planning report GLA/4463a/02 26 November 2018 Britannia Leisure Centre, in the London Borough of Hackney planning application no. 2018/0926

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

The proposal Hybrid planning application for the demolition of existing leisure centre and redevelopment of the site to provide a secondary school, a replacement leisure centre and an ‘Early Years Centre’ and up to 481 residential units, within 6 blocks of three to 25 stories

The applicant The applicant is Hackney Council and the architects are Faulkner Browns Architects and Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios.

Key dates Stage 1 considered: 22 May 2018 Hackney Council Planning Committee: 5 November 2018

Strategic issues Affordable housing: It is proposed to provide 19% affordable housing, comprising 60% affordable rent and 40% shared ownership, which was considered to be unacceptable in isolation at consultation stage; however, it was noted that it was cross-subsidising the provision of a secondary school and a replacement leisure centre. Since consultation stage, the applicant has illustrated the ‘equivalent’ affordable housing of the school and the leisure centre, which shows that the school is broadly equivalent to 20% affordable housing and the leisure centre to 25% affordable housing. Taken together with the actual affordable housing offer, it could be said that the proposals, in financial terms, are equivalent to the provision of 64% affordable housing. In this instance, whilst the affordable housing offer is not acceptable in isolation, when considered as part of the wider package of social infrastructure benefits, the proposals are, on balance, acceptable. Further, early and late stage reviews have been secured, with the late stage review ensuring that 100% of any surplus generated is put back into affordable housing. Other strategic issues raised at consultation stage have been satisfactorily addressed, and appropriate planning conditions and obligations have been secured.

The Council’s decision In this instance Hackney Council has resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

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

page 1 Context

1 On 27 March 2018, the Mayor of London received documents from Hackney Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses.

2 The application is referable under Category 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

• Category 1A: Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats. • Category 1B: Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres. • Category 1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London 3 On 22 May 2018, the Mayor considered planning report GLA/4436a/01, and subsequently advised Hackney Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 72 of that report could address these deficiencies.

4 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 5 November 2018, Hackney Council (hereafter, the Council) resolved to grant planning permission in accordance with officer’s recommendation, and on 13 November 2018, advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Hackney Council to refuse planning permission under Article 6, or issue a direction, under Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with Article 7 of the 2008 Order, that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 27 November 2018 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

5 The Mayor’s decision on this case, and the reasons, will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Consultation stage issues summary

6 At the consultation stage, Hackney Council was advised that, whilst the application was broadly supported in strategic planning terms, it did not comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan for the following reasons:

• Principle of development: The proposed masterplan-led redevelopment of the site, including up to 481 residential units, a replacement leisure centre, with qualitative improvements to facilities, and a secondary school is strongly supported in principle. • Affordable housing: It is proposed to provide 19% affordable housing, comprising 59% social rent and 41% shared ownership. In isolation, this affordable housing offer is unacceptable. However, it is acknowledged that the residential development is enabling development to cross subsidise the provision of the school and the leisure centre. The applicant’s financial viability assessment will, therefore, be robustly

page 2 interrogated by GLA officers. The applicant should confirm whether amending the tenure mix of the present proposal would result in a greater affordable housing offer. • Leisure centre and open space designation: It is proposed to construct the leisure centre on locally designated open space, resulting in a loss of 3,421 sq.m of previously developed open space. The applicant is proposing 3,220 sq.m of new open space to offset this loss. Quantitative and qualitative improvements to leisure facilities are also proposed; however, before the proposals can be considered acceptable in line with London Plan Policy 7.18 and draft London Plan Policy G4, the applicant must explore opportunities to provide an additional 201 sq.m of open space to ensure no net loss and provide details on any proposed community uses of the building. • Urban design: The applicant has engaged positively with GLA officers in both the preapplication and application process, which is welcomed. Notwithstanding this, further information is required on the following: methods to mitigate overlooking into the school grounds; the articulation of the ground floor of blocks H1 and H2; winter views of the scheme; and inclusive access. • Energy: Further information is required on the following: the ‘be lean’ element of the hierarchy; the proposed connection to the adjacent Colville Estate energy network; and the Combined Heat and Power Network. • Transport: The bus trip generation data must be updated with school exit and entry times and provided to TfL. Once this has been provided, TfL will assess whether any mitigation measures are required. A Travel Plan, Outline Construction Logistics Plan and Delivery and Servicing Plan must be secured by condition. Strategic planning and guidance update

7 The revised National Planning Policy Framework was adopted in July 2018, and the Minor Suggested Changes to the draft London Plan were published in August 2018. Update

8 Since the Stage 1, GLA officers have engaged in discussion with the applicant, the Council and TfL to address the outstanding issues. Having regards to this, an assessment against the outstanding strategic issues raised at the consultation stage is set out below.

