53 7%

1-bed 38 23 155 216 30%

2-bed 58 25 173 256 34%

3-bed 54 10 126 190 25%

4-bed 19 6 0 25 3%

5-bed 9 0 0 9 1%

Total 178 64 507 749

50 The applicant has not submitted a financial viability assessment or any information on how it intends to provide the affordable housing, in particular information on a registered social landlord partner or the affordable rent model; however it is understood that this work is underway. Once this has been submitted it will need to be independently appraised. Until this information has been submitted it is impossible to determine whether the proposal provides the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing or complies with London Plan policies.

Housing choice

51 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. This proposal exceeds that target providing 47% of social units with 3-bedrooms or more. Climate change mitigation

BE LEAN - Energy efficiency standards

52 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include energy efficient lighting and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery. The demand for cooling will be minimised through the use of high performance glazing.

53 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 70 tonnes per annum (5%) in regulated carbon dioxide emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

BE CLEAN - District heating

54 The applicant has identified that the Barkantine district heating network is within the vicinity of the development and is proposing to connect to the network. The nearest connection point is currently 800 metres away. The applicant has however been liaising with EDF who has indicated that connection may be possible within 8 months. Details of correspondence with EDF has been provided. Connection to the network should continue to be prioritised.

page 10 55 The applicant is proposing to install a site wide heat network linking the dwellings, retail, community and office buildings via a low temperature hot water circuit which links into the Barkantine district heating network and energy centre. A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site has been provided.

Combined Heat and Power

56 The applicant is proposing to link to the Barkantine 1.3WWe gas fired combined heat and power unit which will act as the lead heat source for the site heat network. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 259 tonnes per annum (19%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

57 The applicant should provide details of it backup strategy should direct connection to the Barkantine heat network prove unviable.

BE GREEN - Renewable energy technologies

58 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 100 sq.m roof mounted photovoltaic panels. Roof drawings showing potential locations should be provided.

59 A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 70 tonnes per annum (6%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

OVERALL CARBON SAVINGS

60 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 1024 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, combined heat and power and renewable energy has been taken into account.

61 This equates to a reduction of 399 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 28%.

62 The carbon dioxide savings exceed the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. Climate change adaptation

63 Policies 5.3, 5.9 to 5.12, 5.15 and 6.13 of the London Plan require all development proposals to include sustainability measures within developments. Further guidance on this policy is given in the London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG.

64 The application includes a sustainability statement and an assessment of the proposal against the Mayor’s essential and preferred standards. The proposal includes several sustainability elements such as green roofs, sustainable urban drainage systems and rain water harvesting units to restrict the run off to the local sewer to ‘greenfield’ run off rates and detailed waste plan. The provision and maintenance of which should be secured by condition. Transport for London

Trip Generation & Highway Impact

page 11 65 As the development is not adjacent to any Transport for London or strategic road network, TfL does not require any highway mitigation measures to be secured. Modelling results for the ‘future base & development’ scenario does however indicate degrees of saturation of over 90% on Limeharbour and Marsh Wall, and TfL is therefore supportive of the applicant’s proposals to undertake further modelling, in conjunction with the borough, in order to better understand the likely impact of the development on the local highway network. Following on from this, it is recommended that potential mitigation measures should subsequently be reviewed in order to improve traffic capacity along the Marsh Wall corridor, and to ensure that the signalised junctions can operate within capacity and not impact negatively on buses.

66 The applicant refers to part funding the signalisation of the junction at Limeharbour / Marsh Wall. TfL therefore requests the submission of a drawing detailing the layout of the proposed junction, a construction methodology statement and TRANSYT modelling to understand the likely impact on bus delays and other road users. It should be noted that any proposals for new signals will need to be fully justified in the context of the Mayor’s approach to smoothing traffic flow, in accordance with London Plan policy 6.11. Clarity is also sought on whether the applicant is proposing to contribute towards the signalisation of the junction.

