planning report PDU/0524b/02 12 March 2009 Riverside South, in the Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/07/00935

Strategic planning application stage II 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 Amendments to previously approved scheme comprising major office development in two towers of 35 and 45 storeys linked by a lower podium building with ancillary uses including retail, restaurant, gym and conference facilities, and providing a riverside walkway and public park.

The applicant The applicant is Canary Wharf Ltd, and the architect is Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners.

Strategic issues Outstanding issues relating to design, energy and transport have been satisfactorily resolved.

Having regard to the Council’s draft decision notice there are no sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case and therefore no basis to issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order 2008.

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

Context

1 On 2 March 2008 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1B of the Schedule to the Order 2008: ““Development…which comprises or includes the erection of a building….outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres….” and category 1C “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London.”.

2 On 17 December 2008 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0524b/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 51 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 53 of that report could address these deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached as appendix one. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, further information has been submitted in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 19 February 2009, Tower Hamlets Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the application, and on 2 March 2009 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Tower Hamlets Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Tower Hamlets Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 13 March 2009 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

Update

6 At the consultation stage Tower Hamlets Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 51 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 53 of that report could address these deficiencies:

• Mixed use: the omission of the previously proposed retail floorspace renders the scheme non-compliant with London Plan policies 3B.3 and 5G.3. This is, however, acceptable in this instance for the reasons explained in paragraph 24 of this report, subject to further design work. • Urban design: the design amendments are broadly acceptable in line with London Plan design policies but the removal of the retail use and the public route through the site is disappointing.

• Energy: the energy strategy broadly complies with London Plan energy policies, but lacks certain detailed information.

• Transport: the application complies with London Plan policy 3C.21 but fails to provide a sufficient number of cycle parking spaces as required by policy 3C.22. In the absence of a contribution to , the application does not comply with London Plan policies 3C.2 and 6A.4.

Urban design

7 Whilst the overall scale, composition and layout of the proposed development remains unchanged from that previously approved, the omission of the retail element gave rise to concerns over a reduction in activity at ground level and its impact on interaction with and surveillance of the external public environment. The applicant was asked to give more thought to ways of increasing activity at ground level and undertake further illustrative work to overcome these concerns. 8 The applicant’s response relies principally on existing conditions in the vicinity of the site and proposed improvements to the riverside walk and new public open space. Additional visual information has been submitted which demonstrates the relationship between the proposed development and the existing terrace of restaurants and riverboat pier to the immediate north of the site, to which there is currently no pedestrian access along the riverside from the south. It is accepted that creation of the new riverside walkway along the western edge of the application site will increase pedestrian footfall and activity in this area. The illustrative landscaping scheme submitted with the application provides a sound basis for creation of a high quality public realm. Further details of the riverside walkway will be secured by condition, along with a landscape management strategy to include a planting scheme and identify long term design objectives. This satisfactorily addresses the concerns raised at consultation stage.

Energy

9 At consultation stage, the applicant was requested to provide further information relating to energy consumption by end-use, the size of the absorption chillers and allocation of sufficient plant space, flexibility for connection to a future district heating network and clarification of carbon saving calculations for the river water cooling system.

10 The applicant has provided a response which adequately addresses the queries raised. The main principles of the strategy, which comprises passive design and energy demand reduction measures, a large scale (4.6 MWe) tri-generation system, 2,000 sq.m. of photovoltaics and a river- water cooling system, are sound in relation to London Plan policy requirements, although the river- water cooling system remains subject to further testing and approval of the relevant authorities. The detailed feasibility work necessary to establish its deliverability will be secured via condition. Total carbon savings of 24.3% are also secured by condition.

Transport

11 At the consultation stage TfL welcomed the submission of a PERS assessment and the commitment to provide contributions to improve the pedestrian environment. These will be secured through the section 106 improvements to the public realm.

12 TfL’s concerns about the impact of alterations to Heron Quays roundabout and the construction of the bridge to the Newfoundland site on the TLRN will be addressed by a condition to secure a traffic management plan. The approval of any measures should be taken in consultation with TfL.

