planning report D&P/2110a/01 4 September 2013 Newfoundland, , Isle of Dogs in the Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no.PA/13/01455 & PA/13/01456

Strategic planning application stage 1 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 Full planning permission for a 58 storey tower comprising 566 residential units plus seven ancillary guest units, retail space, car and cycle parking, landscaping and highway works. The application is also accompanied by listed building consent for works to the listed dock wall.

The applicant The applicant is South Quay Properties Limited and the architect is Horden Cherry Lee Architects.

Strategic issues The application raises strategic matters relating to housing, affordable housing, design, heritage, views, climate change and transport.

Recommendation That Tower Hamlets be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms possible remedies set out in paragraph 62 of this report need to be addressed.

Context

1 On 26 July 2013, 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 5 September 2013 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 Category 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

Category 1A1 “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”

page 1 Category 1B1 “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings— (c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

Category 1C1 “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions— (c) 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 environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

6 The site is approximately 0.48 hectares and is located to the north west of the Isle of Dogs at the head of West India Dock and within the tall building cluster of Canary Wharf. The site is currently hard standing car park and it is one of the last few undeveloped sites in the Canary Wharf estate. The site is located above the Jubilee Line tunnels and is adjacent to listed dock walls. To the west, the site has frontage on to Westferry Road, to the north is the One Park Place site (with permission for 33 storey office building). To the east is Middle Dock and to the south is Heron Quays West (recently considered under delegated authority at stage 1 by the Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff (reference D&P/1995a/01).

7 The nearest stations are Canary Wharf London Underground (460 metres); Heron Quays DLR (24 metres) and Canary Wharf DLR (270 metres). The nearest bus stops are situated on Westferry Road, Marsh Wall, West India Avenue and Upper Level roundabout. All bus stops are located within 190 to 250 metres. Four bus routes serve these stops and provide approximately 27 buses per hour in peak periods. The site is also accessible via the Thames Clipper service from the at Westferry Circus, 220 metres to the west which operates 5 westbound and 4 eastbound services during the morning and evening peak periods. The nearest part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is the A1203, Limehouse Link tunnel, approximately 500m north west of the site.

8 The site is in a highly accessible location with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of five where one represents the lowest accessibility level and six the highest.

Details of the proposal

9 Redevelopment of the site comprising 566 residential units and seven guest apartments for use of family and friends associated with occupiers of the residential accommodation. The unit mix proposed is currently proposed as 117 studios (20%), 233 (41%) x 1 bed; 174 (31%) x 2 bed; and 42 (7%) x 3 bed. There is currently no on site affordable housing. In terms of the affordable housing offer, the planning statement sets out that there will be 73 intermediate

page 2 units on site and that any affordable rented housing will be delivered off site either by actual provision or payment in lieu, or a combination.

10 The proposal also includes 1,537 sq.m. of ground floor retail. There will also be two amenity space levels; one half way up the building and one at the top of the lower annex part of the building. The proposal includes 124 car parking spaces, 615 cycle parking spaces and new public realm to the north of the site, overlooking Middle Dock. Case history

11 Planning permission was granted in 2008 for a hotel-led mixed use development comprising a part-4, part-5 storey podium building and a 37-storey tower to provide a 150 bedroom hotel and 78 serviced apartments, retail and restaurant floorspace, education and training facilities and a basement level pedestrian link to the existing Jubilee Place retail mall and Canary Wharf underground station. The consented building was 129.4 metres high.

12 The GLA had a series of pre-application meetings held in January and April 2013 with advice issued in March and June 2013 respectively. Officers noted strategic issues regarding social infrastructure, ground floor design layout, inclusive access, affordable housing, energy and transport matters. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

13 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy  Density London Plan; Housing SPG  Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG; Housing SPG; London Housing Design Guide; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Tall buildings/views London Plan, London View Management Framework SPG  Historic Environment London Plan; World Heritage Sites SPG; Circular 07/09  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy;  Air quality London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy;  Education London Plan  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy  Blue Ribbon Network London Plan

page 3 14 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 Managing Development Plan Document 2013, the saved policies of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and the 2011 London Plan.

