planning report PDU/0066a/01 16 November 2011 Lots Road , south side of Chelsea Creek, Drive, Hammersmith & in the Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

planning application no. 2011/03122/FUL

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

The proposal Development for part 5, part 6 storey building for 110 affordable units and erection of part 6, part 7, part 8 storey building for 18 private market dwellings; hard and soft landscaping; Creekside path; associated amenity space; car parking (59 spaces) and cycle parking (167 spaces). The applicant The applicant is Circadian Limited, and the architect is Farrell & Partners.

Strategic issues The application raises a number of strategic matters including the delivery of affordable housing and tenure split, design, transport, energy and climate change matters.

Recommendation

That Hammersmith & Fulham be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 82 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 84 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 7 October 2011, the Mayor of London received documents from Hammersmith & Fulham 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 17 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 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

“Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions—

page 1 (a) the building is more than 25 metres high and is adjacent to the

3 Once Hammersmith & Fulham 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 Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The site is within the wider masterplan for the Lots Road Power Station redevelopment which covers both Kensington & Chelsea on the north side of the Creek and Hammersmith & Fulham on the south side. Planning permission for the masterplan was granted in 2006 following a public inquiry.

6 The site area relevant to the amendments comprises an area of 0.679 hectares. The site is accessed via Chelsea Harbour Drive and Thames Avenue or by footbridge over the creek from the Kensington & Chelsea half of the site. The site borders the Chelsea Harbour development and has vehicle access from Chelsea Harbour Drive at the western end of the site.

7 The setting of the site is in the backdrop of the substantial Edwardian (1905) power station building which is neither listed nor located within a conservation area, although the neck of Chelsea Creek and the riverside are in the Thames Conservation Area. The amendments in this application relate to blocks within Hammersmith & Fulham.

8 The site is located approximately 350 metres from Imperial Wharf London Overground Station and is approximately 1.2 kilometres from Fulham Broadway Station (beyond what is considered to be an acceptable walking distance for commuting). The site is served by the C3 bus on Harbour Avenue, the 391 on Imperial Road and the 11 and 22 services on Kings Road. The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating of 3. The nearest road on the Road Network is the A3220 Cremorne Road and the nearest road on the Strategic Road Network is the A308 Kings Road.

Details of the proposal

9 Erection of part 5, part 6 storey building containing 110 affordable dwellings and erection of part 6, part 7, part 8 storey building containing 18 private market dwellings; hard and soft landscaping; Creekside path; associated amenity space; car parking (59 spaces) and cycle parking (167 spaces).

10 Design changes are proposed to block HF2 and HF3 of the original master plan (see figures 1 and 2 below). The changes will result in a reduction in the number of dwellings compared to the approved (2002/03132/FUL) (PDU/0066) application granted on 30 January 2006 for the development of 382 residential dwellings.

11 There will be a reduction in affordable housing provision from 213 dwellings to 110 dwellings; reduction in height of the main affordable housing block HF3 to part 5, part 6 storeys from 8 to 10 storeys; change of 18 intermediate affordable dwellings within building HF2 to private market dwellings; and a revised access layout. This will result in a reduction of total dwellings across the site to 297 dwellings from the previously approved 382 (see table 1, 2 and 3).

12 As shown in figure 1 and 2 the previous HF3 block formation changes from a linear block terminating with a crescent to the east to an ‘L’ arrangement. It also includes a reduction in storey

page 2 height from five, eight and ten storeys to between five and six storeys. Block HF2 will not change in terms of the form or height, remaining at seven storeys. The result is a net loss of 86 units which is reflected in the housing offer which is currently proposed as set out below:

Table 1 proposed changes to the consented housing mix 2006 consent revised increase/decrease (Hammersmith proposals & Fulham) private 169 (44%) 187 (62%) +18 affordable social rent 177 (46%) 28 (10%) -149 affordable intermediate 36 (10%) 82 (28%) +46 total 382 (100%) 297 (100%) -85

Figure 1 original approved layout (source: Farrell & Partners)

page 3 Figure 2 revised layout (Hammersmith & Fulham south side) source: Farrell & Partners