13 Whilst TfL welcomes the condition to secure at least 466 cycle spaces for the office element of the scheme, this remains lower than TfL cycle parking standards. Whilst this is disappointing, it is acknowledged that the travel plan, to be secured by section 106 agreement, will include rigorous targets to promote cycling.

14 Although not requested by TfL, the section 106 heads of terms include an additional welcome contribution of £155,000 for DLR and £46,000 for buses. The previously approved scheme already provided £3 million and £946,000 respectively.

15 Policy 3C.12A of the Proposed London Plan Alterations states that “In view of the strategic regional importance of Crossrail to London’s economic regeneration and development, developments which contribute to the transport needs that the project will wholly or partly address will be required to contribute towards its funding through the use of planning obligations, in accordance with relevant legislation and policy guidance”. This is underpinned by London Plan Policy 6A.4 (and as amended in the Proposed London Plan Alterations), which establishes the strategic priorities for planning obligations. This states that affordable housing and transport should generally be given the highest importance. 16 Paragraph 4.9 of the SPG states that “…contributions should be sought in respect of office development in the Central Activities Zone and the northern part of the Isle of Dogs which involves a net increase in office floorspace of more than 500 sq.m.”. The stage 1 report sought a Crossrail contribution of £1.38 million. This figure was subsequently corrected by letter to the Council dated 18 December 2008 to £2,571,099.

17 Following negotiations with GLA and Council officers, the applicant has now committed to make a financial contribution of £2 million towards Crossrail. Taking into account the fact that the application was submitted prior to the publication of the draft policy, and the early stage reached so far in the alteration process, together with the scale of the proposed office uplift, the amount secured for this application is considered acceptable.

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

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

19 Tower Hamlets Council consulted a range of statutory and non-statutory organisations as well as the occupiers of 1,037 properties close to the site. A number of issues were raised in response and have been considered in the Council’s committee report. The need for ecological mitigation and enhancement measures, as well as maximising opportunities to encourage biodiversity as part of the landscaping scheme, was raised by Natural England. Similar issues were raised by the Environment Agency, along with others relating to impact on the river, the need for sustainable drainage, water efficiency measures and contamination and remediation works. Appropriate conditions will be imposed to ensure these issues are addressed by the applicant.

20 Issues relating to navigation and use of the river, including for transport of construction material and the need for a river works licence, were raised by the Port of London Authority. The need for a drainage strategy and controls over discharges to the public sewer and local watercourses was raised by Thames Water. Appropriate conditions and informatives will be imposed to deal with these concerns. The need for a programme of archaeological work was raised by English Heritage; however, this is already underway pursuant to the previous permission on the site and the Council considers it unnecessary to impose further obligations on the applicant in this respect. This is a reasonable approach.

21 Two letters of representation were received from local residents. The omission of the retail element of the scheme and associated lack of active street frontage was raised; along with concern over the apparent lack of public consultation on the amended application. In relation to the omission of the retail element, this has been taken into account by both the Council and the GLA in their assessment of the application. Whilst regrettable, the applicant has sought to ensure that it will not result in a lack of activity at ground level and officers’ view is that refusal of the application on this basis would be unwarranted. In relation to public consultation, officers are satisfied that the Council has fulfilled its statutory duties and has taken account of representations received in its consideration of the application.

22 An objection was also received in relation to the applications for the pedestrian bridge over Westferry Road and alterations to the highway in the vicinity of Heron Quays Roundabout. Specifically, the blocking off of the zebra crossing across Westferry Road was a cause for concern. Officers are content that the new arrangements will result in a safe pedestrian environment and appropriate pedestrian connections will be maintained in the vicinity of the site. Legal considerations

23 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. The Mayor must also have regard to the guidance set out in GOL circular 1/2008 when deciding whether or not to issue a direction under Articles 6 or 7. Financial considerations

24 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 8/93 (‘Award of Costs in Planning and Other (including Compulsory Purchase Order) Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

25 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

26 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the Council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the Council agrees to do so). Conclusion

27 At consultation stage a number of outstanding issues were identified and the applicant was requested to submit further information in respect of urban design, energy and transport. Additional information has subsequently been provided by the applicant. Concerns relating to the omission of the retail element and the associated impact on activity and ground level will be adequately mitigated through enhancements to the public realm and new connections through and around the site, particularly to the north. The applicant has also satisfactorily addressed outstanding queries relating to the energy strategy.

