Report To: Planning Decisions Committee Report Of: Rachel Gleave, Senior Planning Development Manager

Home , Limehouse

Subject: 14/00445/FUL 411-415 Wick Lane, E3 2JG Meeting date: 26 May 2015 Report to: Planning Decisions Committee Report of: Rachel Gleave, Senior Planning Development Manager

FOR DECISION

This report will be considered in public

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. The application proposal is for demolition of existing industrial buildings on the site and the construction of new buildings up to 9 storeys in height. Occupied by 3,898sqm of non-residential Use Class B1 (business, light industry) and A1 / A3 (retail) floorspace at ground and first floor level, with 199 residential units above, of which 29 are affordable housing units (15%).

1.2. The site is situated within a Local Industrial Location according to Tower Hamlets Proposals Map and adjacent to the Greenway, an area designated as Local Open Space and Site of Importance for Nature Conservation within both the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications. The site is also a designated Opportunity Site in the Fish Island Area Action Plan (FI AAP) and site allocation SA1.5 in the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications. The policy context for this site describes that development should provide a transition between the more residential character of development to the north and industrial character (Strategic Industrial Location) to the south. As part of this, development of this site is expected to satisfy policy criteria concerning the re-provision of employment floorspace / density, usability and quality that currently exists on the site.

1.3. Development proposals in Fish Island are also expected to not exceed 6 storeys (20m within the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications), unless a number of extended criteria are satisfied. This includes demonstrating that the proposal has a proportionate scale to its context (Tower Hamlets policy DM26) and exhibits outstanding architecture (LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications) without adversely impacting the setting of surrounding heritage assets, including conservation areas.

1.4. The application proposal has a high density and comprises a predominantly residential development, with a maximum 9 storey building (+36.8m AOD, 29.8m from grade), parameter courtyard blocks up to 8 storey (+32.2m AOD, 25.2m from grade) and 7 storey buildings (+29.2m AOD, 22.2m from grade).

1.5. The extent of residential floorspace proposed as part of this mixed-use development within blocks that layer residential floorspace across the site, and on top of non-residential floorspace, prevents the achievement of the land use policy objectives for this site, namely employment-led redevelopment. The re- provision of employment floorspace also fails to respond to policy requirements concerning adequate replacement of existing employment uses on the site, in relation to the usability and quality of that floorspace.

1.6. The design and appearance of the proposed development is considered to be poor, resulting in significant harm to the character of the townscape and setting of the adjacent White Post Lane and Fish Island Conservation Area. In addition the scheme would result in significant harm to both the amenity of future occupiers within the scheme and adjacent occupiers, particularly in relation to access to daylight and sunlight. This conclusion is supported by responses from statutory and non-statutory consultees who have commented on the application, as summarised below.

1.7. The LLDC Quality Review Panel has concluded that a further reduction in building heights is required in this scheme, particularly to the south of the site. In addition the QRP consider that the architectural language of this scheme does not respond convincingly to the particular character of the site – which should mark a transition from a predominantly industrial to more residential area.

1.8. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Planning Department has raised a number of concerns with the proposal, particularly in relation to the failure to satisfy policies concerning the re-provision of employment floorspace and the limited proportion of affordable housing included within the development.

1.9. The application is also referable to the Mayor as a result of its size, and the Stage 1 referral outlined matters to be addressed prior to officers making a decision on the scheme; specifically in relation to land use, housing, urban design, inclusive design, sustainable development and transport. Transport for London (TfL) has also raised concerns regarding transport impacts, particularly in relation to the safe relocation of a bus stop adjacent to the site.

1.10. In addition, 4 objections from local residents have been received in relation to the scale of the development proposal.

1.11. The proposed development includes a height above established and proposed policy ranges for the area and fails to satisfy the tests to be applied in such cases. This results in significant harm to the conservation area, including the designated White Post Lane and Fish Island Conservation Area to the north and non-designated cluster of buildings on Crown Close to the west. As well as harm to the amenity of adjacent occupiers and future occupier’s living standards, the proposed development fails to incorporate a policy compliant level of family housing and affordable housing, with insufficient justification for this shortfall. The development generates safety concerns in relation to transport impacts and provides insufficient information on the energy strategy for the development. In addition the proposal results in the loss of a number of trees in and around the site, as well as other planting along the Greenway (a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation), without sufficient replacement planting or a high quality landscape proposal to justify this loss.

1.12. Overall, this development proposal is an overdevelopment of the site that fails to respond appropriately to the townscape context of the area. While the benefits of the proposal, including provision of housing, affordable housing and affordable workspace are recognised, the overwhelming impact of this development would be harmful. As a result of this, and the inability to satisfy a number of criteria used to assess the quality of development schemes, officers conclude that this proposal does not represent a sustainable regeneration of the site, and as such recommend that planning permission is refused for the reasons set out below.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The Committee is requested to:

REFUSE the application for the reasons set out below;

1) The proposed development fails to fulfil the policy objectives for employment- led redevelopment on this site, with a failure to adequately mitigate the loss of existing employment uses on the site and develop the site in a way that will provide a transition between the residential character to the north, and industrial character to the south of the site. As such, the proposal is contrary to regeneration objectives for mixed use development as described in the London Plan and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications. The proposal is contrary to London Plan policies 2.4, 2.14 and 4.1; Tower Hamlets policies SP06, F1 4.2 and FI AAP Opportunity Site 415 Wick Lane; and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications Policies B.1 and Site Allocation SA1.5.

2) The proposed development, by reason of its height, massing and scale represents a form of harmful development which would have an overbearing presence on the character and setting of the Fish Island and White Post Lane Conservation Area and as such would fail to preserve or enhance the special architectural and historic interest of this conservation area. The proposal fails to improve the setting of the cluster of heritage buildings on Crown Close that currently contribute to the setting of the conservation area, and would fail to reinforce or enhance the quality of the townscape contrary to paragraphs 56, 60, 61 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 3.5, 7.1, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 of the London Plan, Policies SO2, SO3, SP02, SP12 of the LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and Policies FI6.3 of the Fish Island AAP; the Mayor of London Olympic Park Supplementary Planning Guidance and Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies Policy BN.1, BN.2, BN.10, and Sub Area 1 policies 1.4, 1.6 and Site Allocation SA1.5.

3) The proposed development, by reason of its height, scale, density and massing represents a form of harmful overdevelopment of the site which would result in a detrimental impact on the amenity of future occupants and on adjacent occupiers and would result in a poor quality living environment which constitutes unsustainable development. The quality of accommodation would not accord with the requirements of the good design principles of the NPPF and the Mayor of London’s Housing SPG, BRE guideline standards for daylight and sunlight (both in respect of future occupiers and impact on adjacent occupiers) and as such, fails the requirement set out in the Mayor of London’s Housing SPG for exemplary design and liveability for high density development. The proposal is contrary to regeneration objectives for high quality development in the Olympic Legacy area as set out in the London Plan and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications, contrary to part 7 ‘Requiring good design’ of the NPPF; London Plan policies 2.4, 3.4, and 3.5; the Mayor of London’s Housing SPG and SPG on Providing for Children and Young People’s Informal Recreation; and Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies Policy BN.1, BN.2, BN.4.

4) The mix of housing proposed would not comply with planning policies relating to the proportion of family sized units, particularly within the affordable rent tenure. Insufficient information has been submitted to substantiate the amount of affordable housing proposed, which does not accord with identified housing needs as set out within adopted policy and the departure from adopted planning policy has not been adequately justified in this case. Accordingly the development would be detrimental to the delivery of affordable housing of a mix and type which meets strategic and local needs, contrary to regeneration objectives for the Olympic Legacy area as set out in the London Plan and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications. Therefore the application is contrary to part 6 ‘Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes’ of the NPPF; London Plan policies 3.8, 3.11 and 3.12; SP02 ‘Urban Living for Everyone’ of Tower Hamlet’s Core Strategy; FI4.5 ‘Affordable and Family Housing’ Fish Island AAP; and A2 ‘Promoting family housing, increasing housing choice’ of the Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies Policy H.1 and H.2.

5) The proposal fails to adequately mitigate the transport impact of the development, in particular with respect to the safe relocation of a bus stop as a result of the development, insufficient provision for blue badge parking and incorporating full accessibility across the site. In failing to mitigate this impact the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of London Plan policies 6.3 on transport impact, 6.13 on parking, and baseline quality standard 3.2.2 of Mayor of London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance; LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies T.2, T3, T4, T8 and T9.

6) The proposal, fails to demonstrate that the following elements will satisfy policy requirements: a. Landscaping proposals, including adequate replacement of trees lost as a result of the development; b. Energy Strategy to demonstrate compliance with adopted Tower Hamlets policies and compliance with the London Energy Hierarchy. In the absence of this information, the Local Planning Authority is unable to confirm that the proposed development is acceptable and as such the proposal would be contrary to part 7 ‘Requiring good design’ of the NPPF; London Plan policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7 and 7.21; Tower Hamlets Policy SP11; and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies BN.3, BN.4 S.3 and S.4.

3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 3.1. In the event that the applicant lodges an appeal against the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) decision to refuse planning consent, they will also be permitted opportunity to recover costs from the LPA, if the reasons for refusing permission are considered to be unreasonable.

4. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 4.1. The applicant will be entitled to lodge an appeal against a LPA’s decision to refuse consent, within 6 months of that decision being taken. The appeal could require that the LLDC obtain legal representation and a section 106 legal agreement may be drafted to prepare for circumstances where the Planning Inspectorate representing the Secretary of State upholds the appeal. Site Plan

Location: 411-415 Wick Lane, E3 2JG London Borough: London Borough of Tower Hamlets Proposal: Mixed use redevelopment in buildings up to 9 storeys in height (+36.8m AOD), incorporating 3,235sqm of workspace (use class B1b&c) for arts and creative industry, 321sqm of cafe (use class A3) and 342sqm of retail shop (use class A1); along with 199 new homes on upper floors, new public realm and pedestrian link to Greenway. Applicants: IDM Properties, Locksbridge Limited, Sixt and Gavin Turk Studio Agent: Boyer Planning Architect: Claridge Architects (& SCABAL Architects)

5. SITE & SURROUNDINGS 5.1. The application site is 0.5 hectares in size and located in Fish Island, an inland area bounded by the A12 to the south and west, River Lea Navigation to the east and the Hertford Union canal to the north. The site itself is located south of the Greenway, a raised pedestrian and cycle route formed of sections of vegetated covered sewage infrastructure, and north of Wick Lane, an area largely characterised by industrial uses in low rise warehouse buildings south of the site. Adjacent and to the east of the site is 417 Wick Lane, a building approved with ground floor commercial and upper floor live / work units, which has gradually been converted to full residential use. To the west of the site is the A12, with Roman Road Town Centre beyond.

5.2. The existing site is largely made up of yard space with low rise industrial warehouse buildings, occupied by general industrial uses, a car hire business and artist studio. The existing buildings provide 2,200sqm (GIA) of employment floorspace in Use Class B1(c) artist studio, B2 general industrial and Sui Generis car hire use. The applicant has not provided a breakdown of the floorspace according to these individual uses on the site.

5.3. The site is adjacent to the Fish Island Conservation Area to the north, and a cluster of buildings noted to be of townscape merit to the south. The Greenway to the north of the site is a designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. The area exhibits a strong and unique character shaped by the historic buildings and significant cluster of creative and manufacturing industries.

6. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 6.1. PA/99/01493 – Planning permission granted for demolition of existing buildings and erection of a three storey building for use as a training centre and a four storey building for use as student accommodation (February 2005 – unimplemented). 6.2. PA/04/00076 – Outline application refused for erection of a 3,464sqm training and leisure centre together with 924 units of student accommodation (18,810sqm) in three blocks of 20, 22 and 24 storeys (June 2005). 6.3. Environmental Impact Assessment – The proposed development has been subject to a Screening Opinion requested on 30th September 2014. This found that while the development would fall within Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015), having regard to the nature, size and location of the proposal and the criteria set out in Schedule 3 of the Regulations, on balance, it was considered that the project would not have significant environmental effects. Therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment was not considered to be necessary as part of this formal planning application. However as the development was concluded to result in local impact, technical reports assessing the impact of the development upon surrounding sensitive receptors were still required by officers and accordingly submitted by the applicant.