Buses

67 The submitted trip generation figures for the proposed development suggest a net increase in bus trips of 39 passengers in the peaks. In the context of the site’s location on what is already a busy bus corridor this is not considered to be negligible, and therefore TfL requests a S106 contribution of £224,700, to mitigate the increased demand generated by the proposed development, and to provide additional capacity on the local bus network in accordance with London Plan policy 6.7. The calculations for this figure were provided in TfL’s initial response to the Council.

DLR

68 Currently the walking route to South Quay station requires the mobility impaired to take a 100 metre diversion to get to the lifts at the western end of the station. In order to address this and better serve the local area, TfL requests that a s106 contribution is secured towards the installation of two lifts at the eastern end of South Quay station, closest to the development site. It is anticipated that the full cost of this scheme will be funded by pooling contributions from forthcoming developments in the area, and TfL would therefore welcome further discussions in this respect.

69 A condition to provide DAISY boards or appropriate alternative real time information displays within the reception areas of the proposed development should also be secured. This will assist the delivery of the travel plan mode share targets, in accordance with London Plan policy 6.3.

70 Given the height of the proposed development and its proximity to DLR infrastructure, TfL requires the developer to conduct before and after construction signal testing to assess whether a contribution towards a signal booster is required, to mitigate the impact of the proposals on the DLR radio communications. The funding of any mitigation measures will need to be secured via the section 106 agreement, and a commitment to carry out the signal tests will need to be included as a condition.

Parking

71 The parking ratio for the residential element of the development has increased from the 0.2 spaces per unit at the pre-application stage, to 0.24 spaces per unit. Whilst the proposed level of parking remains within London Plan standards, given the site’s good transport links, TfL considers

page 12 residential car parking levels could be reduced further, in order to promote more sustainable travel behaviour.

72 TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to ensure that the proposed development would not result in off-site parking demand, through the use of a car-free agreement. This needs to be secured either by condition or through the s106 agreement. It should also be confirmed whether residents subject to Tower Hamlets ‘permit transfer scheme’, will be ineligible to apply for an on- street parking permit or not.

73 TfL also welcomes the applicant’s commitment to provide disabled parking within London Plan standards, alongside the provision of 1,020 cycle parking spaces for occupiers of the proposed development, and an additional 40 visitor spaces to be provided at grade throughout the development. The development must however also ensure that 1 in 5 spaces (both active and passive) provide an electrical charging point to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, in accordance with London Plan policy 6.13.

74 Whilst all agreed parking provision needs to be secured by condition or via the section 106 agreement, TfL would additionally request that a parking management plan be submitted and secured by condition, in order to ensure the eight spaces allocated to the office/retail and community elements be strictly used by those intended.

Pedestrian Movement

75 TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to repave and increase the height of the raised table at the Limeharbour/Marsh Wall junction. This work will need to be secured via a 278 agreement with the Council, as the highway authority for those roads.

76 TfL welcomes the submitted PERS audit, and as a result, has since carried out an in-house assessment of the bus stops located along Marsh Wall. It is considered that the removal and relocation of bus shelter ‘C’ on the north side of Marsh Wall, opposite South Quay DLR station, would result in a substantial increase in footway clearance for pedestrians. As such, TfL would therefore request that the requirement to relocate both the shelter and stop be secured through either the s106 or s278 agreement in line with London Plan policy 6.1, noting that these works are currently estimated at around £26,000 plus associated costs. TfL also recommends the applicant funds the removal of guard rail on the section of the footway on the south side of Marsh Wall, between South Quay DLR Station and Bus Stop ‘SH’ as part of planned public realm improvements for Marsh Wall.

77 Additionally to improve signage, TfL would like to see the extension of the Legible London between the Crossharbour DLR and South Quay stations, and consider that a total of five totems are needed for that. TfL would therefore suggest that the applicant commits to funding the installation of a pair of signs, along with a commitment from the council to investigate through pooling the funding for the additional three signs. TfL welcomes further discussions in this respect.

Travel Planning, Delivery and Servicing plan & Construction & Servicing

78 TfL welcomes the submission of both the framework travel plan and the delivery and servicing plan, both of which need to be secured either by condition or through the s106 agreement, alongside a construction and logistics plan.

