September 2009 1 COLUMBUS TOWER

COLUMBUS TOWER DEVELOPMENT, 2 HERTSMERE ROAD, LONDON, E14 4AB

REVIEW OF DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT AND OVERSHADOWING EFFECTS

Prepared on behalf of the Greater

London Authority

September 2009 1

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL

Offices also in T 020 7837 4477 Cardiff F 020 7837 2277 Manchester Newcastle upon Tyne [email protected] www.nlpplanning.com COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

Executive Summary

1.1 This report reviews the Gordon Ingram Associates (GIA) Daylight and Sunlight Assessment and supplementary information submitted in support of the planning application for the Columbus Tower development at No. 2 Hertsmere Road, London E14 4AB (LBTH Ref. No. PA/08/02709). The review has been prepared on behalf of the Greater London Authority to assist the Mayor of London in determining the application. It considers the acceptability of the scope of the assessment, the accuracy of the daylight and sunlight modelling and results and the validity of the conclusions drawn. It also provides a commentary on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets determination of the application in terms of daylight and sunlight matters.

1.2 The review confirms that the scope of the assessment is appropriate in terms of the neighbouring properties and areas of amenity space assessed. The methodology and significance criteria employed in the assessment are also considered generally acceptable.

1.3 Comparison daylight and sunlight plots have been undertaken to verify the accuracy and precision of the data on which the assessment is based. The calculations corroborate the accuracy of GIA’s daylight and sunlight modelling and the validity of the assessment results.

1.4 GIA’s daylight and sunlight assessment concludes that, whilst the development will result in some breaches of the relevant Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance, the daylight and sunlight effects will, on balance, be acceptable. In NLP’s professional opinion, these conclusions are reasonable.

1.5 The review provides a commentary on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets determination of the planning application in terms of daylight and sunlight impacts. The Council’s first committee report (from the 25 June 2009 committee meeting where the application was recommended for approval) concludes that, while the development will result in some losses of daylight and sunlight, the impacts are, on balance considered acceptable. We would broadly agree with these conclusions. The Council’s second committee report (04 August 2009) does not provide any evidence for justifying its change in stance in relation to the development’s daylight and sunlight effects. Having reviewed the daylight and sunlight assessment and the officer’s reports, there is no basis for the Council’s second reason for refusing the application on daylight and sunlight grounds.

1.6 In NLP’s professional opinion, taking account of the flexible nature of the BRE guidance, the character of the site and its surroundings and the benchmarks set by the previously approved development at the site and other existing and emerging developments in Canary Wharf, the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing effects arising as a result of the Columbus Tower development

12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

would, on balance, be acceptable and it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission on these grounds.

12118/752088v1752088_1.DOC

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

Contents 4

Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Background 3

3.0 Scope of Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 5 Neighbouring Properties and Amenity Space Assessed 5 Assessment Methodology and Significant Criteria 6 Scope of Assessment: Summary 7

4.0 Analysis of Daylight and Sunlight Results 9

5.0 Data Interpretation and Conclusions 10 Daylight and Sunlight Assessment: Results and Conclusions 10 NLP Interpretation of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 11

6.0 Commentary on the Council’s Interpretation of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 14 London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Strategic Development Committee (25 June 2009) 14 London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Strategic Development Committee (04 August 2009) 15 Summary: LB Tower Hamlets Interpretation of Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 15

7.0 Summary and Conclusions 17 Scope of Assessment 17 Modelling and Data Accuracy 17 Data Interpretation and Assessment Conclusions 17 The Council’s Interpretation of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 18 Overall Conclusions 18

12118/752088v1752088_1.DOC

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

Tables

Table 5.1: Comparison between the daylight and sunlight impacts arising from the Columbus Tower development and other recently approved developments

Appendices

Appendix 1: Supplementary VSC results for additional residential properties surrounding the site Appendix 2: Results of comparison VSC plots for a sample of window reference points assessed

12118/752088v1752088_1.DOC

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This report provides a review of the daylight and sunlight assessment and supplementary information submitted in support of the planning application for the Columbus Tower development at No. 2 Hertsmere Road, London E14 4AB (LBTH Ref. No. PA/08/02709). It also considers the approach taken by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to the assessment of these issues in its committee reports when addressing PA/08/02709. The review has been prepared on behalf of the Greater London Authority to assist the Mayor of London in determining the application.

1.2 Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) is an independent town planning consultancy with a specialist daylight and sunlight team, which provides advice to local planning authorities, developers, architects and third parties regarding daylight and sunlight issues relating to the planning process.

1.3 The daylight and sunlight assessment submitted in support of the planning application was undertaken by Gordon Ingram Associates in December 2008 (Environmental Statement; Chapter 09). The ES Chapter also addressed the development’s effects in terms of light pollution and solar glare. This review addresses daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts only.

