planning report D&P/0018c/02 4 February 2015 Arrowhead Quay, in the Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/12/03315

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 Erection of two buildings of 55 and 50 storeys to provide 756 residential units and ancillary uses plus ground floor retail uses, provision of ancillary amenity space, landscaping, public dockside walkway and pedestrian route, basement car park, servicing and a new vehicular access. The applicant The applicant is Ballymore, the architect is Glen Howells and the agent is GVA.

Strategic issues Issues with respect to principle of development, inclusive design, housing, noise, climate change and transport have been satisfactorily addressed since Stage One and the proposed residential development is supported in strategic planning terms.

The Council’s decision In this instance, Tower Hamlets Council has resolved to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a section 106 agreement. Recommendation That Tower Hamlets 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 direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 6 February 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. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

 1A: Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats;

page 1  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 or building outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres;  1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of more than 30 metres high.

2 On 6 March 2013, the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0018c/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application was generally acceptable in strategic planning terms; however further discussion was needed on the issues set out in paragraph 77 of that report.

3 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. Since then, the application has been revised and further information submitted in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 6 November 2014, Tower Hamlets Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a section 106 agreement, and on 28 January 2015 it 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 Tower Hamlets Council under Article 6 to refuse the application, or issue a direction to the Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 10 February 2015 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

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 decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

6 At the consultation stage, Tower Hamlets Council was advised that the application was generally acceptable in strategic planning terms; however further information was required on the issues set out in paragraph 77 of that report:

 Principle of development: Whilst the provision of a residential led development of this site is supported in principle, further discussion is needed regarding the provision of social infrastructure in the wider area and associated section 106 contributions.  Inclusive design: Further information was requested on the location and design of wheelchair accessible units; inclusive access at the southern arrival court; ramps to the raised amenity space and the upper level of the cafe; and accessibility of the proposed ‘trim trail’.  Housing: Further discussions are needed on viability, the level of affordable housing and off-site provision.  Noise: A noise assessment needs to be submitted, which sets out the NEC categories for the site.  Climate change: The applicant should provide a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available. The applicant should provide confirmation that all apartments

page 2 and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. Further discussion and commitments are needed regarding flooding and drainage.  Transport: Contributions should be provided towards bus capacity, real-time information boards and Legible London. Any improvements identified in the PERS audit should be funded. A stage one safety audit for the access ramp should be carried out and confirmation of the type of cycle parking should be provided.

7 Since Stage One, there have been a number of policy amendments and publications. On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government published Planning Practice Guidance to support the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In addition, the Further Alterations to the London Plan has been through examination and gained further weight and Tower Hamlets has adopted its Managing Development Document (April 2013). These do not result in any fundamental changes to the consideration of the case, but have been taken into account in this assessment.

8 The applicant has responded to the matters raised in the Stage One report, including minor revisions to the scheme, as set out below.

Principle of development

9 At Stage One, the proposal for residential-led mixed use purposes was accepted in principle, in view of the site’s location outside the core office area around . However, in line with London Plan Policy 3.7 ‘Large residential developments’, further information was requested on section 106 contributions for social infrastructure. As discussed under ‘section 106 agreement’ below, contributions of £706,436 have been secured towards leisure facilities; £1,366,418 towards school places; £894,860 towards health facilities; £47,478 towards off-site play space; and £73,066 as a credit towards Crossrail CIL. This is in addition to financial contributions of £5,871,372 received via a section 106 agreement to mitigate impacts associated with the part-implemented office scheme on the site (LPA ref: PA/07/00347). Inclusive design

10 As requested at Stage One, a condition has secured that the location and layout of the proposed easily adaptable wheelchair housing units will be approved by the Council prior to commencement, in order to confirm that the units are distributed across tenure types and flat sizes. Furthermore, revised internal layouts have been provided to demonstrate that the wheelchair accessible units will be easily adaptable.

11 At Stage One, some concerns were expressed about the shared surface at the proposed southern arrival court on Marsh Wall. The space now excludes a previously proposed fountain and includes a clear kerb line to help legibility, which is welcomed. Minor revisions have also been made to the application to provide for a raised kerb line next to the proposed taxi drop-off point, which will help wheelchair users negotiate the transition into and out of a taxi.

12 The applicant was also requested to consider an additional ramp to the raised amenity space to the west of the building, to allow access from the dockside. The applicant has investigated the possibility of a ramp, but concluded that this would negatively impact areas of child play and amenity space. As the currently proposed ramp is centrally located between Marsh Wall and the dockside, it is accepted that this will provide adequate access to the space. The applicant has also confirmed that the child play equipment and outdoor gym equipment as part of the ‘trim trail’ will include accessible equipment. This has been secured by condition.

13 The applicant has also investigated whether a ramp could be included to provide access to the upper level of the cafe, rather than a platform lift, concluding that an overly complicated

page 3 and excessive ramp would be required, which would result in a significant loss of space in the cafe, as well as obstructing the dock side entrance and negatively impacting the cafe frontage. This is accepted, in particular since the lower level of the cafe is accessible at ground floor level, and also provides access to wheelchair accessible toilets.

