planning report PDU/0056c&0056d/01 16 November 2011 Minoco Wharf,

in the Borough of Newham and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation planning application nos. 11/00844/LTGOUT and 11/00856/OUT

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 The applications are for a hybrid application on the 17.23 hectare site as follows:

Outline planning application for comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the whole site for up to 363,000 sq.m. GEA comprising:

-Retail (A1) not exceeding 3,250 sq.m. (GEA) -Financial and professional services (a2) not excedding 750 sq.m. (GEA) -Restaurant and cafes (A3), drinking establishments (A4) and hot food takeaways (A5) not exceeding 1.500 sq.m. GEA - Business use (B1 (A), (B), (C). not exceeding 15,000 sq.m. GEA, of whoch not more thatn 5,000 sq.m. GEA will be offices B1(a) - Residential up to 329,000 sq.m. GEA and not exceeding 3,385 residential units -Non-residential institutions (D1) 9,600 sq.m. GEA -Assembly and leisure (D2) not excedding 3,000 sq.m. GEA

Together with: - demolition of all exisiting building - vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access from Road - Public realm, public open space and private amenity space - Covered parking areas, plant, storage and an energy centre (not exceeding 68,550 sq.m.) - On street parking - Landscaping - River wall works

Detailed planning permission for the 6.21 hectare eastern portion of the site for 95, 065 sq.m. GEA comprising: - 811 residential units (91, 189 sq.m. GEA) - 3, 326 sq.m GEA mixed use floorspace (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, C3, D1, and D2) - 380 sq.m. B1(a) office - 170 sq.m. ancillary plant (above basement) - Associated highway infrastructure, river wall and public realm works And in respect of the remainder of the site approval of layout and access

page 1

The applicant The applicants are Clearstorm Ltd. and Heracles Ltd. and the architects are Glenn Howells and Feilden Clegg Bradley

Strategic issues The principle of this large scale residential led mixed use development is supported. The design is of a high standard and responds well to its context. Although the density is above London Plan guidelines it is acceptable subject to further discussions on housing quality. Further discussion and information is needed on housing and affordable housing, inclusive design, flood risk, blue ribbon network, climate change, noise , air quality and transport.

Recommendation

That Newham Council, also acting on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation in respect of 11/00844/LTGOUT, be advised that the application generally complies with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 215 of this report; but that further discussions and information is needed on the areas set out in paragraph 216 of this report.

Context

1 On 18 October 2011 the Mayor of London received documents from Newham Council, and Newham Council acting on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC), 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 28 November 2011 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, 1C and 3B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

Category 1B: Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or building outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres;

Category1C: (1a) Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of … more than 25 metres high and is adjacent to the River Thames; and

Category 3B: Development—(a) which occupies more than 4 hectares of land which is used for a use within Class B1 (business), B2 (general industrial) or B8 (storage or distribution) of the Use Classes Order; and (b) which is likely to prejudice the use of that land for any such use.

3 Once the two local planning authorities have resolved to determine the application, each is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over

page 2 for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself. In the case of the LTGDC, the Mayor may decide whether to direct refusal or allow the Corporation to determine it itself.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 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 application site covers a total area of 17.23 hectares. Once highway land at North Woolwich Road is excluded the ‘development area’ covers 15.2 hectares. The site comprises the former Minoco, Venesta and Crescent Wharves and is bounded by North Woolwich Road (which forms part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN)) to the north, the River Thames to the south, the residential development of Barrier Point to the east and Deanston Wharf to the west. The planning application boundary excludes the Kierbeck site adjacent to North Woolwich Road as this is in separate ownership.

7 Minoco Wharf was developed as a chemical works at the end of the nineteenth century and was used for the manufacture of TNT during the First World War. Subsequent to this the site was used by Shell UK as an oil storage and refining site. This use ceased in the 1990s and the site has been cleared and remediated and is currently vacant. Minoco Wharf was safeguarded under the 1995 safeguarding direction. However following a joint report by the GLA and PLA looking at safeguarded wharves on the Thames in 2003 the safeguarding was lifted in June 2005.

8 Crescent and Venesta Wharves lie to the west of Minoco Wharf. They were initially developed as chemical works in the 1890s and then redeveloped for low intensity warehousing and industry. Many of the buildings are vacant and those in use are either on short leases of are used by the Ballymore Group to service other construction sites. Neither of these wharves have ever been safeguarded.

9 Barrier Point residential development, comprising 7-8 storey blocks with an 18 story tower to the river front, abuts the site to the east and turns its back on the site. Barrier Park is to the east of Barrier point.

10 To the north of the site are located a number of warehouses and former industrial buildings. To the north west of the site is Brittania Village which was built in the 1990’s and to the north-east is the site.

11 The nearest sections of the Road Network (TLRN) are the A13 at , approximately 2km to the north, and the A117 Pier Road, located approximately 2.5km to the east of the site.

12 Two (DLR) stations are within walking distance of the site: Pontoon Dock, 150m to the north east corner of the site, and West Silvertown, 250m to the north west corner. The site is currently served by one bus route, the 474, with the nearest stops along North Woolwich Road which are located by Pontoon Dock DLR station, at the north west corner by Boxley Road, and also a westbound only stop opposite Mill Road.

13 As such, it has been estimated that the site records a low Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1-2, on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 is classed as very poor. The PTAL decreases

page 3 from 2 to 1 moving south across the site. The detailed area of the scheme at the east of the site records a PTAL of 2.

Details of the proposal

14 The site is located wholly within the however the western part of the site falls within the administrative area of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation. As such separate, but identical, planning applications have been submitted to each authority.

15 The applications are for a hybrid application on the 17.23 hectare site as follows:

Outline planning application for comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the whole site for up to 363,000 sq.m. GEA comprising:

-Retail (A1) not exceeding 3,250 sq.m. (GEA) -Financial and professional services (a2) not exceeding 750 sq.m. (GEA) -Restaurant and cafes (A3), drinking establishments (A4) and hot food takeaways (A5) not exceeding 1.500 sq.m. GEA - Business use (B1 (A), (B), (C). not exceeding 15,000 sq.m. GEA, of which not more than 5,000 sq.m. GEA will be offices B1(a) - Residential up to 329,000 sq.m. GEA and not exceeding 3,385 residential units -Non-residential institutions (D1) 9,600 sq.m. GEA -Assembly and leisure (D2) not exceeding 3,000 sq.m. GEA

Together with:

- demolition of all existing building - vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access from North Woolwich Road - Public realm, public open space and private amenity space - Covered parking areas, plant, storage and an energy centre (not exceeding 68,550 sq.m.) - On street parking - Landscaping - River wall works

Detailed planning permission for the 6.21 hectare eastern portion of the site for 95, 065 sq.m. GEA comprising:

- 811 residential units (91, 189 sq.m. GEA) - 3, 326 sq.m GEA mixed use floorspace (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, C3, D1, and D2) - 380 sq.m. B1(a) office - 170 sq.m. ancillary plant (above basement) - Associated highway infrastructure, river wall and public realm works

And in respect of the remainder of the site approval of layout and access

16 Five taller blocks are proposed: one as a marker to the entry of the site along North Woolwich Road (maximum 39m approx 11 stories), a landmark tall building denoting the centre of the site and enclosing Minoco Park (maximum 53m approx 18 stories), a tall building to mark the end of the north/south route at the river end (maximum 41m approx 13 stories), a tall building to mirror Barrier Point and create a gateway into the scheme from the river (maximum

page 4 55m, approx 18 stories) and a landmark tall building to mark the landing point of the Silvertown riverboat service (maximum 55m, approx 18 stories).

Case history

17 The western 10.23 hectares of the site, which comprises Minoco Wharf has an extant outline planning application granted by Newham (07/01143/OUT) and LTGDC (07/01141/LTGDC) in November 2008 for the following:

‘Comprehensive mixed use development of Minoco Wharf and Crescent Wharf comprising residential (C3), employment (B1), retail (A1), professional services, food and drink uses (A2-A5), community, health, education, cultural and assembly uses (D1), recreational and leisure uses (D2), vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access form North Woolwich Road, creation of marina and construction of lock access to River Thames and lock control building, access roads and other means of access and circulation within the site, road and foot/cycle bridges over internal water features, covered and open car parking areas, public realm, public open space and private amenity space, landscaping, creation of a network of footways and cycleways including riverside path and other supporting infastructure works and facilities.’

18 The current proposal has been the subject of a joint pre-application process including GLA, Newham Council and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation and a series of joint detailed workshops has shaped the proposal. The application was presented to the Mayor on 30 November 2011 and 13 July 2011.

Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

19 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Mix of uses London Plan  Retail/town centre uses London Plan; PPG13, PPS4  Employment London Plan; PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG  Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, Housing Strategy; Assembly draft Revised Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Education London Plan; Policy Statement August 2011  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; Assembly draft Revised Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft; Affordable Rent draft SPG; Assembly draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan  Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24  Air quality London Plan; Assembly draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy; PPS23

page 5  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Blue Ribbon Network London Plan; PPS25, RPG3B  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13]  London Plan; draft Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; Assembly draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

20 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 Newham Unitary Development Plan and the 2011 London Plan.