28 In relation to transport issues, the applicant’s approach to cycle parking provision is accepted. A crossrail contribution of £2 million has now been committed to and the application is acceptable in strategic planning terms.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Frameworks) 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Claire O’Brien, Case Officer 020 7983 4269 email claire.o’[email protected]

Appendix One planning report PDU/0524b/01 17 December 2008 Riverside South, Canary Wharf in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/07/00935

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 Amendments to previously approved scheme comprising major office development in two towers of 35 and 45 storeys linked by a lower podium building with ancillary uses including retail, restaurant, gym and conference facilities, and providing a riverside walkway and public park.

The applicant The applicant is Canary Wharf Ltd, and the architect is Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners.

Strategic issues Issues for consideration are limited to those raised by the amendments to the previously consented scheme. These include design changes, the omission of the retail use, the energy strategy and transport considerations.

Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 51 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 53 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 10 November 2008 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 19 December 2008 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 1B of the Schedule to the Order 2008, i.e. “Development…which comprises or includes the erection of a building….outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres….” and category 1C “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London.”

3 Once Tower Hamlets Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (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 2.52 hectare site is located on the western side of the Isle of Dogs. Its western boundary is formed by the River Thames, with to the north and Westferry Road to the east. The site has previously been used as a car park and for construction storage purposes in association with development at Canary Wharf.

7 Initial construction works have commenced in respect of the original scheme as approved in 2005. The basement retaining wall has been constructed and bulk excavation is underway with piling being carried out along the way. Reconstruction of the river wall is substantially complete.

8 The site has a public transport accessibility level of 5, on a scale of 1 to 6 where 6 is most accessible. Three DLR stations (Heron Quays, Canary Wharf and Westferry) and Canary Wharf underground station are located within 500 metres of the site. Four bus routes serve the nearest bus stops on Westferry Road, Marsh Wall and Westferry Circus upper level. The A1203 Limehouse Link is approximately 460 metres from the site and is part of the Transport for London Road Network. The Thames Path cycleway runs along the riverside walk to the west and south of the site and forms part of the National Cycle Network. The Jubilee Line tunnels are located beneath the site.

Details of the proposal

9 The proposal represents an amended scheme from that which already has planning permission and which was supported by the former Mayor. The differences in floorspace and use between the 2005 scheme, the February 2008 scheme and the current proposed scheme are as follows:

Floorspace 2005 consented scheme 2008 consented scheme Current proposed scheme

Office (B1) 273,171 sq.m. 330,963 sq.m. 341,924 sq.m.

Retail (A1 to A5) 5,904 sq.m. 2,367 sq.m. 0 sq.m.

Total 279,075 sq.m. 333,330 sq.m. 341,924 sq.m.

page 8 10 The key principles of the scheme remain, being a major office development comprising two towers linked by a lower central podium building. The plan form and general arrangement of the scheme are subject to minor changes only. The height of the south tower (‘RS1’) and the north tower (‘RS3’ – previously ‘RS2’) remain 241 metres and 162 metres AOD respectively. The height of the central podium building (‘RS2’ – previously ‘RS3’) is reduced from 89 metres to 80 metres AOD. The approximately 8,500 sq.m. increase in floorspace is largely created by a new mezzanine level in the central podium building and additional plant space.