Case history

13 In January 2006 planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State for the redevelopment of land adjacent to the south side of Chelsea Creek, Chelsea Harbour Drive, London. At the same time, planning permission was also granted by the Secretary of State for the redevelopment of land to the north of Chelsea Creek within Kensington & Chelsea. Both permissions have been implemented by the applicants. (2002/03132/FUL) (PDU/0066)

14 The planning permission for land within the Hammersmith & Fulham site comprises mixed use development for 382 units (169 market (44%), 177 social rented (46%) and 36 intermediate (10%)) including a 37 storey residential tower with ground floor gym, six other residential blocks, car and cycle parking, open space, landscaping and works to the Creek including three pedestrian bridges.

15 In December 2010 the Council granted a variation to the legal agreement to delay the triggers for affordable housing having accepted the applicant’s arguments regarding viability. The variation proposes a safeguard that the affordable housing should be delivered by a date of no later than five years from completion of the market housing. The permission has been implemented and this application seeks revisions to the consented scheme relating to the provision of affordable housing within buildings HF2 and HF3.

16 A formal GLA pre-application meeting was held on 20 April 2011. A number of matters were raised including affordable housing, design, climate change and transport. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

17 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

page 4  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  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  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; Assembly draft Early Minor Alteration to the 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)  Equal opportunities London Plan; Planning for Equality and Diversity in Meeting the spatial needs of London’s diverse communities SPG; Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide (ODPM); Equalities Act 2010  Historic Environment London Plan; draft World Heritage Sites SPG; PPS5; Circular 07/09  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  Safeguarded wharves London Plan; London Plan Implementation Report “Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames”; Safeguarded Wharves review  Hazardous substances London Plan; Circular 04/00

18 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 2011 Hammersmith & Fulham Core Strategy, the 2003 Hammersmith & Fulham Unitary Development Plan and the 2011 London Plan.

19 The following are also relevant material considerations:  Redevelopment of Lots Road power station Planning permission 2002/03132/FUL (Hammersmith & Fulham side) and PP/02/01324 (Kensington & Chelsea side).  Development Management Policies DPD (2011) Proposed Submission.  The Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan.

Principle of development

20 The principle of development is established in the planning permission 2002/03132/FUL for mixed-use development comprising 382 residential units, including a 37 storey residential tower. The applicant has implemented the permission and therefore development has legally

page 5 started. The proposals relate to a reduction in residential units and affordable housing units. The merits of the reduction are considered in further detail later in this report, but the principle of residential development remains acceptable. Other policy matters regarding design, climate change and energy are considered below. Affordable housing

21 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%.

22 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.

23 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.

24 Where borough councils have not yet set overall targets as required by Policy 3.11, they should have regard to the overall London Plan targets. It may be appropriate to consider emerging policies, but the weight that can be attached to these will depend on the extent to which they have been consulted on or tested by public examination.

25 Hammersmith & Fulham has recently adopted its Core Strategy. Policy H2 sets out that on sites with capacity for ten or more units at least 40% should be affordable housing and sets out that the council would prefer all additional affordable housing to be in the form of intermediate and affordable rent unless a small proportion of new social rented housing is necessary in order to enable proposals for the regeneration of council or housing association estates or the replacement of unsatisfactory accommodation.

Quantum

26 As discussed at pre-application stage, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the quantum proposed represents the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal to the Council. A copy should be sent to the GLA for consideration and this will need to be independently verified. In this instance, it is understood that the Council is in the process of discussions with an appointed valuer. GLA officers would welcome the opportunity to scrutinise any emerging conclusions at the earliest opportunity.

27 At present the affordable housing offer represents a significant reduction in the quantum of affordable housing previously approved and also a significant shift between tenures. Whilst it is recognised that there are implications for the new affordable housing model, as outlined in the HCAs affordable housing programme framework, as well as changes to funding and definitions of

page 6 affordable housing, the changes to the affordable housing offer need to be fully tested and the implications for the wider masterplan considered. Further discussion with the Council’s independent valuer should therefore be initiated. GLA may need to commission a separate review depending on the overall findings. Any such review would need to be funded by the applicant.