7. APPLICATION PROPOSAL 7.1. The proposed development comprises the demolition of existing buildings on the site, and construction of a new maximum 9 storey building (+36.8m AOD), with parameter courtyard blocks up to 8 storey (+32.2m AOD) and 7 storey (+29.2m AOD) in height. 7.2. The building will provide a range of commercial spaces at ground level and first floor levels with a total of 3,898sqm of artist workshop floorspace, and retail shops, café / gallery space. At upper floor levels, 199 residential units are proposed consisting of 39x 1 bedroom, 113x 2 bedroom and 47x 3 bedroom units. 7.3. The employment floorspace in this scheme comprises 3,235sqm of artist workspaces Use Class B1 (b) and (c) office / light industrial; and retail with 342sqm of Use Class A1 shops and 321sqm of Use Class A3 café / gallery. It is proposed to re-provide one existing occupier on the site within this artist studio space; however floorspace that would meet the needs of the remaining existing occupiers is not included in the proposed development. This new non-residential floorspace is intended to be let out on an affordable basis, between £7 and £10 per square foot.

7.4. SCABAL Architects have prepared the brief for the artist workshop spaces. The intention is that their involvement post-planning stage would continue to inform the development of the employment floorspace to meet occupier needs. However there is nothing in place to formally secure their future involvement.

7.5. At the rear of the ground floor level adjacent to the base of the Greenway, 65 car parking spaces are included in the proposals, 7 of which are designated as disabled bays. The remaining ground floor area is occupied by ancillary spaces for plant, refuse and cycle storage. 7.6. The buildings are arranged around two podium resident gardens, with a new public space and stairs linking up to the Greenway between. Residential entrances are also located off this new central space, with the street frontage occupied by workspace and retail uses on Wick Lane at ground level.

7.7. In addition to the two communal residential podium courtyards, each flat is designed to include a private balcony space. A number of units are also accessed via an external deck, located on the courtyard façade to podium blocks.

7.8. It is proposed to finish the building in masonry, with a mix of light yellow London stock brick and dark engineering brick, alongside the use of metal window frames and railings.

8. POLICIES & GUIDANCE 8.1. National Planning Policy Framework 8.2. The policies in the NPPF are material considerations in the determination of applications. The NPPF recommends that as of April 2013, due weight should be given to relevant local plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The principle of sustainable development permeates the Framework. The Framework makes clear that local authorities should be positive and proactive in encouraging sustainable growth and addressing barriers to investment. The NPPF should be read in conjunction with Planning Practice Guidance, a new web-based resource for all users of the planning system. This describes the importance of good design and how this can be achieved through planning decisions. 8.3. The following NPPF policies are relevant to this planning application: 1. Building a strong, competitive economy – delivering sustainable development 4. Promoting sustainable transport 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Ensuring viability and deliverability (paragraph 173) 8.4. Relevant strategic adopted policies are listed below: 8.5. London Plan (consolidated March 2015), amended October 2013, Draft Further Alterations 2.4 ‘The 2012 Games and Their Legacy’; 2.9 ‘Inner London’; 2.14 ‘Areas for Regeneration’; 3.4 ‘Optimising Housing Potential’; 3.5 ‘Quality and Design of Housing Developments’, 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’; 3.9 ‘Mixed and Balanced Communities’; 3.10 ‘Definition of Affordable Housing’; 3.11 ‘Affordable Housing Targets’; 3.12 ‘Negotiating Affordable Housing on Individual Private Residential and Mixed Use Schemes’; 3.12 ‘Affordable Housing Thresholds’; 4.1 ‘Developing London’s Economy’; 4.12 ‘Improving Opportunities for All’; 5.2 ‘Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions’; 5.3 ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’; 5.5 ‘Decentralised Energy Networks’; 5.7 ‘Renewable Energy’; 5.11 ‘Green Roofs and Development Site Environs’; 5.12 ‘Flood Risk Management’; 5.13 ‘Sustainable Drainage’; 5.15 ‘Water Use and Supplies’; 5.12 ‘Contaminated Land’; 6.3 ‘Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity’; 6.9 ‘Cycling’; 6.10 ‘Walking’; 6.13 ‘Parking’; 7.1 ‘Building London’s Neighbourhoods and Communities’; 7.2 ‘An Inclusive Environment’; 7.3 ‘Designing Out Crime’; 7.4 ‘Local Character’; 7.5 ‘Public Realm’; 7.6 ‘Architecture’; 7.7 ‘Location and Design of Tall and Large Buildings’; 7.8 ‘Heritage Assets and Archaeology’; 7.9 ‘Heritage-Led Regeneration’; 7.14 ‘Improving Air Quality’; 7.15 ‘Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes’; 7.21 ‘Trees and Woodlands’; 7.24 ‘Blue Ribbon Network’; and 7.27 ‘Blue Ribbon Network: Supporting Infrastructure and Recreational Use’.  Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan (October 2013) Policy 6.9 – Cycle parking  Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (January 2014 / Examination September 2014) Higher cycle parking standard for uses in inner/central London and distinguishes between short and long stay cycle parking. 8.6 Relevant local adopted policies are listed below. Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (September 2010) SO2 ‘Maximising the benefits of the Olympic legacy’; SO3 ‘Achieving wider sustainability’; SP02 ‘Urban living for everyone’; SP04 ‘Creating a green and blue grid’; SP06 ‘Delivering successful employment hubs’; SP08 ‘Making connected places’; SP10 ‘Creating distinct and durable places’; SP11 ‘Working towards a zero-carbon borough’; SP12 ‘Delivering placemaking’; SP13 ‘Planning Obligations’; and Annex 9 ‘Fish Island’. 8.7 Fish Island Area Action Plan (September 2012) (FAAP) 1.0 ‘Sustainable Development’; FI 3.1 ‘Key Connectivity and Transport Principles’; FI 3.3 ‘Priority Actions to Improve Connections over the Waterways’; FI 3.5 ‘Priority Actions to Improve Internal Connectivity in Fish Island’; FI 3.6 ‘Priority Actions for Enhancing Public Transport in Fish Island’; FI 4.2 ‘Local Industrial Location’; FI 4.3 ‘Managing the redevelopment of former industrial land’; FI 4.4 ‘Protecting and Enhancing CCIs and SMEs’; FI 4.5 ‘Affordable and Family Housing’; FI 4.6 ‘Education’; FI 6.3 ‘Fish Island South’; FI 6.6 ‘Water Space’; FI 6.7 ‘Public Realm Priority Routes’; FI 7.1 ‘Climate Change and Energy Efficiency’; FI 7.2 ‘Managing Flood Risk’; Opportunity Site at 415 Wick Lane. 8.8. Legacy Corporation Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications 8.9. The LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications (‘Local Plan’) was submitted for examination by the Secretary of State in November 2014 and hearings were held in March 2015 by the appointed inspector. The LLDC is currently consulting on minor and main modifications to the Local Plan. Pending the formal adoption of the Local Plan, the policy documents referred to in section 8 of this report above remain the statutory Development Plan. At the present time, the Local Plan is a material consideration, and has some weight in planning decisions and attracting increased weight as the plan progresses toward adoption. Those development management policies within the Publication Version of the Local Plan, relevant to the current application, are listed below: B.1 Location and maintenance of employment uses B.2 Thriving town, neighbourhood and local centres H.1 Providing a mix of housing types H.2 Delivering affordable housing BN.1 Responding to place BN.2 Creating distinctive waterway environments BN.3 Maximising biodiversity BN.4 Designing residential schemes BN.5 Requiring inclusive design BN.8 Maximising opportunities for play BN.10 Proposals for Tall Buildings BN.11 Reducing noise and improving air quality BN.13 Improving the quality of land IN.2 Planning for waste T.2 Transport Improvements T.3 Supporting transport schemes T.4 Managing development and its transport impacts T.5 Street Network T.6 Facilitating local connectivity T.8 Parking and parking standards for new development T.9 Providing for pedestrians and cyclists S.2 Energy in new development S.3 Energy infrastructure and heat networks S.4 Sustainable design and construction S.5 Water supply and waste water disposal S.6 Waste reduction S.7 Overheating and urban greening S.8 Flood risk and sustainable drainage measures 1.1 Managing change in Hackney Wick and Fish Island 1.2 Promoting Hackney Wick and Fish Island’s unique identify and appearance 1.3 Connecting Hackney Wick and Fish Island 1.4 Preserving and enhancing heritage assets in Hackney Wick and Fish Island 1.5 Improving the public and private realm in Hackney Wick and Fish Island 1.6 Building to an appropriate height in Hackney Wick and Fish Island Site Allocation SA1.5: 415 Wick Lane: ‘Mixed use development, including employment and residential, to provide a transition between the Fish Island SIL and the mixed-use character north of the Greenway.’ As part of this:  Development should provide a high-quality frontage to improve the local views along Wick Lane from Crown Close;  Development should relate well to the Greenway and enhance natural surveillance without over-dominating;  Development should preserve or enhance the setting of the Conservation Area;  Development should provide a new direct link from Wick Lane to the Greenway that new development can access;  Development should provide a new public space adjacent to 417 Wick Lane to improve the outlook for the existing ground-floor business units within that development;  Development should improve the setting of the cluster of heritage buildings on Crown Close; and  Development should re-provide employment floorspace in accordance with the function of employment cluster B.1b5 and Policy B.1. 8.10. Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children and Young People’s Plan and Informal Recreation (2008) 8.11. Mayor’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2011) 8.12. Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance (July 2012) 8.13. Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide

9. CONSULTATION 9.1. The application was advertised in the press and site notices were displayed. Consultation letters were also sent on 04 December 2014 to the following recipients, with any responses summarised below: 9.2. 4 responses from local residents objecting to the application – A summary of concerns is set out below:  The proposed building is situated too close to 417 Wick Lane and does not accord with the AAP requirement to locate open space adjacent to that neighbouring residential block;  Not clear from the documents how the boundary with 417 Wick Lane would be treated;  The proposed development is too bulky and overbearing. The heights are not distributed appropriately;  The proposed scheme offers very low parking provision which will have a negative impact on surrounding streets. There are 20 wheelchair units proposed and only 7 designated disabled parking bays;  The proposed scheme is an over-development of the site, with many negative impacts on the surrounding context and qualitative compromises within the scheme itself;  The Ironworks flats that face the Greenway are south-facing and currently enjoy an unobstructed aspect and view, which will be lost as a result of the development;  Buildings of 9 storeys along the Greenway and at the north-west corner of the site would excessively overshadow the neighbouring conservation area and undermine important historic landmarks including the industrial chimney stack of the Big Yellow storage facility on Wick Lane;  The application proposes 9 storeys, whilst Fish Island is characterized mainly by medium-rise buildings of around four storeys maximum;  The building architecture and materials are modern and homogenous; the designs do not in any way reflect the wide variety and industrial nature of buildings in the surrounding area;  The overall design of the building and its materials are not sensitive to their environment; and  The record of consultation undertaken by the applicant in the submitted Statement of Community Involvement is inaccurate. 9.3. Greater London Authority (GLA) Stage 1 Referral – In general, the application complies with policies, however further work is required on the following before referring back to the Mayor (summarized below):  Land use: While the principle of the scheme is welcomed, full details of how the commercial offer will be secured including details of the management strategy and how rents will be secured for the artist space will need to be provided;  Housing: Further information is required pending the outcome of the independent assessment of the applicant’s viability appraisal regarding the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in line with London Plan Policy 3.12. The net residential density of the proposal should also be confirmed;  Urban design: Officers request the investigation of additional residential entrances from the Greenway and an increase in size of the bridge. Details of how the bridge will be secured as open with landowners, and management arrangements should also be provided;  Inclusive design: Example floor layouts of the accessible flats which identify the lifetime homes criteria should be included. Confirmation of the opening of the bridge lifts and the accessibility of the wider public realm should be included;  Sustainable development: While the scheme meets the 35% CO2 reduction outlined in Policy 5.2, further details are required in relation to how the units have been designed to minimize overheating in line with Policy 5.9. In addition, evidence of DER and TER sheets correspondence from the operators of the Olympic district heating network. Confirmation should be provided that all residential and non-residential elements will be connected to the site heat network;  Transportation: The number of accessible spaces should be increased along with appropriate numbers of active and passive electric charging points. A contribution of £100,000 towards a cycling hire docking station is required alongside mitigation towards local junction improvements and a contribution towards local connectivity. A travel plan, car park management plan and construction traffic management plan should be secured in any permission. The relocation of the bus stop should also be discussed with TfL as soon as possible to gauge the acceptability of any future location. 9.4. London Borough of Tower Hamlets Planning – Concerns raised regarding the proposed development, in summary:  The principle of the proposed land use mix is acceptable, however the re- provision of B2 uses on site should be considered pursuant of FI AAP Policy FI 4.2;  The application should demonstrate consideration has been given to the provision of B2 uses compatible with residential uses, the need to provide a transition between Fish Island Mid to the north and the SIL to the south and the focus of the proposals as employment-led;  In terms of the retail units, the impact of these units on the nearby hub has not been identified and the proposals do not address the criteria of Policy DM2 and as such do not comply with the policy; and  The proposals do not accord with policy SP02 or FI 4.5 which seek to secure a minimum of 35% of affordable homes and a 30/70 split between tenures and the proposed mix of units does not meet the borough’s aspirations. (The full response is appended to this report at Appendix 2). 9.5. LBTH – Environmental Protection – There is no mention in the Air Quality Assessment on the effect of air quality of the emissions related to an energy centre. 9.6. Tower Hamlets Waste Authority – Happy with all arrangements for waste storage and collection, with the exception of the logistics on changing bins around while the collection is being carried out. Recommend that sufficient resources (personnel and equipment) are provided to address this concern. 9.7. Transport for London (TfL) – Some concerns are raised with the proposal, summarised below:  TfL accept the applicant’s PTAL rating of 3, however while there are other proposals coming forward in the surrounding area intended to improve transport connectivity, this would not be sufficient to increase the PTAL score to 4.  The scheme has no commercial parking, which is welcomed, but a total of 65 residential spaces, which is the maximum permitted by LB Tower Hamlets standards. Whilst this provision is below maximum London Plan standards TfL would request that the residential parking is reduced to encourage use of more sustainable modes of transport. Seven accessible spaces or 10% of the total number are proposed. However justification should be provided for not meeting the London Plan requirement of one space for each accessible unit (10% of units, thus 20 in total).  The applicant proposes to provide 328 secure cycle spaces for residents and commercial uses and 8 spaces in the public realm for visitors and this is in line with the London Plan Early Minor Alterations and the Further Alterations to the London Plan minimum standards.  The trip generation methodology is acceptable.  There are existing initiatives and proposals to improve the public realm and local walking and cycling routes in Hackney Wick and Fish Island, to which this scheme should contribute.  TfL accepts that ramped access to the Greenway would only be possible with a substantial reconfiguration of the development.  It is expected that the proposed development will result in an increased demand for Cycle Hire provision, especially once the scheme is extended. TfL considers there may be limited scope to accommodate a Cycle Hire docking station (with a minimum of 27 docking points) within the public realm of this development, and so request a contribution of £100,000 towards the costs of installation of an off-site docking station.  The application scheme includes a loading bay on the pavement on Wick Lane where there is an existing southbound bus stop. The bus stop is not mentioned at all in the case material and there is no consideration of how the service bay and the stop could co-exist. The re-design of Wick Lane to accommodate the on-pavement loading bay would require changes to the highway, and the detailed layout of these changes including any to the bus stop will need to be agreed with TfL Bus Infrastructure and Tower Hamlets Council as highway authority. The details of the other proposed servicing access at the eastern end of the site also needs clarification, in particular to demonstrate that vehicles will be able to enter and exist in forward gear and to reduce the impact of delivery vehicles on the highway and pavement, and not obstruct bus services. A Servicing Management Plan has been submitted, although this does not provide much detail on servicing of residential units.  A Travel Plan has been submitted for the residential element of the scheme. This has failed the ATTrBuTE assessment used by TfL to assess the content (through not providing actual and percentage modal split trips). 9.8. Environment Agency – No objections to the development on the basis that requested conditions are attached to any grant of consent. 9.9. Metropolitan Police – The intention to achieve Secured Design Standards is noted in the Design and Access Statement. Concerned that the provision for a lift between the ground and mezzanine floors will attract anti-social behavior and potentially acts of criminal damage. The mitigating element of CCTV and the 24 hour Management Office will not be sufficient to counter the attractiveness of the area, especially on the mezzanine level, caused by the permeability created by the link to The Greenway. Recommend that the link to the Greenway is removed. 9.10. Case Officer Comment – The link over this site to the Greenway is a specific policy objective and intended to improve permeability in the area. There is no underlining reason that this cannot be achieved in a safe and well surveillanced design. 9.11. Thames Water – Comments provided in relation to waste water, drainage and ground water. Request conditions and informatives in relation to the submission of a piling method statement and foul and surface water drainage strategy, as well as securing a minimum water pressure. In addition, note that there are public sewers crossing or close to the development. In order to protect public sewers and to ensure that Thames water can gain access to those sewers for future repair and maintenance, approval should be south from Thames Water where the erection of a building or an extension to a building or underpinning work would be over the line of, or would come within 3m of, a public sewer. 9.12. London Borough of Hackney Planning – No objections. 9.13. Canal & River Trust – No objections to the proposed development, subject to the applicant first entering into a legal agreement. Whilst the applicant mentions the River Lea and recognizes it’s amenity value they make very little reference to how the development will connect with the towpath. The main focus is on the greenway and how the development links to this off-road route. The towpath provides an off-road route for pedestrians and cyclists to Hackney Wick Station in the north and down Limehouse in the south and should be recognized as a valuable asset in terms of promoting sustainable transport. The link between the towpath and the Greenway requires upgrading and this should be included in the statement. The proposal for 199 new residential units in close proximity to the River Lea will result in increased usage of the Trust’s network, particularly as the towpath will be used as a connecting route between the site and Hackney Wick Station. The Trust therefore requests that the developer make a contribution to the Canal & River Trust of £50,000 to upgrade the link between the towpath and the Greenway. 9.14. English Heritage – Do not consider it necessary for English Heritage to be notified of this application. 9.15. Natural England - London Region – No objections, recommend that standard advice in relation to developments in and around Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is applied. 9.16. Quality Review Panel – Summary: The Panel welcomes some of the modifications to the scheme, including building heights, since its previous review and thinks that there is potential for an interesting and successful scheme. It concludes, however, that further revision is required before it is able to support it fully. 9.17. The Panel recommends that the balance between residential and workspace accommodation be reconsidered, to achieve a genuinely employment-led development. The panel also thinks that further reduction in building heights is required, particularly to the south of the site. In addition, the architectural language of the scheme does not yet respond convincingly to the particular character of the site – which should mark a transition from a predominantly industrial to more residential area. 9.18. The Panel recommends that the proposed scheme be revised in order to meet fully the requirement for the development to be employment-led and it recommends that the amount of residential accommodation provided be reduced but that the proportion of affordable housing is increased; and that an architectural language that more successfully conveys the area’s particular character be developed. (The full QRP comments are appended at Appendix 3 of this report). 9.19. No responses received from the following consultees – London City Airport Ltd; Health Protection Agency; East London NHS Foundation Trust Headquarters; London Cycling Campaign; East London Waste Authority; London Fire Brigade; Stour Space; Affordable Wick; The Hackney Wick and Fish Island Planning and Development Group; and Wick Safer Neighbourhoods Team. 9.20. Applicant consultation - A short statement has been provided to outline the consultation undertaken by the applicant prior to submission of the planning application. This describes a public consultation event held on 9th October 2014 that was attended by over 20 local residents. The applicant recorded responses from those in attendance as follows:  Welcomed link to the Greenway;  Generally supportive of the height;  Interest in affordable housing provision, particularly shared ownership;  Extent of car parking supported; and  Attendee in opposition.

10. ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES 10.1. Principle of development 10.2. The site is located in Fish Island, an area described in the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy as having the priority for delivery of ‘new homes and job opportunities through employment-led mixed-use regeneration and investment in identified locations’. Fish Island South where the application site is located is expected to be home to consolidated light and heavier industries that are not appropriate to mix with residential uses. 10.3. Policies in the Fish Island Area Action Plan support the achievement of this vision for Fish Island, through the promotion of sustainable development and policy 1.0 encourages proactive working with applicants to secure developments that improve economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. The principles of the AAP vision for Fish Island South include the focus on employment opportunities, with the redevelopment of existing sites for modern industries including high tech manufacturing, environmental industries, food processing and waste management, so creating a better neighbour to the more residential character of Fish Island Mid over time. Sites that overlook the Greenway are expected to be developed for employment led mixed use, to provide a natural buffer between the industrial character south of Wick Lane and to the established live-work units (many of which are now established residential units). 10.4. The application site is designated as an opportunity site within the Fish Island Area Action Plan (FI AAP), and also designated in the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications under Site Allocation SA1.5: 415 Wick Lane for ‘Mixed use development, including employment and residential, to provide a transition between the Fish Island SIL and the mixed-use character north of the Greenway.’ 10.5. Table 2: Employment cluster within the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications states at B.1b5 that ‘Wick Lane and Crown Close, Fish Island’ is an ‘Other Industrial Location’ with ‘An employment-led mix of uses, including warehouse, storage, distribution and live work in appropriate locations… An appropriate and gradual transition between nearby uses of residential and industrial.’ 10.6. Therefore the principle of developing the site for mixed use is acceptable, where this is within an employment-led development that protects the proportion of employment uses on the site, improving the setting of the nearby Conservation Area and creates a buffer to residential uses to the north of the Greenway. An assessment of the proposed development against these requirements is set out below. 10.7. Proposed Land Uses: 10.8. Tower Hamlets Core Strategy policy SP06 ‘Delivery successful employment hubs’ specifies that where development proposals are located in Local Industrial Locations (LIL) such as the current application site, intensification through a mixed use approach will only be acceptable if: i. There is no overall net loss of employment floorspace; ii. There is no detrimental impact upon the quality and usability of that floorspace; iii. Appropriate access arrangements; and iv. Mitigation of environmental impacts have been considered from the outset. 10.9. The existing buildings on the site provide 2,200sqm (GIA) of employment floorspace, with surrounding yard space also being utilised for commercial operations. The existing uses include a timber cutting warehouse classified under Use Class B2 (general industrial) along with an artist studio classified under Use Class B1c (business, light industry) and car repair workshop / car rental business both classified as Sui Generis, as defined in the Use Classes Order 2010 (as amended). The proposed uses amount to 3,898sqm for Use Class B1 (business, light industry) and A1 / A3 (retail) floorspace, and include the potential to be occupied in part by an existing artist on the site. The proposed development increases the amount of B1 employment floorspace on the site; however the policy requirements are more comprehensive and relate to the replacement of existing uses and usability of the space – as well as the quantum. This includes the replacement of the existing B2 use on the site, which has not been incorporated in to the scheme proposals. 10.10. The LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications states in Policy B1 ‘Location and maintenance of employment uses’ at bullet 4, that employment clusters will be protected through ‘Only allowing proposals providing equivalent use, in density and floorspace, which maintain the existing balance of uses identified within Table 2 and meeting needs of small- and medium-sized businesses within the Locally Significant Sites (LSIS) and Other Industrial Locations (OIL).’ The application site is located within cluster B.1b5 and designated as an OIL. The policy describes the criteria that should be met by proposals for new uses in the OILs as follows: a) Maintain or re-provide equivalent industrial floorspace within B2/B8 Use Classes; or b) Maintain or re-provide equivalent employment floorspace within B1 Use Classes or significantly increase job densities within B Use Classes; Proposals, including conversions, shall be considered against: c) Proximity of incompatible uses to the existing and proposed use; d) The potential reuse of buildings of value for employment; e) Re-location strategies showing how existing businesses can be suitably accommodated; f) Viability appraisal demonstrating suitability of maintaining or re-providing industrial or employment within the location; g) Marketing strategies for two immediately preceding years showing attempts to market the property for employment uses; and h) Other overriding factors potentially inhibiting the continuation of employment use. 10.11. Criterion (a) specifically states that mixed-use schemes within OIL will only be acceptable where they include provision of equivalent industrial floorspace within B2 use. Whilst the proposal provides equivalent (and increases) Use Class B1 floorspace and satisfies criterion (b), it results in the loss of Use Class B2 floorspace failing to satisfy criterion (a). The applicant should also satisfy the remaining criteria set out in policy B.1 as described above. 10.12. The applicant has not directly applied these criteria to the proposed development in order to justify the approach that has been taken to employment floorspace on the site. In particular, no evidence has been provided in respect of criteria (c) and (e) above, to demonstrate that the existing uses on the site (specifically the B2 general industrial use) cannot be facilitated within a redevelopment scheme on this site, and no re-location strategy has been provided to describe how those existing businesses on the site can be accommodated. In applying this policy to the application proposal, it is LLDC officer’s view that the balance of uses proposed is inadequate when considered in light of the mix of existing employment uses on the site. This also reflects the approach that Tower Hamlets officers express in their consultation response on the application proposal. 10.13. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Planning Team has raised concerns with the proposals as a result of the failure to re-provide a suitable quantum of B2 uses on the site, with the focus on B1 use. The re-provision of B2 uses on the site is relevant in relation to the timber cutting operation that is currently located on the site. Tower Hamlets officers have confirmed that whilst the provision of space for creative workspaces is welcomed, the proposals do not include re- provision for the existing B2 Use Classes on site and as such cannot be said to accord with Policy F1 4.2 or the criteria under their Managing Development SPD. 10.14. The site is sufficiently sized to accommodate a mix of uses while managing the adjacencies of the uses, thereby preventing any adverse impacts upon amenity that would otherwise arise. However the proposal to locate a significant number of residential units directly above non-residential floorspace complicates the management of conflict between uses and limits the flexibility of how the non- residential employment floorspace can be occupied. The applicant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the existing uses on the site cannot be re- accommodated in a redevelopment scheme, and no explanation or justification is provided to support the loss of the existing mix of uses on the site (B1c, B2) in favour of a single predominant employment use type, in the form of Use Class B1 (b&c) artist workshop studios, alongside Use Class A1 shops and A3 café / gallery. 10.15. The applicant seeks to rely on the increase in B1 employment floorspace and re- provision of artist studios to be occupied in part by the existing artist on the site, to justify the proposed approach to non-residential floorspace in the development. However this fails to recognise the value of the other existing uses and as part of this, the suitability of this location specifically for those types of uses, which are otherwise less compatible with more residential locations north of the site. This is further illustrated in the design of the proposed building that layers residential uses above the employment floorspace, limiting the flexibility and usability of the space because of potential conflict between the different uses. 10.16. In addition to the requirements for replacement of employment floorspace on the site, this application site is also designated for ‘employment-led’ regeneration under the FIAAP and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications. 10.17. The application proposal is for 3,898sqm of non-residential floorspace and 15,001sqm of residential floorspace, this equates to a distribution between land uses of 20.6% non-residential and 79.37% residential floorspace in the proposed development. This clearly shows a predominance of residential use as part of the proposed development and therefore purely as an expression of land use, the scheme cannot be described as being ‘employment-led’, as required under current adopted Tower Hamlets Policy and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies. 10.18. In relation to the arrangement of land uses on the site, this too fails to create an employment focus, which could be used to express an employment-led focus and would be most appropriate towards Wick Lane. This would then allow a focus of residential uses onto the Greenway, creating a buffer between the more industrial character towards the south and the more residential character towards the north of the site, with compatible employment uses located as part of a mixed use development upon the application site. However, the proposed development detailed in this application scheme seeks to layer a significant quantum of high density residential development on top of a much smaller quantum, proportionally, of employment uses. This fails to respond to the vision for Fish Island South detailed in the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy, the Site Allocation set out in the FI AAP and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies. Alternative arrangements of the site, including the incorporation of stand-alone employment buildings and / or the layout of the site to separate the mix of land uses, could provide better opportunity to re-provide existing employment floorspace on the site (including B2), allowing for a more sustainable employment-led regeneration of the site. 10.19. The proposed employment floorspace is formed of artist workshops, retail shop and café / gallery, which would be leased on an affordable basis to tenants via a workshop provider. The benefits of the provision of affordable workspace are recognised, particularly in this area, however the subsidisation of the total area of floorspace does have a negative impact on the viability of the development and consequently the extent of affordable housing to be included (considered in further detail below at paragraph 10.114). In any case, the provision of affordable workspace is not considered to be sufficient justification for the failure to satisfy land use policies and the Site Allocation requirements. 10.20. As a result of this, the proposed development fails to fulfil the land use objectives for sustainable regeneration of this site, as expressed in adopted policies, and Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policy designations described above.

