planning report GLA/4230a/01 29 October 2018 Land at Fieldgate Street in the Borough of Tower Hamlets

planning application no. PA/18/02080

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral 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 a 20 storey building consisting of 386 student rooms (C2 use class) with a cafe (A3 use class) at ground floor, along with the formation of a new pedestrian link between Fieldgate Street and Road, associated public space, parking and servicing.

The applicant The applicant is Fieldgate Limited and the architect is TP Bennett.

Strategic issues summary Land use principle: The provision of a Purpose-Built Student Accommodation scheme providing 37.3% (144) affordable rooms with supporting ground floor commercial uses is welcomed subject to securing appropriate conditions or legal agreement in relation to the nomination agreement on the majority of the units, and committing to an affordable rent level in line with the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report. (paragraphs 21-29) Urban design and heritage: the design approach is broadly supported and the development is not considered to cause harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets. (paragraphs 30- 43)

Transport: Applicant should aim to meet draft London Plan standards in terms of cycle parking and provide a travel plan; the pedestrian link should be secured on a 24-hour basis through s106. (paragraphs 56-63) Matters in relation to inclusive design (paragraph 44-45), climate change (paragraph 46-52) and flood risk, drainage and water (paragraphs 53-55) should also be addressed.

Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that, whilst the principle of the proposal is supported, the application does not comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 67 of this report. However, the resolution of those issues could lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan and draft London Plan.

page 1

Context

1 On 29 August 2018 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 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 the following Category of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

• Category 1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building that is more than 30 metres high and outside of 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 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 fronts Fieldgate Street to the south and is bound by the 8 storey Tower House to the east, the rear of the (including the 8 storey Maryam Centre) to the west and a construction site and Whitechapel High Street to the north. The site is 0.10 hectares and is currently vacant; it was last used as a workshop for a Citroen garage that is now the construction site to the north, fronting Whitechapel High Street.

6 The site lies adjacent to Myrdle Street Conservation Area but does not have any other local designations. There are a pair of Grade II listed bollards outside Tower House. The site lies within the City Fringe Opportunity Area. The surrounding context is comprised of a mix of uses including residential, hotel and offices.

7 The nearest section of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is the A11 Whitechapel Road which approximately 100 metres to the north of the site. The nearest section of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) is the A1211 High Street approximately 790 metres to the east of the site. The A11 Whitechapel Road also includes cycle superhighway route 2 (CS2).

8 The nearest (LU) Station from the site is (District and Hammersmith & City Line) which is approximately 470 metres north-west of the site. Whitechapel station also provides London Overground services. From 2019, the Elizabeth line will serve Whitechapel.

9 The nearest bus stops are located on New Road approximately 150 metres east of the site. This is served the D3 bus route. There are also bus stops approximately 200 metres north-west of the site on the A11 Whitechapel Road, which are served by bus routes 205, 25 and 254. The bus stop is served by the D3 which provide convenient bus access to Bethnal Green Station. A further 5 routes serve the A11 Whitechapel Road, bus stops are located approximately 200 metres north-west of the site, offering links west and east of the site. This area is also served by the Mayors Cycle Docking scheme.

page 2 10 The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of this site is rated as 6a (where 1 represents the lowest accessibility level and 6b the highest). Details of the proposal

11 The proposals involve a 20-storey development to provide 386 student bedrooms and ancillary communal space. Public realm improvements, including a new pedestrian link between Whitechapel High Street and Fieldgate Street, are also proposed.

12 It is proposed to create 386 student bedrooms as studios or within shared flats from the 1st to 19th floors. Communal facilities include a Ground floor café and communal lounge, with reception and back of house, a health and fitness centre on level 10, a level 19 communal space and cinema room and a level 20 communal roof garden.