1.4 This review has been undertaken in the context of relevant planning policy and guidance, as well as the BRE daylight and sunlight guidance (B uilding Research Establishment ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’; 1991 ). It has been based on the following documents and information sources:

• Columbus Tower Environmental Statement: Chapter 09 - Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing, Light Pollution and Solar Glare (Gordon Ingram Associates; December 2008); • Columbus Tower Environmental Statement: Appendix 10.2 – Detailed Results of the Daylight and Sunlight Analysis (Gordon Ingram Associates; December 2008); • Summary reporting letter dated 16 July ’09 providing a synopsis of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment (Gordon Ingram Associates; 16.07.09); • Columbus Tower Environmental Statement: - Regulation 19 Response (URS); • Columbus Tower Consultation ‘Sweep Up’ (GVA Grimley 09.04.09); • Columbus Tower Consultation ‘Sweep Up’ – Appendix D (URS; April 2009); • Three Dimensional AutoCAD Daylight and Sunlight Model (Gordon Ingram Associates; December 2008); • Planning application drawings for the Columbus Tower development (Mark Weintraub Architecture and Design; December 2008); • Planning application drawings for approved neighbouring developments (10 Garford Street; Mary Jones House; Matthew House and Riverside House).

P1/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

1.5 The review is structured as follows:

• Section 2.0 provides an overview of the background to this review of the daylight and sunlight assessment; • Section 3.0 provides a comprehensive review of the scope of the submitted GIA daylight and sunlight assessment to ensure all neighbouring residential properties requiring assessment have been considered. It also provides a critique of the methodology and significance criteria used in the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing analyses. • Section 4.0 considers the validity of the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing modelling and calculations on which the daylight and sunlight assessment is based. A sample of comparison daylight and sunlight plots/calculations have been undertaken to confirm the data’s accuracy. • Section 5.0 provides a review of the data interpretation and conclusions drawn in the daylight and sunlight assessment. • Section 6.0 provides a commentary on Tower Hamlets interpretation of the daylight and sunlight assessment in its determination of the application. • Section 7.0 provides a summary of this review and our conclusions are drawn.

P2/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

2.0 Background

2.1 The application site, No. 2 Hertsmere Road, is situated on Hertsmere Road at the Western end of West India Dock North in the Canary Wharf area of Tower Hamlets. It covers an area of 0.356 hectares and is currently occupied by Hertsmere House, a four storey office building constructed in the late 1980s. The areas to the east, south and south west of the site are commercial in use, while the areas to the north and west include residential accommodation, which requires consideration in terms of potential daylight and sunlight effects.

2.2 A planning application was submitted by the current applicant, Commercial Estates Group, in June 2003 for the construction of a 63 storey commercial tower at the site (Tower Hamlets Ref. No. PA/03/00475). The application was considered by the London borough of Tower Hamlets’ Development Committee on 18 March 2004 and the committee resolved to grant planning permission for the development. The Mayor of London confirmed he was content for the application to be determined by Tower Hamlets on 14 April 2004. The s106 agreement was completed on 02 March 2005. The application, therefore, remains extant, though is due to expire on 02 March 2010.

2.3 The applicant submitted a fresh application for the site’s redevelopment on 24 December 2008 (Tower Hamlets Ref. No. PA/08/02709). The new application includes some modest amendments to the previously approved development including adjustments to the scheme’s external plan form, revisions to the detailed design of roof and podium and alterations to the tower’s elevation treatment. It remains essentially unchanged from the previously approved development in terms of height, scale, massing and envelope (i.e. issues of relevance to the assessment of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing).

2.4 The new application was considered by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Strategic Development Committee on 25 June 2009 with a recommendation for approval by officers. At the committee meeting, however, Members indicated that they were minded to refuse the application (based on design and daylight and sunlight impacts) and it was deferred until the following meeting to allow officers to formulate the reasons for refusal. This accords with the Council’s protocol for dealing with situations where members disagree with an officers recommendation. The application was subsequently reported to the committee on 04 August 2009 with a recommendation for refusal, which was supported by Members. Planning Permission was refused for two reasons, including the following (Reason for Refusal 2):

P3/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

• The proposed development would result in unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight to nearby residential properties and as such is contrary to saved policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies DEV1 and DEV2 of Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007): Core Strategy and Development Control, which seek to ensure development does not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.

2.5 The Mayor of London has recovered the planning application and will determine it himself under Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

P4/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

3.0 Scope of Daylight and Sunlight Assessment

Neighbouring Properties and Amenity Space Assessed

3.1 NLP has undertaken a site visit and photographic survey of the site and surroundings to establish whether the scope of the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing analyses is acceptable in relation to existing properties and amenity spaces, and emerging residential developments in the vicinity of the site. The following provides a critique of the scope of the assessment.