15 The following are also relevant material considerations:

 The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Draft Revised Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan.

Principle of development

16 London Plan policy 4.2 sets out that the distinct needs of the London office market, including the north of the Isle of Dogs, should be met by sustaining and developing its unique and dynamic clusters of ‘world city’ and other specialist functions and business environments.

17 Annex One of the London Plan sets out that the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area forms a strategically significant part of London’s world city offer for financial, media and business services and is recognised as part of the CAZ for office policy purposes, with Canary Wharf also functioning as a Major town centre. Proposed transport investment including Crossrail should allow it to accommodate an additional 110,000 jobs by 2031. Parts of the area have significant potential to accommodate new homes. An additional 10,000 homes are envisaged. Retail provision has the potential to develop and serve a wider catchment, complemented by a broader range of civic, leisure and other town centre facilities. The site is located within Tower Hamlet’s Preferred Office Location Justification.

18 A predominantly residential scheme therefore requires justification in the context of the London Plan Opportunity Area and local plan office and employment objectives. The applicant commissioned CBRE to consider the viability of office and hotel use on site. This was tested along with indicative layouts provided by the design team (Horden Cherry Lee). CBRE concludes that the site is constrained in terms of creating sufficient office offer floor plates that would attract major tenants. The applicant has also submitted evidence of the significant office floorspace in the pipeline on the Isle of Dogs and it also sets out that prospective office tenants now consider the presence of other uses when deciding whether to locate to Canary Wharf. One of the uses that are considered to be important is residential. In all the circumstances, officers accept that this particular site demonstrates particular constraints to attracting large scale office tenants. The land use approach to residential development is therefore broadly acceptable and whilst the office and employment offer cannot be realised in this instance the delivery of residential units remains consistent with the other Opportunity Area objectives.

19 Notwithstanding the above, London Plan policy 3.7 sets out that large residential development should be properly masterplanned to co-ordinate the provision of social, environmental and other infrastructure. Given the small size of the site, that social infrastructure cannot be provided on-site further discussion is needed over section 106 contributions and provision in the wider area.

page 4 Affordable housing

20 The housing offer is currently presented as 73 intermediate units on site and a proportion of affordable rented units to be delivered off site, subject to viability testing. In terms of the off site arrangements the applicant has submitted an application under Section 73 for amendments to an existing permission at the Former Job Centre Plus, 307 Burdett Road (PA/09/214). This is referable to the Mayor under category 1C of the schedule to the Order 2008 and will be considered separately. The intention is to rearrange the existing permission for 56 units (36% affordable) to provide 42 affordable rent units. The applicant is currently proposing units as part of this amended scheme to be set at target rent levels (social rent).

21 Whilst an off-site arrangement for the affordable rented accommodation may be acceptable in principle, the applicant will need to test the rent levels to ensure they maximise provision overall in terms of delivery and that the quantum is justified in terms of the viability. The matter of the suitability of this site for 100% affordable rent at target rent levels is also a matter that requires further discussion in the context of the Plan objectives to deliver mixed and balanced communities. Further discussion is therefore required before the case is referred back to the Mayor at a later date.

Housing choice

22 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 split of unit sizes provides 20% studio, 40% 1 bed, 31% 2 bed, 9% 3 bed. The mix therefore provides some larger units and is broadly acceptable.

Housing quality

23 London Plan Policy 3.5 promotes quality in new housing provision and sets out minimum space standards at Table 3.3. The proposed layout provides reasonable levels of residential quality which meet and exceed space standards and provide private balcony space. 10% will be wheelchair accessible and 100% Lifetime Homes. The layout is currently proposed as a single core with between nine and twelve units accessed off the singe core. This exceeds the guidance in the Mayor’s Housing SPG, however officers are satisfied that the other elements of design quality will provide an acceptable level of amenity and that overall the objectives of the design quality standards will be met.