13 Three central DDA compliant lift cores will serve the building and there will be 39 (10%) wheelchair accessible studio units provided throughout building. The proposed building totals 12,089 sq.m. (GIA), which is made up of 11,960 sq.m. of student accommodation floorspace, and 129 sq.m. of café use (Class A3). Case history

14 On 20 January 2014, the previous Mayor considered an application (GLA reference D&P/3147/01; Tower Hamlets reference PA/13/03049) for a mixed-use development incorporating an extension to the East London Mosque and residential uses on a site comprising this site and the adjoining land to the north. On 9 February 2015 Tower Hamlets Council informed the Mayor that it was minded to grant planning permission. Upon consideration of a further report (GLA reference D&P/3147/02) the Deputy Mayor (acting under delegated authority) directed refusal. Since this refusal, the site has been split into three portions and each progressed separately by the landowner; the present application falls on the south of this site. Whilst these applications have been brought forward under separate applicant entities, the land is all within the same ownership.

15 A pre-application meeting was held on 6 April 2017 (GLA reference D&P/4230/pre-app) for a 24-storey mixed use development to provide offices and student accommodation. The GLA’s pre- application report, issued on 8 May 2017, stated that scheme was broadly acceptable, subject to student accommodation and design issues being addressed.

16 This scheme was subsequently brought forward as a planning application and considered by the Mayor at Stage I on 30 October 2017; the Mayor considered planning report D&P/4230/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 43 of that report could address these deficiencies.

17 LB Tower Hamlets resolved to refuse the application and advised the Mayor of their decision on 24 January 2018, referring it at Stage II. The application was withdrawn by the applicant on 31 January 2018 and was therefore not considered by the Mayor at Stage II. Notwithstanding this, there were matters outstanding in relation to student accommodation, affordable housing, urban design, sustainable development and transport that needed to be addressed to make the scheme compliant with the London Plan.

18 A pre-application meeting was held on 26 July 2018 to discuss a proposal for the redevelopment of this site and a written pre-application note was issued on 10 August 2018. GLA officers broadly supported the provision of student accommodation and welcomed the incorporation of 37% affordable student rooms. Some inclusive access, climate change, flood risk, drainage and water, and transport matters required resolution.

page 3 Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

19 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

• Principle of development London Plan. • Student accommodation London Plan, London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 14. • Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG; Housing SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG. • Historic Environment London Plan • Inclusive design London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG. • Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; London Environment Strategy; • Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; Land for Industry and Transport SPG. • Water issues London Plan; London Environment Strategy.

20 The following are relevant material considerations:

• Revised National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018); • National Planning Policy Guidance; • Draft London Plan (consultation draft December 2017, incorporating early suggested changes published August 2018) which should be taken into account as explained in the NPPF; • City Fringe Opportunity Area Framework (2015); and • Whitechapel Vision Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

Land use principle

21 London Plan Policy 3.8 seeks to provide a range of housing types to meet different needs, including ensuring that strategic and local demands for student accommodation are met without compromising capacity for conventional homes. Paragraph 3.52 of the London Plan recognises the contribution that higher education makes to London’s economy and seeks to ensure that their attractiveness and growth is not compromised by an inadequate provision of new accommodation.

22 The draft London Plan seeks to ensure the local and strategic need for Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) is addressed. The Mayor’s Academic Forum has established that there is a requirement for 3,500 PBSA bed spaces over the next plan period.

23 Draft London Plan Policy H17 sets out the parameters of providing student housing, stating that the accommodation should be secured for students, secured through nominations agreement for occupation by members of one or more specified higher education providers and provide the maximum level of affordable accommodation. The Mayor’s Annual Monitoring Report (most recent being the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 14), sets the formula for determining the affordability of appropriate affordable student accommodation student accommodation, based on a maximum of 55% average student income.

24 The applicant is proposing 37.3% affordable units, the equivalent of 144 units. As such the proposals comply with the draft London Plan “Fast Track Route” approach for student accommodation, in line with part E of Policy H6 which stipulates that schemes which provide at least 35% affordable accommodation are not required by the GLA to submit viability information, nor would they be subject

page 4 to late stage review mechanisms. Details of the affordability of the accommodation need to be submitted and secured. The affordable bedrooms should be split between a variety of studio and shared flats.