Daylight and Sunlight Assessment

3.2 The Gordon Ingram Associates Daylight and Sunlight Assessment has considered the effects of the development on the daylight and sunlight levels received by the following residential properties and groups of properties in the vicinity of the site:

• 1-19 Garford Street (odd); • 10-18 Garford Street (even); • Flynn Court; • Greig House; • Mary Jones House (emerging residential development); • Matthew House (recent residential development); • Port East Building; • Riverside House (recent residential development).

3.3 All of the residential accommodation within these buildings with windows orientated towards the site has been assessed in terms of daylighting. The windows orientated within 90 degrees of due south have also been assessed in relation to sunlight availability.

3.4 There are a number of other residential and mixed use buildings situated in the wider area surrounding the site, which have not been considered in the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment. Whilst these buildings would not typically require analysis in relation to the daylight and sunlight effects of new development; given the scale and height of the Columbus Tower development, it may be considered that they also require analysis in this case. As such, we have undertaken a series of additional Vertical Sky Component (VSC; ambient daylight) calculations for the most sensitive windows serving residential units within the following residential buildings 1.

• Rogers Court, Garford Street • Kelly Court, Garford Street • Nos. 50-60 Westferry Road

1 The calculations have been base on the effects of the development in isolation; no cumulative effects analysis has been undertaken for these properties

P5/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

• Eaton House, Westferry Road; • Berkeley Tower, Westferry Road

3.5 In all cases, the results of these calculations demonstrate that the residential units within these buildings comply fully with the BRE guidelines for VSC with the development in place (i.e. corroborating the scope of the daylight and sunlight assessment). The results are attached at Appendix 1.

3.6 It is noted that the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment does not consider the natural light levels that would be received within the proposed serviced apartment accommodation within the Columbus Tower developments itself. However, serviced apartments are not a C3 residential use, and, as such, do not strictly require assessment under the BRE guidance.

3.7 On the basis of the site visit, photographic survey and the additional VSC plots undertaken, the scope of the daylight and sunlight assessment is considered sufficiently comprehensive. In the case of the recent and emerging residential developments assessed (Mary Jones House, Matthew House and Riverside House), we can also confirm that the daylight and sunlight model on which the assessment is based includes room layouts and fenestration derived from the approved planning application drawings.

3.8 The assessment has also considered the cumulative effects and interactions arising from the Columbus Tower development and other emerging developments in the area (Heron Quays West; One Park Place; Newfoundland; and, Riverside South). Again, we can confirm that the scope of the cumulative effects analysis is acceptable.

Overshadowing Assessment

3.9 The Overshadowing analysis has considered he effects of the development on neighbouring areas of amenity space and gardens situated to the north of the site, including pedestrian areas flanking West India Dock and the rear gardens serving Nos. 10-18 Garford Road. The scope of the overshadowing assessment is considered acceptable.

Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

3.10 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the methodology and guidelines set out in the BRE Guidance (B uilding Research Establishment ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’; 1991 ) and in conjunction with British Standard BS8206 Part II. The BRE guide provides the standard assessment tool for undertaking daylight, sunlight and overshadowing analyses. The following provides an analysis of the assessment methodology and significance criteria used in the daylight, sunlight and shadow analyses.

Daylight

3.11 The daylight assessment has been based on the calculation of Vertical Sky Component (VSC), Daylight Distribution (No Sky Contour; NSC) and Average

P6/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

Daylight Factor (ADF) for all of the residential units requiring assessment listed above. The use of all three of these methods of analysis is appropriate in principle.

3.12 It is noted that the assessment of ADF and NSC for several of the neighbouring properties is based on assumptions of approximate room uses and internal layouts and dimensions (i.e. where floorplans are not available). This approach diminishes the accuracy of these analyses somewhat, in particular in relation to the ADF calculations. In addition, the results of the ADF calculations are presented principally in relation to a target/threshold of 1.5%. The BRE guide states that this guide level should be applied to living/dining rooms, but that a target of 2% should be applied in relation to kitchens. Given that the uses of a number of the rooms assessed are not known it may have been more appropriate to apply a significance criteria of 2% (i.e. adopting a worst case scenario); albeit the levels of compliance with a 2% target are still indicated in the ES chapter and presumably informed the conclusions drawn.

3.13 The assumptions made in the daylight analyses and the limitations of the ADF calculations are generally recognised in the ES chapter and appendices and the daylight analysis carried out for the rooms for which assumptions have been made has principally been based on the VSC and NSC results. In addition, GIA has provided the parameters used elsewhere in the ADF calculations (for room surface reflectance and glass transparency etc), all of which are acceptable.