10.21. Density

10.22. The density of new development should be considered in light of London Plan policy 3.4 and the Fish Island AAP. 10.23. London Plan policy 3.4 ‘Optimising housing potential’ describes that development should optimise housing output in different locations as described in density ranges, and that development proposals which compromise this should be resisted. Local context, design and transport capacity are important considerations in whether a development has an appropriate density. While density ranges should not be applied mechanistically, and exceeding the density ranges described will not in itself be reason to refuse an application, this consideration along with non-compliance against amenity standards and detrimental impacts on surrounding development are indicative that a scheme represents an overdevelopment of the site. This would be the case where a high density development includes accommodation that fails to meet quality standards, has a scale or form that is detrimental to surrounding townscape, or has insufficient infrastructure to support residents. 10.24. The Fish Island AAP gives a density guideline range of 120-300 units per hectare in Fish Island Mid, and this would also be appropriate for the limited residential development that takes place in Fish Island South (where the application site is located). The London Plan also describes density ranges, and sets these out according to Public Transport Accessibility (PTAL). The density range for this site is highlighted in the shaded box below as up to 170 units per hectare or 450 habitable rooms per hectare. Table 1: PTAL (*relates to this site)

Setting Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL)

0 to 1 2 to 3* 4 to 6

Urban 15-250 hr/ha 200-450 hr/ha 200-700 hr/ha

50-95 u/ha 70-170 u/ha 70-260 u/ha

10.25. The proposed development comprises 199 units and 3,898sqm of commercial floorspace on the 0.6 hectare site. The Mayor’s Housing SPG states that in mixed use development where there is non-residential floorspace, ‘if density is measured in units per hectare or habitable rooms per hectare, it can underestimate the impact of the development in terms of scale and massing, activity and demand for services. In calculating the density in vertically-mixed schemes (i.e. where housing is on top of non-residential uses), the size of the site should be reduced by an amount equivalent to the proportion of total floorspace allocated to non-residential uses.’ 10.26. Taking into account the non-residential floorspace included in the proposed development and applying the methodology set out in the Mayor’s Housing SPG, the proposal has a resulting density of 423 units per hectare or 1287 habitable rooms per hectare.

10.27. The density calculation significantly exceeds the Fish Island AAP density guidelines and London Plan density ranges. The Mayor’s Housing SPG is clear that where density ranges are exceeded, developments should be rigorously tested, according to different aspects of ‘liveability’ and that design should be exemplary. A detailed assessment of residential quality and design is set out below. 10.28. Design

10.29. Compliance against the Development Plan:

10.30. Policy 7.6 ‘Architecture’ in the London Plan states that buildings should be of the highest architectural standard and of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances, activates and appropriately defines the public realm. FIAAP states that within the immediate setting of the conservation area, building heights of 4-6 storeys will be most appropriate. The application proposal is for a maximum 9 storey building (+36.8m AOD, 29.8m from grade), with parameter courtyard blocks up to 8 storey (+32.2m AOD, 25.2m from grade) and 7 storey (+29.2m AOD, 22.2m from grade) in height. 10.31. The LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications identifies a prevailing height datum of 20m above ground level in this area, and sets out criteria that buildings above this height should satisfy if they are to be considered acceptable in policy BN.10. 10.32. The LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications clearly identifies the Hackney Wick Neighbourhood Centre around Hackney Wick Station, as the area appropriate for a greater concentration of development, and most suitable for buildings above the identified prevailing building height of 20m (in exceptional circumstances). The Neighbourhood Centre also benefits from the highest levels of accessibility within Sub Area 1 (Hackney Wick / Fish Island) and therefore more sustainably suited to supporting high density schemes such as the one proposed.

10.33. The FIAAP was adopted in 2012 and the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications was produced in 2014, both of which contained evidence that the scale of development should be proportionate to its surroundings. The approach to heights in these policy documents is to encourage new development that is taller and denser than existing development, when that development can be considered sustainable and is designed in a way that respects the scale and grain of the area.

10.34. Policy BN.10 describes that development proposals in Fish Island above 20m will be considered acceptable where they satisfy the explicit criteria within that policy. The criteria are listed below with a corresponding assessment of the proposed development.

Table 2: LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications Policy BN.10

LLDC Local Plan Criteria Application Proposal

1) Exhibit outstanding architecture The massing and architecture of the proposed and incorporate high-quality scheme demonstrates a limited application of materials, finishes and details appropriate character and scale for this part of Fish Island. The massing and articulation to elevations, overall distribution of height and setbacks across the site, does not create a scheme of outstanding architecture. The predominantly residential character and proposed response to the Greenway and Conservation Area setting is also inappropriate for this ‘transition site’, adjacent to the maintained Strategic Industrial Location. The development has been found to be unsuccessful in its distribution of uses and response to the challenges and opportunities of the local environment.

The proposed use of brick and metal materials could be appropriately used as part of a high quality scheme, but the scale of the blocks, quality of residential entrances and amenity space, and presentation of non-residential uses at ground and mezzanine floor only, fail to make a convincing workspace led mixed use development in this location.

The QRP also concluded that it could not support the scheme and recommended that the architectural language be revised to provide a more convincing response to the character of this area.

2) Respect the scale and grain of The proposal has a massing articulation and overall their context approach to architecture that demonstrates limited application of appropriate character and scale for LLDC Local Plan Criteria Application Proposal

this part of Fish Island.

The scheme fails to respond sensitively to the heritage setting or maximise the opportunity of its environment, particularly in relation to the Greenway (northern outfall sewer) directly north of the site. The application presents a grain that does not respond to the existing or future potential of the streets and spaces around it, with large scale residential blocks dominating the site.

The proposed building has a scale and height that resembles (and exceeds) the neighbouring development at 417 Wick Lane. There is no suggestion in adopted policies or studies of this area that a cluster of buildings on and around this site would be appropriate or should be encouraged. Recent policy based investigations of the character of this area suggest that a maximum 6 storey / 20m height is appropriate for buildings. The built environment evidence background paper to the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications explains that the prevailing height of sub area 1 (Hackney Wick and Fish Island) is 20 metres (6 storeys), and that this is extrapolated from the maximum building height thresholds expressed within the Hackney Wick and Fish Island Area Action Plans (i.e. 4-6 storeys) and existing building heights within sub area 1.

The proposed building does not incorporate a varied and interesting roofscape that will contribute to the skyline. The majority of the development is 7 storeys with a flat roof, with corner elements extending above this, also with a flat roof. There is no variation or interest in the roofline that would provide a positive contribution to long distance views in the area.

3) Relate well to street widths and The scheme picks up on the policy requirement to make a positive contribution to form a new connection to the Greenway from Wick the streetscape Lane. It is disappointing that this does not provide a direct visual link to Crown Close, where a future connection enhancement is identified and fails to provide an accessible connection for cyclists and others that are likely to be key users of this route. A lack of layout options that could support a more direct connection to the Greenway was explored during the design development of the scheme.

4) Generate an active street The active ground floor frontage is provided with frontage non-residential ground floor uses, approximately 6m in height with mezzanine space and the proposed LLDC Local Plan Criteria Application Proposal

gallery, retail and creative uses. There is a continued concern about lack of service and outdoor space for these uses.

The incorporation of active frontages at street level onto Wick Lane provides some human scale to the development. However this has not benefited the setting of the Green Way, where opportunity to bridge towards the Greenway could have allowed additional residential entrances and improved activity here. In addition, as little detail is actually provided of the ground floor elevational appearance, it is not entirely clear that an appropriate contribution to the street will be achieved in the finished building.

5) Provide accessible public The scale of buildings either side of the public space space within their curtilage are considered to be overly dominant and this public space should not need to be marked by a tall building as an entrance feature.

The design of the public space lacks definition and raises questions about how this will be programmed or used successfully, with its proximity to Wick Lane traffic and the stair only access to the greenway.

6) Incorporate sufficient In terms of quantum, minimum standards for communal space communal amenity space are complied with. However, the shared private amenity space/courtyards are considered to be overshadowed, overlooked and of limited success in their design resolution.

7) Contribute to defining public The scheme reduces views from the Greenway routes and spaces without providing a successful new connection down through the public space to Wick Lane, which frames long views through to Crown Close and 8) Promote legibility wider street network.

9) Create new or enhance 1. The development of this site has the potential to existing views, vistas and create an enhanced frontage to wick lane and sightlines provide greater permeability and connection through to the greenway. The comprehensive development of this site continues to be encouraged but the massing and scale of the application provides an over dominant development from the Greenway and through the new public space.

10) Preserve or enhance heritage This scheme is adjacent to conservation areas and assets and the view to / from non-designated heritage assets to the south of the these, and contribute positively to site. Whilst the site is currently underutilised, the the setting of heritage assets, massing and architecture of the application is not including conservation areas considered to contribute positively to the LLDC Local Plan Criteria Application Proposal

conservation area.

A selective interpretation of Conservation Area character is evident; for example the use of tall buildings to mark edges in the proposed block format. Unusually in Hackney Wick and Fish Island edges are often varied or lower on key corners.

The notable exception to the existing townscape low rise context within Sub-Area 1 (Hackney Wick/Fish Island) is 417 Wick Lane adjacent to the site. The proposed development will contribute to the unsympathetic scale created by that adjacent building, exacerbating the bulk and mass of these buildings against the edge of the Greenway and onto the much lower rise context along Wick Lane. The proposal would also extend the scale and bulk of 417 Wick Lane creating a wall of development against the edge of the conservation area.