11 In terms of use, the previously proposed retail element at the north-west corner of the site has been omitted. The scheme is now wholly office use (class B1) with ancillary plant and servicing. The previous retail area will be replaced by uses ancillary to the main office use, potentially a staff canteen, gymnasium and conference facilities although this is not formally specified in the application.

12 The previously proposed east-west pedestrian route between the north and central buildings connecting Westferry Road and the riverside walk has been removed. Pedestrian routes through to the riverside to the north and south of the site are retained and will be reinforced by landscaping to create more attractive routes. The publicly accessible riverside walk and open space at the southern end of the site are retained.

13 In terms of elevational treatment, the external expression of the facade glazing remains visually similar to that previously approved. The external structural articulation and architectural expression has, however, been simplified and is similar to that approved for the original 2005 scheme. An additional lift tower has been added to the east facade to mirror that on the west facade.

14 Other changes include a reduction in the number of car parking spaces from 150 to 140 and an increase in the number of cycle parking spaces from 345 to 466. Amendments to vehicular access arrangements are also proposed.

15 The applicant is also proposing a new pedestrian bridge across Westferry Road, linking Bank Street and Riverside South, alongside reorganisation of Heron Quays roundabout and alterations to Westferry Road. These matters are subject to separate planning applications not formally referable to the Mayor.

16 The main reason for revising the scheme again is to create a development which can more readily accommodate a single occupier. The applicant is in discussions with a potential single major tenant and wishes the building to be more responsive to the needs of a single occupier, without precluding future occupation by multiple tenants. In particular, the potential occupier has specific security requirements which necessitate the omission of the public route through the site and the previously proposed retail space. Case history

17 The current application represents an amended version of the previous scheme that was granted planning permission in February 2008. That scheme was itself an amended version of a previous scheme consented in 2005. The key changes between the two consented and currently proposed schemes are as per paragraphs nine to sixteen above. The conclusion of the relevant report considered by the former Mayor in relation to the original 2005 scheme was:

“The proposal fulfils a number of strategic planning objectives: it maximises the development potential of an under-utilised brownfield site with a landmark building of outstanding architectural quality; and it represents the continuing consolidation of the Isle of Dogs as a major business centre within London and beyond, with associated

page 9 economic and employment benefits. An appropriate contribution to public transport improvements have been secured in response to the Mayor’s comments. The mixed-use policy of the London Plan is not specifically met by the development. However, taking into account the overall strategic benefits of the scheme and the benefits contained within the s106, the development is in the interests of good strategic planning for London.” Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

18 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

• Economic development London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy • World city role London Plan • Urban design London Plan; PPS1 • Mix of uses London Plan • Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy • Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13; • Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13 • Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM) • Tall buildings/views London Plan; London View Management Framework SPG • Climate change PPS1, PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG

19 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 1998 Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

20 Tower Hamlets Council submitted and subsequently withdrew various Local Development Framework (LDF) documents in November 2006, including the Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Documents and associated Area Action Plans, including the Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan (‘submission document’). The Council is currently working on a renewed Issues and Options consultation for the Core Strategy. In the interim the Council has adopted the withdrawn documents as ‘Interim planning guidance for the purposes of development control’ but it is unclear how much material weight can be given to this interim guidance. Mix of uses

21 Policy 5G.2 of the London Plan recognises that the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and the northern part of the Isle Of Dogs Opportunity Area are the heart of London’s world city offer and seeks to promote and coordinate their development so that together they provide a competitive, integrated and varied business location. London Plan policies 3B.3 and 5G.3 state that within the CAZ and the north of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area, wherever increases in office floorspace are proposed they should provide for a mix of uses including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies in the London Plan.

22 The previously consented schemes on this site have been predominantly office development with an element of retail use, but no housing. The principle of not providing housing, or a contribution towards off-site housing provision, was considered to be inconsistent with London Plan mixed use policy but was accepted in view of the overall strategic benefits of the scheme, including the provision of a significant amount of new high-quality office floorspace and

page 10 the associated employment and economic benefits, and the substantial social and community contributions provided as part of the section 106 agreement.