21 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The Core Strategy which has been through Examination in Public and for which the Inspector’s report is awaited  The Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan

 The Vision Document (London Borough of Newham and Mayor of London)

Nature of the application

22 The level of detail provided in the outline application is sufficient to ensure that the application will be of a suitable quality. The submission of a detailed application for phase one is welcomed as it gives certainty for this phase and a good indication of the quality of the final development.

23 In addition phase one is a large phase which has been designed to create a sense of place in its own right. It encompasses Plots, 2 4, 5,6, 8 and 10. Phase one will deliver the eastern access into the site, the entrance square next to Pontoon Dock DLR station, the first section of the High Street, the energy centre and a mix of employment, residential, retail and community floorspace. The residential element will include both flats and houses with private gardens. A range of open space will be provided including part of the riverside park and access to the river. It is also envisaged that an element of phase one will be affordable housing.

24 Subsequent phases will move progressively westward across the site. At this stage the boundaries of these later phases have not been set although the applicant sets out that it is accepted that each phase will need to be associated with the delivery of its associated social and physical infrastructure.

25 This approach is welcomed. The GLA has requested that the Mayor be consulted on the reserved matters applications. Land-use principle

26 The site falls within the Royal Docks and Waterfront Opportunity Area as set out in London Plan policy 2.13. This opportunity area is expected to provide at least 6000 jobs and 11,000 residential units by 2031.

page 6 27 London Plan policy 2.13 sets out that development proposals within opportunity areas and intensification areas should support the specific strategic policy directions set out in the plan for the particular opportunity area, seek to optimise residential and non-residential output and densities, provide necessary social and other infrastructure to sustain growth and where appropriate seek to contribute towards or where appropriate exceed the minimum guidelines for housing and/or indicative employment figures.

28 The proposal is broadly in line with London Plan Opportunity Area policies. The appropriateness of the density is discussed in the housing section below.

29 Part of the site is currently identified as Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) in Newham’s Unitary Development Plan, although Newham has identified this element of the site for release from SIL through its core strategy process. The examination in public into the core strategy closed in October and the Inspector’s report is awaited. GLA representations supported the release of this site from SIL. The principle of a residential led mixed use development on part of the site is also established through the extant permission.

30 The post-examination version of Newham’s Core Strategy sets out the following for the site: The release of land designated as a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) at Thameside West up to the eastern boundary of Lyle Park, and west of Lyle Park adjacent to North Woolwich Road, (18 hectares) will assist in the development of a new (medium density/medium family) neighbourhood at West Silvertown. A new local centre should address North Woolwich Road providing a focus to the new neighbourhood as a whole and provide connections to both DLR stations, and pedestrian and cycle links to Silvertown Quays. Development should include pedestrian and cycle access to the river.

31 The proposal is broadly in line with the vision for the site set out in Newham’s Core Strategy.

32 The Royal Docks Vision document sets out a vision for the area to be a world class business centre with an identity of its own, a high class leisure destination and an outstanding place to live, work, play and stay. The Silvertown area is set out to be suitable for mixed use development and the area is identified as suitable for a local retail centre.

33 The proposal is broadly in line with the aspirations of the Royal Docks Vision document.

Employment floorspace

34 The applicant’s employment land report sets out that this site is not an appropriate location for large scale office uses as such the applicant suggests that the application is conditioned such that office use is limited to a maximum of 5000 sq.m.

35 The report also sets out that much of the demand for employment space on the site will come from businesses related to large businesses nearby such as ExCeL, and UEL. In addition it is likely that the Siemens centre and the designation of the area as an Enterprise Zone will trigger the growth of new knowledge based industries in the area. There may also be the demand for space from businesses servicing companies based in Canary Wharf. As such the employment land report sets out that the main demand on this site will be for workshop, studio and light industrial space.

36 B1 floorspace is focussed on two location of the site- North Woolwich Road where large scale space can be provided and along the High Street which is more suited to small scale workshops and office suites. The High Street comprises a central spine road that runs through the

page 7 middle of the scheme between the Thames and North Woolwich Road and is linked to North Woolwich Road at its western and eastern ends.

37 The 15,000 sq.m. of B1 floorspace is capable of accommodating 500 jobs.

38 The detailed application area only comprises one plot which fronts North Woolwich Road and as such B1 office floorspace is limited to 380 sq.m. located on the first floor of plot 2. No figure is specified for B1 floorspace on the section of the High Street included in phase 1 however 3,326 sq.m. of mixed use space is provided where B1 could be provided.

39 The proposal for a residential led mixed use development in this location is broadly supported. The Council should ensure that the development meets its policies for loss of employment land and be comfortable with the level of employment use proposed.

Retail

40 The retail uses proposed are of a scale appropriate for a new local centre for the Royal Docks and this approach is supported by the GLA and is consistent with Newham’s Core Strategy. The local centre will allow a retail hub to be created on North Woolwich Road whilst also using the High Street to animate the central portion of the Minoco site. The centre will serve the Minoco site as well as the existing population at Britannia Village, Barrier Point, Barrier Part East and Tradewinds. The retail report sets out that the level of floorspace proposed will provide for local need whilst not detracting from the role of larger centres in the Borough.

41 As the southern part of the Royal Docks is deficient in convenience food retailing one small supermarket of not more that 1300 sq.m. gross internal area is proposed. This supermarket is included in the detailed element of the application in plot 2 which is in a prominent position at the entrance to the Minoco site with a frontage to both North Woolwich Road and the High Street.

42 The retail component of the detailed application is likely to comprise a large proportion of the 3,326 sq.m. of mixed use floorspace on the detailed plots given that this phase includes the section of the High Street between North Woolwich Road and the Market Square which understandably is the main focus of the retail and food and drink uses. Further consideration should be given to locating additional retail uses in the section of North Woolwich Road opposite Britannia village at the road junctions that provide access into the village.

43 It is understood that the units are designed to be managed flexibly to allow changes between uses to reflect demand as the critical mass of population is reached and this approach is supported. The previous scheme relied on facilities being provided in the Silvertown Quays development but as there is a delay in this coming forward the local centre approach is rational.

Community uses

44 Up to 9,600 sq.m. of community, health, education and cultural uses are proposed on the site. The exact sizes of these remain a matter for discussion with the Council and LTGDC. The applicant sets out that they could include commercial child nurseries, a two form entry primary school, community hall/day care facility a health centre and a community policing facility

45 The masterplan identifies a location for the primary school in the heart of the development as well as a ‘community hub’ area. Most of the D1 uses are likely to be located on the High Street.

46 The detailed submission area allows for the development of some D1 space in the mixed use area including a pre school nursery. The applicant has also set out that consideration will be

page 8 given to providing some interim D1 uses which could be relocated in later phases. This would be supported.

47 The inclusion of a school in the development is supported. The phasing of the delivery of the school and the nature of delivery (ie land gifted to the Council or built by the developer and handed over to the Council) is not yet certain and the Council should ensure that there is capacity to educate children from the development in the meantime.

Assembly and leisure uses

48 The application seeks up to 3000 sq.m. of assembly and leisure uses. This floorspace is envisaged to be occupied by a commercial gym/fitness centre likely to be fronting North Woolwich Road.

49 The detailed submission includes 3326 sq.m. of mixed use floorspace and this could provide a proportion of the assembly and leisure uses. This will be led by the market.

Summary

50 The land uses proposed are supported and in line with London Plan policy, in particular the Opportunity Area status of the site, the designation of the site in Newham’s core strategy which is at an advanced stage and the Royal Docks Vision document. As such this residential led mixed use development is supported in principle.

Safeguarded wharves

51 Minoco Wharf was a safeguarded wharf up to June 2005. Following the publication of the Mayor’s London Plan Implementation Report “Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames” January 2005, the Government released Minoco Wharf from Safeguarding.

52 The site is within an area that contains other safeguarded wharves, including Manhattan Wharf and Sunshine Wharf to the west, Thames Refinery to the east and Angerstein and Murphys Wharves to the south on the opposite bank of the river. The potential noise impact of these wharves is dealt with in the noise section below.

Housing

53 The application proposes a range of housing types to deliver a maximum of 3385 new homes in a mixture of flats and houses with gardens.

54 The illustrative scheme which was assessed for the purposes of the environmental impact assumes a total of 9954 habitable rooms.

