planning report PDU/1046b/02 29 June 2010 82 West India Dock Road, Limehouse in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/09/02099 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 Erection of part 3, part 14 and part 16-storey hotel building comprising 252 bedrooms, meeting/conference rooms, restaurant, cafe and bar, drop off area and new access from Salter Street. The applicant The applicant is Aitch Group, and the architect is Studio BG. Strategic issues The outstanding issues for consideration are: inclusive design, climate change mitigation and adaptation and transport. 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 3 November 2009 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 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London.” 2 On 7 December 2009 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1046b/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. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been page 1 revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 16 March 2010 Tower Hamlets Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 21 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 and any connected application. The Mayor has until 4 July 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 5 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: Inclusive design: an alternative design solution to main hotel entrance should be considered in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 4B.5. Climate change mitigation: additional energy efficiency measures should be considered, the sizing of the CHP system should be revisited, and the proposed renewable energy technology should be reconsidered in order to ensure compliance with London Plan climate change mitigation policies. Climate change adaptation: the issues raised in paragraph 40 of this report should be addressed in order to ensure full compliance with London Plan climate change adaptation policies. Transport: the trip generation methodology should be revisited, a section 106 contribution to public realm improvements around Westferry station should be secured, the need for improvements to the footways around the site should be considered and the number of cycle parking spaces relative to employees should be confirmed. Inclusive design 6 At consultation stage the inclusive access strategy was broadly acceptable, but the provision of revolving doors with a separate automated door for wheelchair users at the main hotel entrance was not considered to represent the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion required by London Plan policy 4B.5. The applicant has responded by removing the revolving doors from the ground floor plan; this is acceptable in line with London Plan policy 4B.5. Climate change mitigation 7 Following the Mayor’s initial consideration of the scheme, which identified a number of concerns in respect of the energy strategy, the applicant has submitted a revised energy strategy (December 2009) to address the issues raised. 8 The revised strategy provides further details and specific commitments regarding energy efficiency, including external wall insulation and air tightness levels. Monthly heat load profiles have also been provided along with information about the proportion of space heating and hot water to be supplied by the combined heat and power (CHP) plant, the capacity of which has been increased in size in response to concerns that it had not been maximised in relation to the page 2 development’s heat load. The proposed energy efficiency measures and combined heat and power plant are now acceptable in relation to London Plan policies 4A.1 and 4A.6, and draft replacement London Plan policies 5.2 and 5.6. 9 The renewable energy element of the strategy has also been reconsidered in response to concerns that the previously proposed solar thermal panels would compete with, rather than complement, the proposed CHP system. The applicant has replaced the solar thermals with 50 sq. m. of photovoltaics, which is the maximum possible within the available roof area. This has been secured by condition and is acceptable in line with London Plan policy 4A.7. Climate change adaptation 10 At consultation stage the applicant was asked to reconsider the provision of a greywater recycling system, which had originally been rejected. The applicant maintains that a greywater system is not a suitable option for the development but has proposed a rainwater harvesting system which will supply the public toilets. This is acceptable in relation to London Plan policy 4A.3. Transport 11 At stage one, TfL welcomed the car free nature of the development, subject to identifying suitable and convenient blue badge holder parking. The applicant has accordingly secured a blue badge holder space adjacent to the site in Salter Row, which is considered satisfactory. 12 In response to TfL’s request for £100,000 to improve the public realm around Westferry Docklands Light Railway (DLR) station, the applicant has agreed to deliver a comprehensive upgrade of the public realm around the site and to contribute £15,000 to TfL to enable works around the DLR station. Given that the development is adjacent to the DLR station this is considered reasonable. 13 TfL is satisfied that other strategic transport issues that were raised at stage one, including cycle parking, travel plan, servicing and delivery plan and construction logistics plan, will be dealt with by condition or section 106 agreement. 14 Since the Council resolved to grant permission, the London Plan Crossrail alterations have been published. Furthermore, the draft Crossrail SPG has been amended to enable contributions to be secured from a wider range of uses including hotels and to redefine the Isle of Dogs contributions area. In this policy context, a Crossrail contribution could be sought. However, this was not prevailing planning policy when these proposals were either being considered or determined. In these circumstances a direction to refuse permission based on the lack of a planning obligation supporting the funding of Crossrail would be unreasonable. Response to consultation 15 The Council consulted various statutory and non-statutory consultees and issued 265 letters to local residents. 16 In terms of statutory consultees, the Environment Agency has no objection in principle subject to standard conditions being imposed. English Heritage, Thames Water, the Olympic Delivery Authority and National Air Traffic Services raised no objection. CABE support the general massing and architecture of the scheme but suggest that a simpler architectural expressions could be more successful and that there is a need to rationalise the geometry of the glazed roof, cladding and curtain walling. page 3 17 Five objections were received from local residents, as well as a petition containing seventeen signatures. Residents object to the scale and height of the building, overlooking, loss of light and view, impact of noise and road closures during construction, parking problems, traffic congestion, lack of community benefit and inadequate public realm enhancements. The Council has addressed these issues in its committee report and they are not considered sufficient to justify refusal of the application, particularly in view of the existing consent for a taller (20-storey) building on this site. 18 Six letters of support were also received, on the grounds that it will bring investment to the area, create jobs, help to meet demand for new hotel accommodation in the area, is well conceived and proportionate to its location, and there is an opportunity to provide a training scheme in conjunction with Tower Hamlets College. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority 19 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage one, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application.