Residential density

24 The site is 0.48 hectares and provides 566 units comprising 1,189 habitable rooms. This provides a density of 2,477 habitable rooms per hectare, which is significantly above the guidance in the London Plan of 650-1,100 habitable rooms per hectare for a site with these characteristics. Given the level of public transport accessibility, the size of units and quality of design and layout that a tall building within the existing cluster is acceptable, this level of density is broadly supported. GLA officers accept that the layout and space standards can accommodate this level of density without compromising residential environment subject to the issues in respect of sound infrastructure being address as set out in paragraph17.

Urban design

25 At the pre application stage, concern was raised about the ground floor layout arrangements, in particular the impact of the proposal turning its back on West Ferry Road. Officers also raised concern at the integration of balconies with the diamond shaped exoskeleton structural facade. The overall height and massing of the building was however supported.

page 5 26 The design team has responded by introducing a commercial unit facing the West Ferry Road frontage. This is supported but the space should remain a flexible space should viability of the commercial space prove challenging.

27 In terms of the architecture, the tower takes on a striking expressed structural form, which is of the highest order. The balcony strategy appears to work around the form without compromising the overall appearance. At the lower levels (ground, first and second floor) however the exoskeletal structure appears to adopt a different angle to the main tower structure. It creates a slightly disjointed landing which is unfortunate given the successful approach to the rest of the tower. The design team are encouraged to reconsider this detailed of the structure where possible.

28 In terms of access, the building is generally well considered and accessible. The landing of the structural form does however create some pinch points adjacent to the Dock. As part of any review of the tower structure at lower level, access should be considered.

29 In terms of play space, the applicant confirms that the development includes 131 sq.m. of external playspace on the roof terrace of the annex building, as well as 221 sq.m. of internal children’s playspace. The applicant also confirms that the proposal will include 1,767 sq.m. of internal communal amenity space. The intention is however that provision for older children would be met off site in existing open space and playspaces. The comments raised in paragraphs 17 and 22 in respect of sound environmental infrastructure are relevant to this point.

30 Strafford Street open space and playspace is approximately 400 metres from the development and Sir John McDougal Park is approximately 800 metres from the site. Both of these open spaces include formal play equipment. Park and Jubilee Park are also within 400 metres providing open space. In the first instance the applicant should confirm the expected child population and the requisite space required having regard to the Mayor Safer Neighbourhoods SPG. In terms of any off site provision, the applicant should also confirm the quality of these spaces and whether financial contributions may be required for upgrading and access and whether sufficient space exists in these neighbouring parks to accommodate the likely demands of this development.

Tall buildings, views and heritage

31 The principle of a tall building is broadly supported given the site falls in the context of the existing Canary Wharf tall building cluster.

32 The Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment concludes that in the majority of cases the development would not result in any negative impact in townscape and visual terms with regard to heritage assets in the wider area around the site. In most cases, these heritage assets are experienced in a context of the existing Canary Wharf estate, and the assessment includes views with other permissions granted which includes tall and large scale modern buildings in close proximity.

33 Physical works to the Grade I Listed dock wall are limited to the removal of later additions and the making good and repairing sections of the wall, including the reinstatement of granite coping stones along the south wall where the modern brick wall is removed. The setting of the dock wall would be preserved through the landscaping design and the architectural appearance of the tower.

page 6 34 In terms of strategic views, the proposal falls within the Background Assessment Area for the protected Vista 8A.1 from Westminster Pier to St Paul’s Cathedral, and in the background from Greenwich Park (5A.1) and Blackheath (6A.1). The assessment demonstrates the proposed tower will be part of the emerging cluster of tall buildings already approved or in planning. Officers are satisfied that the objectives of the LVMF will be met and that the proposal would not harm the OUV of the Greenwich Maritime World Heritage Site. Climate change mitigation