Proposals for tall buildings that The proposal results in significant adverse impacts are likely to have a significant to adjacent occupier’s amenity, particularly in adverse impact on one or more of relation to daylight, and also in relation to the the following will be considered daylight and sunlight levels for the proposed unacceptable: development itself. This is described in more detail in paragraphs 10.50 and 10.86 below. The impact of 11) Micro-climatic conditions this proposed development upon the daylight levels (specifically down-draughts and to the adjacent residential block 417 Wick Lane is lateral winds over public spaces) significant. In summary, the scheme reduces neighbouring occupiers VSC to as low as 0.1 in 1 12) Impacts to the surrounding case and less than 10% in the majority of cases. area including open spaces and Whilst the existing VSC does not necessarily meet other buildings and waterways the recommended 27% value, and therefore the that relate to: Overlooking / proposed VSC will of course not fulfil that value, the Daylight / Overshadowing / Light extent of reduction is significant. spill & reflection / Wider Amenity In addition, the impact of the development upon its 2. 13) Existing views of landmarks, own communal amenity spaces in relation to parkland, heritage assets, sunlight and daylight levels to future occupiers is waterways, and views along significantly harmful, with extensive failure to fulfil street corridors BRE guideline levels. This is assessed in more detail from paragraph 10.86 below.

The development also results in the removal of a number of trees both on and adjacent to the site, including trees and other dense planting along the edge with the Greenway. The Greenway is a designated Site of Importance to Nature Conservation, therefore any impact upon ecology there including all types of flora and fauna, should be carefully considered. There is insufficient replacement of tree planting and little detail of how the proposed landscaping would adequately replace both the biodiversity and amenity value of existing LLDC Local Plan Criteria Application Proposal

planting lost as a result of the development.

3. In relation to views of the development, the proposed buildings should not compete with the Chimney to the West of Wick Lane. The greenway elevation is considered to be too uniform and without breaks or views. The tallest element to the west of the site can be seen from Dace Rd within the conservation area and as a result of poor design does not positively enhance this view.

Tall buildings should be located The proposed application is outside the Hackney within the Centre boundaries Wick Neighbourhood Centre Boundary. It is not outlined within the Local Plan located within, or in close proximity to the (Hackney Wick Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Centre and does not represent Centre). Where they are not, the exceptional design (as set out above). above criteria should be applied.

10.35. In addition to the application of policy BN.10, the proposals have been reviewed by the LLDC QRP. They concluded the following in relation to the quality of architectural appearance and innovation of the design, with regard to scale, form, massing, footprint, proportion and silhouette:

 The scale appears overbearing, while high buildings facing the Greenway may be acceptable, the panel thinks that the proposed heights along Wick Lane – at up to 9 storeys – remain hard to justify;

 The panel believes that strong arguments remain for substantially reducing the scale of buildings along Wick Lane, including making a more measured transition from the Greenway to the area south of the development; and ensuring acceptable levels of daylight / sunlight;

 Reducing the height of these buildings would also improve the quality of the internal courtyards and deck access to residential accommodation;

 More inventive, less standardised typologies are suggested by QRP to reflect the character of the area and express more overtly that this is an industrial / artistic enclave.

10.36. Overall the QRP did not support the application proposals on this site. In addition to the general negative impact that results for this proposal upon the townscape, the site is also located adjacent to the Fish Island and White Post Lane Conservation Area and as such impacts the setting of that conservation area.

10.37. The site abuts the boundary with the Fish Island and White Post Lane Conservation Area, which takes in the Greenway and therefore the northern boundary of the site. The Fish Island and White Post Lane Conservation Area is a designated heritage asset, and as such, proposals should preserve or enhance the setting of that heritage asset. The NPPF and Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide set out that the impact of a proposed development a designated Heritage Asset and its setting is a material consideration, both within the designated area and outside if it affects its setting or views into or out of it. 10.38. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that in determining planning applications local planning authorities should take account of the positive contribution that the conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality. The FIAAP makes reference to heritage-led regeneration at paras 2.8, 4.24, 6.8. Heritage-led is not considered to constitute the imposition of architectural styles or particular tastes (NPPF para 60), but should support good design principles requiring that it take up opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (NPPF para 60), and preserve and enhance the historic environment by ‘making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’ (NPPF para 131).

10.39. The Fish Island and White Post Lane Conservation Area Appraisal specifically states that ‘To the south of the Greenway, the curves of Wick Land and the waterways south of Old Ford Lock are also part of the setting of the Fish Island & White Post Lane Conservation Area. The former Christ Church Mission (1890) and industrial buildings on Crown Close as well as the (much altered) public house and Standard Ammonia Works warehouse on the south side of Iceland Street are among the surviving 19th century structures that contribute positively to this setting.’ Both the site allocations within the FIAAP and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications ask development on this site to improve the setting of this cluster of heritage buildings on Crown Close to the south west of the site.

10.40. Officers consider that no compelling justification has been provided by the Applicant for departing from development policies. The QRP has also concluded that the scheme does not yet respond convincingly to the particular character of the site. Officers therefore conclude that overall the scheme is harmful to the setting of the Conservation Area designated heritage asset and the nearby non- designated heritage assets on Crown Close.

10.41. The internal courtyard spaces are also extensively overshadowed by the perimeter blocks for the development itself. Much of the space is also taken up with circulation and the provision of defensible space to residential units. This has been necessary as a result of the high density of the scheme and the competing need to provide amenity space, circulation and access areas, without adversely impacting the privacy of future residents. The result compromises the scheme in all of these aspects, with amenity space that appears cramped and lacking in purpose, alongside bedrooms in uncomfortable proximity to the communal amenity space – a space that will also be used by residents accessing apartments at various times of day.

10.42. Overall, the proposal falls short of the test of acceptability that is applied to developments such as the proposed scheme, with heights that exceed normal policy ranges for this area. Furthermore, the resulting impacts of a development of this scale and mass in this location is harmful, both to the setting of the conservation area and to the wider townscape setting, including resulting in significant harm to the amenity of future occupiers and existing adjacent occupiers. Therefore officers have concluded that this application does not represent a sustainable regeneration proposal, and does not accord with development plan policies.

10.43. Residential quality of accommodation

10.44. London Plan policy 7.6 ‘Architecture’ states that buildings should provide high quality indoor and outdoor spaces and integrate well with the surrounding streets and open spaces. The Mayor’s Housing SPG provides guidance on how to implement London Plan policies and supports the NPPF in seeking ‘to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes’. It recognises ‘Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment’ and that ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.’ (NPPF CLG paras. 59- 60). LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications, includes in policy BN.10 the need to not adversely impact on the microclimate of the area.

10.45. The Mayor is also clear that one of his key planning priorities is ‘to improve standards for the quality and design of housing, making sure that homes meet the needs of a changing population throughout their lives, and are built to the highest environmental standards’ (Mayors Housing SPG). The SPG reflects this and promotes design quality in all new homes to enhance and extend London’s proud architectural heritage and deliver higher design standards for everyone.

10.46. The Mayor’s Housing SPG describes the minimum standards that residential units should comply. The Mayor’s Housing SPG makes it clear that “Where proposals are made for developments above the relevant density range they must be tested rigorously, taking particular account not just of factors in policy 3.4 (London Plan Optimising Housing Potential) but also other policies which are relevant to exceptionally high density development. These include different aspects of ‘liveability’ related to proposed dwelling mix, design and quality... it is particularly important to take account of its impact in terms of massing, scale and character in relation to nearby uses – design should be exemplary.” (Page 39, para.1.3.41, Mayor’s Housing SPG).

10.47. It is the ‘liveability’ of the proposal that requires further consideration in light of the proposed density. This comprises consideration of space standards, daylight and sunlight, amenity space standards, parking provision and housing mix; and the overall sustainability of the proposal, specifically its ability to meet the needs of current as well as the future population in the area. Taking each of these ‘liveability’ considerations in turn, an assessment of the scheme is set out below:

10.48. In relation to the size of units, the baseline standards describe the total floor area that should be achieved, and the size of individual rooms as a good practice standard. A schedule of accommodation has been provided with the application which describes the overall total floorspace for each individual unit, but does not break this down into individual room sizes. Whilst the proposed development complies with the minimum standards described in the Housing SPG for total floorspace area, officers have scaled directly from the plans (in the absence of a specific schedule of areas) and determined that a significant number of units appear to have open plan living spaces that fall short of minimum requirements. A sample of these units is used to evidence this below:

 Unit numbers A1.03 / A1.07 (a layout type repeated over upper floors) amounting to approximately 8 units – with open plan living rooms of 27sqm for 3 beds (5 people), rather than 29sqm described in the Mayor’s SPG;

 Unit number A1.04 (a layout type repeated on each floor) amounting to approximately 8 units – with open plan living rooms of 26sqm for 2 bed (4 person), rather than 27sqm described in the Mayor’s SPG; and

 Unit numbers A1.08 / A1.14 (a layout type repeated on upper floors) amounting to approximately 10 units - with open plan living rooms of 25.5sqm for 2 bed (4 person unit), rather than 27sqm described in the Mayor’s SPG. 10.49. These units represent just a sample of measurements undertaken by the case officer. The failure to comply with individual room sizes is particularly unfortunate in the open plan living spaces of larger units, expected to be occupied by families or multiple people, who will rely heavily upon the communal spaces in apartments. Whilst the discrepancy in size is a matter of between 1sqm and 2sqm in this sample, this is repeated over floors, amounting in a shortfall of 10’s of square metres of residential floorspace that spread across the units would allow for improved quality of accommodation. It is a direct result of the high density of the scheme, which prioritises the delivery of a large number of units over the achievement of good standard living accommodation for future occupiers. Therefore while overall floorspace might meet minimum standards, a lack of space and awkward layouts to units makes the distribution of space within the units to achieve individual room space standards difficult.

10.50. Policies BN.1 and BN.4 of LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications describe the requirement to ensure adequate daylight and sunlight. In relation to daylight and sunlight, a ‘Daylight and Sunlight Report’ has been prepared by Dixon Payne for the application site, and assesses the proposed development against the Building Research Establishments (BRE) guide ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight & Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’ (2011). This describes both the impact upon surrounding occupiers as stated below in this report, and within the proposed development. In relation to the daylight conditions for future occupiers of the proposed development, the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) method is used to test levels. The VSC calculates the amount of daylight reaching the outside face of the window. The guide states that if at the centre of the window the VSC is greater than 27% then enough skylight should be reaching the window. It is also possible to use an ADF calculation when room use and layout is known.

10.51. The ADF calculation assesses the volume of light within a room served by a window or windows and takes into account the VSC. The BRE Guidelines suggest the following minimum daylight (ADF) target values for rooms; kitchens 2%, living rooms 1.5% and bedrooms 1%. This can be considered in recognition that a standard ‘good’ level of light would be around a 5% ADF value.

10.52. In relation to sunlight a calculation of annual probable sunlight hours (APSH) is used. The guide states that a living room should receive at least 25% of annual probable sunlight hours with at least 5% of winter probable sunlight hours. The result of daylight and sunlight testing have been taken from the applicants submitted Daylight Impact Assessment Report produced by Fabric Building Physics dated 13/10/14, and can be summarised as follows:

 79 open plan kitchen / living / dining rooms have an ADF below 2%;

 Of these, 47 open plan kitchen / living / dining rooms have an ADF below 1.5%;

 Of these, 13 open plan kitchen / living / dining rooms have an ADF below 1% (the main living rooms to Units A1.11, A1.10, B1.05, B1.06, B1.07, A2.12, A2.11, B2.08, A3.11, A3.12, B3.08, B4.08, B5.07 all experience ADF levels below 1%, one as low as 0.56%.);

 29 bedrooms within the development have an ADF below 1%; and

 In total 108 rooms (54%) of the scheme fails to achieve minimum BRE Guideline levels for daylight. 10.53. The failure to achieve the minimum guideline values described in the BRE Guidelines has occurred directly as a result of the design of these units. While the applicant contends that the majority of units exceed the minimum levels for a living room, it should be noted that these are dual purpose rooms with open plan layouts that accommodate a kitchen, and the BRE Guidelines are clear that in these circumstances the room is recommended to achieve a minimum standard for a kitchen (2% ADF). In addition, the applicant focuses on the achievement of minimum daylight levels within the bedrooms to units, however 2.1.13 of the BRE Guide states that living rooms and kitchens need more daylight than bedrooms, so where there is a choice it is best to site the living room and kitchen away from obstructions. Furthermore, a number of the bedrooms also fail to achieve minimum recommended ADF values as set out in the BRE Guidelines.