28 The recent amendments to the section 106 regarding the time delay to the affordable housing delivery programme for the original permission were not considered by the Mayor and therefore it is important that this case is outlined in the viability assessment if it is to be adopted for the revised proposals.

Tenure split and bedroom size mix

29 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

30 As above, whilst the availability of HCA funding and changes to the definitions of affordable housing will be a determining factor regarding the type of affordable housing products that will be secured, the planning policy position regarding tenure is currently unchanged.

31 Table 1, 2 and 3 within this report, show the changes in tenure split and bedroom size mix for the revised proposals. The change to the tenure is significant and will need to be justified having regard to local and regional evidence as well as the case for viability.

Table 2: consented bedroom size mix studio 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed 6 bed total private 0 24 82 60 1 1 1 169 (44%) social rent 1 34 81 43 14 4 0 177 (46%) intermediate 0 32 0 4 0 0 0 36 (10%) total 1 90 163 107 15 5 1 382 (100%) (0.3% (24%) (42%) (28%) (4%) (1.4%) (0.3% ) )

Table 3: revised bedroom size mix studio 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed 6 bed Total private 0 24 87 (+5) 72(+12) 2 (+1) 1 1 187 (+18) (63%) social rent 0 (-1) 4 (-30) 11 (-70) 9 (-34) 4 (-10) 0 (-4) 0 28 (-149) (10%) intermediate 0 36 (+4) 33 (+33) 13 (+9) 0 0 0 82 (+46) (27%) total 0 64 131 94 6 1 1 297 (-85) (100%) (-1) (-26) (-32) (-13) (-9) (-4) (0.5% (22%) (44%) (31%) (2%) (0.5%) )

page 7

32 There is clearly a significant reduction in the revised mix regarding social rented family accommodation. The changes need to be evidenced through the independent valuers consideration of the case. GLA officers would therefore welcome further discussion.

Density

33 London Plan Policy 3.4 outlines the need for development proposals to achieve the optimum housing potential which is compatible with the local context, the design principles within Chapter 7 and public transport capacity. Table 3.2 of the London Plan provides guidelines on density in support of policies 3.4 and the policies in Chapter 7. There is no commentary within the submission regarding residential density. The applicant should confirm the current approach having regard to the guidance within the London Plan.

Urban design

34 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).

Scale and massing

35 The revised scale and massing to block HF3 is a significant improvement in townscape terms. The change from five, eight and ten storeys to five and six storeys responds well to the existing context. The corner resolution with Chelsea Harbour Drive creates a much greater feeling of openness on approach to the Creek and entering the site. This is a successful change to the form of the block which results in a form that is less overbearing, more human in scale and will encourage a route along the Creek given the increased setback and opportunity for views on either approach from Chelsea Harbour Drive. Block HF2 does not change in terms of scale and mass from the previous consent and remains broadly acceptable given its relationship to the scale of the tower and the other blocks HF4 and HF5

Tall buildings, views and heritage

36 London Plan (2011) policy 7.7, which relates to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings, are 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. The proposals relate only to the lower rise parts of the original permission and therefore the consideration of the case for the tall buildings is not relevant in this instance. In townscape conservation and heritage terms there are no listed buildings in the setting of the site however Chelsea Creek forms part of the Sands Ends Conservation Area. As described above, the proposal represents a significant improvement in terms of scale and massing and is more in keeping with the

page 8 scale of the surrounding context. The proposals therefore preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Circulation and layouts

37 The circulation and layout requires some further consideration. The opportunity to complete the block with the Quadrangle to the south and create a single courtyard space was discussed at pre-application, however this appears unfeasible given a number of constraints including the level difference, the underground entrance and ownership issues.

38 The function of the space to the rear of the new ‘L’ block has now been amended. Previously the space was functioning as a car park; it now shows a landscaped area which has been designed as additional open semi private amenity space. The current arrangement for parking with over sailing development to the west of the block is still unfortunate, however there is now a much improved ground floor surveillance and direct entrance points along the rear.

39 Notwithstanding the improvements since pre-application described above, the entrance to the units should also be considered on the north side to create a typical street relationship that faces the Creek. This area is currently shown in section as a private amenity space, with no direct access out onto the Creek. The design team should consider direct access which will create animation to this part of the site and the opportunity for a footpath that runs on both sides of the new access road.