35 A 35% reduction in regulation carbon emissions relative to a Part L 2010 compliant baseline is currently proposed. As part of this the applicant proposes to exceed Part L 2010 through energy efficiency alone. A 400-500 kw combined heat and power plant (CHP) will meet all the hot water needs of the development and a significant proportion of the space heating requirements. The applicant sets out that a ground source heat exchange system is likely to be the most feasible renewable energy technology for the site. The approach is generally supported and consistent with the carbon reduction targets in the London Plan. The Council should secure suitable conditions, including connection to future DHN should this become available.

Transport for London

Car and cycle parking

36 In total, , 124 basement car parking spaces are proposed for the residential element, equating to 0.22 spaces per dwelling and falls within the London Plan maximum. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the 2011 census data reveals that car ownership in this area is one of the lowest in the borough (an average of only 0.24 cars per household). Given this, and given the significant quantum of development proposed on the northern part of the Isle of Dogs, TfL requests the applicant to reduce the parking numbers to encourage the use of more sustainable travel modes and promote lower vehicular trip generation which could impact strategic routes.

37 As part of the justification for residential parking numbers, the applicant notes that residents will require vehicles for occasional use and therefore the applicant should increase and provide clarity with regards to car club provision. The applicant has expressed support in principle for car clubs and is prepared to work with an established operator to provide space within the Canary Wharf estate. TfL notes that on site provision would not be feasible with basement stackers, however the applicant should explore whether space can be allocated within the ground floor amenity area. In delivering such provision the applicant could decrease on-site parking numbers.

38 The applicant has stated that provision of on-site parking for disabled users only would not meet ‘other essential needs’. TfL would like clarification as to what is meant by ‘other essential needs’ and in doing so should consider whether such ‘other needs’ could also be met by an increased car club provision.

39 For the level of residential car parking that is ultimately agreed, TfL welcomes that a minimum of 20% will be equipped with electric vehicle charging points (EVCPs) along with 20% passive provision. EVCPs should be secured by planning condition and their use promoted through the residential travel plan. Tower Hamlets Council should also secure a ‘permit free’ agreement through section 106 obligation.

40 The retail element of the scheme will not have any dedicated parking which is welcomed.

page 7 41 With regard to cycle parking, 629 residential spaces (including 14 visitor spaces) and 14 spaces for the retail use are proposed which is in line with London Plan policy 6.13.

Trip generation and mode share

42 The residential trip rate assessment is acceptable. The mode split assessment has been derived from TRAVL survey and compared to 2011 census data. The former is considered more representative of this development as it includes a lower percentage of travel to work by car/van and also includes non-work trips. Given the high PTAL of the application site, this approach is reasonable and is accepted. Given the nature of the proposals, the assumption that trips from the leisure and retail elements of the scheme would either be linked to the residential use or that any separate trips would be minimal is reasonable and accepted.

Highways

43 The transport assessment includes modelling of the Westferry Circus lower level roundabout and the new Heron Quays gyratory. The models have been updated and revalidated to take account of the Westferry Road gyratory work including the installation of new traffic signals. TfL is reviewing the results of this modelling and welcomes further discussion once results are known including any mitigation that may be required. It may also be necessary to consider whether a pooled contribution should be secured towards highway improvements.

44 The submission of a pedestrian audit (PERS) is welcomed and the Council will need to secure any necessary improvements though the section 106 agreement.

Bus network

45 The proposals will generate an additional 37 out-bound bus trips during the morning peak, and it is assumed that 70% of these trips will be on routes D3, D7 and 135. Given the impact of cumulative development on the Isle of Dogs, capacity constraints on the Westferry Road corridor are expected to increase without appropriate mitigation.

46 On this basis, TfL recommends that in line with London Plan policy 6.1 the contribution of £144,000 (as secured with the previous hotel development) is secured appropriately. It is expected that contributions from nearby development could also be pooled in this regard.