55 The detailed area contains 2299 habitable rooms in 811 units. Of these 68 will be houses with private gardens and 741 will be flats. The mix of units is set out below:

Unit size Number of units %

Suite 47 5.8

1 bed 296 36.5

2 bed 91 11.2

page 9 2 bed (large) 226 27.9

3 bed 83 10.2

House (115 sq.m.) 7 0.9

House (139 sq.m.) 14 1.7

House (167 sq.m.) 27 3.3

House (223 sq.m.) 20 2.5

Total 811 100

56 The outline area has the potential to accommodate up to a further 2574 dwellings. The mix below has been assessed for the purposes of the environmental statement:

Unit size Private Affordable rented Intermediate

Suites 9.2%

1 bed 31.4% 25% 34%

2 bed 36.9% 35% 50%

3 bed 14.8% 32% 16%

4 bed 3.9% 5%

5 bed 2.3% 3%

6 bed 1.5%

100% 100% 100%

Affordable housing

57 London Plan Policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes. In doing so each council should have regard to it’s own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. This target should take account of the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.11, which include the strategic target that 60% of new affordable housing should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. The Mayor has published an early minor alteration to the London Plan to address the introduction of affordable rent, with further guidance set out in a draft Affordable Rent SPG. With regard to tenure split the Mayor’s position is that both social rent and affordable rent should be included within the 60%.

58 While the Mayor has set a strategic investment benchmark that across the affordable rent programme as a whole rents should average 65% of market rents, this is an average investment output benchmark for this spending round and not a planning policy target to be applied to negotiations on individual schemes.

page 10 59 Policy 3.12 is supported by paragraph 3.71, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit or other recognised appraisal methodology is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified. Paragraph 3.75 highlights the potential need for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation. A viability assessment is currently under preparation and will be submitted shortly. As such the applicant has not yet set out its proposed level of affordable housing and it is not possible to come to a view as to whether the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing has been provided. Newham Council has set an overall borough target of 35-50% of all new homes to be affordable in its Core Strategy which has been to examination in public.

60 In this case, given the scale and complexity of the scheme, the viability assessment will need to be independently assessed and GLA officers are in dialogue with officers at Newham and LTGDC regarding a joint approach to this. Given the lengthy timescale proposed for redevelopment of the site it is likely that a review mechanism will be sought.

Housing choice

61 London Plan Policy 3.8 and the associated supplementary planning guidance promote housing choice and seek a balanced mix of unit sizes in new developments. The London Housing Strategy sets out strategic housing requirements and Policy 1.1C of the Strategy includes a target for 42% of social rented homes to have three or more bedrooms. Newham’s core strategy that has been to examination in public has a target that 39% of all units should be 3 bed plus.

62 The level of affordable housing has not yet been set for either element of the proposal. The indicative mix for the outline area contains 40% 3 bed plus affordable rented units and is broadly in line with London Plan policy. The detailed mix contains 18.6% 3 bed plus units and thus does not meet Newham’s policy that 39% of units should be 3 bed plus.

63 Further discussion will be needed on housing choice as the affordable housing discussions progress.

Housing quality

64 London Plan Policy 3.5 promotes quality in new housing provision and sets out minimum space standards at Table 3.3. The Mayor will produce a new Housing SPG (a draft of which was put before the London Plan EIP), on the implementation of Policy 3.5 for all housing tenures, drawing on his London Housing Design Guide, paragraphs 3.37 –3.39 provides further guidance on indicators of quality that the proposed SPG will cover.

65 This applicant has indicated that all units will meet or exceed the space standards set out on Table 3.3 of the London Plan and this should be conditioned. The applicant has also sought to address the Mayors Housing Design Guidance in terms of flay layouts, core locations and a mix of dual and single aspect units. The detailed application shows that the overall quality of residential layouts meet the guidance set out in the Mayor’s Housing Design Guide which is welcomed. The parameter plans for the outline elements of the scheme should ensure they also meet the Mayor’s Housing Design Guide.

Density

66 London Plan Policy 3.4 seeks to optimise the potential of sites having regard to local context, design principles and public transport accessibility. The site has a public transport accessibility level of one-two, and its immediate setting is urban in character. The London Plan

page 11 density matrix therefore suggests a residential density of between 200 and 450 habitable rooms per hectare for sites with a PTAL of two.

67 The applicant sets out that the outline application has a density of 655 habitable rooms per hectare which is similar to that approved as part of the Minoco Wharf extant permission.

68 The applicant sets out that the density of the detailed area is 443 habitable rooms per hectare and further goes on to set out that as a number of the units are larger properties it is felt that a more appropriate indication of density would be to counnt all rooms larger that 27.4 sq.m. as two habitable rooms which would give a density of 472 habitable rooms per hectare.

69 The applicant should confirm that the density has been calculated using the net residential area, having regard to the guidance set out in paragraph 3.35 of the Interim Housing SPG.

70 The density of the proposal is above the density guidance within the London Plan for sites with a PTAL of one/two. While there is not an in principle objection to the development of high- density schemes, particularly in an opportunity area, to be acceptable the development will need to provide high quality residential accommodation that is well designed and delivers an appropriate mix of units, sufficient play and amenity space in line with London Plan requirements, and be well designed and in context with its surroundings. The Royals Vision and London Plan both promote a relatively dense form of development within this area; the residential quality of the scheme as set out above is relatively high other matters are dealt with below.

Children’s play space

71 Policy 3.6 of the London Plan sets out that “development proposals that include housing should make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” Although the level of affordable housing has yet to be fixed the applicant has set out that using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ and applying it to the indicative mix which has been tested for the purposes of the environmental statement it is anticipated that there will be approximately 972 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 9720 sq.m. of playspace.

72 This development currently provides 8, 766 sq.m of dedicated playspace (9sq.m. per child). This is split ip as follows: 3,762 sq.m. for 0-5 year olds, 2,835 sq.m. for 5-11 year olds and 2,169 sq.m. for 12-17 year olds. In addition 50, 522 sq.m. of public open space is proposed. Given that areas of the open space will also be playable space this is welcomed.

Urban design

73 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan (2011) and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within chapter seven which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 7.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage and World Heritage Sites, views, the public realm and the Blue Ribbon Network. New development is also required to have regard to its context, and make a positive contribution to local character within its neighbourhood (policy 7.4).

page 12 Design rationale and design code

74 The current layout has been the product of a number of interactive design workshops which the GLA took an active part in. The design has responded to comments from the GLA and other participants and this is welcomed.

75 The rationale behind the current site layout has been based on London’s Great Estates and as such the scheme is based on traditional squares and this is the predominant typology. A small number of landmark buildings are proposed which will aid with wayfinding by providing markers for the main routes through the site and to the river. Further comments on the number of landmark buildings are set out below.

76 The application incorporates a market square at the heart of the development, a high street within the development, a square adjacent to the river and another next to the passenger pier, a park, riverside walk and a number of pocket squares and parks.

77 A design code has been submitted for the scheme which sets out further details on the implementation of the design rationale. The precedents shown for the materials are acceptable and it is understood that the approval of materials will be a condition that will need to be discharged before the reserved matters applications are submitted. This approach is supported. The design code is of sufficient detail to ensure that the final scheme will be of sufficient quality.

78 The detailed application applies the principles of the outline application successfully. Sufficiently detailed materials palettes are submitted for each plot.

79 The design rationale is supported by GLA officers and is in line with London Plan policy.

Layout

80 The design seeks to open up routes into the site from the two DLR stations (including a ‘high street’), from EXCEL through Brittania Village, to provide options for routes from Silvertown Quays, to encourage views through the site to the river and to create large areas of open space.

81 The diagonal route into the site gives a clear and simple access to the centre of the development and the market square. The diagonal route towards the river will provide views to the and provide a clear and easily understood urban structure. The use of the market square for temporary cinema and play uses is strongly encouraged. Temporary play equipment has been successfully used at Gillette Square in Dalston.

82 The masterplan should be amended to align the direct north south route with the entrance to Britannia Village which would give a direct line of sight to the new park and the river. This is shown diagrammatically on page 39 of the Design and Access Statement but is not delivered in the indicative masterplan or parameter plans. This would properly connect Brittannia Village physically and visibly to the school site, the new park on the river’s edge and the river walk. This is a key route that delivers connection within the site and to the wider area. Having a clear open route along this axis is vitally important to connecting existing and new communities. It is understood that the area of land excluded from the application as it is in a different ownership does constrain this to some degree however it is considered that this is not insurmountable, the plans including the parameter plans should be amended to illustrate the delivery of the north/south route showing the integration of the site outside the red line boundary into the masterplan area. This will require the realigning of plots 21, 23 and the western edge of plot 12. Some further commitment to maintaining a route through the school site at plot 23 should also be provided.

page 13 83 Whilst GLA officers support the main retail area being around the DLR station and the area opposite Silvertown Quays and on the internal high street further consideration should also be given to locating A class uses on North Woolwich Road in the area opposite Britannia Village., particularly at the point the north/south route described above crosses the North Woolwich Road.

84 A riverside walkway of varying widths, in order to provide variety, is proposed and this approach is acceptable however the applicant will need to provide good signage/wayfinding.

85 The provision of some active uses on the riverside are supported as these will maximise the opportunities of the site and will benefit from south facing views. However flexibility should be allowed for in the design to allow changes in use as critical mass is gained.