3.14 On balance, the general approach to the daylight assessment is considered acceptable.

Sunlight

3.15 The sunlight analyses have been based on the calculation of annual probable sunlight hours and winter sunlighting received by all windows within the properties assessed that are orientated within 90 degrees of due south. The assessment methodology and significance criteria employed in the sunlight analysis are consistent with BRE guidance.

Overshadowing

3.16 The overshadowing analyses are based on transient overshadowing plots and permanent shadow calculations. The assessment methodology and significance criteria used in the permanent overshadowing analysis are consistent with BRE guidance.

Scope of Assessment: Summary

3.17 The scope of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment is considered appropriate in terms of the neighbouring properties and gardens/amenity spaces assessed. A sample of additional VSC calculations has demonstrated that there are no other surrounding residential properties requiring detailed assessment.

P7/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

3.18 The assessment has been undertaken in general accordance with BRE guidance. The internal daylight (ADF) calculations have been based on assumed room dimensions for certain properties. Nonetheless, the assessment has been based on all available information for the properties assessed and the limitations of the analyses are generally recognised in the ES chapter and appendices. In addition, the analysis carried out for the rooms where assumptions have been made has principally been based on the VSC and NSC results.

3.19 The scope and methodology and significance criteria used in the overshadowing analyses are considered generally appropriate and in accordance with BRE guidance.

3.20 Overall, therefore, the scope of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment and the methodological approach adopted is considered acceptable.

P8/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

4.0 Analysis of Daylight and Sunlight Results

4.1 The daylight and sunlight assessment has considered the effects of the development on eight neighbouring residential properties and groups of properties (listed above). It has considered the development’s impacts on 240 windows serving 170 main rooms and bedrooms within these buildings.

4.2 To verify the accuracy of the results set out in the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, NLP has undertaken 20 comparison VSC plots/calculations for a sample of windows serving the residential properties assessed. These comprise the most sensitive windows within the following buildings (referencing follows the GIA Assessment):

• 1-3 Garford Street (W2/3001) • 5-7 Garford Street (W1/2901) • 9-11 Garford Street (W2/2801) • 13-15 Garford Street (W1/1701) • 17-19 Garford Street (W1/2601) • 10-12 Garford Street (W5/2401) • 14 Garford Street (W2/1401) • 16-18 Garford Street (W2/2500) • Flynn Court (W3/2300); • Flynn Court (W3/2303); • Greig House (W1/302); • Greig House (W2/301); • Mary Jones House development (W3/2200; • Mary Jones House development (W5/2200; • Matthew House (W4/2101); • Matthew House (W4/2102); • Port East Building (W6/701); • Port East Building (W6/702); • Riverside House (W2/2004); • Riverside House (W5/2004).

4.3 The results of the comparison plots confirm the accuracy of the VSC calculations undertaken in the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 2. They also provide verification that the three dimensional AutoCAD model on which the assessment has been based is accurate. The results of these additional plots are attached at Appendix 2.

2 The minor discrepancies (<0.29%) reflect differences between the daylight and sunlight modelling software; however, no substantive differences were identified.

P9/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

5.0 Data Interpretation and Conclusions

Daylight and Sunlight Assessment: Results and Conclusions

5.1 The Daylight and Sunlight Assessment draws the following conclusions in relation to neighbouring properties and areas of amenity space/gardens:

• 1-19 Garford Street (odd): All of the windows assessed comply with the BRE daylight (VSC/NSC) and sunlight (APSH) guide levels. • 10-18 Garford Street (even): 84% of windows comply with the BRE daylight (VSC) guide levels; 94% comply with the BRE sunlight (APSH) guide levels. The windows that do not comply with the BRE guide levels represent marginal breaches of the VSC/APSH guide levels and/or the permissible degree of change. • Flynn Court: All of the windows assessed comply with the BRE daylight (VSC/NSC) and sunlight (APSH) guide levels. • Greig House: All of the windows assessed comply with the BRE daylight (VSC/NSC) and sunlight (APSH) guide levels. • Mary Jones House development: 69% of windows comply with the BRE ambient daylight (VSC) guide levels. All of the remaining windows do not meet the VSC guide level, though most are only marginally below the guide levels and all are compliant either with the ADF 3 or the NSC methods of analysis (or both). The GIA assessment also indicates that these windows are all situated directly below balconies, which create a further obstruction to daylight (i.e. there is a daylight limiting factor inherent in the design f Mary Jones House). 84% of the windows assessed will comply with the BRE sunlight (APSH) guide levels. The remaining breaches of the BRE sunlight guide levels are mostly marginal and are justified by GIA in relation to the dense urban environment in this area. • Matthew House: 44% of windows comply with the BRE ambient daylight (VSC) guide levels. The assessment indicates that the remaining windows are recessed creating a further obstruction to daylight and all will comply with the BRE NSC guide levels. 85% of the windows assessed will comply with the BRE sunlight (APSH) guide levels. The remaining breaches of the BRE sunlight guide levels are justified in the assessment in relation to the dense urban environment in this area. • Port East Building; All of the windows assessed comply with the BRE daylight (VSC/NSC) and sunlight (APSH) guide levels. • Riverside House: 50% of windows comply with the BRE ambient daylight (VSC) guide levels. The remaining windows will comply with the BRE NSC guide levels. 79% of the windows assessed will comply with the BRE sunlight (APSH) guide levels. The remaining breaches of the BRE sunlight guide levels are marginal and are again justified in the assessment in relation to the dense urban environment in this area.