10.54. In relation to sunlight, the APSH has been calculated for 33 rooms across the development to represent the majority of orientations and configurations within the scheme. However the main requirement for sunlight is in main living rooms, so PPDT’s Environmental Consultants have recommended to officers that a larger sample of the main living rooms should have been provided across the scheme. Despite requesting this from the applicant, a wider sample of results has not been provided. Clearly the aim of the BRE Guidelines and this test is to ensure that each individual dwelling has at least one main living room that can receive a reasonable amount of sunlight, but as a result of the proposed design with north facing rooms, the scheme will struggle to meet these targets.

10.55. The overshadowing assessment has also been provided for the courtyard amenity areas. While no figures are provided, the statement confirms that approximately one third of the internal courtyard spaces obtain a minimum of 2 hours of direct sunlight at equinox (March 21). However officers question this conclusion. The central space between Block A and Block B will clearly achieve the BRE target (with 50% or more of the total area receiving sunlight for 2 or more hours on March 21), but this is a public access area to the Greenway, and not part of the communal residential courtyard. Both of the communal courtyard areas at the centre of blocks A&B fall short of this target, solely as a result of the design, massing and height of the proposal. While the applicant contends that sunlight will be achieved in summer (June) the test relates to the equinox in March, as an indication of year round performance for sunlight.

10.56. There are 45 single aspect units within the scheme and whilst this represents a minority of units (22%), it has not ensured that units benefit from good quality daylight and sunlight, which has suffered as a result of the height of the development and perimeter block arrangement.

10.57. Overall the quality of daylight and sunlight within the proposed development is very poor and results from a design that has failed to prioritise the achievement of good quality daylight and sunlight for future occupiers. This clearly illustrates poor ‘liveability’ and as such the failure to demonstrate exemplary design. The proposal fails to fulfil the requirements of policy BN.1 ‘Responding to Place’ to minimise impact within proposed and upon existing development, by preventing overshadowing and unacceptable provision of sunlight / daylight; and BN.4 ‘Designing residential schemes’ of the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications, which states that proposals will be considered acceptable where they meet specified criteria, including criterion 4:

‘Demonstrate that the scheme will receive adequate levels of daylight and sunlight, and demonstrate that surrounding development will not experience an unacceptable loss of sunlight and daylight in accordance with BRE guidance.’ 10.58. In relation to external amenity space, the following standards within the London Plan and Mayor’s Housing SPG apply:

10.59. Table 3: Amenity Space Standards

Minimum private amenity space (in accordance with Mayor’s Housing SPG)

A minimum of 5sqm of private outdoor space for 1-2 person dwellings and an extra 1sqm for each additional occupant. Balconies should have a minimum width of 1500mm.

Minimum communal amenity space

All developments with 10 or more 50sqm for the first 10 units, plus a residential dwellings. further 1sqm for every additional unit.

Child play space

Apply the London Plan SPG – Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation, which specifies 10sqm of playspace should be provided for each child.

10.60. The proposed development includes a courtyard communal amenity space for residents as part of Block A. This is 835sqm in size, with 141sqm of this indicated for playspace. A further amenity terrace is provided in the form of two roof top gardens providing a total of 507sqm of space, 128sqm of which is suggested to be available for play. Within Block B there is a total of 560sqm of amenity area in the form of a courtyard space of which 141sqm is available for play, and a roof top terrace area providing a total of 295sqm of communal amenity space with 103sqm of play. In total 2197sqm is provided for amenity space, of which 513qm is indicated to be available for playspace, leaving 1684sqm for general amenity space. This exceeds the requirements for general amenity space, but falls slightly short of the requirement for play, which in this scheme amounts to 654sqm as a result of a child yield of 65 (33x under 5 years; 21x 5 years to 11 years; and 12x 12+ years).

10.61. The applicant suggests that the older children requirement for play should be accommodated off-site, however how they would contribute to the provision of this is unclear, and it appears that they seek to rely on existing provision within Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. However given the remaining area of courtyard space available, it is considered that the applicant could reasonably accommodate this requirement on site alongside general amenity space requirements. In relation to the quality of the space, it is considered that the extent of overshadowing and lack of sunlight that will penetrate the courtyard spaces and the playspaces as part of this, is unacceptable, with both of the communal courtyard spaces failing to achieve the BRE Guideline recommendations in relation to overshadowing (as set out in paragraph 10.55 above). The applicant suggests that these overshadowing results are to be expected within a scheme with a density such as the application proposal; however the policy tests are clear that quality standards should be achieved despite the density of a scheme.

10.62. The failure to achieve quality standards in this proposal is endemic and illustrates the inability to fulfil the Mayor’s requirement for exemplary design in a high density development, which in this case is demonstrated by the poor ‘liveability’ of the development. 10.63. Transport

10.64. London Plan policy 6.3 ‘Assessing effects of development on transport capacity’ states that development should not adversity affect safety on the transport network and that development effects on transport capacity should be fully assessed. The site is located 350m north of the junction with the A12 which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). The nearest section of secondary road network is approximately 1km away to the south at Bow Roundabout / Stratford High Street. Bus route 339 runs along Wick Lane with stops adjacent to the site, and bus routes 8, 276 and 488 within an acceptable walking distance via Crown Close bridge across the A12. The technical public transport accessibility (PTAL) calculation for this site is 2, however TfL has accepted that this calculation does not include transport facilities located across the A12, which are immediately accessible from the site via a bridge over the A12, and therefore a PTAL calculation of 3 is accepted.

10.65. The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment (TA) to describe potential effects of the development upon the transport network. The TA adequately demonstrates that the proposal will not have a significant impact upon public transport. There are a significant number of walking trips (208 2-way walking trips in the AM peak hour (including 191 trips associated with public transport services) that will be generated by the development, and therefore results in significant increased demand upon surrounding public highway infrastructure. A Travel Plan has also been submitted for the residential element of the scheme. This fails the ATTrBuTE assessment used by TfL to assess the content, although it is considered by TfL that improvements can be addressed through future updates to the plan and as on-site surveys are undertaken.

10.66. Access:

10.67. Vehicular access is provided from Wick Lane to a ground level car park area and servicing loading bay for refuse collection. Servicing to some of the non- residential uses is also provided from this access. The detail of the operation of this access is not clearly described in the application, and it is not clear that vehicles will be able to enter and exit in forward gear in order to reduce impact of delivery vehicles on the highway and pavement, and not obstruct bus services.

10.68. Cycle Parking & Walking:

10.69. London Plan Policy Plan policy 6.9 ‘Cycling’ states that development should provide secure, integrated and accessible cycle parking facilities in line with minimum standards that it describes. The proposed development includes 328 secure cycle parking spaces for residents and commercial occupiers, with a further 8 spaces in the public realm for visitors. The quantum of spaces provided is in accordance with the London Plan consolidated version 2015; however provision for residents and commercial occupiers should be segregated to ensure suitable security. Some cycle racks are also located within the same storage areas as refuse / bin stores, which are not considered to be acceptable as it would be likely to discourage use of the cycle racks. The fact that these facilities have had to be combined within the same area is symptomatic of the overdevelopment of the site and the inadequate space for appropriate cycle storage provision as a result.

10.70. Policy 6.10 ‘Walking’ of the London Plan states that development proposals should ensure high quality pedestrian environments and emphasise the quality of the pedestrian and street space. There are existing initiatives and proposals to improve the public realm and local walking and cycling routes in Hackney Wick and Fish Island, as set out in the OLSPG, Area Action Plans, LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications. In the event that planning permission was granted contrary to the officer’s recommendation this scheme would be expected to contribute to specific walking and cycling improvements.

10.71. Car Parking:

10.72. The London Plan makes it clear that an appropriate balance should be struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use. Maximum standards for car parking are described in the Plan.

10.73. The scheme has no commercial parking, which is welcomed, but a total of 65 residential spaces reflecting the maximum permitted by London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Although this provision is below the maximum permitted by Tower Hamlets TfL has recommended that the residential parking is reduced further to encourage use of more sustainable modes of transport. Of the total car parking proposed, 7 are accessible spaces (or 10% of the total number proposed), which does not satisfy the London Plan requirement of one space for each accessible unit (10% of total residential units, thus 20 in total). This could be achieved through re-balancing the proportion of spaces to favour provision of blue badge parking bays. Electric vehicle charging points are provided in line with London Plan minimum standards. A Car Park Management Plan would be necessary for this development, to demonstrate how the different car parking spaces would be managed.

10.74. A car club bay would also be expected from a development of this size, alongside two years membership for future residents to a car club.

10.75. Servicing:

10.76. The application scheme includes a loading bay on the pavement on Wick Lane where there is an existing southbound bus stop. The application documents make no appraisal of this bus stop, and how the service bay and bus stop can co- exist. TfL has raised concerns in relation to this aspect of the scheme, indicating that it is not possible to relocate the bus stop to the south side of the development as it would then be directly opposite the northbound stop, and the road is not wide enough to support that type of arrangement. In addition, there are safety concerns as a result of the proximity of the roundabout, whilst there is a kerb to the north of the proposed loading bay that could in theory accommodate the bus stop, this location does not have sufficient straight sections of road to accommodate a ramp for deployment for passages with mobility impairments and there are further safety concerns given the proximity to the brow of the hill and bends in the road. The potential to re-design Wick Lane to accommodate the on- pavement loading bay and bus stop; would need to be agreed with TfL Bus Infrastructure and Tower Hamlets Highway Authority. The cost of this work would also need to be covered by the applicant. As set out above in paragraph 10.66 the alternative servicing and access point also raises concerns regarding its operation.

10.77. A Servicing Management Plan (SMP) has been submitted, although this does not provide sufficient detail. Therefore further detail would be required on this matter, particularly to resolve the concerns regarding the location of servicing points set out above.

10.78. Conclusion on transport impact: 10.79. Overall the proposal fails to adequately mitigate impact upon the surrounding transport network and provide for the needs of future occupiers. This is most notable in the insufficient provision for disabled parking provision, which is contrary to London Plan requirements and the Mayor’s Housing SPD baseline quality standard 3.2.2. This clearly states that each designated wheelchair accessible dwelling should have a car parking space 2.4m wide with a clear access of 1.2m (blue badge dimensions). The SPD also says that consideration should also be given to providing bays for disabled visitors. The impact upon the existing bus stop adjacent to the site and the concerns regarding operation of the delivery access to the east of the site also generate safety concerns. The scheme would therefore be contrary to policies as described above.

10.80. Impact upon the amenity of surrounding occupiers

10.81. Policy 7.6 ‘Architecture’ of the London Plan states that buildings should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate.

10.82. Privacy and overlooking:

10.83. Tower Hamlets Managing Development DPD includes policy DM25 ‘Amenity’ which describes that development will be required to protect, and where possible improve the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants. As part of this, development should not result in the loss of privacy, nor enable an unreasonable level of overlooking or unacceptable increase in the sense of enclosure. A distance of approximately 18m between windows of habitable rooms is recommended in the DPD policy.

10.84. The application proposal is situated between 6.2m and 12.8m away from the adjacent building on 417 Wick Lane to the east of the site. Within the proposed development there are no habitable room windows that look directly onto this boundary, with the only windows serving bathroom areas and with obscure glazing to reduce visibility onto this edge. However, there are a number of terrace and balcony areas included in the proposed development that would be located along this end of the site. It is not clear from the application submission how the proposed development has been designed to reduce any disturbance or other impacts that would arise from the use of these balconies by future occupiers, which would adversely impact the privacy of existing neighbouring residents in 417 Wick Lane.

10.85. In addition to impacts upon resident’s privacy, there is also concern that the proximity between the proposed development and the existing development at 417 Wick Lane may result in an increased sense of enclosure for those neighbouring residents. There are a large number of windows within the neighbouring block on 417 Wick Lane that rely solely on outlook on the boundary with the application site. Furthermore, the site designation within both current adopted policy in the FIAAP and the Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications site allocation policy SA1.5 for the application site, state that development should provide a new public space adjacent to 417 Wick Lane to improve the outlook for the existing ground-floor business units in that development. As part of this discussion, it should also be noted that many of the live/work units in 417 Wick Lane are now entirely residential in use, and that some of the business units have also changed to residential use under recent permitted development planning legislation. Therefore the expectation is for development on the application site to improve outlook to the adjacent development, and the proposal fails to do this, locating the access to the car park, refuse loading bay and a significant scale of development close to the boundary with the adjacent site, increasing the sense of enclosure, creating disturbance through vehicular access and consequently adversely impacting the amenity of adjacent occupiers.

10.86. Daylight and sunlight:

10.87. LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies BN.1 and BN.4 state that development should not adversely impact existing residents’ daylight and sunlight levels. Criteria under policy BN.10 sets out the requirement to not adversely impact on the microclimate of the surrounding area. A Daylight and Sunlight Report has been prepared by Dixon Payne for the application site, and assesses the proposed development against the Building Research Establishments (BRE) guide ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight & Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’ (2011).