14 The proposals now meet the inclusive design policy requirements of the London Plan.

Housing

15 The applicant has provided a revised schedule of the 756 residential units, as follows:

Market Intermediate Affordable rent TOTAL TOTAL Stage 1 Current Stage 1 Current Current Stage 1 Current Studio 204 170 0 0 0 204 (26%) 170 (22%) 1 bed 206 171 12 11 27 218 (28%) 209 (28%) 2 bed 337 280 24 21 22 361 (45%) 323 (43%) 3 bed 3 3 6 10 28 9 (1%) 41 (5%) 4 bed 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 (2%) Total 750 624 42 42 90 792 756 (95%) (83%) (5%) (5%) (12%)

16 At Stage One, the high proportion of studio, one and two-bed units was accepted given the location, the typology of the development and the constraints of the site. As now proposed, family sized units have increased from 1% to 7%, and in particular, the number of affordable family sized units has increased from 6 units to 51 units. This is welcomed, in line with London Plan Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’, which encourages affordable family housing as a strategic priority. In recognition of some concerns about housing families in tall buildings, the affordable family sized units are to be located on the lower floors wherever possible. Although the number of studio units remains significantly higher than is typically accepted, the proportion of these have reduced considerably since Stage One, which is welcomed. Paragraph 2.3.18 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG states that studio provision should be exceptional in the context of overall housing provision, and those units should be of exemplary design. As discussed below, the residential quality of the units is high, with shallow plans and generous floor-to-ceiling heights. Consequently, whilst the proportion of studio units remains a concern, given the quality of these units, the proposal is broadly acceptable with regards to housing mix.

17 GLA and Tower Hamlets officers have explored with the applicant a number of possible scenarios for the provision of affordable housing, both at pre-application stage and subsequent to Stage One, including potential off-site solutions at Carmen Street, adjacent to Langdon Park Station in Poplar, and at London City Island (formerly known as Peninsula North). In response to Tower Hamlets and GLA officers concerns that the proposal to use Carmen Street would not result in a mixed and balanced community, this proposal was discounted. Further discussions with the applicant concluded that it would be practical to accommodate all of the appropriate affordable housing provision on-site, and the applicant has revised the proposals accordingly. Consequently, the provision of affordable housing on-site has increased from 6.8% by habitable room at Stage One, to 25% as now proposed, and will be located on levels 3 to 24 in the .

18 London Plan Policy 3.11 ‘Affordable Housing Targets’ requires that 60% of the affordable housing provision should be for social and affordable rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. The proposed split of 71% affordable rent and 29% intermediate shared ownership

page 4 is in accordance with the Council’s preferred split, based on local need, and is accepted in this instance.

19 The applicant has submitted viability appraisals to the Council to demonstrate that this is the maximum reasonable amount. The Council’s external consultants have scrutinised the latest appraisal and concluded that, taking account of the proposed additional financial contributions to mitigate likely adverse effects and expected Crossrail CIL payments, the scheme would generate a surplus of £268,639, which could be used to fund further affordable housing. As it is not practical to use this to fund additional on-site affordable units, the section 106 secures this as a financial contribution to help fund affordable housing off-site. To ensure that the Council secures any uplift in provision that may be deliverable should circumstances change, the section 106 agreement includes a review mechanism. This states that in the event that the substantial commencement has not been reached within two years of the date of the permission, a viability assessment re-appraisal will be submitted no later than one month following the date of disposal of the final residential unit or the long stop date. The section 106 also states that more than 50% of the private units cannot be occupied until the 132 affordable housing units are substantially constructed; and more than 80% of the private units cannot be occupied until the affordable units are completed and disposed of to a Registered Provider. These proposals are supported, in line with London Plan Policy 3.12 ‘Negotiating Affordable Housing’.

20 London Plan Policy 3.5 ‘Quality and Design of Housing Developments’ promotes quality in new housing provision, including space standards, with further guidance provided by the Mayor’s Housing SPG. The applicant has provided updated plans based on the revised layouts of the residential units. All units meet, and in most instances, exceed, London Plan space standards; have generous 2.7 metre clear floor to ceiling heights; are relatively shallow in plan; and are well laid our internally. Overall, the units are therefore considered to be of high residential quality. Whilst a number of floors exceed the guidance of eight units per floor by up to two additional units, resulting in a higher proportion of single aspect units and more households sharing each landing than recommended, given this only occurs on a small number of floors, on balance, and in light of the overall quality of these units, officers accept this deviation in this instance.