3 Based on a Guide Level of 1.5%

P10/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

• Overshadowing: The assessment concludes that the development will comply fully with the BRE permanent overshadowing guide levels. It also states that the effects in terms of transient overshadowing will be marginal due to the slender nature of the tower and the scale of existing buildings in the area.

5.2 It can be seen from the above that the development would have the greatest daylight and sunlight effects on residential accommodation within the Mary Jones House development, Matthew House and Riverside House. In the case of a number of units within these buildings, the development will result in breaches of the BRE daylight (VSC) and sunlight (APSH) guidance. However, the assessment indicates that these breaches of the guidance are frequently marginal and are justified in relation to the flexible nature of the BRE guidance, the high density, urban character of the area and certain mitigating factors specific to the individual properties (i.e. the location of projecting balconies above the windows or the recessed nature of windows).

5.3 Overall, the Assessment concludes that whilst there are some ‘minor infringements’ of the BRE daylight guidelines, the analysis demonstrates an ‘extremely good’ level of compliance for a development of this scale. In terms of sunlighting, it states that the losses of sunlight to existing properties are isolated and minor and that the retained levels of sunlight are ‘good’ in an urban environment.

5.4 The assessment ultimately concludes that the development’s effects in terms of daylight, sunlight and transient overshadowing represent a negligible to minor adverse impact (the effect in terms of permanent overshadowing is defined as negligible)

NLP Interpretation of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment

5.5 In NLP’s professional opinion, the results of the daylight and sunlight assessment generally show a good level of compliance with the BRE daylight and sunlight guide levels and full compliance with the overshadowing guide levels. The majority of neighbouring residential accommodation would comply with the BRE daylight (VSC) and sunlight (APSH) guide levels with the development in place and most properties would not experience a noticeable effect on their daylight and sunlight levels in the terms set out by the BRE guidance.

5.6 The development would, in certain cases, result in breaches of the BRE guide levels; however, the overall significance of the development’s daylight impacts should be considered in the context of the following factors:

i The proportion of the neighbouring residential properties that are likely to experience levels of daylight and sunlight below the guide levels is low. The impacts are therefore relatively localised and do not extend across all residential properties surrounding the site;

P11/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

ii The BRE guide indicates that, in interpreting the results of an assessment a degree of flexibility is required; iii The BRE tests are based on a suburban model of development and it is reasonable to assume that expectations of levels of daylight and sunlight will be different in an urban situation, and particularly within the high density, urban environment in the Canary Wharf area; iv An extant planning permission exists at the site for a development of a comparable scale, height and envelope to the current development; v The Canary Wharf area of Tower Hamlets includes a number of existing and emerging developments of a broadly similar scale and height to the Columbus Tower development (the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts of recent/emerging developments are explored below); vi The site is currently occupied by a relatively low rise building and, as such, the baseline daylight and sunlight levels at several neighbouring properties are higher than might otherwise be expected in this area. This exacerbates the degree of change in natural light levels resulting from the proposal; vii Several of the windows that will not adhere to the BRE guide levels, will receive daylight levels below the relevant guide levels as they comprise recessed windows or are located directly below projecting balconies; viii Both strategic and local planning policy of relevance to the site’s redevelopment encourages the development of higher density developments and schemes which maximise the use of accessible sites. The weight that is attached to the BRE guidelines therefore needs to reflect the existing and emerging policy framework, which in turn reflects the location of the site within a high density, urban location; ix The BRE guidelines were published fifteen years ago (1991) and hence pre- date the recent planning policy emphasis on the need to utilise existing urban land as efficiently as possible.

5.7 In addition to these factors, and to provide an illustration of the area’s existing and emerging development context, it is helpful to consider the daylight and sunlight impacts of other recently approved developments in the Canary Wharf/Docklands area of Tower Hamlets. As such, Table 5.1 below provides a comparison between the development’s daylight and sunlight effects and those arising from four other developments in the surrounding area. All of these developments have recently been granted planning permission by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Strategic Development Committee.