Principle of development

9 The proposed masterplan-led redevelopment of the site, with 481 residential units, a replacement leisure centre and a new secondary school, was strongly supported in principle at consultation stage.

Housing

10 At consultation stage, the applicant proposed to provide 19% affordable housing by habitable room, comprised of 59.3% affordable rent and 39.7% intermediate, which was considered to be unacceptable in isolation; however, it was acknowledged that the proposals cross- subsidised a replacement leisure centre and a new secondary school, which limited the ability of the applicant to provide additional affordable housing. The applicant was asked to consider alternative tenure mixes and provide the school and leisure centre as an ‘affordable housing equivalent’.

11 The applicant has subsequently run an alternate appraisal, maintaining all assumptions, to show that were all the affordable units proposed to be shared ownership, the scheme could provide an additional 22 units, equivalent to 5% affordable housing overall. Whilst this would result in a higher ‘headline’ affordable housing offer, GLA officers consider that the proposed offer is preferable due to the mix of tenures proposed and the high number of social rented units, both of page 3 which ensure mixed and balanced communities. In addition, and as set out in the consultation response, prior to the submission of the application, Hackney Council’s cabinet considered various tenure splits and opted to provide a mix of tenures on the site, where affordable rent was prioritised.

12 The applicant has run appraisals to illustrate the ‘equivalent’ affordable housing of the school and the leisure centre (based upon values from the same tenure split as the proposed affordable housing). This work shows that the school is broadly equivalent to 20% affordable housing, whilst the leisure centre costs are broadly equivalent to 25% affordable housing. Taken together with the actual affordable housing offer, it could be said that the proposals, in financial terms, are equivalent to the provision of 64% affordable housing. The applicant’s Financial Viability Assessment has been reviewed by GLA officers, and it has been confirmed that 19% affordable housing is the maximum that the scheme could support as it is clear that the school and the leisure centre are impacting the amount of affordable housing that could be provided. In this instance, whilst the affordable housing offer is not acceptable in isolation, when considered as part of the wider package of social infrastructure benefits, the proposals are, on balance, considered to be acceptable.

13 In addition, the applicant has confirmed that they do not qualify for GLA grant to increase the supply of affordable housing and have explored alternative funding mechanisms for the secondary school and leisure centre. The ESFA is providing c.£21 million for the secondary school; however, the applicant argues that this is not sufficient alone to provide a secondary school on par with other schools in the borough and the Council seeks to ensure parity in terms of educational facilities across the borough. In terms of funding for the leisure centre, whilst two possible capital funds are available, the project could not qualify for either.

14 As the scheme cannot be considered under the Fast Track route, early stage and late stage reviews have been attached to the unilateral undertaking, in accordance with the draft London Plan.

Leisure centre and open space designation

15 At consultation stage, it was noted that it would not be possible to construct the new leisure centre on the footprint of the existing leisure centre due to the need to keep the existing centre open whilst the new centre is constructed. As such, it was proposed to develop the leisure centre on the existing tennis courts, which lie within Shoreditch Park, an area of Locally Designated Open Space, with the courts re-provided on the roof of the proposed building. As set out at consultation stage, it was not considered that the applicant had adequately justified developing on Locally Designated Open Space and it was noted that the overall loss of 201 sq.m. open space must be offset by equivalent provision.

16 Since consultation stage, the applicant has provided a study of all Council owned assets within a 1-kilometre radius of the existing centre, noting the need to remain close to their existing customers and not to overlap with the catchment of other Hackney Council Leisure Centres. The study shows that the only sites of a sufficient size, also owned by the Council, are residential estates, with the exception of a site containing a Pupil Referral Unit and a site that is entirely open space. It is accepted that there are no alternative Council-owned sites within a reasonable vicinity that the replacement leisure centre could be constructed upon.

17 The proposals would result in the loss of 3,421 sq.m of open space, all of which is previously developed. The proposals would create 3,220 sq.m of replacement open space throughout the development, which aides in blurring the boundaries of the park through visually and physically pulling green space, or ‘bettered’ open space onto the surrounding roads. In addition to the 3,220 sq.m of replacement open space, the applicant also proposes to provide the following: a courtyard, between blocks H3 and H4, which would be 470 sq.m; a secondary school playground, which would be 3,380sq.m; and a roof-top play area and MUGA, both of which will be page 4 available for out-of-hours community use, measuring 1,555sq.m. In this regard, noting the quantum of replacement of open space as well as the additional facilities and open playspace, it is considered that the proposals comply with London Plan Policy 7.18 and draft London Plan Policy G4

18 The applicant had stated in its application documents that all facilities within the existing facility are to be re-provided within the proposed facility. Since consultation stage, the applicant has confirmed that they are not proposing to re-provide the climbing wall, which lies within the existing sports hall. In order to justify the loss of this facility, in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.19 and draft London Plan Policy S5, the applicant has provided visitor information, which shows that the facility was visited just 108 times in 2017/2018. In addition to low usage, the facility is small, occupying half the length of one of the sport’s halls walls, whereas there are dedicated, large-scale climbing facilities within the borough at the Castle Climbing Centre, in Manor House, or at the Boulder Project. In this regard, the loss of the climbing wall, which is part of the sports hall rather than a distinct facility, is accepted.