Noise

21 A noise assessment has been submitted with the application. The assessment sets out that for a limited number of balconies between the second and tenth residential storey on the east side of the east tower, overlooking the DLR, noise levels are likely to exceed World Health Authority recommendations for amenity areas. However the assessment sets out that it is considered unlikely, in the urban context of the site, that noise would significantly impact upon their intended amenity use. At Stage One this was accepted by the GLA’s noise consultants; however confirmation of Noise Exposure Categories (NEC) was requested, as the London Housing Design Guide calls for no single-aspect units in NEC Categories C or D. Although PPG24 has been withdrawn and therefore NECs are no longer strictly relevant, the applicant has confirmed that of the 756 proposed units, 15 in the East Tower (1.9%) would be classified as falling within NEC C, of which 6 (0.8%) would be single-aspect. Mitigation measures are proposed including enclosed winter gardens for the 5 units on the first floor or the east tower, adjacent to the DLR. Elsewhere, sealed acoustic balustrades of 1.4 metres in height, acoustically absorbing soffits, enhanced acoustic glazing and an acoustically attenuated ventilation system are proposed. These measures are acceptable and details of noise attenuation have been secured by planning condition. Climate change

22 The energy strategy will deliver CO2 emission reductions of 35%. As requested at Stage One, the applicant has had discussions with the Barkantine Heat and Power Company and has confirmed that the development is designed to allow future connection to the district heating

page 5 network. The on-site network will also be designed to allow for connection to this wider network. Furthermore, all residential and non-residential uses will be connected to the site heat network. The energy strategy has been secured by condition.

23 As Tower Hamlets Council has more ambitious CO2 reduction targets, a contribution of between £241,700 and £302,400 towards carbon off-setting, depending whether on-site ground source cooling is provided, has been secured in the section 106.

24 The Stage One Report raised some concerns in relation to flood risk and the lack of any residual flood risk management options, such as subscription to the Environment Agency Flood Warning Service, drawing up a flood emergency plan for each building, providing safe refuge within the buildings, ensuring that all utility services can be maintained during a flood and providing a sump within the basement to aid removal of floodwater.

25 The applicant responded to these comments by noting that the site is defended from flooding up to a 1 in 1,000 year standard of protection and that the likelihood of a breach of flood defences is very low. The residential accommodation would be at 18.875m AOD and above, so that in the unlikely event of a breach of defences, people living in the building would not be put at any risk.

26 The Environment Agency has not raised any concerns about residual flood risk management and officers accept that these are not necessary. As requested at Stage One, planning conditions have secured that works will only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and any mitigation measures proposed in the FRA.

27 The Stage One Report also raised some concerns about the drainage strategy. The applicant responded by outlining how the proposal relates to the London Plan Drainage Hierarchy, with measures including a commitment to consider rainwater harvesting at the detailed design stage; surface water from the proposed podium level would be attenuated via a tank before being discharged in to the Marsh Wall sewer; and all the surface water from building roofs and hard landscaped areas along the dock edge would discharge directly into the dock. However, porous surfaces are not possible as the basement areas have already been constructed and would cover the whole site; and storing rainwater in ponds or open water features are not appropriate in the publicly accessible open spaces, which are based on play and fitness. Further information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would represent an improvement on the existing situation and that greenfield run-off rates can be achieved. These responses are accepted and the applicant’s commitment to consider incorporating rainwater harvesting features is welcomed. It is noted that the proposed discharge arrangements are subject to further consultation with the Canal and River Trust and Thames Water and a detailed drainage strategy has also been secured by condition.

28 In summary, the proposal now meets the requirements of London Plan policy on climate change.

Transport

29 At Stage One, further information was requested on the number of Blue Badge spaces proposed, cycle parking provision, and access arrangements. Contributions towards bus and cycle hire capacity, real time information boards, Legible London and Crossrail were also requested.

30 The applicant has demonstrated that cycle parking and Blue Badge provision complies with London Plan policy and that shower and changing facilities would be available for all staff employed on site. A safety audit has been provided and TfL is now satisfied that the site access arrangements are suitable.

page 6

31 A contribution of £73,066 has been secured for the proposed uplift in retail floorspace, in accordance with the Crossrail SPG. Other transport mitigation has already been secured with the substantial financial contributions paid in relation to the extant scheme, as discussed under ‘Section 106 agreement’ below.

32 Other matters have been addressed through legal agreement or planning condition, including car parking management, construction logistics plan, delivery & servicing plan and travel plan. The proposal is now in conformity with London Plan transport policies.

Response to consultation

33 The Environment Agency made no objection, subject to the imposition of planning conditions.

34 The Canal and River Trust made no objection to the principle of redevelopment, subject to conditions and informatives.

35 Natural England advised that the scheme is unlikely to affect statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

36 The Port of London Authority (PLA) requested suitable conditions and informatives. The PLA also requested amendments to the Environmental Statement and the Travel Plan to consider use of the river for the transport of passengers; however as the nearest pier to the site would require a significantly longer walk than getting to the nearest DLR or Underground station, the number of people likely to use river services is likely to be negligible and does not, therefore, warrant further assessment or mitigation.

37 Thames Water made no objections, subject to suitable conditions and informatives.

38 Tower Hamlets Council publicised the application by sending letters of consultation to 3,807 neighbouring properties, as well as advertising it by way of site notices and press adverts. The Council received eleven objections and 24 expressions of support. The representations received in response to the Council’s local consultation process are considered in detail within the Council’s Committee Report of 6 November 2014.