P12/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

Daylight Sunlight

Development Application No. Windows/ No. (%) below No. (%) below No. (%) below No. (%) Ref No. Rooms VSC Guide NSC Guide ADF Guide below APSH Assessed Levels Levels Levels* Levels Columbus Tower 80 2 102 59 2 Hertsmere Road, 268/170 London E14 4AB (29.85%) (1.18%) (60%) (22.01%) City Pride; 481 234 264 27 15 Westferry Road, PA/08/02293 1479/821 London, E14 8JH (32.52%) (28.50%) (32.16%) (18.25%) Heron Quay West; 608 122 370 10 Heron Quays Road, PA/07/03088 2251/1471 London, E14 (27.05%) (8.29%) (25.15%) (0.44%) Riverside South 294 28 54 25 Westferry Circus, PA/07/00935 1590/1018 London, E14 (18.49) (2.75) (5.30%) (1.57%) Wood Wharf 785 208 742 270 Prestons Road, London, PA/08/1215 2153/1562 E14 (36.46) (13.32) (47.5%) (12.54%) Table 5.1: Comparison between the Daylight and Sunlight Impacts arising from the Columbus Tower Development and other Recently Approved Nearby Developments [Based on data provided by Gordon Ingram Associates and independently verified by NLP. The results represent the independent effects of the respective developments and do not take account of cumulative impacts and interactions. *Summary of ADF results based on a guide level of 1.5% to enable direct comparison with the Columbus Tower Daylight and Sunlight Assessment results.]

5.8 The comparison table demonstrates that the other recently approved developments considered all result in broadly similar breaches of the BRE guide levels to the Columbus Tower development in terms of daylight (VSC, NSC and ADF) and sunlight (APSH). In fact, the Columbus Tower development will result in a smaller number of breaches of the VSC and NSC guide levels than all of the neighbouring developments (in absolute terms). It will also cause a smaller number of breaches of the sunlight availability (APSH) guide levels than the Wood Wharf development. In relative terms, the development will cause a lower proportion of neighbouring properties to receive VSC and NSC levels below the BRE guide levels than several of the neighbouring properties. Whilst the development would result in a higher proportion of breaches of the ADF guide levels than other developments, this is also the case with the existing baseline situation (i.e. many of the neighbouring buildings experience low existing ADF levels as a result of existing obstructions and their layout/design).

5.9 Overall, the table demonstrates that the degree of compliance with the BRE daylight and sunlight guide levels is not inconsistent with the flexible approach taken in relation to other recently approved developments in the Canary Wharf area.

5.10 In NLP’s professional opinion, taking account of the aforementioned factors, and in particular the character of the site and surroundings and the benchmarks set by the previously approved development at the site and other recent and emerging developments nearby, it is considered that the conclusions drawn in the GIA Daylight and Sunlight Assessment are reasonable.

P13/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

6.0 Commentary on the Council’s Interpretation of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment

6.1 As outlined in Section 2.0, the planning application for the Columbus Tower development (PA/08/02709) was considered by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Strategic Development Committee on 25 June 2009 with a recommendation for approval. However, at the committee meeting Members indicated that they were minded to refuse the application and it was deferred until the following meeting. The application was subsequently reported to the committee on 04 August 2009 with a recommendation for refusal, which was upheld by Members, in part on the grounds of the development’s daylight and sunlight effects.

6.2 The following provides a commentary on the Council’s interpretation of the development’s daylight and sunlight impacts during the course of determining the application.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Strategic Development Committee (25 June 2009)

6.3 The Officers report to the Strategic Development Committee meeting on 25 June 2009 includes a comprehensive overview of the submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment and supplementary addendum material (paras. 8.52 – 8.74). The review provides a commentary on the development’s effects on each of the neighbouring residential properties assessed and notes that there will be some noticeable losses of daylight and sunlight to Matthew House, Riverside House and Mary Jones House (as summarised above). The committee report also indicates that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had raised some concerns regarding the development’s daylight and sunlight effects.

6.4 However, the report recognises that, in formulating a recommendation, Officers should give consideration to a site’s context. It also notes that the BRE guidance should be applied flexibly, stating that “…the legitimate expectations of light levels in a low rise suburban town would have to differ from those in a densely built up area.” Taking account of these considerations, the Officers report draws the following conclusions in relation to the development’s daylight and sunlight impacts:

“The site is undoubtedly located in an area where large-scale development is expected, and encouraged, by policy. It is inevitable that in many cases such buildings will have an impact on neighbouring amenity. The resulting light-levels to the properties affected are not untypical in an urban environment. On balance the impact on the amenity of the occupiers is not considered so significant as to warrant the refusal of the application and is acceptable.”