86 As a move away from the previous permission, which was a predominantly flatted development with high provision of one and two bed units, the level of family accommodation has been increased and town houses are developed around squares and this approach is welcomed.

87 The layout is supported by GLA officers.

North Woolwich Road and the DLR

88 Given the barrier created by the road and the DLR to the site the applicant has sought to treat this area in a way to incorporate the site into the wider area. As such three zones are created: a foreground zone for cyclists, pedestrians, bus stops and road crossings; a midground zone with ecological swales and planting, play activities and some car parking; and a background zone of active frontages and pedestrian movement.

89 A protection zone extends 5 m laterally from the outside edge of the DLR viaduct. TfL does not support the provision of any structure within this zone without the prior consent of DLR. DLR control the use of this zone through restrictive covenants. DLR set out that it needs this strip for maintenance, repairs, inspection and access of emergency services. As such TfL sets out that no permanent structures should be provided in the 5m protection zone.

90 For Phase 1, parking is proposed in the vicinity of the DLR viaduct, on roads accessed through the development. TfL has no objection to parking in this area, assuming that the Parking Management Plan will include on site management and security operations. The plan should nevertheless incorporate the requirement that access will be needed at any time to the DLR structures. The design and provision of any uses in the vicinity of the DLR viaduct should be secured by condition. The applicant should take account of the January 2005 document ‘Guidance for Developers’ issued but DLR.

91 Although the inclusion of uses under the DLR will need further discussion with DLR/ TfL this approach is acceptable in principle.

Landscape design

92 The landscaping has been designed to provide a hierarchy of spaces which are differentiated between public, semi-private and private spaces and also to provide a variety of experiences. A series of private courtyards, pocket parks and hard landscaped areas are proposed including swales along North Woolwich Road, a generous and varied riverside walk, a market square and a large park. This approach is successful although the inclusive design issues raised below need to be addressed.

page 14 Tall buildings and strategic views

93 London Plan (2011) policy 7.7, which relates to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings, is of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. This policy sets out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor. Policies 7.10 and 7.11, which set out the Mayor’s approach to protecting the character of strategic landmarks as well as London’s wider character, are also important considerations.

94 A range of heights are proposed including 4 storey houses and apartment blocks of 5-9 storeys with taller blocks of 11-18 stories designed to become visual landmarks.

95 Five taller blocks are proposed: one as a marker to the entry of the site along North Woolwich Road (maximum 39m approx 11 stories), a landmark tall building denoting the centre of the site and enclosing Minoco Park (maximum 53m approx 18 stories), a tall building to mark the end of the north/south route at the river end (maximum 41m approx 13 stories), a tall building to mirror Barrier Point and create a gateway into the scheme from the river (maximum 55m, approx 18 stories) and a landmark tall building to mark the landing point of the Silvertown riverboat service (maximum 55m, approx 18 stories).

96 This arrangement when considered alongside the tall block at Barrier Point is convincing. The further thought given to the heights and positioning of these blocks has been beneficial and they work well with the Barrier Point block. The taller blocks adjacent to the DLR have also been well considered and will act as effective entry points into the main development and indicate the location of the DLR station. Given the scale of the scheme an outline approach to tall buildings in latter phases is accepted, although further indicative images of the tall buildings proposed in outline should be provided to set clear qualitative benchmarks.

97 The treatment of the base of the tall building on the north side of the River Park, Plot 12, remains unconvincing. The relationship of its ground floor to the park space is ambiguous, particularly as to what constitutes the front and back of the tower and how this integrates with the use and landscaping of the park space. Further discussions on this aspect of the scheme would be beneficial.

98 The heights are appropriate to allow adequate daylight and sunlight into the courtyards and are considered appropriate to avoid the canyonisation of North Woolwich Road given the elevated DLR and that account is taken of the noise and overlooking issues raised by the DLR.

99 The site is visible in the panorama from Greenwich Park near the General Wolfe Statue (LVMF view 5A.1) on the periphery of the view to the far east of this panorama. The townscape assessment demonstrates that the view of the development will largely be obscured by trees in both summer and winter and as such the impact on the views is negligible.

Summary

100 Overall the masterplan is of a high standard with a rich mix of building types and sizes. The detailed element has been thoughtfully considered and the overall impression is of the creation of a ‘normal’ piece of the city which will deliver uncontrived incident and interest. The rationale behind the five tall buildings is acceptable although further indicative images should be provided of the blocks to be approved in outline and further discussion is needed regarding the base of plot 12. The masterplan should be amended so that the north/south route fully aligns and a

page 15 commitment should be made to maintaining a route through the school site. Further A class uses should be located on North Woolwich road at the point where the north/south route crosses North Woolwich Road. Further discussion is needed with DLR regarding the treatment of North Woolwich Road in the vicinity of the DLR viaduct. Inclusive design

101 Inclusive design principles if embedded into the development and design process from the outset help to ensure that all of us, including older people, disabled and Deaf people, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity. The aim of London Plan Policy 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum).

102 The design and access statement (DAS) for the outline application makes a number of helpful commitments with regard to meeting inclusive design principles but leaves a number of detailed issues which are not resolved in the detailed submission or are contradictory. For example the outline application states that the proposed site levels in Pontoon Square have achieved gradients of 1 in 25 or less but the detailed plan shows them 1 in 21 and design looks awkward with ramps leading into ramps at right angles. In addition the outline DAS sets out that that the shared surface areas will have a 25mm kerb but the detailed DAS says there will be 100mm kerbs on the high street with kerb free lanes.

103 Further discussion is also needed on a number of points as follows:

 The nature of the shared surfaces. There should be visual definition between the carriageway and pedestrian footway.

 From the submitted information it is unclear as to whether the 10% wheelchair accessible homes requirement will be met in all plots. To achieve this the space standards may need to be more generous depending on the typology and this needs further discussion.

 It is not currently clear where wheelchair users will sit in the amphitheatre in the public space.

 How pedestrians safely navigate around the on-street parking in the mews typology to ensure that pedestrians can navigate safely around the car parking on-street.

 Whether there is vehicular access to the residential blocks to the river front should be confirmed as well as how disabled people will access the terraced houses with car parking under the ground floor. In addition the new park is illustrated with steps.

104 The inclusive design commitments that are made in the design and access statement should be conditioned.

Detailed application 105 The applicant should set out how the development has met the Wheelchair Accessible Housing Best Practice Guide standards. A number of detailed issues needs to be addressed:

 The parking for plot 2 is in the basement of plot one. The distance from the parking spaces to individual dwellings should be provided  The detailed plans of the wheelchair units appear to show that the walls would need to be moved to make the units accessible.  The design and access statement should specify the width of the balcony access

page 16  In plot 4 there is only one lift to the 7 and 8 storey elements where two lifts should be provided.  The plans should demonstrate how a stairlift or through floor lift can be fitted in the town houses. Summary

106 The application generally complies with the London Plan in this regard however some clarifications and further details are needed to ensure the design is as accessible as possible. Flood risk and blue ribbon network

107 The site is within flood risk Zone 3a. The development has been designed such that all residential finished floor levels are above 5.05m AOD. The flood risk assessment sets out that the site will be defended by the Thames Barrier and improved flood defence infrastructure provided by the application. As such the proposal will provide protection up to and in excess of the statutory defence level of 5.18m. The flood defences have the potential of being raised further. The applicant sets out that the Environment Agency is supportive of these arrangements and this will need to be confirmed. The applicant should set out the warning and recovery mechanisms for the development should a flood occur, in particular for the basement car park areas.

108 The Environmental Statement states that surface water from the majority of the site will discharge to the Thames rather than the combined sewer. This is welcomed and is in line with the Sustainable Drainage hierarchy set out in London Plan Policy 5.13. The northern portion of the site is proposed to drain to swales on North Woolwich Road prior to any discharge to the combined sewer. It would be preferable for this area also to drain to the Thames, although it is understood that the topography of the site, and the landscape design, may prevent this it should be investigated. The drainage proposals should be secured by planning condition.

109 London Plan policies 7.24-27 promotes the provision of new support facilities, infrastructure and activities that support the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for tourism, passenger, freight and sport and recreational uses. Policy 7.28 sets out that development proposals should restore and enhance the Blue Ribbon Network for example by taking opportunities to naturalise river channels, increasing habitat value, protecting the value of the Thames foreshore and protecting the open character of the Blue Ribbon Network.

110 The proposal includes the installation of a new river (flood defence) wall set back from the current wall and a new strip of riverside walk. The height of the current wall would be reduced to introduce a strip of inter-tidal vegetation and it is possible to walk along this area at low tide. In addition the proposals include the creation of two new inter-tidal mudflat and reed bed areas. These aspects are generally welcomed and supported by London Plan Policy 7.28. The river walk links with the river walk in front of the adjoining development, Barrier Point, and it is understood that whilst access from Barrier Point to Barrier Park is currently gated the development was conditioned such that when Minoco Wharf was built out this would be opened up permanently. This should be clarified by the applicant and Newham Council.