39 The grounds for objection included:  Adverse impacts during construction.  Many homes in the area are not occupied, but bought as investments or occupied as short- term lets, damaging community cohesion.  Affordable housing offer unacceptable.  Proposed shops are likely to remain empty.  Increase in traffic will become dangerous.  Privacy, daylight, and view impacts on neighbouring residents.  Proposed towers out of character and too tall.  Noise from the DLR makes the site unsuitable for housing.  Insufficient open space in the area.  Extra pressure on the existing footbridge.  Insufficient health care and education facilities in the area.  Insufficient car parking placing pressure on surrounding streets.  The site should continue to be used for offices.

40 Comments in support included:

page 7  Regenerate a prominent brownfield site.  Provision of new retail, restaurant and cafe space.  Provision of new open spaces in the form of landscaped public squares.  Improve pedestrian links through the site to the proposed dockside walkway and pedestrian bridge to Canary Wharf.  Addresses a shortage of housing in Tower Hamlets.

41 Issues raised by objectors have been considered in this report, the Stage One report, and the Council’s committee report. Matters relating to daylight and sunlight have been appropriately assessed by the local authority, who concluded that the proposed development is acceptable.

Representations to the Mayor of London

42 In addition to those representations received by the local authority, the Pan Peninsula Leaseholders and Residents Association; Councillor Andrew Wood and The Friends of Greenwich have provided written representations directly to GLA officers objecting to the scheme on density and height grounds, and lack of consideration to the emerging South Quay Masterplan.

43 As discussed in the Mayor’s Stage One report and the Council’s Committee Report, the height and density of the proposal is considered acceptable in this location. Officers consider that the proposal successfully mitigates its impacts; delivers high quality design for housing and non-residential uses; and provides the required infrastructure. Furthermore, officers are satisfied that the proposed buildings will not have a detrimental impact on protected views identified in the London View Management Framework SPG or the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site.

Section 106 agreement

44 The draft section 106 agreement includes the following contributions:  Affordable housing – a minimum of 25% affordable housing, made up of 71% affordable rent (324 habitable rooms) and 29% intermediate shared ownership (131 habitable rooms); a viability review which states that in the event that the substantial commencement has not been reached within two years of the date of the permission, a viability assessment re-appraisal will be submitted no later than one month following the date of disposal of the final residential unit or the long stop date; not to occupy or permit occupation of more than 50% of the private units until the 132 affordable housing units are substantially constructed; and not to occupy or permit occupation of more than 80% of the private units until the affordable units are completed and disposed of to a Registered Provider.  A contribution of £706,436 towards leisure facilities.  A contribution of £1,366,418 towards school places.  A contribution of £894,860 towards health facilities.  A contribution of £47,478 towards off-site play space.  A contribution of £268,639 towards the provision of affordable housing in lieu of additional on-site provision.  A contribution of £73,066 as a credit towards Crossrail CIL.  A contribution of between £241,700 and £302,400 towards Carbon off-setting (depending whether on-site ground source cooling is provided).  A contribution of between £71,972 and £73,186 towards section 106 monitoring fee (2%).

page 8 45 As outlined in Tower Hamlets’ Committee Report, the Council also received financial contributions via a section 106 agreement to mitigate impacts associated with the part- implemented office scheme on the site (LPA ref: PA/07/00347). Council records show that in June and July 2007 it received £5,871,372 as a Millennium Quarter Contribution in relation to Permission PA/07/00347. The contribution was pooled with contributions secured from other developments in the area and was fully spent in 2007/08 on a variety of transport, public realm, community and social projects, and project costs.

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

46 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 a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at Stage One, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

47 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also 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 and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. 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

48 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.

49 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.

50 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

51 The matters raised at consultation stage, namely those relating to section 106 contributions, inclusive design, housing, noise, sustainable development and transport have been satisfactorily addressed. The proposed residential-led development is supported in strategic planning terms.

page 9

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development & Projects) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Martin Jones, Case Officer 020 7983 6567 email [email protected]

page 10

planning report PDU/0018c/01 6 March 2013 Arrowhead Quay, Isle of Dogs in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/12/03315

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Erection of two buildings of 55 and 50 storeys to provide 792 residential units and ancillary uses plus ground floor retail uses, provision of ancillary amenity space, landscaping, public dockside walkway and pedestrian route, basement car park, servicing and a new vehicular access.

The applicant The applicant is Ballymore and the architect is Glen Howells.

Strategic issues The development of this excellent quality residential scheme is welcomed and is broadly in line with London Plan policy. The land use principle is accepted and the height of the buildings have an acceptable impact on strategic views. Further discussion is needed on affordable housing, noise, sustainable development and transport.

Recommendation

That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms however further discussion is needed on the issues set out in paragraph 77.

Context

On 6 February 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 19 March 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.

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;

page 11

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 or building outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres;

Category1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of more than 30 metres high;

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.

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.

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

The 0.57 hectare site has been vacant for several years. The site is bounded to the north by the West India Dock, to the east by private car parking and the (DLR) viaduct, to the south by Marsh Wall/Admirals Way and by Britannia International Hotel to the west. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site is currently not available. The nearest section of the Road Network (TLRN) is the A1261 Link/Aspen Way, approximately 720m north of the site. Burdett Road, located 1.4km to the north west is the nearest section of Strategic Road Network, while Poplar High Street, located less than 800m north makes up part of Cycle Super Highway Route 3.