23 The omission of the retail element in response to the security requirements of the potential occupier is deeply regrettable and represents a further step back in relation to mixed use policy. It also goes against the principle of creating diverse and vibrant urban environments. The applicant argues that this loss is mitigated by the provision of new retail floorspace in the area in the form of recent and planned extensions to the Canary Wharf retail centre. This includes 8,500 square metres of recently consented retail space including that associated with the adjacent Heron Quays West scheme, which will link through to the existing Jubilee Place mall at basement level. The proposed pedestrian bridge across Westferry Road will improve connectivity between the proposed development and existing retail and leisure facilities at Canary Wharf.

24 In view of the overall economic benefits of the scheme and the provision of a substantial amount of new high quality office space which will accommodate approximately 12,000 employees, and having regard to the strategic role of the Isle of Dogs as a major location for predominantly business and financial activities, the principle of a purely office-based scheme has to be accepted in this instance. Regard should, however, be had to the comments in paragraph 28 of this report. Urban design

25 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.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 views. London Plan policies 4B.9 and 4B.10, which relate to the specific design issues associated with tall and large- scale buildings, are also of particular relevance to the proposed scheme.

26 In terms of overall scale, composition and layout the scheme remains the same. The proposed nine metre reduction in the height of the central podium building does not materially affect the architectural integrity or composition of the buildings. The impact on strategic views is unchanged. In terms of facade treatment, the external expression of the glazing remains visually similar to that previously approved. The light and transparent feel of the towers is preserved and the external structural expression has been reconsidered and marks a return to the simpler diagram of the 2005 consented scheme.

27 The previously proposed internal public route through the middle of the site from Westferry Road to the riverside has been omitted in response to the potential occupier’s security requirements. Whilst this will result in reduced permeability to the riverside, the illustrative landscaping proposals demonstrate appropriate enhancements to routes to the north and south of the site which will improve legibility and encourage public use. The removal of the previously proposed vehicular exit ramp to the lower level of Westferry Road will also assist in strengthening the route to the north. Proposed improvements to the riverside walk and the creation of new areas of publicly accessible open space adjacent to the riverside walk will enhance opportunities for access to and enjoyment of the riverside.

28 The applicant claims that despite the loss of retail space at ground level, animation and activity will be preserved by other uses ancillary to the main office use. However, interaction with and surveillance of the external public environment will inevitably be reduced and the design statement has not attempted to demonstrate how this could be mitigated. The applicant should give more thought to ways of increasing activity at ground level particularly at the north west

page 11 corner of the development where the retail space would previously have been located. Illustrative internal layout plans and detailed visuals should be provided. Energy

29 London Plan policies 4A.4-11 focus on mitigation of climate change and require a reduction in a development’s carbon dioxide emissions through the use of passive design, energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. The London Plan requires developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures and prioritising decentralised energy, including renewables.

30 The energy strategy submitted with the application has been revised and updated to account for the increase in floorspace, loss of retail use, design changes and to ensure consistency with current London Plan policies. The principles of the energy strategy submitted with the previous application have been maintained and the broad approach remains the same. The strategy comprises passive design and energy demand reduction measures, a large scale (4.6 MWe) tri-generation system, 2,000 sq.m. of photovoltaics and a river-water cooling system. The main differences from the strategy submitted with the previous application relate to the omission of the biofuel boiler and the ground source cooling system, which detailed investigations have shown to be unimplementable. The energy strategy is broadly consistent with the energy hierarchy set out London Plan policy 4A.1.

31 In line with the requirement of London Plan policy 4A.4, the applicant has calculated total carbon dioxide emissions using suitable Building Regulations-approved software. Baseline emissions are predicted to be 29,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum, which includes unregulated energy usage. The applicant should provide a breakdown of energy consumption by different end-uses to understand the source of carbon emissions for the baseline scenario and the energy efficient scenario.