Inclusive design

40 London Plan Policy 7.2 requires all future development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, and requires design and access statements submitted with planning applications to explain how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development and how inclusion will be managed and maintained. The aim of Policy 7.2 is that proposals aim for the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum) and that the design process has from the outset considered how everyone, including disabled and Deaf people, older people, children and young people, will be able to use the places and spaces that are proposed safely, easily and with dignity. Furthermore, London Plan policy 3.1 ‘Ensuring equal life chances for all’ establishes that “the Mayor is committed to ensuring equal life changes for all Londoners. Meeting the needs and expanding opportunities for all Londoners – and where appropriate addressing the barriers to meeting the needs of particular groups and communities - is key to tackling the huge issue of inequality across London”.

41 Level changes across the site create an environment which is step free. The detail of the landscaping and footpath areas needs to be conditioned in terms of final detailed materials. The change in level up to Chelsea Harbour Drive is significant and therefore ramping and circulation routes should be carefully designed including the type of materials being proposed.

42 There needs to be flexibility for allocation of parking spaces as residential units are adapted in the future and for Blue Badge users who may reside in the Lifetime Home apartments. The arrangements for the future review of demand and supply of bays for disabled people should be reflected in the parking management and travel plans. It should be made clear whether there is access for visitors with blue badges/taxi drop off/community transport pick up close to residential entrances. The applicant needs to demonstrate accessible and adaptable wheelchair units on plan. The Council should condition a minimum provision of 10% wheelchair units and for all units to be designed to meet Lifetime Homes Standards.

Residential quality

page 9 43 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.

44 The issue of residential quality was discussed at pre-application stage. The number of units being accessed from the eastern core exceeds the maximum number set out in the Housing Design Guide and needs to be reconsidered. Some double aspect accommodation is provided, however there is scope to improve this with the introduction of a further core on the eastern side of the block. The provision of balcony space for each unit is supported. The space standards are broadly consistent with the requirements of Table 3.3 of the London Plan.

Elevations and architecture

45 London Plan policy 7.6 requires buildings to be of the highest architectural quality. The approach to simple fenestration that matches the wider masterplan is broadly supported, in particular the introduction of natural surveillance on both the north and the south elevations at ground floor.

46 The removal of parking at the rear is a significant improvement to the setting of the building and the introduction of defensible space is supported.

Playspace

47 Policy 3.6 of the London Plan sets out that “the Mayor will and the boroughs should ensure developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ and based on the bedroom size mix the design team estimate a child population of 51. 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. This generates the need for a minimum of 510 sq.m. playspace.

48 The development exceeds this requirement through the provision of 800 sq.m. of playspace at the rear and to the east of the site. There is also a further 1,280 sq.m. of open space within 400 metres of the site as part of the approved master plan. This is in line with London Plan policy and should be conditioned by Hammersmith & Fulham Council.

Climate change mitigation

49 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 5 collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures, prioritising decentralised energy supply, and incorporating renewable energy technologies on-site. The policies set out ways in which developers must address mitigation of, and adaptation to, the effects of climate change

Energy efficiency standards

50 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 energy efficient lighting, variable speed drives and heat

page 10 recovery systems. The demand for cooling will be minimised through use of thermal mass and optimised glazing.

51 Through energy efficiency alone, the development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 2% in carbon dioxide emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. The reduction in tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum should be provided.

District heating

52 The applicant is aware of a number of existing and planned district heating networks in the area, however these are some distance from the Lots Road development. Nevertheless, the applicant has provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available.

53 The applicant is proposing to install heat network infrastructure linking the dwellings in the development and this will link to the network serving the other phases of the development. A drawing showing the route of the heat network infrastructure has been provided.

54 An energy centre is proposed in building HF3. However, there is another energy centre on the site. The applicant should provide further details of the potential for a single energy centre to serve the wider Lots Road development, including this development which is the subject of this planning application. The floor area required for a single energy centre capable of supplying the entire site with low carbon heat should be provided.