10.88. In considering the impact upon sunlight, the test is based upon a calculation of annual probable sunlight hours (APSH) which is an annual average based upon probability. The sunlight assessment only needs to be carried out if a living room of an existing dwelling has a main window facing within 90 degrees of due south, and any part of a new development subtends an angle of more than 25 degrees to the horizontal measured from the centre of the window in a vertical section perpendicular to the window, then the sunlight of the existing dwelling may be adversely affected.

10.89. In relation to sunlight, residential accommodation at the Ironworks (58 Dace Road) has been assessed and the results show that each window will retain potential direct sunlight access in excess of the BRE Guideline minimum standards.

10.90. In terms of daylight, a 25 degree test is used to establish those properties that might be impacted by the proposed development, only those neighbouring habitable room windows that do not pass the 25 degree test will require further testing. In order to establish if there is any impact upon daylight, and what the significance of this impact is, the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) method is used to test levels. The VSC calculates the amount of daylight reaching the outside face of the window. The guide states that if at the centre of the window the VSC is greater than 27% then enough skylight should be reaching the window. Where the VSC is less than 27%, if the reduction is within 0.8 times its formal value, then the change will not be perceptible.

10.91. The 2011 BRE Guidelines describe the potential use of a ‘mirror image’ massing, to determine what VSC levels would be, in circumstances where an existing development relies upon outlook at the boundary edge. This attempts to balance the need that existing neighbouring occupiers have for daylight, without prejudicing the delivery of new development on a currently underdeveloped site. The application has been submitted with a Daylight Impact Assessment produced by Fabric Building Physics, and this describes the impact of the proposed development upon the daylight and sunlight of surrounding existing occupiers. The applicant has undertaken this assessment of impact upon 417 Wick Lane on the basis of a mirror image development of that existing property on the application site, and then compared this to the impact from the proposed development upon 417 Wick Lane.

10.92. Appendix F of the BRE Guide, clearly describes circumstances where a local authority may allow vertical sky component (VSC) and annual probable sunlight hours (APSH) for the permitted scheme to be used as alternative benchmarks (appendix F1 of the BRE Guide). A similar approach may be adopted in cases where an existing building has windows that are unusually close to the site boundary and taking more than their fair share of light (appendix F2 of the BRE Guide). To ensure that new development matches height and proportion of existing buildings, the VSC and APSH targets for these windows could be set to those for a 'mirror-image' building of the same height and size, an equal distance away on the other side of the boundary. However, the guide is clear that it would be inappropriate for it to be treated in the same way as an existing building, and for the developer to set 0.8 times the values as benchmarks. The guide also clearly indicates that such an approach to the methodology would be at the discretion of the LPA, and as such officers consider that this approach should have been agreed with the LPA prior to submission of the application.

10.93. In addition, paragraph 2.2.11 of the BRE Guidelines states the following in relation to balconies attached to existing development:

‘If the proposed VSC with the balcony was under 0.8 times the existing value with the balcony, but the same ratio for the values without the balcony was well over 0.8, this would show that the presence of the balcony, rather than the size of the new obstruction, was the main factor in the relative loss of light.’

10.94. The applicant has presented the proposed VSC results for the neighbouring development without the balconies of that existing building in place, but has failed to provide the corresponding existing VSC level without balconies, or a representation of this impact as an expression of it compared to that existing level (i.e. whether the reduction is within 0.8 times its formal value). Therefore the values provided cannot be assessed within a complete context.

10.95. As a result in the inconsistency in the presentation of results, (i.e. lack of an existing VSC level without balconies in place, lack of a representation of whether the reduction is within 0.8 times its formal value and the use of a mirror VSC value without prior discussion with officer’s about the appropriateness of the use of this type of methodology). A table of results is set out in Appendix 4 of this report.

10.96. The results show that the use of a ‘mirror image’ of 417 Wick Lane on the site would substantially reduce neighbouring occupiers VSC from that currently experienced in the actual condition for the existing 417 Wick Lane building.

10.97. While the applicant seeks to rely upon a baseline VSC that is represented by a scenario of a mirror image massing without balconies in place, the applicant has not provided an existing scenario for the actual development without balconies in place, so a like-for-like comparison cannot be made when assessing the impact of the development.

10.98. The use of the ‘mirror image’ methodology to justify the extent of impact upon adjacent occupier’s daylight has not been agreed as an approach with officers, and is not considered to be an appropriate approach for this site.

10.99. The applicant is seeking to rely upon the mirror image of a development that was permitted prior to the adoption of the FIAAP and would not generally accord with current adopted policies on height. Use of a mirror image of that existing development to justify the impact of a proposed over scaled building is therefore inappropriate. The use of the ‘mirror image’ methodology on this site to justify impacts of a building above policy height thresholds should also be considered in light of the precedent this could establish in the area. Such a justification could in turn be replicated around the site in future, and be used to justify a further over scaled building, and so on.

10.100. Overall the impact upon existing neighbouring occupier’s daylight as a result of the proposed development will be significant. While it is recognised that the application site is in an urban location and that the BRE standards are guidelines only, the impact of the scheme reduces neighbouring occupiers VSC to as low as 0.1 in 1 case and less than 10% in the majority of cases. Whilst the existing VSC does not necessarily meet the recommended 27% value, and therefore the proposed VSC will of course not fulfil that value, the extent of reduction is significant.

10.101. The significance of this impact is heightened given the scale of the proposed building, which is in excess of the policy guideline height for the area and with a proposed density significantly in excess of expected ranges for the area. As such, the additional policy tests for exemplary design, including the need to prevent adverse environmental impacts upon surrounding occupiers applies; and this proposal fails to respond appropriately to this requirement. Therefore the scheme would, on the basis of inappropriate height of the building and resulting impact on adjacent occupiers daylight, be contrary to policy BN.1 ‘Responding to place’ of the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications; which states that proposals will be considered acceptable where they meet specified criteria, including criterion 7:

‘Amenity and wellbeing: minimise impact within proposed and upon existing development, by preventing overshadowing, and an unacceptable provision / loss of sunlight, daylight or privacy.’

10.102. As well as LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policy BN.4 ‘Designing residential schemes’ which states that proposals will be considered acceptable where they demonstrate that existing surrounding development will not experience an unacceptable loss of sunlight and daylight in accordance with BRE guidance.

10.103. Impacts during construction

10.104. The construction of the proposed development would give rise to temporarily increased traffic, noise, emissions and visual impacts on the local townscape. These temporary impacts will not be particularly significant. These impacts could be appropriately mitigated through a planning condition.

10.105. The implementation of mitigation measures could enable the management and reduction of these impacts and could be secured through approval of a Construction Management Plan. This would describe how impacts from construction would be minimised on the site. A planning condition could be used to secure submission of a Construction Management Plan in the event that permission was granted for this application proposal.

10.106. Housing Mix

10.107. Family housing:

10.108. Policy SP02 ‘Urban Living for Everyone’ of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy sets out that a mixture of small and large housing should be secured through development, by requiring an overall target of 30% of all new housing to be of a size suitable for families (three-bed plus), including 45% of new social rented (or affordable rent) homes to be for families. The Mayor’s 2013 London Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) also supports an increasing demand for family-sized housing. Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’ in the London Plan also requires 10% of new housing to be designed as wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications, policy H.1 ‘Providing a mix of housing types’ states that proposals should meet identified local and strategic requirements, containing a mix of one, two and three bedroom units, with units of two bedroom s or more constituting more than half the total.

10.109. The table below describes the proposed housing mix by tenure and number of bedrooms:

10.110. Table 4: Housing Mix

Tenure 1 bedroom (%) 2 bedroom (%) 3 bedroom (%) All Bedroom Types Total (%)

Market 37 (21.7%) 95 (55.8%) 38 (22.3%) 170

Intermediate 1 (10%) 6 (60%) 3 (30%) 10 (34.4% of total affordable housing)

Affordable 1 (5.2%) 12 (63.1%) 6 (31.5%) 19 rent (65.5% of total affordable housing)

All Tenures 39 (20%) 113 (57%) 47 (23%) 199 Total (%)

10.111. The proposal fails to provide a suitable mix of dwelling type, with only 23% of units with 3 bedrooms rather than the 30% required, while within the affordable rent tenure only 31.5% have 3 bedrooms rather than the 45% required. This shortfall in the quantum of family housing provided is particularly significant in light of the 2013 SHMA which concludes that a significant proportion of new homes across London will need to be family-size housing to support demand. London Plan Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’ also highlights the need for affordable family housing. 10.112. The applicant refers to LLDC policy and suggests that because the requirement for 50% 2 bed plus housing is satisfied by the proposal, the mix of housing should be considered to be appropriate. However the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications notes that the individual circumstances of the site should be considered in assessing an appropriate mix and balance of housing within a development proposal, and the consultation response from Tower Hamlets on this proposal confirms their view that this area is suitable for family housing and they object to the application proposals in part due to the lack of family housing incorporated into the scheme. Whilst LLDC officers recognise that the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications takes a more flexible approach to housing mix than Tower Hamlets policies, there is no obvious viability or environmental reason why this site shouldn’t incorporate a policy compliant provision for family housing. 10.113. Adopted policy, LB Tower Hamlets Officers and in this case PPDT Officers all consider that this location is suitable for family housing, specifically as it is in an area where low density housing is encouraged, located close to a major open space consisting of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Family housing is a key characteristic of developments approved in and around Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. The LLDC regeneration objectives set out clearly in ‘Objective 2’ of the Local Plan that there is a need to ‘Establish and maintain locally distinctive neighbourhoods which meet housing needs, while providing excellent and easily accessible social infrastructure.’ As a result of the failure to achieve an appropriate housing mix in this development, officers conclude that the scheme does not constitute sustainable regeneration. 10.114. Affordable Housing: 10.115. Core Strategy policy SP02 also sets an overall strategic target for affordable homes of 50% until 2025, requiring 35%-50% affordable homes on sites providing 10 new residential units or more subject to viability. These affordable homes should be split in new development as 70% social or affordable rent and 30% intermediate. LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policy H.2 ‘Delivering affordable housing’ seeks to maximise affordable housing with a mix of 60% affordable rent / social rent and 40% intermediate housing. 10.116. The current proposal includes 15% of units as affordable housing in the following breakdown of units: 10.117. Table 5: Affordable Housing

Tenure 1 bedroom (%) 2 bedroom (%) 3 bedroom (%) All Bedroom Types Total (%)

Intermediate 1 (10%) 6 (60%) 3 (30%) 10 (34.4%)

Affordable 1 (5.2%) 12 (63.1%) 6 (31.5%) 19 rent (65.5%)

This can be summarised as follows:  29 affordable units, equating to 14.5% of total unit number or 16% of total habitable rooms;  19 affordable rent and 7 intermediate, tenure split of 65.5% to 34.4% (affordable rent to intermediate); 10.118. Adopted Tower Hamlets policy requires a tenure split of 70% to 30% - affordable rent to intermediate, and LLDC policy H.2 ‘Delivering affordable housing’ (in line with London Plan Policy) requires a tenure split of 60% to 40% - affordable rent to intermediate.

10.119. Tower Hamlets have raised a concern regarding the provision of affordable housing in this development, which does not reflect their policy requirements under SP02, DM3 or FI 4.5 for a minimum of 35% affordable housing with a 30/70 tenure split.

10.120. The applicant has submitted a Viability Assessment to justify the quantum of affordable housing included and the shortfall that it represents from normal policy expected levels. The LLDC PPDT Viability Consultant has reviewed this information, and advised officers that the information does not provide sufficiently robust evidence to support the conclusions reached, in particular whether the proposed affordable housing offer is the maximum that can viably be provided. As such officers do not support the conclusions reached regarding what a viable quantum of affordable housing on this site would be. 10.121. The departure from policy requirements for affordable housing is not adequately justified in the submitted viability assessment and would not accord with policies which seek mixed and balanced communities as set out in policies within the London Plan, Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications.

10.122. Flood Risk and Land Contamination

10.123. London Plan Policy 5.12 ‘Flood Risk Management’ states that development proposals must comply with the flood risk assessment and management requirements set out in the NPPF and the associated technical Guidance on flood risk over the lifetime of the development.

10.124. The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, an area with low probability of flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment has however been submitted with the application, produced by Peter Brett Associates LLP to describe appropriate mitigation measures for the proposed development, including a Sustainable Drainage System. The Environment Agency have confirmed that they have no objections to the application, where required mitigation and further information is secured by planning conditions in the event that permission is granted for the proposal.