25 In accordance with draft London Plan Policy H17, a nomination agreement is required. A nomination agreement must be in place from initial occupation with one or more higher education providers, to provide housing for its students, and to commit to have such an agreement for as long as the development is used for student accommodation.

26 The applicant has agreed to committing to a nomination agreement being in place prior to occupation, and the borough should therefore ensure that the majority of the student bedrooms in the development are covered by this agreement, which should be secured in the S106.

27 As the applicant has agreed to this, the scheme does not need to be assessed as large-scale purpose built shared living per draft London Plan Policy H18.

28 A café and restaurant use (Class A3) is proposed on the ground floor. This will activate the ground floor alongside the back of house / offices of the operation and support the needs of the building’s occupants.

29 The provision of a PBSA scheme providing 37.3% (144) affordable rooms with supporting ground floor commercial uses is welcomed subject to securing appropriate condition or legal agreement in relation to the nomination agreement on the majority of the units, and committing to an affordable rent level in line with the requirement of the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report. Urban design and heritage

30 The scheme is generally well conceived and presents a simple layout and massing arrangement, utilising the constrained site. The 10-storey shoulder height (9 storey with a set back 10th storey) responds positively to the scale of neighbouring buildings, with the tower element set back from street edges to minimise its visual impact in views along Fieldgate Street and marking the fringe of the Aldgate cluster of tall buildings. The approach to the massing and scale does not raise strategic concerns.

31 The delivery of a new north/south link between Fieldgate Street and Whitechapel Road is strongly supported and recognised as a key public benefit of the proposals. The northern portion of this link is to be secured under the separate planning permission for a hotel, facing Whitechapel High Street (LBTH reference PA/15/03518). As requested at pre-application stage, further information is required regarding the alignment of the public realm link between the two sites and the relationship between the proposed ground floor layout and that consented in the adjoining site. The public realm link should be secured within the S106 agreement to ensure that it is provided in perpetuity.

32 The setting back of proposed building edges maximises the extent of public realm along both the southern portion of the link and along Fieldgate Street. The revised orientation of the building introduces an additional open area of public space on Fieldgate Street, which softens the corner and makes the new public link more legible.

33 It should be demonstrated that there is level access to all entrances within the site. Officers understand that the pavement level on Fieldgate Street varies. As requested at pre-application stage, to fully understand how wheelchair users will access the site from the surrounding pavement, access plans should be provided clarifying the gradients and pavement levels. The gradients should comply with the Accessible London SPG and Housing SPG.

page 5 34 The student accommodation layouts are broadly supported as they include a mix of unit sizes and breakout spaces arranged around a central core. The constrained nature of the site means that lower level units facing onto the rear of the mosque are likely to have limited outlook/daylight penetration; however, on balance, the architect has responded positively to these constraints and the scheme includes a welcome range of shared amenity spaces for students.

Heritage and townscape

35 The form and massing approach is supported subject to the delivery of the pedestrian link. In longer range views, the visibility of the tower is restricted due to the surrounding close-knit urban grain. Where it is visible, its efficient footprint and simple form means it has an attractive impact on the skyline and mediates in scale between the emerging tall building clusters at Aldgate East and Whitechapel.

36 The revised proposals, which rotate the building, is a notable improvement to the scheme, responding much more positively to its wider context and clearly defines the building’s form in longer distance views. The proposals now create an improved backdrop to smaller scale buildings in the foreground. The development site is not within a conservation area, but the improvements to the design in this application would ensure that there is not an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the neighbouring Myrdle Street Conservation Area.

37 The nearest statutorily listed heritage assets are a pair of bollards to the east of the site on Fieldgate Street. Given their small scale and their immediate context being Tower House, there would be no harm to their special architectural or historic interest.