P14/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

6.5 In addition, the ‘Summary of Material Planning Considerations’ in the officer’s report includes the following synopsis of the development’s daylight, sunlight and wider residential amenity effects:

“The impact of the development on the amenity of neighbours in terms of loss of light, overshadowing, loss of privacy or increased sense of enclosure is acceptable given the urban context of the site and as such accords with policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies DEV1 and DEV2 of Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007): Core Strategy and Development Control, which seek to ensure development does not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.”

6.6 As outlined in the preceding section of this report, we would broadly agree with the conclusions set out in the first Officers report, which indicates that whilst the development will result in some losses of daylight and sunlight to existing and emerging neighbouring properties, taking account of the higher density, urban character of this area and the flexibility of the BRE guidance, the development’s daylight and sunlight impacts are, on balance, considered acceptable.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Strategic Development Committee (04 August 2009)

6.7 The application was subsequently reported to the committee on 04 August 2009 with a recommendation for refusal based on the reasons raised by members on 25 June 2009. Planning Permission was refused for two reasons, including the following (Reason for Refusal 2):

6.8 The second committee report, however, does not include any additional analysis of the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment and supplementary addendum material. This is unsurprising as officers had already indicated that, in their professional view, the development’s daylight and sunlight effects were, on balance, acceptable.

Summary: LB Tower Hamlets Interpretation of Daylight and Sunlight Assessment

6.9 In NLP’s view, the conclusions set out in the first Officers report to the Strategic Development Committee (25 June 2009) are plain and unambiguous. The report recognises that the development will result in some losses of daylight and sunlight to existing and emerging neighbouring properties; however

P15/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

taking account of the higher density, urban character of this area and the flexibility of BRE guidance, the development’s daylight and sunlight impacts are, on balance considered acceptable. On the basis of our detailed review of the submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, and supplementary addendum material, we would broadly agree with these conclusions.

6.10 The Council’s second committee report (04 August 2009) does not provide any evidence to justify the reason for refusal on daylight and sunlight grounds as officers had already indicated that the development was on balance considered acceptable in terms of daylight and sunlight impacts. We do not agree with the Council’s second reason for refusing the application; that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight to nearby residential properties and is, therefore, contrary to existing (saved) and emerging planning policy.

P16/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

7.0 Summary and Conclusions

7.1 This report has provided a review of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment and supplementary information submitted in support of the planning application for the Columbus Tower development at No. 2 Hertsmere Road, London E14 4AB (LBTH Ref. No. PA/08/02709). The review has been prepared on behalf of the Greater London Authority to assist the Mayor of London in determining the application. This review has been undertaken in the context of BRE daylight and sunlight guidance (B uilding Research Establishment ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’; 1991 ). The review has considered the acceptability of the scope of the assessment, the accuracy of the daylight and sunlight modelling and results and the validity of the conclusions drawn. It also provides a commentary on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets determination of the application in terms of daylight and sunlight issues.

Scope of Assessment

7.2 Our review has demonstrated that the scope of the submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment is acceptable in terms of the existing and emerging residential properties and areas of amenity space assessed. A sample of additional VSC calculations has demonstrated that there are no other surrounding residential properties requiring detailed assessment. In addition, whilst certain assumptions have been used in the interior daylight (ADF) calculations, the methodological approach employed in the assessment and the significance criteria used is considered generally appropriate.

Modelling and Data Accuracy

7.3 NLP has undertaken a series of comparison daylight (VSC) plots/calculations to establish the accuracy of the daylight and sunlight assessment. The results of the comparison plots are consistent with the data set out in the assessment and demonstrate both the accuracy of the three dimensional model on which the assessment was based, and the validity of the results.

Data Interpretation and Assessment Conclusions

7.4 We have undertaken a detailed review of the data interpretation and conclusions outlined in the submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment and have drawn our own inferences from the daylight and sunlight results.

7.5 Whilst the development would result in certain breaches of the BRE guide levels, the development’s impacts need to be considered in the context of a series of mitigating factors - including the flexible nature of the BRE guidance and their suburban basis, the benchmarks set by the extant planning permission at the site and other large scale developments at nearby sites and the high density, urban character of the Canary Wharf area. Taking account of

P17/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

these factors, in our professional opinion the assessment demonstrates an acceptable level of compliance with the BRE daylight and sunlight guide levels for a development of this scale.

7.6 To put the development in context, we have considered the development’s daylight and sunlight impacts in comparison with the effects arising from other recently approved developments in the Canary Wharf/Docklands area of Tower Hamlets. This comparative analysis demonstrates that the development will generally result in a comparable, and in some cases improved, level of compliance with the BRE daylight and sunlight guide levels than other recently approved developments nearby.