111 This approach is considered acceptable and the Council should ensure that the views of the Environment Agency are taken into account as the application progresses and appropriate conditions attached to the decision notice.

112 Previous proposals introduced a new marina and a small boatyard facility within the site. This was primarily in response to the former London Plan policy requirement that a safeguarded wharf that was released from its safeguarded status should have other river uses incorporated. That policy requirement has been removed from the current London Plan and these aspects of the

page 17 proposal are no longer required. It is regrettable that there are no river uses of the site however as there remains an on-going demand for both boatyard and marina/mooring berths within London.

113 Given the site’s riverside location the majority of the transport of bulk materials either for construction or removal of waste and soil should be by barge, in line with London Plan policy 7.26. This should be secured by a planning condition or legal agreement.

114 A resolution to grant consent for a new river passenger pier to be known as Silvertown Pier (07/01562/LTGDC) was granted in 2008 although the decision notice has not been issued due to ongoing section 106 negotiations which are nearing conclusion. It is understood that the previous permission for Minoco Wharf included a condition requiring the delivery of this pier. Such as condition should be applied to any new planning permission to secure river passenger access to the site. This is in line with London Plan Policy 7.25 and will provide an important new transport option for this area.

115 The proposals open up access along the Thames. This is welcomed and delivers policy 7.27 of the London Plan. The proposals are integrated with those for the adjoining (consented) Silvertown Pier to the immediate west and this is an improvement over the consented Minoco application.

116 Subject to confirmation that the Environment Agency is supportive of the proposals the application complies with London Plan flood risk and blue ribbon network policies although further consideration should be given to the northern portion of the site draining directly into the Thames. Further discussion is also needed around access from the site to Barrier Park and further works or contributions may be needed.

Climate change

117 The London Plan climate change policies set out in Chapter 5 collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change, and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. London Plan Policy 5.2 ‘minimising carbon dioxide emissions’ sets out an energy hierarchy for assessing applications, London Plan Policy 5.3 ‘Sustainable design and construction’ ensures future developments meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, and London Plan Policies 5.9-5.15 promote and support effective adaptation to climate change. Further detailed policies on climate change mitigation and adaptation are found throughout Chapter 5 and supplementary guidance is also given in the London Plan sustainable design and construction SPG.

Climate change mitigation

Energy efficiency

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

119 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 1.5%, and consequent savings of 60 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum in regulated carbon dioxide emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant scheme.

District heating

page 18 120 The applicant has confirmed that it has liaised with the team responsible for taking the London Thames Gateway Heat Network (LTGHN) forward. The applicant has obtained a set of guidelines which are to be followed detailing how a development's site heat network should be designed to allow connection to a larger CHP district heating system.

121 In the event that the LTGHN network does not proceed on compatible timescales with the development, an onsite energy centre will be constructed, with the preferred location identified as the basement plot for Phase 1. Each plot in the development will be connected into the single heat network, with all apartments and non-domestic uses supplied. While it is accepted that the detailed design of the network will not be undertaken at this stage, the applicant should still provide a drawing showing the route of the site heat network and confirm the floor area of the energy centre.

122 Regardless of whether the heat source is a district heating network external to the site, for example the LTGHN, or heat generation equipment contained in an on-site energy centre, the applicant should confirm the trigger point by which the site wide heat network will be established. This should take the form of a condition or S106 clause such as:

Definition: “Minoco Wharf District heating network”: The district heating network connecting every apartment and non-domestic building in the Minoco Wharf development.

Clause: Upon the occupation of the [e.g. 1000th] new apartment within the Minoco Wharf development, the Minoco Wharf District heating network shall be installed and operational and shall thereafter be the sole heat supply for every apartment and non- domestic building within the Minoco Wharf development. 123 The space for the onsite energy should also be safeguarded through a clause such as:

Should an external source of heat not be available to supply the Minoco Wharf District Heating network upon the occupation of the [e.g. 1,000th] new apartment, a central energy centre with a floor area of no less than [e.g 2,000] sq.m., supplying all the heat for the Minoco Wharf District Heating network, shall be established. Combined Heat and Power

124 A 3 MWe gas fired CHP plant is proposed. Load profiles have been provided. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 47% will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy. The applicant should confirm the savings in tonnes per annum. The development is expected to save 1,698 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum through the second element of the energy hierarchy

125 The applicant should confirm how heating will be provided in the town houses.

Cooling 126 The applicant states that there is no intention to provide active cooling to the dwellings in the Minoco development. Passive cooling will be achieved through approaches such as optimising the design of glazing. A by-pass on the mechanical ventilation with heat recovery systems will allow a degree of free cooling in the summer. Night cooling will also be available. Some active cooling will be required in the non-domestic spaces. The nature of the cooling systems will be varied according to the size of the cooling load e.g. small split systems or large high efficiency centralised chillers

page 19 Renewable energy 127 A roof area of 2,650 sq.m. is expected to be available for installation of photovoltaic cells

128 A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 2% will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

Summary

129 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development is equivalent to an overall saving of 49% compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account. This is equivalent to an overall reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 1,912 tonnes per annum. The commitments and conditions set out above should be included on the decision notice or in the section 106 agreement.

Detailed application

Energy efficiency

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

131 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 187 tonnes per annum (10%) in regulated carbon dioxide emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

District heating

132 The applicant has identified that when constructed the London Thames Gateway Heat Network (LTGHN), district heating network will be within the vicinity of the development. The applicant states that there is currently uncertainty around timescales for connection. The applicant has however provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow for future connection.

133 The applicant should continue to liaise with those stakeholders involved in taking forward plans for area wide district heating in the vicinity. Details of correspondence should be provided as an appendix to the energy strategy.

134 The applicant is proposing to install an on site heat network linking all apartments and non- domestic building uses. A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided. Details of how the network will link to the remaining phases of development should also be provided.

135 The site heat network will be supplied from a centralised single energy centre. The size and location of the energy centre has been provided. A detailed plan of the layout of the energy centre should also be provided.

Combined heat and power (CHP)

page 20 136 The applicant is proposing to install a 1MWe gas fired CHP unit as the lead heat source for the site heat network. The CHP is sized to provide the domestic hot water load, as well as a proportion of the space heating. Load profile has been provided to support CHP sizing.

137 A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 514 tonnes per annum (29%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

Renewable energy

138 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 1,000 sq.m. of photovoltaic panels (PV) on the roof for Plot 4, Plot 5 and the north-west corner of Plot 6. Further discussions will be needed to establish if this area has been maximised taking into account the competing priorities with the provision of green/brown roofs.

139 A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 53 tonnes per annum (4%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

Overall carbon savings

140 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 1,194 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account. This equates to a reduction of 754 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 39%.

141 The carbon dioxide savings meets the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan.

Summary

142 The energy strategy for both the outline and detailed element of the application are broadly in line with London Plan policy although some further clarifications and commitments are required as follows: Further details should be provided of the layout of the energy centre, heating in the town houses, details of correspondence with LTGHN should be provided and a drawing showing the route of the heat network should be provided.

Climate change adaptation

143 The application sets out that it is likely that green/brown roofs will be provided. A minimum area of green roof should be commit`ted to and conditioned and the proposed locations should be indicated on a plan. Noise

144 Policy 7.15 (Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes) of the London Plan states that development proposals should seek to reduce noise by minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals as well as separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources wherever practicable through the use of distance, screening or internal layout in preference to sole reliance on sound insulation. The Mayor will also support new technologies and improved practices to reduce noise at source, especially in road, rail and air transport. In addition standard 5.2.1 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG (EiP draft) states that developments should avoid single aspect dwellings that are north facing, exposed to NEC C or D or contain three or more bedrooms.

page 21 145 There are a number of noise sources that may have an impact on this development and these include North Woolwich Road, existing industrial wharfs, London City Airport and the Docklands Light Railway. The development has been designed such that the lower floors of development nearest to the DLR and North Woolwich Road are commercial or retail. The Council should be satisfied that these areas are suitable for a working environment.

146 The noise assessment sets out that the majority of the site is in Planning Policy Guidance 24: Noise Exposure Category A or B but that the strip of the site adjacent to the DLR and North Woolwich Road is in Noise Exposure Category C. The advice in NEC C is that permission should not normally be granted unless there are no suitable quieter alternative sites, in which case permission could be given with suitable conditions. It is accepted by planning authorities in Central London that high ambient noise levels at such sites often lead to high NEC ratings. Whilst planning permission can be granted with mitigation conditions as set out in the Housing SPG there should be no single aspect dwellings in NEC C.

147 The noise assessment submitted with the application adequately addresses road traffic noise, rail noise and construction noise.