Crossrail

79 As the proposed development falls within the Isle of Dogs contribution area, the proposed indicative level of charge is £186 per square metre for new office floorspace, £119 per square

page 13 metre for new retail floorspace and £82 per square metre for new hotel floorspace. Notwithstanding that, while the amount of retail floorspace on site is set to increase as a result of these proposals, the proposed amount of office floorspace is significantly lower than what currently exists on site, and as such, it is considered that a Crossrail contribution will not be required in this instance. Community Infrastructure Levy

80 In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3, the Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that will be paid by most new development in Greater London. Any development that receives planning permission after the 1 April 2012 will have to pay, including:

 Cases where a planning application was submitted before 1 April 2012, but not approved by then.  Cases where a borough makes a resolution to grant planning permission before 1 April 2012 but does not formally issue the decision notice until after that date (to allow a section 106 agreement to be signed or referral to the Secretary of State or the Mayor, for example),.

81 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands with rates of £50 / £35 / £20 per square metre of net increase in floor space respectively (see table, below). The proposed development is within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets where the proposed Mayoral charge is £35 per square metre. More details are available via the GLA website http://london.gov.uk/ .

82 Within London both the Mayor and boroughs are able to introduce CIL charges and therefore two distinct CIL charges may be applied to development in future. At the present time, borough CIL charges for Redbridge and Wandsworth are the most advanced. The Mayor’s CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail.

Mayoral CIL London boroughs Rates charging zones (£/sq. m.) 1 Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, £50 Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond-upon-Thames, Wandsworth

2 Barnet, Brent, Bromley, Ealing, Greenwich, Hackney, £35 Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Redbridge, Southwark, Tower Hamlets

3 Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Croydon, Enfield, £20 Havering, Newham, Sutton, Waltham Forest

Local planning authority’s position

83 The application is likely to be considered by Tower Hamlet Council’s planning committee in June 2012.

page 14 Legal considerations

84 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

85 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

86 London Plan polices on redevelopment, density, design, access, housing and play space, climate change and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reason:  Principle of development: The proposal provides a mix of commercial and residential uses and seeks to optimise the development potential of the site; as such it complies with London Plan policy 2.13 of the London Plan.

 Density: It is not clear if the applicant’s suggested density of 1,660 habitable rooms per hectare includes the non residential uses. As such it is not possible to determine whether the proposed density complies with policies 3.4 and 3.5 of the London Plan.

 Urban design: The proposal is inconsistent with London Plan policies on design.  Access: In general the proposal has a high standard of accessibility. As such the proposal complies with policy 7.2 of the London Plan.  Child play space: Insufficient information has been provided to assess the quantum and quality of play space provided, as such it is not possible to ascertain whether the proposal complies with policy 3.6 of the London Plan.  Affordable housing: The applicant’s financial viability assessment should be submitted. The finding of which will need to be independently appraised to ensure the proposal provides the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing to comply with policy 3.12 of the London Plan.  Climate change mitigation: The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. The proposals are broadly acceptable; however, further information is required to assess whether the application complies with the London Plan energy policies.

 Climate change adaptation: The proposal includes green roofs, sustainable urban drainage, a rainwater harvesting system and water efficient and low flow appliances. As such the proposal complies with the climate change adaptation policies contained within chapter 4A of the London Plan.

page 15  Transport: TfL has no significant objections to the principle of the proposed development, however further work is required by the applicant in order to comply with the transport policies of the London Plan detailed in chapter 3A.

87 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan. The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Density: The applicant should provide a plot ratio to ascertain the true density of the proposal before the application is referred back to the Mayor.  Urban design: Concerns regarding the layout, height and massing need to be addressed before the application is referred back to the Mayor.  Play space: Further information requested in paragraph 40 should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.  Affordable housing: The applicant’s viability assessment needs to be submitted and independently assessed before the application is referred back to the Mayor.  Climate change mitigation: The additional information requested in paragraphs 48 – 58 should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.  Transport: The additional information requested in paragraphs 61 – 74 should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

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] Kim Tagliarini, Case Officer 020 7983 6589 email [email protected]

page 16