The site is served by South Quay station, less than 450m east of the site, providing DLR services between Lewisham, Stratford and Bank. In addition the DLR can also be accessed from Heron Quays and Canary Wharf stations, 400m and 650m north of the site respectively. The nearest station is Canary Wharf located approximately 500m north east of the site and estimated to be a 10 minute walk, offering access to the . From 2018 the site will also be served by Crossrail services at Canary Wharf.

There are four bus services (D8, D7, D3 and 135) available in the area. The nearest bus stops are located within 30m of the site on Marsh Wall and are all served by the D8. Additional bus stops are located further west on Westferry Road.

In addition, the site sits within walking distance of two Mayor’s Cycle Hire Docking stations, the first at Lighterman’s Road by Heron Quays DLR station and the second at South Quay West. As such, the site has a good public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 4 (on a scale of 1-6 where 6 is most accessible).

Details of the proposal

Erection of two buildings of 55 (188.4m AOD) and 50 (172.4m AOD) storeys to provide 792 residential units and ancillary uses plus ground floor retail uses including cafe, provision of ancillary amenity space, landscaping, public dockside walkway and pedestrian route, basement car park, servicing and a new vehicular access. For comparison the height of 1 is 235m AOD)

page 12 Ancillary residential indoor and outdoor amenity space includes podium level amenity space and sky garden, a gym and swimming pool, cinema, residents’ lounge, business suite. Case history

The current proposal was the subject of a series of pre-application meetings in 2012. The principle of the development was supported and a number of changes were made in response to GLA officer comments.

The site has the benefit of planning permission, granted in September 2007, for a 16 and 26- storey office building (70,000 square metres and 119m AOD) with ground floor retail and restaurant uses. The previous Mayor supported the scheme (PDU2110/02).This permission has been partially implemented and therefore remains extant.

Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy  Density London Plan; Housing SPG  Urban design London Plan  Mix of uses London Plan;  Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG; draft Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  Retail/town centre uses London Plan  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, Revised 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  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

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 saved policies of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and the 2011 London Plan.

The following are also relevant material considerations:

page 13  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework;  The Managing Development Development Plan Document (submission version) which has been through EiP and for which the Inspector’s report has been received;

 The draft Revised Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan.

Principle of development

The site is located on the south side of West India South Dock on the Isle of Dogs. London Plan policy 2.13, supported by map 2.4, identifies the Isle of Dogs as an Opportunity Area with potential to deliver 110,000 additional jobs and 10,000 new homes by 2031. The strategic policy direction for the Opportunity Area, set out in Annex 1 to the London Plan, provides for new jobs to be focused in and around Canary Wharf and identifies scope to convert surplus business capacity south of Canary Wharf to housing.

In view of the site’s location outside the core office area around Canary Wharf, the redevelopment of this site for residential-led mixed use purposes is acceptable in principle.

London Plan policy 3.7 sets out that large residential developments should be properly masterplanned to co-ordinate the provision of social, environmental and other infrastructure. Although it is accepted, 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. Urban design

The proposed scheme has been commented on extensively at the pre-application stage and officers are supportive of the current design.

The impact the development would have on protected views and world heritage sites has been explored and officers are satisfied the scheme will not have a detrimental impact on either.

Concerns regarding the quality, definition and role of the public realm around the buildings have all been addressed, with each space having been carefully designed to ensure they will be well used, safe and attractive. This is particularly welcomed to the east of the building where the DLR infrastructure makes this space particularly challenging to design.

The simple and well detailed architectural treatment of the building will create a pair of elegant and distinctive buildings that will contribute to creating an interesting and varied skyline to this emerging cluster of tall buildings.

The residential quality of the scheme is considered to be of a high quality and in line with most aspirations set out in the London Housing Design Guide. All of the units meet the London Plan space standards. The wider 1.4m wide balconies are particularly welcomed as they will now be of a sufficient size to be well used and a key asset to each flat.

page 14 Inclusive design

The supporting documentation sets out that the residential units will be designed to lifetime homes standards and units (10%) will be wheelchair accessible. The applicant has set out that the majority of units will be adaptable and as such their exact locations have yet to be identified. The units should be distributed across tenure types and flat sizes to give disabled and older people similar choices to non disabled people (unless the Council through its Accessible Housing Register work can advise on the need in this part of the borough for a particular size of wheelchair accessible unit).

At the pre-application stage some concerns were raised with regard to the provision of a water feature adjacent to the building entrance and with the shared surface proposed to the front of the building. The water feature has now been removed from the proposal. The shared surface has been amended to include a kerb line and these changes are welcomed, however the applicant should confirm that tactile paving is provided on both sides of the cross over outside the car park ramp exit. Given that there is no raised kerb at the taxi-drop off the applicant should investigate whether there is a place on Marsh Wall that taxis could also stop at if necessary to allow for wheelchair users to easily exit a taxi.

A further ramp should be included in the raised amenity space to the west of the building to allow access from the dockside as well as from the Marsh Wall. The applicant should also confirm if the fitness elements provided in the trim trail incorporate elements that can be used by disabled people.