Combined Heat and Power

55 The applicant is proposing to install a gas fired combined heat and power unit in the HF3 building energy centre. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 22% is envisaged through this second part of the energy hierarchy. The applicant should consider the scope for additional combined heat and power unit capacity to be located in a single, site wide energy centre.

Renewable energy technologies

56 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 110 sq.m. of photovoltaic panels. A roof drawing showing the planned location of the panels has been provided. A reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 3.7% is envisaged through this third element of the energy hierarchy. The reduction in tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum should be provided.

Overall carbon savings

57 The applicant should provide an estimate of the regulated carbon dioxide emissions of the development, expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum, after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, combined heat and power and renewable energy has been taken into account. The applicant should also provide an estimate of the overall carbon dioxide savings in tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. Climate change adaptation

58 The London Plan promotes key adaptation principles in Chapter 5 that promote and support the most effective adaptation to climate change. These are to minimise overheating and contribution to heat island effects; minimise solar gain in summer; contribute to flood risk

page 11 reductions, including apply sustainable drainage principles; minimise water used; and protect and enhance green infrastructure and urban greening. Specific policies cover overheating, urban greening, living roofs and walls and water.

59 The adaptation strategy is unclear. Water saving measures need to be considered along with issues of flood risk. The views of the Environment Agency should be taken into account by the Council. The provision of living walls and roofs also need to be considered as part of the design strategy. These matters can normally be conditioned as appropriate by Hammersmith & Fulham Council.

Other related matters

60 The red line boundary runs along the northern boundary with the Creek, however the proposals relating to the relevant blocks do not change the requirements of the previous permission relating to the protection and careful management of the Blue Ribbon Network and associated biodiversity. The applicant should also identify the Transport

61 TfL is aware that the development forms part of a previously consented and implemented scheme for the overall development masterplan which has an existing section 106 agreement in place with substantial contributions secured towards transport improvements. TfL understands that there is no intention to reduce the contributions in the section 106 agreement but there is scope to alter the contributions to reflect the current proposals.

62 A pre-application meeting was held with TfL on Tuesday 2 August 2011 and the following issues were raised: car parking should be provided with a consistency between tenures, electric vehicle charging points should be provided, a publicly accessible car club space should be provided, land and funding for a cycle hire docking station should be made available, ‘Legible London’ wayfinding signage should be funded and installed between the site and Fulham Broadway Station and improvements to the local bus services was sought alongside funding for platform lengthening at Imperial Wharf London Overground Station. A transport assessment, travel plan and construction logistics plan should all be produced in line with the appropriate London Plan policies.

Car Parking

63 Further discussion is required regarding parking levels in the context of wider masterplan levels already approved but having regard to London Plan policy which seeks to achieve the right balance between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use.

64 TfL welcomes the applicant’s intention to provide electric vehicle charging points at a rate of one in five active and one in five passive. The car club, secured in the section 106 of the consented 2006 scheme, should be retained and provided in a publically accessible place. An appropriate reduction in car parking will ensure consistency with London Plan Policy 6.13.

Cycle Parking

65 A total of 167 cycle parking spaces have been proposed. London Plan standards set in Table 6.3 Cycle Parking Standards state that one space should be provided per one or two bed unit and two spaces should be provided per three or more bed unit. Therefore, in order to comply with London Plan Policy 6.9 Cycling, TfL require a minimum provision of 171 cycle parking spaces.

page 12 66 The Mayor currently has plans to extend the Barclay’s Cycle Hire scheme to the west and therefore TfL request land and funding towards a new cycle hire docking station. This will ensure further compliance with London Plan Policy 6.9.

Walking

67 A contribution to provide ‘Legible London’ wayfinding totems between this site and Fulham Broadway London Underground Station is required in order to ensure conformity with London Plan Policy 6.10.

Public Transport

68 The previous section 106 agreement included a contribution towards a new bus service. This should be retained. Bus stop upgrades may be required in line with TfL’s Bus Stop Design Guidance to ensure compliance with London Plan Policy 6.7.

69 TfL noted at pre-application stage that there is a desire to lengthen the platforms of Imperial Wharf London Overground Station. Contributions should be secured towards this using money set aside in the previous section 106 agreement. This is now a strategic objective for TfL to address capacity issues in west London.