148 The assessment addresses the issues of building plant noise and vibration, but has misinterpreted the appropriate British Standard BS41421 guidance. Paragraph 11.128 states:

‘Operational noise from building services plant will be controlled to within the BS 4142 target noise criteria. BS 4142 provides a method of rating industrial noise in residential areas. For avoidance of complaints, BS 4142 recommends that the noise levels at a noise sensitive receptor due to any plant from the Proposed Development be designed to be 10 dB(A) less than the background (LA90) levels, subject to a minimum operational limit of 35 dB(A). The lowest night-time background noise level recorded during the noise survey was around 40 dB(A); therefore to provide a ‘positive indication that complaints are unlikely,’ an operational noise limit of 35 dB(A) from building plant experienced at sensitive receptors is recommended.’

149 It is incorrect to infer that BS4142 places a ‘minimum operational limit of 35dB(A)’. BS4142 does not say that 35 dB(A) is a suitable acceptance criterion in low noise environments, but that the principles of BS4142 are not suitable for assessing noise at those low noise levels.

150 To properly address building plant noise Newham Council should establish what it considers to be acceptable in terms of plant noise emissions, and design to this standard. Usually, this is that plant noise should not exceed 10 dB(A) below the lowest measured background noise level at the nearest noise sensitive façade, as this would provide a positive indication that complaints are unlikely according to BS4142.

151 In relation to the potential impact of aircraft noise, paragraph 11.74 states that:

‘The noise contours provided within Section 6.2 of the [airport Master Plan] document show that the noise levels associated with air traffic may increase by approximately 6 dB by 2030 when compared with the 2005 contours.’

152 The Master Plan summer daytime LAeq,16h noise contours for 2030 show that over half the site falls within the 57 dB contour. This contour marks the onset of significant community annoyance and is also the trigger for eligibility for inclusion within the airport’s sound insulation grant scheme.

1 BS4142:1997 Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas

page 22 153 Paragraph 11.47 of the assessment refers to ‘occasional aircraft travelling to and from London City Airport’. According to the Airport’s 2009 Annual Performance Report, there were of the order of 250 daily aircraft movements towards the end of the year. The Airport is permitted to operate up to 592 daily (weekday) movements; this is considered to be more than just ‘occasional’ aircraft traffic.

154 Adequate consideration, therefore, needs to be given to aircraft noise. This should include building envelope design and adopting the sound-conscious urban design principles in the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy (Box 55) as appropriate. This is particularly relevant as the development proposes high rise blocks of up to 20 storeys which are likely to have direct lines of sight (i.e. no acoustic screening) to aircraft in the air.

155 With regard to noise from the nearby wharves further discussion is needed with GLA noise consultants to ensure that the readings used were during peak periods.

Conclusion

156 It is recommended that the noise mitigation measures reflect Newham’s current policy relating to building plant noise and vibration, and that the acceptability criterion is amended accordingly. The application should be conditioned such that there will be no single aspect units in NEC C.

157 Appropriate consideration should be given to the likely impact of aircraft noise at the site at completion and in the future, and to recommend any appropriate mitigation measures. Further discussion is needed regarding noise from the nearby wharves. Air quality

158 London Plan policy 7.14 sets out that development proposals should be at least air quality neutral and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality. The development has been designed to minimise the effects of vehicular traffic on air quality and commits to appropriate mitigation measures through a construction management plan. Further discussion will be needed to ensure that the proposal is air quality neutral.

Transport 159 In the absence of any advice as to how the outline site, apart from the detailed area to the east, will be phased, TfL’s comments relate to the entire outline application area, with particular issues that will need to be addressed for the detailed area. The approach to mitigation is set across the whole site; however, it is considered that as future phases of the outline scheme come forward, they should be subject to review against prevailing conditions at that time.

Accessibility and density

160 The application, and PTAL assessment, assumes that two new bus routes will be provided associated with the the Silvertown Quays and Thameside West development sites and it should be noted that these have not been committed to by TfL at the present time.

161 TfL is concerned that the apparent increase in density over the previously approved scheme will not be supported by an increase in public transport accessibility. In line with London Plan Policy 3.4, TfL therefore seeks assurance that further transport improvements can be delivered within this area to improve accessibility and mitigate the increased trips that will be generated by this development and in order to justify the density of the development proposals.

page 23 162 Increasing the PTAL of the site can be achieved by enhancing bus services as well as providing measures to aid cycling, walking and bus priority measures. The aim should be to ensure that each household is within a maximum of 400 metres of a bus stop, although the delivery of this may be related to the phasing and occupation of the development and provision of a suitable route for buses through the site. There is however no obligation for TfL to run a bus service through the site if benefits to new residents would not justify journey time disbenefits to through-passengers. Further discussion is needed on the options for bus routes and contributions will be needed from the applicant to facilitate the provision of additional routes if this is found to be feasible as set out below. The PTAL methodology assumes a future service of 3 boats per hour serving the pier and TfL would encourage further discussions with the river bus operator as to how a service could be delivered.

Mode Split

163 The use of ‘main mode’ as part of the modal split assessment may underestimate future bus usage as an ‘access mode’, for example short trips made by bus from the site to the interchange at Canning Town or to the planned Crossrail station at Custom House. Furthermore the 2001 census does not take account of the improved reliability of the bus network across London and increased patronage of bus services.

164 The use of LTDS data is supported as it is more up to date than the census and is time specific. It does however, have some limitation with reference to data other than travel to work trips. In addition, it is based on current travel patterns: car use and car ownership are much lower in Newham than any other area of London, although with increased affluence, car ownership may increase to the London average. Accordingly, it is recommended that the mode split should be monitored in order to update the baseline assessment for future phases of development.

Trip Generation and Parking

165 The overall approach presented for predicting residential person trip generation seems reasonable and the reference to the use of recent survey data is also welcomed. It is suggested by the applicant that during the assessment of future detailed phases of development, up to date surveys will need to be used to input into the models used and ensure robustness of the trip generation assumptions, which is also supported.

166 Given the lack of survey data from East London sites, TfL recommends that, the opportunity to undertake TRAVL surveys should be taken as part of monitoring measures for the phasing of this development (and others in the area). Any TRAVL site survey data collected should be provided to TfL to include in the TRAVL database.

167 The calculation of proposed vehicle movements used suggests a relatively even profile of movements over the peak period without a marked peak hour. This is questionable as it seems unrealistic, and needs therefore to be reassessed to comply with London Plan Policy 6.3.

168 Residential car parking levels across the site will be 0.53 per unit, which is comparable to the consented scheme, and is in line with London Plan Policy 6.13 and is therefore considered reasonable. Clarification should nevertheless be provided as to how parking spaces will be assigned between plots in the detailed area, and whether on-street parking will be included in residential provision. TfL recommends that on-street spaces should only be available for loading / unloading, short stay, car club and disabled spaces. TfL welcomes that a parking management plan will be secured by condition. The need for off-site parking controls and measures relating to parking in the vicinity of DLR structures should be monitored through the travel plan and a sum should be set aside for implementing any changes as required.

page 24 169 20% of residential spaces will be provided with electric vehicle charging points, which is welcomed, but there must also be passive provision for a further 20%, (rather than 10%) in line with London Plan Policy 6.13 and Table 6.1. For the commercial element of the development, the requirement is 20% of the total number of spaces with a further 10% passive provision. Similarly for retail, 10% is required with a further 10% passive provision. These must be secured by condition.

Highway Impact and mitigation

170 TfL is concerned that a development of this scale may have a detrimental impact on operation of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and adversely impact on bus performance, contrary to London Plan Policies 6.3 and 6.11. The accompanying highway model shows that the North Woolwich Road / Connaught Bridge roundabout will be close to capacity in the morning peak.

171 TfL recommends a flexible approach to transport mitigation that front loads public transport measures and allows sufficient funds for bus priority and highway measures using a phased corridor based approach alongside travel plan measures. Congestion and corridor management measures to achieve the aims of smoothing traffic flow and building resilience into the highway network will also need to be secured in line with London Plan Policy 6.3.

172 TfL and other stakeholders are preparing to produce a Royal Docks Infrastructure Study, alongside emerging proposals for corridor based enhancements along the North Woolwich Road, which will identify the likely off-site measures required to mitigate this and other developments. The scope for this study needs to be established, but scenarios to be tested will need to include opening year and revised future scenarios.

173 In line with contributions secured against other consented schemes in the Royal Docks, TfL suggests that a contribution of £750,000 should be secured for off-site highway works in the Royal Docks, of which £250,000 should be secured by Phase 1. It is recommended that an allocation from this Phase 1 amount should be provided towards the Royal Docks Infrastructure Study and its ongoing monitoring, the scope of which will need to be agreed.

174 The application is proposing a new signal controlled junction on North Woolwich Road at the north eastern corner of the site. Any new signals in London, particularly on the TLRN or SRN, need to be considered against London Plan policy 6.11. The proposed junction should be modelled in accordance with TfL Guidelines. TfL would also expect to see that non signalised options for accessing the site have been fully explored before any signals can be approved. TfL recommends a staged approach through construction, and trigger points for new or amended signal operation through occupation.