38 The height and composition is acceptable and supported by the City Fringe Opportunity Area Framework.

39 London Plan Policy 7.8. and Policy HC1 of the draft London Plan states that development should conserve heritage assets and avoid harm. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the statutory duties for dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions. In relation to listed buildings, all planning decisions should “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”

40 The NPPF states that when considering the impact of the proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.

41 Where a proposed development will lead to ‘substantial harm’ to or total loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Where a development will lead to ‘less than substantial harm’, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

42 The NPPF states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be considered in determining the application, and a balanced judgement is required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

43 GLA officers have considered the national policy requirements in assessing the proposals and do not consider that the proposals would cause harm to any nearby designated and/or non designated heritage assets. The site is not within a conservation area but is in close proximity to a conservation area

page 6 and listed buildings. The proposals would not adversely impact the character or appearance of the neighbouring conservation area or harm the special architectural or historic interest of the nearby listed bollards for the reasons detailed above. The scheme is considered to comply with the intension of the London Plan Policy 7.8 and draft London Plan Policy HC1 in relation to both designated and not designated assets in the locality of the site.

Inclusive design

44 Level access to the offices and student accommodation will be from Zabadne Way with the commercial unit accessed from Fieldgate Street. Internally, the corridors have sufficient space for turning and passing and there are wheelchair refuge areas on the fire escapes. The proposed public realm works will improve the accessibility in the area, creating connections through to Whitechapel High Street along the new Zebadne Way. Proposals are in line with London Plan Policy 7.2 and draft London Plan Policy D3.

45 The applicant proposes to provide 39 wheelchair accessible studios, equating to 10% of the total development, which is acceptable. To demonstrate compliance with London Plan Policies 3.8 and draft London Plan Policy D5, full details should be provided of how any level changes are managed including the location of wheelchair units indicated on the plans and provided across affordable and market tenders. Climate change

46 Broadly, the energy hierarchy has been followed. An on-site reduction of 109 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development is expected for the non-domestic buildings, equivalent to an overall saving of 35%. The carbon dioxide savings meet the target set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. However, all comments below should be addressed before compliance with London Plan energy policy can be verified and all BRUKL files should be provided in a more legible format. A detailed report on energy matters is available under separate cover.

Be lean

47 The area weighted average actual and notional cooling demand for the non-domestic building (MJ/m2) should be provided and it should be demonstrated that the actual building’s cooling demand is lower than the notional. Mitigation of the overheating risk should be outlined. A further investigation is required into reducing unwanted solar gains entering the building.

48 The CO2 emissions savings have been doubled compared to the previous application. The reason for this increase in savings should be further explained.

49 The boiler efficiency used is 96.9%. The applicant should ensure that the gross, rather than the net, efficiency has been used and provide evidence of the boiler’s performance.

Be clean

50 Evidence of correspondence with the local borough energy officer and the network operators regarding locally proposed district heating networks should be provided to demonstrate that this has been fully investigated. A commitment to connecting to a future network must be made. Confirmation is required that a site heat network linking all uses on site is being proposed and a drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all uses on the site should be provided. This should illustrate the site heat network is being supplied from a single energy centre and include the floor area, internal layout and location of the energy centre.

page 7 51 The analysis used to determine the size and contribution of the CHP including suitable monthly demand profiles for heating, cooling and electrical loads should be provided. The savings associated with the CHP seem to be overestimated and further clarification on the CHP inputs and assumptions should be provided.

52 A detailed roof layout is required, demonstrating the roof’s full potential has been utilised for a PV installation, which should be maximised. Flood risk, drainage and water

53 The approach to flood risk management for the proposed development complies with London Plan policy 5.12 (and draft London Plan policy SI.12).

54 Two conflicting drainage strategies have been provided. Neither of these drainage strategies are compliant with London Plan policy 5.13 and should be revised in accordance with the detailed flood risk, drainage and water feedback issued under separate cover.

55 The proposed development generally meets the requirements of London Plan policy 5.15 (and draft London Plan policy SI.5). Water harvesting and reuse should be considered to reduce consumption of wholesome water across the entire development site. This can be integrated with the surface water drainage system to provide a dual benefit.

Transport

Trip generation

56 Full site multi modal trip generation forecasts are provided. The methodology is robust and the impact on the transport network is generally acceptable. The exception is the increased levels of traffic in the area whilst students move into their residency at the start of the university term. The proposals should therefore be supported by a student management plan to show how arrivals can be managed, including a booking system along with information on sustainable travel options to reduce this impact.