The Council’s Interpretation of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment

7.7 The London Borough of Tower Hamlets considered the planning application (PA/08/02709) at its Strategic Development Committee on 25 June 2009 with a recommendation for approval. Members, however, indicated that they were minded to refuse the application at the meeting and it was deferred until the following committee where the recommendation for refusal was supported by Members, in part on the grounds of the development’s daylight and sunlight effects.

7.8 The Council’s first committee report on the application (25 June 2009) plainly concludes that, whilst the development will result in some losses of daylight and sunlight, the impacts are, on balance, considered acceptable. We would broadly agree with these conclusions. The Council’s second committee report (04 August 2009) does not provide any evidence to justify the reason for refusal on daylight and sunlight grounds

Overall Conclusions

7.9 NLP has carried out a review of the submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment. We can confirm that the GIA assessment and supplementary addendum material provides a satisfactory assessment of the development’s impacts in terms of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing.

7.10 In addition, we broadly agree with the interpretation of the development’s daylight and sunlight effects set out in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets first committee report relating to the application (25 June 2009). We do not feel that the second committee report provides sufficient justification for the Council’s second reason for refusal which relates to the development’s daylight and sunlight effects. As such, we consider that it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission for the development on the grounds of daylight and sunlight impacts.

7.11 In NLP’s professional opinion, taking account of the flexible nature of the BRE guidance, the character of the site and its surroundings and the benchmarks

P18/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

set by the previously approved development at the site and other existing and emerging developments in Canary Wharf, it is considered that the daylight and sunlight effects arising as a result of the Columbus Tower development will, on balance, be acceptable.

P19/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

Appendices

Appendix 1: Supplementary VSC results for additional residential properties surrounding the site Appendix 2: Results of comparison VSC plots for a sample of window reference points assessed

P20/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

Appendix 1: Supplementary VSC results for additional residential properties surrounding the site

Address Existing Resultant Change Above/Below BRE VSC VSC (Resultant/Existing Guide BRE Guide Level: BRE Guide Level: BRE Guide Level: 27% 27% 0.8 Rogers Court, 31.00 28.47 0.92 Above Garford Street Kelly Court, Garford 22.69 20.39 0.90 Above Street Nos. 50-60 31.67 30.11 0.95 Above Westferry Road Eaton House, 34.50 32.41 0.94 Above Westferry Road Berkeley Tower, 26.52 6.52 1 Above Westferry Road

P21/22 12118/752088v1

COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW

Appendix 2: Results of comparison VSC plots for a sample of window reference points assessed

GIA NLP Results Results Room Window Existing Proposed Existing Resultant reference reference VSC VSC Loss % VSC VSC Loss % R2/3001 W2/3001 19.40 17.18 2.22 11.44 19.25 16.98 2.27 11.79 R3/2401 W5/2401 15.15 11.58 3.57 23.56 15.09 11.40 3.69 24.45 R1/2701 W1/2701 24.28 20.39 3.89 16.02 24.27 20.44 3.83 15.78 R2/1401 W2/1401 22.77 18.3 4.47 19.63 22.72 18.22 4.50 19.81 R2/2500 W2/2500 24.50 19.81 4.69 19.14 24.54 19.84 4.70 19.15 R1/2601 W1/2601 24.61 20.41 4.20 17.07 24.50 20.42 4.08 16.65 R1/2901 W1/2901 20.81 18.41 2.40 11.53 20.76 18.34 2.42 11.66 R2/2801 W2/2801 22.65 19.02 3.63 16.03 22.56 19.04 3.52 15.60 R2/2300 W3/2300 22.36 19.2 3.16 14.13 22.24 19.25 2.99 13.44 R2/2303 W3/2303 22.02 18.8 3.22 14.62 21.95 18.91 3.04 13.85 R2/301 W2/301 16.45 14.16 2.29 13.92 16.51 14.19 2.32 14.05 R1/302 W1/302 22.56 18.4 4.16 18.44 22.53 18.27 4.26 18.91 R3/2200 W3/2200 7.94 5.49 2.45 30.86 7.90 5.46 2.44 30.89 R5/2200 W5/2200 7.09 5.26 1.83 25.81 7.03 5.14 1.89 26.88 R1/2101 W4/2101 12.87 7.88 4.99 38.77 12.77 7.92 4.85 37.98 R1/2102 W4/2102 14.21 8.74 5.47 38.49 14.01 8.67 5.34 38.12 R6/701 W6/701 26.43 23.21 3.22 12.18 26.26 22.98 3.28 12.49 R6/702 W6/702 27.17 23.9 3.27 12.04 27.00 23.67 3.33 12.33 R1/2004 W1/2004 18.39 11.23 7.16 38.93 18.23 10.94 7.29 39.99 R3/2004 W3/2004 15.92 9.63 6.29 39.51 15.82 9.51 6.31 39.89

P22/22 12118/752088v1