Underground and Docklands Light Railway (DLR)

47 It is noted that the cumulative demand from planned development on the Isle of Dogs (including these proposals) will exceed the combined capacity of the Jubilee line and DLR services; however, the introduction of Crossrail expected in 2018, will mitigate this impact.

48 The applicant’s commitment to installing real-time DLR departure screens in communal areas of the development to maximise the use of sustainable transport is welcomed and should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

49 Given the preliminary design stage of the proposed development, the applicant has submitted draft preliminary design statements and draft approval in principle for analytical assessment with respect to the impact on the Underground infrastructure to which TfL at this stage has no objections.

page 8 50 Notwithstanding this, the proximity and construction for the two options for piled foundation will be subject to detailed review to ensure that the proposals will not be detrimental to the Jubilee line tunnels and track assets. TfL expects to review the impact assessment report with the applicant, particularly in respect to the anticipated movement of the track and tunnel assets and details of the design and construction must be agreed by TfL and secured by planning conditions accordingly.

Taxis

51 The proposed taxi drop off area from Bank Street is acceptable and no concerns are raised in this regard.

Travel Plan, Servicing & Construction

52 The residential travel plan and delivery & service plans submitted by the applicant are acceptable and are in accordance with the ATTrBuTE assessment tool and London Plan policy 6.3. The Council will need to secure the travel plans within the section 106. A construction logistics plan (CLP) has also been submitted and should be secured through planning condition.

Crossrail SPG

53 Contributions will be sought towards Crossrail which will need to be secured within the section 106 so that the scheme is compliant with London Plan Policy 6.5. The approach for collecting contributions towards Crossrail is set out in the Mayor’s ‘Use of Planning Obligations in the Funding of Crossrail and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy’ Supplementary Planning Guidance’. This states that contributions should be sought in respect of hotel, office or retail developments which involve a net increase in floorspace of more than 500 sq. M. Ffor retail development in the Isle of Dog charging area, the charge is £121 per square metre. Based on the methodology outlined in the Mayor’s SPG, the development will generate a contribution of £185,977, to be paid on commencement of development. Community Infrastructure Levy

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

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

56 London borough councils are also able to introduce CIL charges which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Tower Hamlets has yet to adopt a scheme. .

57

page 9 In situations where the site is also in the Crossrail charging area, as outline above, the Mayor’s CIL charge (but not the borough’s) will be treated as a credit towards the S106 liability. The practical effect of this will be that only the larger of the two amounts will normally be sought. As the CIL charge will not be confirmed until development is about to commence, the s106 agreement will need to be worded so that if the s106 contribution based on the assumed CIL proves incorrect the contribution is adjusted accordingly (assuming it is still more than the CIL). Local planning authority’s position

58 The officer recommendation is currently unknown. Legal considerations

59 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

60 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

61 London Plan policies on employment, office, town centre uses, housing, affordable housing, climate change and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Housing and affordable housing: Officers accept that an off-site arrangement is appropriate for affordable rent in this instance. It is however not clear if the Burdett Road site is suitable for this purpose, or that 100% affordable rent at target rent levels meets the London Plan objectives for maximising affordable housing and mixed and balanced communities. The applicant will also need to test the viability to demonstrate the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. Further discussion on affordable housing is therefore required.  Urban design and access: The appearance of the tower is high quality and changes to the ground floor layout are supported. The design team should however reconsider the landing of the external structure and its integration with the rest of the structural form of the building.

 Transport: The proposals are generally acceptable subject to a number of transport provisions being secured either by planning conditions or section 106 legal agreement. The applicant should consider reducing the parking levels proposed for the residential use, increase the car club provision and pay a contribution towards bus capacity and Crossrail. Further clarity is needed with regards to details of the piled foundations before the scheme is referred back to the Mayor at stage two.

page 10

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Matthew Carpen, Case Officer 020 7983 4272 email [email protected]

page 11