The applicant should investigate whether a ramp could be included in the ground floor cafe rather than a platform lift and it should confirm that wheelchair accessible toilets will be provided.

The units which are identified as easily adaptable still require some structural alteration to meet the wheelchair standards - for example the door into the bedroom of the two bed flat on the north-east corner has to be moved to create a 1500 mm by 1800 mm space at the entrance. These units should be amended so that they are adaptable without structural changes to ensure full compliance with Lifetime Homes Standards. In addition the penthouse homes should be amended to be fully accessible removing the three steps within the home on the upper bedroom level.

Housing

The following residential mix is proposed:

Unit type Private Intermediate

page 15 Suite 204

1 bed 206 12

2 bed 337 24

3 bed 3 6

Total 750 42

As such the unit mix is heavily skewed towards smaller units with 53.3% of units being studios, one and two bed units. Given the location, the typology of the development and the constraints of the site this is acceptable in this instance.

14% of the intermediate units would be three bed and this is welcomed.

The provision of affordable housing was the subject of a number of meetings at the pre- application stage and through this process the applicant modelled a number of scenarios including on-site affordable rented housing. The applicant has discounted this approach on the basis that it does not maximise affordable housing provision. Nonetheless in response to GLA and Tower Hamlets’ officers desire for the provision of some on-site affordable housing 42 intermediate units have been included within the west tower located on floors three to eight. This provision represents 6.8% of the habitable rooms on-site.

The applicant has committed to providing the intermediate units in the first tower to be built and should this not be the west tower the applicant will submit a non-material amendment application to switch the intermediate units to the east tower. The applicant has submitted justification for the non-provision of affordable rented units on the grounds of the level of service charge and practical and funding issues relating to the inclusion of affordable rented and market in this same tower and this is accepted in this instance. It is envisaged that additional affordable housing will be provided off-site. This site should not be located in an area where there are a high proportion of social rented units. Further discussion is needed on this matter prior to Stage II.

The applicant has submitted a viability assessment and this is currently the subject of an independent viability assessment. Further discussion will be needed on this when the report is available in order to ensure that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing has been provided.

Children’s play space

Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 44 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 440 sq.m. of playspace.

The development provides for 526 sq.m. playspace on-site thus exceeding the SPG requirements. The child playspace is located at podium level as well as within the western garden at ground floor level.

Density

page 16 The applicant calculates the density of the scheme as 2,700 habitable rooms per hectare which is well above the London Plan density guidelines of 650-1,110 habitable rooms per hectare for sites with a public transport accessibility level of five.

Given the nature of the site, the character of the surrounding area and the high quality of the residential accommodation and overall design quality of the scheme this is acceptable in this instance.

Noise

A noise assessment has been submitted with the application. This has been assessed by the GLA’s noise consultants for assessment. The noise and vibration survey and impact assessment are adequate to support the planning application. The assessment sets out that for a limited number of balconies between the second and tenth residential storey of the East Tower facade overlooking the DLR, noise levels are likely to exceed World Health Authority recommendations for amenity areas. However the assessment sets out that it is considered unlikely that in the urban context of the site noise would significantly impact upon their intended amenity use. The Council should consider whether the proposed mitigation measures and resultant noise levels within the balconies are acceptable and whether further mitigation measures are required.

Planning conditions should be included on the decision notice to cover the following items: demolition and construction noise and vibration; indoor ambient noise levels; building services plant noise emission limits; noise from retail uses; and reasonable practical noise mitigation measures for balconies and other external amenity areas.

Although PPG24 is no longer current the London Housing Design Guide continues to measure suitability of sites for single aspect units against Noise Exposure Categories (NEC). As such no single aspect units should be provided in NEC C or D. As such a noise assessment needs to be submitted which sets out the NEC categories for the site. Sustainable development

Climate change mitigation

The applicant has followed the energy hierarchy and is proposing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32%, thus exceeding the London Plan requirement, which is welcomed. The development will reduce regulated carbon dioxide emissions marginally (less than 1%) below those of a 2012 Building Regulations compliant development through energy efficiency alone. A 210 kWe combined heat and power plant is proposed and, will provide 32% carbon dioxide savings. The applicant has investigated connection to the Barkantine district heating network (DHN) which is in the vicinity of the development. However, discussions with the network operator indicate that there is not and will not be, in the foreseeable future, any spare heat capacity to serve the proposed development. This is accepted however, the applicant should provide a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available. The applicant should confirm that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies but is not proposing to install any renewable energy technology for the development. This is acceptable in this instance.

Climate change adaptation and flood risk

page 17

The Flood Risk Appraisal (FRA) confirms that the site is within Zone 3. The FRA also confirms that the site is protected from flooding to a high standard by the Thames Barrier and associated river walls.

Residential accommodation is to be located from the third floor and above and therefore is not at risk of being inundated although the ground floor and basement would be at risk of any over- topping or breach of flood defences. Therefore the proposals need to consider the residual risk of flooding.