70 TfL accepts that the impact of this development on services at Fulham Broadway London Underground Station would not be such that they require any capacity improvements and no contribution is sought on this basis.

Travel Plan

71 A travel plan should be secured, monitored, enforced, reviewed and funded through the section 106 agreement. It should be produced in line with TfL Guidance. This will ensure the application complies with the relevant elements of London Plan Policy 6.3.

Delivery, servicing and construction

72 TfL requests the submission of a delivery servicing plan and construction management plan and these should be secured in the section 106 agreement or by planning condition to ensure consistency with London Plan policy 6.14. The delivery and servicing plan must now form part of the travel plan as set out in TfL guidance.

Summary

73 In order for this application to comply with the London Plan, an increase in cycle parking is required, as is a reduction in car parking, contributions towards implementing ‘Legible London’ should be secured alongside the existing section 106 contributions relating to the 2006 consented scheme. Bus contributions and contributions towards Imperial Wharf station may also be required. TfL welcomes further discussions with the borough and the applicant to decide how best to take forward the existing section 106 agreement in line with the London Plan.

Community Infrastructure Levy

74 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

page 13 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),.

75 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 Hammersmith & Fulham where the proposed Mayoral charge is £50.00 per square metre. More details are available via the GLA website http://london.gov.uk/ .

76 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 London, 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

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

Equalities

77 The 2010 Equality Act places a duty on public bodies, including the GLA, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. This requirement includes removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic and taking steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it. The Act defines protected characteristics and includes age and disability. The GLA in the discharge of its planning function must engage this duty, in so far as it is applicable to a particular case.

page 14 78 In this instance there is a significant shift in the provision of social rented accommodation. GLA officers have raised concern regarding the quantum and mix in comparison to the approved planning application. The case regarding viability is currently being tested and will be reported to the Mayor should he be required to consider the application at the final determination stage. Local planning authority’s position

79 The officer recommendation is currently unknown. Legal considerations

80 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

81 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

82 London Plan policies on affordable housing, tenure, urban design, access, climate change and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Principle of development: (compliant) The principle of residential development is established within the implemented permission relating to this site (2002/03132/FUL)(PDU/0066).  Affordable housing, tenure split, bedroom size mix and density (non-compliant): The quantum and approach to tenure requires independent review. The density should be confirmed.  Urban design and access (non-compliant): The report identifies some detailed design matters that require further consideration, including further work on layouts with direct access to the street and residential quality regarding number of units accessed off a single core.  Climate change mitigation (non-compliant): the applicant needs to explore a single energy centre as part of the master plan. Carbon savings need to be verified.  Climate change adaptation (non-compliant): Further consideration is required regarding flooding and other adaptation measures.  Transport (non-compliant): A number of issues need to be resolved including cycle parking, car parking, contributions towards implementing ‘Legible London’, section 106

page 15 contributions relating to the 2006 consented scheme, bus contributions and contributions towards Imperial Wharf station. 83 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

84 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Affordable housing, tenure split, bedroom size mix and density (non-compliant): The quantum and approach to tenure mix needs to be independently verified. It may be necessary to undertake this as part of a separate process to that undertaken by the Council and therefore further discussion is required.  Urban design and access: The applicant should consider the matters identified in this report including reconsideration of direct access onto the street and the use of a single core in the eastern block.  Climate change mitigation: The applicant should consider the matters identified in this report in particular the priority to deliver a single heat network from a single energy centre and to confirm the overall carbon savings.  Climate change adaptation (non-compliant): The advice from the Environment Agency and Hammersmith & Fulham Council is required in order to allow further consideration regarding flooding. Appropriate conditions should be secured regarding living roofs and water management.  Transport (non-compliant): In order for this application to comply with the London Plan, an increase in cycle parking is required, review of car parking levels, contributions towards implementing ‘Legible London’ should be secured alongside the existing section 106 contributions relating to the 2006 consented scheme. Further bus contributions and contributions towards Imperial Wharf station may also be required. TfL welcomes further discussions with the borough and the applicant to decide how best to take forward the existing section 106 agreement in line with the London Plan.

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] Matthew Carpen, Case Officer 020 7983 4272 email [email protected]

page 16