57 The proposed development is car free, which is welcomed given that this is a highly accessible location and in line with policy T6 of the draft London Plan. Two blue badge parking spaces are proposed; this was previously agreed between the applicant and TfL at the pre-application stage. Their design and location are acceptable though they should be supplied with electric vehicle charging points.

Cycling

58 A total of 204 cycle parking spaces (194 long stay plus 10 short stay) are proposed for the development which meet current London Plan minimum standards. However, adherence to draft London Plan requirements are highly encouraged in the City Fringe Opportunity Area and given the investment in the local cycle network. The applicant would need to almost double long-stay cycle parking provision to 386 spaces, with 396 stands overall. The applicant should provide a travel plan to promote cycling amongst all residents of the development. The provision of 5% accessible cycle bays is welcomed.

59 The provision of long-stay cycle parking at basement level, close to the core of the building is welcomed, as is the provision of short-stay cycle parking spaces in the public realm; however it is unclear from the ground floor plan provided in Appendix A of the transport assessment where the cycle stands are situated. The applicant should consider ensuring pedestrian desire lines are not obstructed by cycle stands.

page 8 Walking

60 As with previous proposals, the introduction of a link between Fieldgate Street and Whitechapel Road is strongly supported, and will improve connections and contribute positively to active travel in the City Fringe as well a provide an integrated pedestrian network in accordance with draft London Plan policy T2. The permanent provision of the link on a 24 hour basis, along with maintenance should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

61 A Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) assessment has been provided as an appendix to the TA. In line with the Mayor’s Healthy Streets approach, the Council should draw upon the PERS assessment to improve wayfinding around the west of the Plumbers Row/Whitechapel Road junction using borough CIL. This can be achieved through signage installation informing pedestrians of nearby services and the most efficient routes to access them.

Freight

62 The applicant has submitted an Outline Construction Logistics Plan. Paragraph 5.8 states ‘where necessary, large delivery vehicles will be able to wait in the public highway on Whitechapel Road.’ Many loading boxes on Whitechapel Road operate 10am – 4pm and therefore should not be used for lorry holding. A lorry holding area on Burdett Road is more appropriate. A detailed Construction Logistics Plan is to be secured by condition.

63 The applicant has provided a draft Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP), however it provides minimal information. A full DSP should be secured by condition, which should include further evidence that the proposed loading bay will not impact passing traffic on Fieldgate Street whilst in use. The student management plan, requested above, could also be appended to the DSP. Local planning authority’s position

64 The Council are currently considering the application, with a resolution expected in November 2018. Legal considerations

65 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 (the next bit is optional) 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

66 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

page 9 Conclusion

67 London Plan policies on land use, urban design and heritage, inclusive design, climate change, flood risk, drainage and water and transport are relevant to this application. The following issues should be considered:

• Land Use: The provision of a Purpose-Built Student Accommodation scheme providing 37.3% (144) affordable rooms with supporting ground floor commercial uses is welcomed subject to securing appropriate conditions or legal agreement in relation to the nomination agreement on the majority of the units, and committing to an affordable rent level in line with the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report.

• Urban design and heritage: the design approach is broadly supported and the development is not considered to have a harmful impact on designated and non-designated heritage assets.

• Transport: Applicant should aim to meet draft London Plan standards in terms of cycle parking and provide a travel plan; the pedestrian link should be secured on a 24-hour basis through s106. A revised construction logistics plan and student management plan and delivery and service plan required. Borough to improve wayfinding locally via CIL receipts.

• Flood risk, drainage, and water: Revisions required to the drainage strategy. Water harvesting and reuse should be considered to reduce consumption of wholesome water across the entire development site.

• Climate change: Further information required to comply with London Plan and draft London Plan climate change policies.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 0207 983 4271 email [email protected] John Finlayson, Head of Development Management 0207 084 2632 email [email protected] Katherine Wood, Team Leader 020 7983 5743 email [email protected] Luke Butler, Senior Strategic Planner, case officer 020 7084 2562 email [email protected]

page 10