175 Silvertown Way and North Woolwich Road will be part of the Olympic Route Network (ORN), providing access to the Excel Exhibition Centre, where a variety of Olympic and Paralympic events will be occurring in 2012. Given the importance of this route, TfL is advising that no work on the ORN occurs between September 2011 and October 2012; this includes highway works, utility diversions and third party activities that could impact on its implementation and use. TfL therefore requires the applicant to demonstrate that the development both at construction and operational phases, will have no impact on the operation or construction of the ORN.

Walking, Cycling and Wayfinding

176 For the outline application 4,191 cycle spaces are proposed for the residential element and a total of 90 spaces for non-residential uses. For Phase 1, 961 residential spaces and 25 non- residential spaces are proposed. Overall cycle parking provision is in line with London Plan Policy

page 25 6.13 and Table 6.2 and is therefore acceptable. There should be provision for showers and storage facilities for non-residential uses across the outline area.

177 TfL welcomes the submission of a PERS audit of the pedestrian network. A contribution should be secured to improve those sections of the borough highway that have been identified as currently in poor condition in accordance with London Plan policy 6.10.

178 The development should promote the ‘Legible London’ initiative to improve wayfinding, and encourage walking in accordance with London Plan policy 6.10. Assuming that 10 monolith signs and 10 finger signs would be required for the outline area, a contribution of £132,000 is required. For Phase 1, a contribution of £62,810 would be required for 4 monolith signs and 4 finger signs. TfL requests that that these sums are secured in the section 106 agreement.

Public Transport

Buses

179 As stated above, there is no current commitment to provide new bus routes to serve the Silvertown Quays and Thameside West areas. The developer should not therefore rely upon such services to provide enhanced accessibility to the area in advance of this application.

180 It is expected that with the opening of a Crossrail station at Custom House, there will be demand for a bus link from Silvertown, so the proportion of bus passenger trips could be expected to be higher as buses would be used as a connecting mode. As this development could generate over 500 employees and around 7,000 residents in the area, there could be a significant increase in bus use during the day. Furthermore, as the applicant appears to have underestimated the bus mode share, TfL does not accept the assertion that the impact on the bus network would be negligible. The bus assessment should therefore be revisited and subject to monitoring as the build out of the whole site progresses.

181 Enhanced bus capacity and potentially new links will need to be implemented to cater for additional demand from this development and increase accessibility, in line with London Plan policy 6.7. The 134 passenger trips presented for the outline area alone equates to providing an extra two buses in the morning peak hour, which is proportionate to contributions previously secured from other developments in the area. The cost of providing an increased frequency of two buses per hour is estimated at £440,000 per year. TfL requests the sum over five years, which will be £2,200,000 in total to be secured in the S106 agreement.

182 Phase 1 is forecast to generate 31 passenger trips in the morning peak hour. Based on the information submitted to date, TfL does not consider that bus capacity enhancements are necessary to support the trips generated in this first phase; however it is suggested that a trigger for bus contributions will be required on commencement of the next detailed phase of the scheme, or the commencement of Crossrail services (scheduled for 2018) whichever is the earlier. It is proposed that a contribution of 25% of the £2.2m requested above or £550,000 will be required at that point, and that amount will be subject to the network conditions at the time as proposed for monitoring and review.

183 TfL welcomes that the design and layout of the detailed Phase 1 area makes passive provision for bus stops and a bus route through the site. It is nevertheless emphasised that a new or diverted route would only be viable once a certain threshold of development has been achieved at the site. It may only be viable to provide new bus links and an increased PTAL by terminating a route within the site, rather than diverting a bus away from North Woolwich Road and through the site, especially if there is a long build out of future phases of the development. TfL would therefore need to be granted rights to use a private road at no cost or without any liability for

page 26 ongoing maintenance. To support new routes in the area, TfL will be seeking to safeguard land for bus standing facilities and driver toilets which may be required within this site and which should be secured in the S106 agreement. The applicant should investigate whether provision can be made in Phase 1, so that a terminus can be provided when needed, with suitable turning areas or roads, which would provide a direct benefit to the site. The area where passive provision for bus stops has been made could be amended to accommodate a two bus stand terminus, approximately 30m in length.

184 TfL requests a capped contribution of up to £20,000 per stop, to improve nearby bus stops which includes the provision of ‘Countdown’ real time information, at selected stops. The PERS audit indicates that all nine nearby stops require some improvement, making a maximum amount of up to £180,000. For Phase 1, the area in question covers three bus stops, with a maximum amount of £60,000.

DLR

Demand

185 Based on the mode split and trip generation figures applied, the outline development is predicted to generate 1,319 trips onto the DLR in the morning peak hour, and the detailed Phase 1 will generate 313 trips. This represents an increase when compared to the 2008 application. Since then, increased development pressure along the DLR Woolwich line has resulted in a greater level of usage along that line and a resulting increase in mitigation required: the assessment predicts that the future level of demand on the line will be 108% of capacity.

186 In order to mitigate the level of demand on the line, capacity enhancements are therefore required in order to provide the necessary transport infrastructure required to and from the development, in line with London Plan policy 6.4. This would enable a passenger environment that would support a sustainable travel choice. In order to provide the necessary measures for this, a level of contribution from each future development has been calculated based upon the demand that that development puts on the line. A tariff of £2,100 per trip generated in the morning peak hour has been calculated. This level of contribution was the basis for recent section 106 agreements for the Pumping Station, Tidal Basin Road and the Thames Road Industrial Estate.

187 When applied to the 2011 Minoco Wharf outline application this tariff equates to a total contribution towards capacity enhancement and passenger facilities of £2,769,900. TfL will want apply an index-linked allocation of £2,100 per trip for each detailed phase of the development. This equates to a contribution of £657,300 for Phase 1.

188 In addition, to support the sustainable travel planning that is promoted through the development a sum should be set aside by the developer to install DLR DAISY real-time departure screens in communal areas, of £40,000 overall for the outline area, of which £20,000 would be for Phase 1. These would permanently display the next DLR departures allowing residents to plan their journey and encourage them to use the public transport offering. This should be secured in the section 106 agreement.

Design and Infrastructure

189 Detailed information about design and infrastructure around the DLR structures and clearance zones along the North Woolwich Road boundary has been provided to Newham Council and LTGDC, which the applicant will need to follow.

190 For Phase 1, parking is proposed in the vicinity of the DLR viaduct, on roads accessed through the development. TfL has no objection to parking in this area, assuming that the Parking

page 27 Management Plan will include on site management and security operations. The plan should nevertheless incorporate the requirement that access will be needed at any time to the DLR structures. The design and provision of any uses in the vicinity of the DLR viaduct should be secured by condition.

Travel Plan

191 In order to manage travel demand and to accord with London Plan policy 6.3, TfL welcomes the submission of a draft travel plan. The future travel plan will need to be updated post- permission and pre-opening, and it should be secured as part of the section 106 agreement. The travel plan will be fundamental to providing the framework for individual land uses and need to be reviewed and revised to always encourage progress with targets and future phases of the development.

Construction and Servicing

192 A construction logistics plan and delivery and servicing plan (and/or servicing management plan as described in the TA) should be provided to minimise the impact of vehicles on the road network, in line with London Plan policy 6.14. These plans should include the following:

 booking systems  consolidated or re-timed trips  secure, off-street loading and drop-off facilities  enabling mode-shift from road to rail and river  using operators committed to best practice, demonstrated by membership of TfL’s Freight Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS), or similar

193 TfL suggests that an investigation into developing a construction consolidation centre for this and neighbouring sites (prior to fixing phasing and / or safeguarding land on or off site) should be developed as well as using the river to move bulk materials (prior to selecting a contractor). The CLP is needed before commencement and all plans should be secured by condition.

194 TfL would support the feasibility assessment to look into water use for transport, and would be pleased to review the scope of the study before it is undertaken.

195 A managed construction process is supported including the potential for a construction consolidation centre, ideally in co-operation with nearby development sites.

Crossrail

196 An approach has been developed for collecting contributions towards Crossrail and is set out in Policy 6.5 of the London Plan and the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’, July 2010. In view of Crossrail’s strategic regional importance to London’s economic regeneration and development, and in order to bring the project to fruition in a suitably timely and economic manner, the Mayor requires contributions to be sought from development likely to add to or create congestion on the public transport network that Crossrail is intended to mitigate.

197 The SPG states that contributions should be sought in respect of office and retail development within 1km of a Crossrail station outside of central London and the Isle of Dogs which involve a net increase in office and retail floorspace of more than 500 square metres. As this site is within 1km of Custom House Crossrail station the tariff will be applicable and the applicant

page 28 will need to provide floorspace details of any existing B1 uses on the site so that the increase can be calculated.