Educational facilities

19 A financial contribution of £1million to Shoreditch Primary School for the upgrading of the facilities has been secured in the unilateral undertaking. In addition, the commitment to the community use of the school’s facilities is secured through condition.

Urban design

20 The design was supported at consultation stage; however, GLA officers had some concerns with regard to: overlooking into the school grounds; the articulation of the ground floor blocks of H1 and H2; winter views of the scheme; and inclusive access.

21 In order to limit overlooking from the residential units within blocks H5 and H6 onto the secondary school playground and to address concerns raised by GLA officers at consultation stage, the design code has been updated with the following requirements: primary living spaces with openings on the northern elevation should be avoided; two bedroom units should be located on corners to give reception rooms multiple outlooks; the base of the blocks will have obscured elevations to a height of 5.5 metres to align with the height of the school; and all balconies will be recessed to minimise direct overlooking and provide barrier.

22 In order to maximise activity on Bridport Place, the applicant has confirmed that the western elevation of blocks H1 and H2 will contain the two primary residential entrances into the building as well as the entrance to the Early Years Centre. Further, the cycle store is located at a mezzanine level to limit inactive frontages. Taken together, it is considered that there will be sufficient activity throughout the day to ensure that Bridgport Place feels safe and will benefit from some passive surveillance.

23 As requested at consultation stage, a winter view from Pitfield Street, looking northward, has been provided, which shows that Shoreditch Park is still visible from the Pitfield Street as well as indicating that the large deciduous trees will provide some screening.

24 In terms of inclusive design, the applicant has identified the wheelchair accessible units on the floorplans of blocks H1 and H2, submitted in detail, and have committed to providing 10% wheelchair units in the subsequent reserved matters applications. In addition, the applicant presented to the Mayor’s Inclusive Design and Access Panel in August 2018, to discuss the public elements of the proposals with the panel members, which was welcomed. A number of design amendments were made as a result of the Access Panel, including amending detailed design of Northport Street and seat heights for street furniture.

page 5 25 Finally, the language of the Design Code has been updated to read as requirements, rather than options.

Energy

26 The proposed climate change mitigation measures were broadly supported at consultation stage and all additional information has been provided or secured through conditions and planning obligations. The application therefore complies with London Plan Policies 5.2, 5.10, 5.12 and 5.13 and draft London Plan policies SI2, SI3 and SI13.

Transport

27 At consultation stage, TfL raised concerns regarding Blue Badge parking, queried the bus trip generation data and requested that revisions are made to details of the development and additional information be provided. Since consultation stage, TfL officers have engaged in further discussions with the Council and the applicant and these matters have now been addressed.

28 A Demolition and Construction Management Plan, a Travel Plan, car-free development, highways works, contributions towards the implementation of a car club have all been secured by condition or obligation.

29 The applicant and Council’s aspiration to create a walkable and cyclable neighbourhood, in which travel by public transport and even more so by active travel are dominant, is supported.

30 In summary, TfL is satisfied that the proposed development is in general accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan and draft London Plan. Response to consultation

Response from neighbours

31 The Council advertised the application with a local press notice and through site notices. In addition, the Council issued 988 letters notifying neighbours of the proposals in and issued further letters for the subsequent re-consultations, which ended in September 2018 and November 2018 respectively. The Council received 169 public representations from neighbours, of which 147 objected to the proposals, 17 supported the proposal and 54 respondents made neutral comments. 32 The primary reasons for objection can be summarised as follows: • Design, landscape, biodiversity and impact upon the character of the area; • Impact on local amenity and air quality due to construction activity and also once operational; • Transport impacts, including impact on public transport capacity, car parking, road closures and potential construction vehicle conflicts with cycles; • Fails to comply with Hackney Council’s 50% affordable housing target; • Risk of scheme failure and wider tax-payer risk due to the phasing of the affordable housing, school and leisure centre first; • Poor public consultation and concern that the new leisure centre will cater to ‘richer clientele’; and • Impact on heritage and on Shoreditch Park. 33 The letters of support can be summarised as follows: • Improve existing facilities;