32 A series of energy efficient design measures are proposed. These include solar control facade and internal blinds, maximising daylight penetration, installing high efficiency lighting with presence and daylighting control and high efficiency plant. The modelling work submitted indicates that energy efficient design measures will achieve carbon reductions of 15% beyond baseline emissions, which is acceptable.

33 A gas-fired tri-generation system with a maximum output of 4.6MWe will provide heating and cooling. The system has been sized according to the base heating and cooling loads. The system will result in further carbon dioxide savings in the region of 10.5%. The development’s heat demand is both limited and intermittent and the tri-generation system will cater for the majority of its space heating and hot water requirements and 65% of the cooling requirements. The applicant should, however, clarify the size of absorption chillers that will be installed and demonstrate that sufficient plant space has been allocated for the tri-generation system, absorption chillers and top-up plant. In accordance with London Plan policy 4A.6, the applicant should also specify how the energy strategy will ensure flexibility for connection to a future district heating network, should this come forward.

34 In relation to renewable energy technologies, 2,000 sq.m. of photovoltaics are proposed to be integrated in the south facing facade. This will result in a carbon savings of 71 tonnes, equivalent to 0.32% of the residual carbon dioxide emissions.

35 Given the proximity of the River Thames to the site, the applicant has identified potential for a river-water cooling system as a source of ‘free cooling’ and a means of heat rejection. This is

page 12 estimated to result in a further 3.8% carbon saving, but is subject to engagement with, and approval from, statutory regulators including the Environment Agency. At GLA officers’ request, the applicant has provided information relating to the integration of the river-water cooling system with the tri-generation system. This is satisfactory. Further information is, however, sought as to how the carbon savings achieved by the river-water cooling system have been calculated.

36 The applicant’s arguments for the omission of the biofuel boiler and the ground source cooling system are accepted. In view of the applicant’s feasibility assessment for other renewable energy technologies, the potential to increase the renewables contribution is extremely limited. The proposed technologies and associated carbon savings are therefore acceptable in line with London Plan policy 4A.7. Transport

37 The section 106 package for the February 2008 consented scheme includes £3 million towards DLR three-car upgrade, £900,000 for bus capacity upgrades, £513,000 for improvements to Heron Quays roundabout, and a travel plan. TfL’s comments are therefore confined to issues raised by the amendments to the scheme, including changes to the pedestrian and road network associated with the proposed pedestrian bridge, together with the uplift in floorspace.

38 TfL welcomes the PERS assessment that has been carried out and notes the main findings of the assessment that all the crossings in the area performed well, were suitable for their context and had good legibility. Contributions secured towards improvement of the pedestrian environment should make provision for links 3 and 4 which were identified as deficient.

39 TfL welcomes the reduction of ten parking spaces and the increase in cycle parking by 121 spaces to 466 spaces. However, this remains significantly less than is required by TfL’s cycle parking standards and London Plan policy 3C.22. It will provide for 4.6% of staff to cycle to work, but TfL is working to a 10% modal share and therefore expects additional spaces to be provided. Showers, lockers and changing facilities should also be provided. As with the consented scheme, TfL expects the travel plan to promote cycling and provide additional spaces as and when required.

40 TfL welcomes the proposal as part of the new highway layout to upgrade existing crossings on Westferry Road and Marsh Wall to ‘toucan’ crossings. It is noted and supported that these crossings have been aligned to provide improved connectivity between the riverside path and the Canary Wharf estate via Heron Quays West and will encourage walking in accordance with London Plan policy 3C.21.

41 The proposed shared footpath and cycleway on the west side of Westferry Road between the riverside path and the northern crossing should be at least three metres wide and be appropriately segregated to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.

42 TfL is concerned that that the alterations to Heron Quays roundabout and the construction of the bridge across Westferry Road site may have an adverse highway and traffic impact to the TLRN particularly at the junction of Westferry Road/Limehouse Link Tunnel. Any decisions regarding temporary road closure and traffic management measures should be taken in consultation with TfL. It is also requested that the movement of construction vehicles should be undertaken outside the peak hours.