The FRA makes a generic assessment that the risk of inundation to the site is low, based on the Tower Hamlets strategic flood risk assessment and does not propose any residual risk management options. This approach is not acceptable and is not in line with London Plan policy 5.12 and may lead to a conclusion that the Exceptions Test has not been passed. This is of particular concern as in any flood event large parts of the Isle of Dogs may be under water and it is likely that anyone occupying the development would need to remain in the building, possibly for some time. Anyone within the basement areas may be at particular risk.

Therefore it is important that the development addresses the residual risk of flooding, especially given the presence of basement parking areas. Such measures should include:

 Subscription to the Environment Agency Flood Warning Service;  Drawing up a flood emergency plan for each building;  Providing safe refuge within the buildings as it is unlikely that a suitable dry access route will be available in the event of a flood;  Ensuring that the buildings remain safe and comfortable in the event of a flood, this should include ensuring that all utility services can be maintained operational during a flood, for example by placing vital services, such as electricity supplies, lift power and control gear, in flood-proof enclosures;  A sump within the basement to aid the removal of floodwater

Relevant measures should be specified and secured by an appropriate planning condition in order for the development to comply with London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood Risk.

The drainage strategy states that surface water from the buildings roof areas will be discharged directly to the West India Dock South without attenuation. This is acceptable in principle especially as some of the roof areas will be living roofs and will attenuate some rainwater, however rainwater harvesting opportunities should be investigated.

It is proposed to discharge rainwater from hard landscaping areas to a Thames Water Surface Water sewer with attenuation tanks limiting the discharge to a Greenfield 5l/s rate. It is not clear why these areas cannot also discharge into the adjacent dock, with suitable pollution prevention measures for any areas that may be used for vehicle access.

This point should be clarified in order to comply with the London Plan Sustainable Drainage hierarchy contained within Policy 5.13. These measures should then be secured via an appropriate planning condition.

Transport

Trip Generation & Site access

page 18 At pre-application stage TfL requested that a schedule of committed developments be included within the assessment, as well as justification as to why particular sites were chosen from the TRAVL database to establish the likely trip generation. This has been provided as part of the transport assessment and therefore, TfL is satisfied and has no further issues with respect to trip generation methodology and assessment output.

The access to the site was also discussed in detail at the pre-application stage and TfL requested that a Stage 1 safety audit be submitted to ensure the proposed ramp and new junction access are both safe and accessible. This was not received and remains outstanding.

Parking

The development proposes 102 car parking spaces for the 792 residential units at a ratio of 0.12 spaces per unit. This includes 10 Blue Badge spaces along with 20% active and a further 20% passive provision of electric vehicle charging points (EVCP). TfL welcomes the low level of car parking proposed, in line with London Plan policy 6.13 Parking, however further discussion is needed regarding the level of blue badge spaces. Whilst it is understood that the provision of 80 spaces in line with London Plan policy is unlikely to be practical in this instance some spaces in addition to the 10 proposed should be capable of future conversion to blue badge spaces. The applicant has confirmed that three of the blue badge spaces would be in an area of the basement with 2.6m clearance to allow the use of wheelchair hoists and this is welcomed.

TfL supports the proposed car parking management plan (CPMP) and requests this is secured by condition. However, TfL has concerns regarding the suggested option for residents to purchase car parking spaces. TfL requests commitment from the applicant to lease the spaces instead thus allowing for future flexibility.

TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to investigating the viability of providing a car club on the site and recommends if successful, all residents are offered free membership for the first year as a travel plan measure to encourage sustainable travel. Discussions with car club operators are strongly encouraged.

A total of 838 cycle parking spaces have been proposed for the development, with 824 allocated to the residential units, including 20 for visitor parking, and the remaining 14 for commercial, retail and cafe uses.

The proposed number of spaces is in accordance with London Plan policy 6.9 Cycling. However, following discussions held at pre-application stage, TfL has concerns over the type of cycle parking provided and seeks clarification that all 838 cycle parking spaces will be free of charge for residents.

TfL welcomes the proposed showers and changing facilities, however requests confirmation that these facilities will be available for all staff to use to encourage sustainable travel.

Buses

The transport assessment states that the development will not result in an unacceptable impact on local buses given the anticipated 1% increase in bus patronage. TfL however does not consider the methodology used to assess existing services capacity to be accurate as it is based on the maximum capacity of the bus network in both directions. TfL plans the network to a ‘planning capacity’ which corresponds to circa 80% of the total available capacity in each direction. This allows for daily fluctuations and growth over the lifetime of a contract. Furthermore, TfL considers the bus demand generated by the development as a proportion of spare capacity that is most relevant.

page 19 There is currently a capacity problem on Westferry Road northbound in the morning peak. This is partly due to the impact of various developments that have been implemented on the Isle of Dogs and especially in the Millennium Quarter.

The trips generated by this development plus other developments are likely to exacerbate the existing situation and generate a need for further capacity on the bus network beyond that already funded by contributions secured from other completed developments. As such, and in line with the approach taken by TfL for other developments, a financial contribution of £475,000 is requested towards bus impact mitigation in line with London Plan policy 6.2 Providing Public Transport Capacity and Safeguarding Land for Transport.