page 6 • Welcome the aesthetics of the proposed centre; • Will enable the temporary school within Park to be relocated into proper facilities; and • Enable the whole community to benefit from rising land values; Response from statutory organisations 34 Representations were made from the following non-statutory organisations: • Metropolitan Police [Design Out Crime] – No objection, subject to a Secured by Design condition. An appropriate condition has been attached to the decision notice. • Sport England – No objection, as Sport England consider that the proposals meet exception 5 of Sport England’s policy, subject to a condition which requires the facilities are built in accordance with Sport England Technical Details. An appropriate condition has been attached to the decision notice. • Thames Water – No objection, subject to a condition requiring details of any piling to be submitted and a condition requiring a housing and delivery plan to be submitted to show how the new development will coincide with the required works for upgrading the system. An appropriate condition has been attached to the decision notice. • Historic England (GLAAS) – No objection, subject to condition. An appropriate condition has been attached to the decision notice. • Historic England – Stated that the application should be determined in accordance with local specialist conservation advice. An appropriate condition has been attached to the decision notice. • Crossrail Safeguarding – No objection subject to the imposition of a standard condition. An appropriate condition has been attached to the decision notice. • Islington Council – No comment. Response from non-statutory bodies and other organisations

35 Responses were also received from the following groups: • Save Britannia Leisure Centre Group – Objected on the following grounds: height and scale of development would be harmful and obtrusive; scheme is too dense; results in loss of open space; provides low affordable housing and there is a lack of transparency of viability information; concerns with mix; concerns with daylight sunlight; lack of car parking and Blue Badge parking; effects on local businesses and employment; concerns that the centre would be more expensive; no need for new school due to excess capacity; and impact during construction. • Anthology – Group are developing the adjacent site and raised concerns regarding non-compliance with planning policy, scheme viability resulting in an overdeveloped site, impact on daylight and sunlight, excessive bulk and scale and lack of transparency in viability. • City of London Academy – Group are the future occupiers of the school building and support the proposals. • Hackney Society – Concern raised regarding the masterplan and whether alternative configurations and options were pursued and the development of a ‘cluster’ of tall buildings; however, states that they considered that additional work could be done in order to reduce bulk and dominance over the streetscape.

page 7 36 It is noted that, having considered the above consultation responses, Hackney Council has provided specific responses within its Committee Report or within the draft Unilateral Undertaking. Having had regard to these, GLA officers are satisfied that the statutory and non-statutory responses to the Council’s consultation process do not raise any material planning issues of strategic importance that have not already been considered at consultation stage, and/or in this report. Representations received directly by the Mayor 37 In addition to the above, 27 letters of objection were received by the Mayor or GLA. The reasons for objection are summarised as follows: • Existing leisure centre has sentimental value; • Existing leisure centre could be retrofitted at a lower cost; • Concern with development on the existing tennis courts, within Shoreditch Park, and consider that temporary loss of facilities would be preferable. • Re-provision of tennis courts on the roof of the proposed building would cause antisocial behaviour and limit accessibility; • Air quality and noise impacts during construction; • Low affordable housing and low number of family-sized units; • No need for new school or consider that alternative sites were not adequately explored; • Concerns with democratic process and the viability of the scheme as Hackney Council is developer; • Proposed development is too tall and dense; • Impact upon the Colville Estate; • Traffic impacts during construction and once operational; • Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing concerns; and • Lack of Blue Badge parking. Unilateral undertaking heads of terms

38 The following have been secured within the Unilateral Undertaking:

• Provision of a minimum of 81 affordable units, including 48 social rented units and 33 shared ownership units; • Early and late stage review mechanisms; • Employment and Skills Plan and local labour during construction, including contribution of £1,500 per apprentice as approved in the Employment and Skills Plan; • Car-free development, car-club and contribution of £10,000 for membership of car- club; • Highways works and contribution of £128,115; • Travel Plan; • Carbon offset contribution; • Open space contribution of £68,095; and • Contribution of £1,000,000 to mitigate the loss of playground area at Shoreditch Park School and provision of an early years’ facility.

page 8 Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

39 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance, the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and planning obligations which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at consultation stage. There are, therefore, no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application.

Legal considerations

40 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the Mayor has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations

41 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government Planning Practice Guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal. Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy. Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion

42 The strategic issues raised at consultation stage regarding the principle of development, housing, the leisure centre and open space designation, educational facilities, urban design, energy and transport have been satisfactorily addressed, and appropriate planning conditions or obligations have been secured. As such the application complies with the London Plan and draft London Plan, and there are no sound reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this case.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit: Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] John Finlayson, Head of Development Management 020 7084 2632 email: [email protected] Graham Clements, Team Leader 020 7983 4265 email [email protected] Vanessa Harrison, Principal Strategic Planner (Case Officer) 020 7983 4467 email [email protected]

page 9