43 The site is in the main business area of the Isle of Dogs where TfL will seek contributions towards Crossrail in accordance with the ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail draft SPG’ and London Plan policies 3C.2 and 6A.4. The draft policy does not set a specific tariff for the Isle of Dogs but advises that it should be higher than the central activities zone (CAZ). As the proposals are in effect an amendment to an existing partially implemented planning permission

page 13 it is considered appropriate to secure a contribution of £1.38 million against the 8,594 square metre uplift in B1 floorspace. This contribution is considered reasonable and comparable to the contribution recently secured in relation to . London Development Agency’s comments

44 This revised application is supported by the LDA given its contribution to London's ‘world city’ status and to meeting the objectives of London's Economic Development Strategy in maintaining and developing London’s position as an international destination and principal gateway for visitors, tourism and investment.

45 In accordance with London Plan policies 3B.1 Developing London's Economy, 3B.2 Office demand and supply and 5C.1 The strategic priorities for North East London, the LDA welcomes the significant contribution the scheme will make towards London's office market offer. The development has significant employment generation potential and as such has an important role in the achievement of employment targets within the Isle of Dogs opportunity area and supporting the creation of a globally competitive business cluster.

46 The LDA is, however, disappointed at the omission of retail uses in the north-west corner of the site which would account for 2,367 sq.m. of the February 2008 approved scheme. London Plan policies 3D.1 and 3D.2 highlight the need to ensure that DPD policies address the need for additional retail and leisure provision in town centre developments. The emerging policies for the area also emphasis the need for retail and leisure uses alongside B1 office uses (Policy IOD16 and IOD17 of the Isle of Dogs AAP). The omission of retail with in the revised scheme will reduce activity at ground floor level and the inclusion of a gym and cafe would not significantly reverse this. Retail plays an important role in London's economy as it serves as a major gateway to employment for many Londoners. The Council should be satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to justify the removal of the retail element and that there is sufficient retail provision in the vicinity of the site to warrant this omission.

47 The LDA is satisfied with the existing planning obligations and welcomes the inclusion of a training and employment contribution in accordance with policy 3B.11 of the London Plan. The sum of £2.5 million towards social and community facilities through a trust fund is welcome. The provision of adequate community facilities and services such as those for older people, capacity building for the voluntary sector are important in promoting community cohesion and the removal of barriers to employment. Access to these facilities and services allows for the development of social networks which are important in ensuring sustainable development, social cohesion and ultimately, sustainable communities. Local planning authority’s position

48 As yet unknown. Legal considerations

49 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

page 14 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

50 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

51 London Plan policies on mixed use, urban design, energy and transport are relevant to this application. In general, the application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons: • Mixed use: the omission of the previously proposed retail floorspace renders the scheme non-compliant with London Plan policies 3B.3 and 5G.3. This is, however, acceptable in this instance for the reasons explained in paragraph 24 of this report, subject to further design work. • Urban design: the design amendments are broadly acceptable in line with London Plan design policies but the removal of the retail use and the public route through the site is disappointing.

• Energy: the energy strategy broadly complies with London Plan energy policies, but lacks certain detailed information.

• Transport: the application complies with London Plan policy 3C.21 but fails to provide a sufficient number of cycle parking spaces as required by policy 3C.22. In the absence of a contribution to Crossrail, the application does not comply with London Plan policies 3C.2 and 6A.4.

52 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

53 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan: • Urban design: further information is required to demonstrate how the loss of the retail space at ground level and the subsequent reduction in activity will be mitigated.

• Energy: the applicant should submit the further information requested in paragraphs 31, 33 and 35 above.

• Transport: cycle parking should be increased in line with TfL’s cycle parking standards. Subject to further negotiation, a section 106 contribution of £2.57 million, based on the uplift in floorspace, is sought towards the Crossrail project.

page 15

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Frameworks) 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Claire O’Brien, Case Officer 020 7983 4269 email claire.o’[email protected]

page 16