198 The contributions for the elements of the whole Outline application are set out in the table below:

Type Size Crossrail SPG rate Total Sq m (Rest of London / sq m) Retail 5,500 £16 £88,000 (A1 – A5) Office / Employment 15,00 £30 £450,000 (B1) 0 Outline Total £538,000

199 For Phase 1, the application is seeking mixed use for 3,326 sq m across a range of use classes, including C3 and D1 and D2 which are not chargeable, and 380 sq m for B1(a). The table below sets out the minimum and maximum ranges which could be expected, based upon all retail or all B1 office calculations, namely a range from £53,216 - £111,180. It will be for the applicant to demonstrate the actual split between retail and office to reach an agreed total for the detailed area.

Type Size Crossrail SPG rate Total Sq m (Rest of London / sq m) All Retail (A1-A5) 3,326 £16 £53,216 Mixed Use (combined 3,706 £30 £111,180 (A1 – A5 and B1a) Detailed Range Total £53,216 - £111,180

200 A 20% discount is applied to contributions received from developments which receive permission and commence before March 2013.

Mitigation measures

201 TfL suggests that a transport board or other appropriate mechanism should be established for the Royal Docks (including the applicant, Newham Council, LTGDC and TfL), to guide the design process and advise on allocating contributions for off-site measures, including bus priority, walking, cycling and wayfinding. It should be flexible enough to work jointly or in parallel with other sites nearby and be responsive to the changing patterns and levels of transport provision but have clear objectives relevant and related to Minoco Wharf, such as enhancements along North Woolwich Road. The creation of a transport board should be set out in the Section 106 agreement. TfL also requests to be a signatory to the agreement given the significant interests in the area and to assist with the delivery of strategic transport delivery.

202 The summary below shows how financial contributions would be applied to the whole outline area, and with the subsequent contributions for Phase 1, with the exception that a bus capacity contribution is not required to support Phase 1.

203 There would be potential for S106 contributions to be pooled with other S106 agreements from other nearby developments to realise improvements to the public transport and highway

page 29 networks. Given TfL’s interests in the site and surrounding area and the likely level of contributions and ongoing engagement to be secured for the site to be acceptable in planning terms, TfL would request to be a signatory to the section 106 agreement.

Section 106 and Section 278 transport contributions and approach to mitigation

204 The 2008 consented scheme secured £2.2m to DLR, £20,000 to DLR Daisy, £850,000 to Bus Capacity, £100,000 towards bus stop improvements and £100,000 towards studies for improvements to Gallions Roundabout. In addition to these, there is now the London Plan policy requirement to fund Crossrail improvements, and the increased need to provide for off-site highway and bus priority measures in the Royal Docks area.

205 A summary list of financial mitigation measures and maximum amounts, based on the information and trip generation figures submitted for the total build out of the development are set out below. These are in no particular order, although in accordance with London Plan policy, contributions to Crossrail are of the highest priority.

Crossrail £538,000 DLR Capacity £2,769,900 DLR DAISY £40,000 Bus Capacity £2,200,000 Off-site highway and bus priority £750,000 Bus stops Up to £180,000 Legible London £132,000 PERS audit improvements On Borough land

The total of these requests amounts to £6,609,900.

For the Phase 1 detailed area, the contributions are calculated as follows:

Crossrail £111,180 (maximum) DLR Capacity £657,300 DLR DAISY £20,000 Bus Capacity £0 (with £550,000 on commencement of next phase) Off-site highway and bus priority £250,000 Bus stops Up to £60,000 Legible London £62,810 PERS audit improvements On Borough land

The total of these requests amounts to £1,161,290.

206 Further measures will need to be secured by condition and in a revised Section 106 agreement for car parking management and parking restrictions, travel plan, electric vehicle charging points, construction and logistics plan, delivery and servicing plan, and approval of developments adjacent to DLR structures.

207 Given TfL’s interests in the site and surrounding area and the likely level of contributions and ongoing engagement to be secured for the site to be acceptable in planning terms, TfL would request to be a signatory to the section 106 agreement.7

Summary

page 30 208 TfL will require further details of the bus and PTAL assessment, and how bus routes and a stand can be accommodated in the Phase 1 and outline areas. Further discussions are needed regarding the potential for bus routes to run through the site. The applicant will need to provide further details of vehicle movements in the AM peak, and then undertake TRAVL surveys and other monitoring to inform submissions for future phases and enhancements to the highway infrastructure for North Woolwich Road and the Royal Docks area, which will be informed by emerging proposals and studies. The Travel Plan, Construction and Logistics Plan, Car Parking Management Plan, Delivery and Servicing Plan and provision of electric vehicle charging points and a car club should also be secured by condition. The transport contributions are set out, and TfL will seek to be a signatory on the S106 given the interests in the area and to assist with strategic transport delivery.

Community Infrastructure Levy

209 In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3, the Mayor of London proposes to introduce a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that will be paid by most new development in Greater London. Following consultation on both a Preliminary Draft, and then a Draft Charging Schedule, the Mayor has formally submitted the charging schedule and supporting evidence to the examiner in advance of an examination in public. Subject to the legal process, the Mayor intends to start charging on 1 April 2012. Any development that receives planning permission after that date will have to pay, including:

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

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

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

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

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

page 31 3 Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Croydon, Enfield, Havering, £20 Newham, Sutton, Waltham Forest

Local planning authority’s position

212 It is understood that Newham Council and LTGDC broadly support the principle of the proposal and the details of the application are the subject of detailed discussions. Legal considerations

213 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

214 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

215 London Plan policies on land use, employment land, retail, safeguarded wharves, housing affordable housing, housing quality, child playspace, urban design, tall building, inclusive design, flood risk, blue ribbon network, climate change, community infrastructure levy, noise, air quality, transport are relevant to this application. In general, the application complies with these policies, for the following reasons:

 Land use: The land uses proposed are supported and in line with London Plan policy and this residential led mixed use development is supported in principle.  Safeguarded wharves: Minoco wharf is no longer safeguarded. Further information is needed on the impact of nearby wharves on the development.

 Housing and affordable housing: the housing mix and level of affordable housing has yet to be set. All units will meet or exceed the London Plan space standards. The density is above London Plan standards but subject to further details on housing quality is acceptable. The level and quality of child playspace proposed is acceptable.

 Urban design: Overall the masterplan is of a high standard with a rich mix of building types and sizes. The detailed element has been thoughtfully considered and the overall impression is of the creation of a ‘normal’ piece of the city which will deliver uncontrived incident and interest. Some further work and commitments are needed.

page 32  Inclusive design: the application generally complies with the London Plan in this regard however some clarifications and further details are needed to ensure the design is as accessible as possible.

 Flood risk and blue ribbon network: subject to confirmation that the Environment Agency are supportive of the proposals the application complies with the London Plan in this regard although further consideration should be given to some areas.

 Climate change: The energy strategy for both the outline and detailed element of the application are broadly in line with London Plan policy although some further clarifications and commitments are required.

 Community Infrastucture Levy: CIL will apply to this development and will be charged from April 2012.

 Noise: The proposal is broadly acceptable but further information and discussion is needed.

 Air quality: the development has been designed to minimise the effects of vehicular traffic on air quality and commits to appropriate mitigation measures. Further discussion is needed to ensure that the policy is air quality neutral.

 Transport: Further information and discussion is needed before it can be said that the application complies with the London Plan in this regard.

216 Notwithstanding that the application generally complies with the London Plan further discussion and information is needed on the following areas:  Safeguarded wharves: Further discussion is needed to ensure that the readings were carried out at peak times.  Housing and affordable housing: When the mix and level of affordable housing has been set the viability assessment will need to be the subject of independent review and it is likely that a review mechanism will be requested.

 Urban design: The rationale behind the five tall buildings is acceptable although further indicative images should be provided of the blocks to be approved in outline and further discussion is needed regarding the base of plot 12. The masterplan should be amended so that the north/south route fully aligns and a commitment should be made to maintaining a route through the school site. Further A class uses should be located on North Woolwich road at the point where the north/south route crosses North Woolwich Road.

 Inclusive design: Further clarification is needed in a number of areas and commitments should be conditioned.

 Flood risk and blue ribbon network: The Environment Agency’s views are sought and further consideration should be given to the northern portion of the site draining directly into the Thames. The delivery of the pier proposed as a separate consented application should be conditioned.

 Climate change: Further details should be provided of the layout of the energy centre, heating in the town houses, details of correspondence with LTGHN should be provided and a drawing showing the route of the heat network should be provided. A minimum area of

page 33 green roof should be committed to and conditioned and the proposed locations should be indicated on a plan.

 Noise: noise mitigation measures should reflect Newham’s current policy, the application should be conditioned such that there will be no single aspect units in NEC C. Appropriate consideration should also be given to the likely impact of aircraft noise at the site at completion and in the future and mitigation measures should be agreed.

 Air quality: Further discussion is needed to ensure that the policy is air quality neutral.

 Transport: Further details are needed of the bus and PTAL assessment and how bus routes and a bus stand can be accommodated in the development.. Monitoring of traffic and network conditions is needed to inform future phases and the plans that are committed to should be secured by condition and the contributions set out in the report secured in the section 106 agreement. Further discussion is needed on the level of Crossrail contribution that is applicable.

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 34