25 Churchill Place
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report PDU/2140a/02 7 July 2010 25 Churchill Place in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/10/00332 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 The application proposes a 19-storey office building, with 71,169 sq.m. of floor space, 8 car parking spaces and 138 cycle spaces along. The application also includes a range of public realm improvements, including a canal side public walk way and improved pedestrian access to the Churchill Place retail centre. The applicant The applicant is Canary Wharf Ltd. and the architect is KPF. Strategic issues This application does not raise any strategic planning policy concerns. 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 1 March 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “. ”Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.” “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high outside the City of London.” 2 On 31 March 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2140a/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 60 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 62 of that report could address these deficiencies. page 1 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 17 June 2010 Tower Hamlets Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, and on 28 June 2010 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. The Mayor has until 11 July 2010 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 The Mayor previously stated that the principle of providing a new office building on this site in the northern part of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area is acceptable in strategic planning policy terms. However, he did identify a number of strategic planning policy issues that needed to be addressed in more detail before this application could be considered to be acceptable: Mix of uses: The application does not include a mix of uses and does not provide any on, or off-ite affordable housing. Transport: There is insufficient transport information included within the submitted application Crossrail: The application does not make a contribution towards Crossrail Energy: there is insufficient information on the energy strategy and climate change adaptation measures Climate change: The applicant has not assessed the potential to include living roofs or walls 7 This report provides an update on these issues, setting out how these have been satisfactorily resolved. Mix of uses 8 The Mayor previously noted that London Plan policies 3B.3 and 5G.3 state that within the Central Activities Zone and the northern part of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area (Canary Wharf), 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. 9 Given the site’s location within a major business centre, and the desire to promote and co- ordinate the development of this part of the Isle of Dogs to provide a competitive, integrated and varied global business location, the Mayor indicated that he was prepared to accept an off-site affordable housing contribution. 10 There have been a number of discussions with the applicant and the local planning authority as to an acceptable section 106 package. Since the Mayor’s previous comments, the page 2 overall financial section 106 contribution has increased from £994,186 to £1,704,244. This overall increase is acceptable in this case. 11 London Plan policy 6A.4 highlights public transport and affordable housing as being the Mayor’s strategic priorities for planning obligations. In this regard and given the Mayor’s priority to deliver Crossrail, it is acceptable for the additional section 106 package to be earmarked for Crossrail and not affordable housing in this case. Transport and Crossrail 12 The Mayor previously welcomed the restraint-based approach to car parking, and was satisfied that no further work would be required to mitigate the impact of additional vehicular trips that might be generated from this development on the strategic highway network. 13 The Mayor did request that the level of cycle parking be increased from 138 spaces to 285 spaces, in line with London Plan policy 3C.22 ‘Improving conditions for cycling’ and draft revised London Plan policy 6.9 ‘cycling’. The proposed level of cycle parking remains below TfL cycle parking standards, however, the local planning authority has included a condition requiring this to be reviewed in accordance with the travel plan means that it will be increased where necessary. This reflects the approach taken to cycle parking when the Mayor considered the earlier scheme in 2008. 14 The Mayor requested a contribution towards the upgrading of the Thames Path and Lea Valley Walk, both of which form part of the Strategic Walk Network. As a satisfactory contribution has been secured for Crossrail as set out below, and in accordance with London Plan priorities, a contribution from this development towards the Strategic Walk Network has not been pursued. 15 The applicant has now clarified all of the transport points raised regarding the travel plan, and TfL is now satisfied that no further work is required in this respect. The proposed travel plan is secured by section 106 agreement, which is appropriate. 16 The Mayor previously requested that a financial contribution of £1,646,100 be provided towards Crossrail in line with Policy 3C.12A of the London Plan. This contribution was calculated by applying the charging rate of £186 per square metre (as set out in the March 2010 draft Crossrail SPG) to the net increase in office floorspace from the implemented planning permission. Following negotiations a contribution of £1,062,000 has now been secured for Crossrail, which is reasonable in this instance because of the particular planning history of this case. Energy and climate change 17 The Mayor previously requested that the applicant provide further information on the proposed energy efficiency measures. The applicant has provided a response arguing that there is limited ability to influence the carbon emissions due to unregulated energy usage in this case. The applicant has, however, confirmed this commitment, should the opportunity arise, to work with the tenants to ensure the building's efficiency in operation is optimised, which is acceptable in this case. 18 The applicant was requested to review the potential to connect the energy centre for this site to the other centres in the wider area. The applicant has now carried out this review and has satisfactorily demonstrated that there is no possibility to connect to other developments at this time. However, the applicant has demonstrated that the energy centre would be designed to allow a connection in the future, which is acceptable. 19 The applicant has now provided further information on the proposed internal heat distribution systems. This indicates that the centralised heating system will be supplied from a plant room on floor 17, which is acceptable. page 3 20 The scheme includes 135 sq.m. of photovoltaic panels on the roof of the building. The Mayor previously requested that the applicant assess the potential to incorporate these within the facade of the building. In response, the applicant has provided a range of technical reasons, including shading from nearby buildings, why the integration of PV into the facade on the development would not be possible, which is acceptable. 21 The application proposes a number of sustainable urban drainage techniques, which have been secured by an appropriate planning condition, which is acceptable. 22 In response to the Mayor’s previous questions, the applicant has now satisfactorily demonstrated that green roofs would be provided, which has been set out on plan and is acceptable. Response to consultation 23 The local planning authority consulted a total of 1,369 neighbouring properties.