Docklands Light Railway

The development site is in close proximity to the DLR tracks and to ensure that the proposed works do not compromise the safe and effective operation of the DLR network and associated structures TfL requests that conditions be attached to any planning permission in order to safeguard DLR infrastructure. These suggested conditions were detailed in TfL’s response to the Council.

TfL requests that the applicant provides real time information boards as part of the development. These should provide information on departures and service updates for local bus, London Underground, DLR and river service departures. The boards should be situated in a communal area, in a prominent and accessible location to encourage the uptake of sustainable transport modes in line with the London Plan policy 6.1 ‘Strategic Approach’. TfL requests that a sum of £40,000 is secured within the section 106 agreement for this purpose.

Cycling & Walking

TfL welcomes the submission of a pedestrian environment review system (PERS) audit and understands that the results confirm the surrounding area to be of a high quality environment for pedestrians. However the Council should agree, secure and implement any improvements identified as a result of the audit through the section 106 agreement.

TfL requests the applicant contributes towards the implementation of Legible London signage within the immediate vicinity of the site. Legible London is a way finding initiative to encourage walking and cycling. It should be noted that the approximate cost for a pair of signs is £15,000.

Due to the scale of the proposed development, and subject to acceptable cycling provision, it is not anticipated that the proposals would have a substantial negative impact on the cycle hire docking stations in close proximity to the site or the cycle hire scheme. However, TfL is keen to encourage uptake of the scheme among residents and users of the building and requests that robust measures be included in the travel plan to encourage uptake of the scheme. This should include provision of information about the scheme in residents’ and employees’ information packs, references in marketing materials, and the funding of a year’s membership for each resident. TfL considers that this would be sufficient to satisfy the applicants’ requirement to facilitate the cycle hire scheme as set out in the London Plan policy 6.9 Cycling.

Travel Planning

page 20 TfL welcomes the full workplace and residential travel plan submitted in support of the application, this has passed the ATTrBuTE assessment tool and should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

The delivery and servicing plan (DSP), requested at the pre-application meeting was submitted with the application which is welcomed. TfL recommends this is approved by the Council in consultation with TfL prior to occupation. TfL further requests that its submission should be secured through planning condition.

At the pre-application stage TfL also requested that a construction logistics plan (CLP) be submitted in support of the application. Although one was not received, the application does make reference to the CLP being prepared in accordance with TfL’s guidance. Considering the location of this development, the potential of using the River Thames for construction should be investigated within the CLP, although it is understood that it is likely that the CLP cannot be finalised prior to a contractor being appointed for construction.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) & Crossrail Obligations

In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3, Community Infrastructure Levy, the Mayor commenced CIL charging for developments permitted on or after 1 April 2012. It is noted that the proposed developments are within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, where the Mayoral charge is £35 per square metre Gross Internal Area (GIA). Further details can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayoral-community-infrastructure-levy

London Plan Policy 6.5 and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ (July 2010) set out the mechanism for contributions towards Crossrail. The SPG states that contributions should be sought in respect of proposals for uplifts in floorspace for office, retail and hotel uses in central London where there is a cumulative uplift in such floorspace of more than 500 sq.m. This application proposes such an uplift, and the charge would be as follows:

Land Use Existing Proposed Net change Crossrail Crossrail (sqm) (sqm) (sqm) charge per charge sqm Office 0 0 0 £186 £0 Retail 0 701 701 £119 £83,419 Hotel 0 0 0 £82 £0 Total Crossrail charge payable on commencement to TfL £83,419

The applicant should note that the Mayor’s CIL charge will be treated as a credit towards the section 106 liability and therefore only the larger of the two amounts will normally be sought. Notwithstanding this, Tower Hamlets Council should include the full Crossrail sum of £83,419 within the section 106 agreement.

Summary

page 21 In summary, TfL requests contributions towards bus capacity of £475,000, real-time information boards and Legible London signage, and that the necessary Crossrail SPG charge/CIL is secured, along with any improvements identified in the PERS audit. A Stage 1 Safety Audit for the access ramp and confirmation of type of cycling parking is also requested for the development to comply with the transport policies of the London Plan. Local planning authority’s position

Local planning authority officers are currently assessing the application. Legal considerations

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

There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

London Plan policies on land-use principle, urban design, tall buildings/views, world heritage sites, inclusive design, housing, affordable housing, child playspace, density, noise, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and transport are relevant to this application. The application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms however further discussion is needed on the issues set out below:  Principle of development: Whilst the provision of a residential led development of this site is supported in principle further discussion is needed regarding the provision of social infrastructure in the wider area and associated section 106 contributions.

 Affordable housing: Further discussions are needed on viability, the level of affordable housing and off-site provision.

 Noise: A noise assessment needs to be submitted which sets out the NEC categories for the site.

 Sustainable development: the applicant should provide a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available. The applicant should provide confirmation that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. Further discussion and commitments are needed regarding flooding and drainage.

page 22  Transport: Contributions should be provided towards bus capacity, real-time information boards and Legible London. Any improvements identified in the PERS audit should be funded. A stage I safety audit for the access ramp should be carried out and confirmation of the type of cycle parking should be provided.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Emma Williamson, Case Officer 020 7983 6590 email [email protected]

page 23