10.125. A Phase One Contaminated Land Assessment has also been undertaken by Accon Environmental Consultants with a report submitted as part of the application submission. This concludes that further site investigation is required as part of any redevelopment of the site, and the Environment Agency have requested planning conditions that would secure additional investigation of contaminants with mitigation to be put in place where necessary. In the event that planning permission was granted for development of this site (contrary to the officer’s recommendation), these conditions will be required to ensure adequate management of contamination associated with the site.

10.126. Landscaping, Trees and Biodiversity

10.127. London Plan Policy 7.19 ‘Biodiversity and Access to Nature’ states that development proposals should wherever possible; make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity. The site adjoins The Greenway, a wildlife area to the north of the site categorised as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. An Ecology Report has been prepared by Applied Ecology Ltd and submitted with the planning application. This concludes the following:

 Development within the site should be designed and constructed to avoid adverse impacts (direct and indirect) on the Greenway in Tower Hamlets Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance for Nature Conservation that adjoins the sites northern boundary;

 Essential security lighting of the site after dark should be designed to minimise impacts on nocturnal wildlife and light spill affecting the Greenway;

 A precautionary approach to tree felling is recommended based on timing the work to avoid the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive), or immediately following confirmation by a Suitably Qualified Ecologist that no birds (aside from feral pigeons which are considered a pest species) are nesting in the trees to be felled; and  Consideration should be given to designing site landscaping to complement and enhance the ecological corridor function of the Greenway.

10.128. The findings of the Ecology Report clearly place significance upon the existing contribution of the Greenway to local biodiversity, therefore the implications of the development upon this landscape setting requires further consideration.

10.129. The application has also been submitted with a Tree Survey report undertaken by B.J. Unwin Forestry Consultancy in accordance with British standards. This identifies that a number of trees and shrubs will require removal as a result of the development.

10.130. In total, 12 Trees are removed from within and adjacent to the site along the Greenway (of which 5 are category B moderate quality trees), alongside the removal of a significant extent of shrub coverage adjacent to the site along the Greenway.

10.131. The proposed planting strategy includes a line of 5 fastigiate or other upright trees in the new public space between the blocks, and what appears from submitted drawings to be 5 new trees on Wick Lane; however no further information has been provided in relation to this planting. Whilst the submitted landscape planting strategy indicates the intention for further replacement tree planting on the Greenway, the submitted drawings only reference new shrub planting here. Therefore the proposal does not clearly illustrate how the existing tree and other planting to be lost as a result of the development will be adequately replaced. In addition, the trees that are referenced as being incorporated in the scheme are fastigiated (upright trees), that would not adequately replace the canopy form and spread of the existing Ash, Sycamore, Cherry and other trees to be removed.

10.132. As a result, the proposal fails to satisfy London Plan policy 7.21 ‘Trees and Woodland’ which stipulates that existing trees of value should be retained, and any loss as the result of development should be replaced following the principle of ‘right place, right tree’. As well as LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies BN.3 that states development proposals are required to retain trees and contribute to re-planting, and BN.4 requiring the incorporation of high-quality landscape design. The proposal fails to replace all trees lost as a result of the development, and includes new tree planting that would not adequately replace the large-canopied species lost. Therefore officers would require further detailed landscape proposals from the applicant, describing how impacts upon planting and associated ecology along the Greenway can be mitigated, through this development proposal, before the application could be considered to be acceptable. Sufficient information has not been provided and the application is recommended to be refused on this basis.

10.133. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Planning Obligations

10.134. Community Infrastructure Levy:

10.135. Planning Applications determined after 6th April 2015 are liable for the LLDC CIL charge. A CIL charge is placed upon development and used by local planning authorities to help fund the social, environmental and physical infrastructure that a new development will need. For this application, the size of development would generate a CIL charge of approximately £900,060. In the event that the application was granted consent contrary to the officer recommendation, this charge would be payable prior to commencement of the development on site. The applicant would also be eligible to apply for relief in relation to floorspace making up the affordable housing units in the scheme, consequently reducing the charge.

10.136. Planning Obligations:

10.137. Policy 8.2 of the London Plan states that planning obligations should be secured to address strategic and local priorities. This is reinforced by Tower Hamlets Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Section 106 Planning Obligations, which sets out in detail the type of development that qualifies for planning obligations, and Circular 05/05, which advises that every planning application will be judged on its merits against relevant policy, guidance and other material considerations when assessing planning obligations. LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policy SP.4 describes that where appropriate contributions towards the delivery of infrastructure will be sought through Planning Obligations. In addition, the LLDC Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out the approach that the LLDC will take in relation to s106 agreements. In the event that a development was approved on this site, the following heads of terms would be expected to be secured using a s106 legal agreement:

 Affordable housing with review mechanism;

 Sustainability including connection to the district heat network;

 Training and employment contribution;

 Management and provision of affordable workspace;

 Cost of relocation of bus stop to be approved in consultation with TfL;

 Car club with two years free membership for future residents;

 Travel plan; and

 Walking and cycling enhancements.

10.138. This is not an exhaustive list, and in the event that planning permission was granted contrary to the officer recommendation, further negotiation with the applicant would be required to secure appropriate mitigation through a s106 agreement.

10.139. Sustainable Design and Construction

10.140. The London Plan describes that developments should seek to reduce carbon emissions through the application of the energy hierarchy and measures to be ‘lean, clean and green’. This can be achieved through the incorporation of measures into the building fabric to improve the energy efficiency of the development (lean), use of CHP systems and district heat networks to provide energy efficiently (clean), and the incorporation of renewable energy systems into the development to produce low carbon or carbon zero energy (green). London Plan policy 5.2 ‘Minimising carbon dioxide emissions’ sets out the carbon reductions above 2010 Building Regulations as 25% in years 2010-2013 and 40% in years 2013-2016, with the aim of zero carbon for 2016-2025. 10.141. The Tower Hamlets Core Strategy describes the requirements for development to work towards carbon zero in policies S024 and SP11 ‘Working towards carbon zero’. This requires new homes to be built in-line with government guidance to reach zero carbon by 2016, and for non-residential development by 2019. All new development is also required to achieve a 20% reduction of carbon emissions through on-site renewable energy generation where feasible. LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications includes policy S.4 describing that proposals for development will be required to demonstrate the highest standards of sustainable design and construction and S.7 that states proposals for new development should ensure that buildings and spaces are designed to avoid overheating. Developments will also be required to connect to, or demonstrate potential for connection to, a decentralised energy system, for this proposed development site, this will involve the investigation of connection to the Olympic Park Energy Centre.

10.142. The proposed development incorporates energy efficiency measures within the design to generate a reduction in carbon emissions of 7% in comparison to a baseline building that is fully compliant with Part L Building Regulations 2013. In addition, it is intended that the development will in future connect to Cofely, increasing carbon emission savings by 27.9%. Alongside additional renewable energy provision in the form of photovoltaic collector’s onsite, it is predicted that a total carbon emission saving of 35.1% will be achieved.

10.143. The applicant has submitted an energy statement which outlines the assessment of the schemes carbon savings on the basis of Part L 2013 Building Regulations using the energy hierarchy as outlined in London Plan Policy 5.2.

10.144. In relation to the lean stage of the hierarchy, a range of passive design features and demand reduction measures would be incorporated to reduce carbon emissions. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters would be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. The demand for cooling will be minimised through natural cross ventilation and, in the case of the workshops, thermal mass. Active cooling is proposed only for the retail and café. Evidence (for example, modelling outputs) should have been provided to demonstrate that the dwellings have been designed in line with Policy 5.9 and would not be at risk of overheating.

10.145. In relation to the clean stage of the hierarchy, connection to the Olympic district heating network is intended and should continue to be prioritised. However it is not clear that all non-domestic uses will be connected to the network for heating and confirmation of this should have been provided.

10.146. In relation to the green stage of the hierarchy, 18kWp of solar PV are included on the roof of buildings. Further clarification regarding the above points is requested by the GLA in their Stage 1 referral response, and would be required before officers could confirm support for the energy solutions that form part of the development. Overall insufficient information has been submitted to satisfy requirements under the London Plan and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications.

11. HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS 11.1. Members should take account of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 as they relate to the application and the conflicting interests of the Applicants and any third party opposing the application in reaching their decisions. The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report. In particular, Article 6 (1), of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation civil rights and a fair hearing; Article 8 of the ECHR in relation to the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR in relation to the protection of property have all been taken into account 11.2. In addition the Equality Act 2010 provides protection from discrimination in respect of certain protected characteristics namely: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion, or beliefs and sex and sexual orientation. It places the Local Planning Authority under a legal duty to have due regard to the advancement of equality in the exercise of its powers including planning powers. Officers have taken this into account in the assessment of the application and Members must be mindful of this duty inter alia when determining all planning applications. In particular Members must pay due regard to the need to:  Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act;  Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and  Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. 11.3. Officers are satisfied that the application material and Officers’ assessment has taken into account these issues. Particular matters of consideration have included provision of accessible housing and parking bays, as well as the provision of affordable and family housing; quality of accommodation and provision for employment floorspace.

12. CONCLUSION 12.1. The proposed development fails to fulfil the land use objectives for this site, described within policy and site allocations set out in Tower Hamlets FI AAP and the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications.

12.2. The development proposal includes buildings above the normal policy height range for this area (6 storeys / 20m) and fails to satisfy the exceptional criteria for buildings under policy BN.10 to be proportionate in scale and sensitive to context, particularly in light of the immediate adjacency to the conservation area; as well as the requirement for outstanding architecture.

12.3. The proposed development results in the overdevelopment of the site, illustrated by its high density whilst failing to fulfil baseline and good practice standards described in the Mayor’s Housing SPG and as a result, does not demonstrate exemplary design. In addition, the proposed quality of accommodation fails to fulfil minimum standards for quality of design described in policy BN.1 and BN.4 of the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications.

12.4. The proposed development as a result of its height, mass and scale will result in significant harm to the daylight and sunlight of adjacent occupiers. In addition, it fails to respond to the policy designation requirements for an open space adjacent to 417 Wick Lane, and as a result fails to reduce its impact upon this neighbouring development through its design. 12.5. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to conclude that the affordable housing offer is the maximum that viably can be provided, as required by London Plan and LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications policies. The scheme fails to meet regeneration objectives set out in policy 2.4 of the London Plan and objectives in the LLDC Publication Local Plan (August 2014) with proposed Examination stage modifications as reflected in relevant policies. The proposal would fail to provide for a sustainable regeneration of the site and wider Legacy Corporation area. Overall this application proposal results in significant harm to the character of the townscape, the setting of the adjacent conservation area, the amenity of adjacent existing occupiers and proposed future occupiers of the site. Therefore the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in section 2 of this report.

13. Proactive and Positive Statement

13.1. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and with Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended), the following statement explains how the LLDC as Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with this planning application:

13.2. Following submission of the planning application, the local planning authority continued to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner. The applicant was informed that the planning application did not comply with planning policy both before and after submission of the application, and a PPA was entered into to allow the applicant time to consider the LPA comments. However the applicant determined to pursue with the proposals contrary to the advice of the LPA. Therefore the LPA has no choice but to refuse the application for those reasons set out above.

Appendices Appendix 1 Ground Floor Mezzanine Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing Roof Plan Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing CGI 1 CGI 2 Appendix 2 LBTH consultation response Appendix 3 QRP report Appendix 4 Daylight and Sunlight table

Monitoring Information For Commercial (delete as applicable): Site Area (ha) - 0.6 hectares Previous land use(s) and floorspace(s) – Sui Generis, B1 & B2; 2,200sqm Proposed floorspace of each use(s) – B1(b/c), A1 & A3; 3,898sqm Change in floorspace of each use(s) (+/-) – +3,323sqm B1 (b/c); +342sqm A1; +321sqm A3; -2,200sqm B2 & Sui Generis. Number of jobs created/lost – not confirmed Existing parking spaces – 80 Proposed parking spaces – 58 PTAL - 3 Constraints (listed building, conservation area, mol, etc) Adjacent to (setting of) White Post Lane and Fish Island Conservation Area.

For Residential (delete as applicable): Site Area – 0.6 hectares Existing units - 0 Proposed units - 199 Number of bedrooms per unit Tenure 1 bedroom (%) 2 bedroom (%) 3 bedroom (%) All Bedroom Types Total (%)

Market 37 (21.7%) 95 (55.8%) 38 (22.3%) 170

Intermediate 1 (10%) 6 (60%) 3 (30%) 10 (34.4% of total affordable housing)

Affordable 1 (5.2%) 12 (63.1%) 6 (31.5%) 19 rent (65.5% of total affordable housing)

All Tenures 39 (20%) 113 (57%) 47 (23%) 199 Total (%)

Proposed density - dwellings/hectare – 947.6 units per hectare Proposed density- habitable rooms/hectare Existing density – dwellings/hectare – n/a Existing density of area – dwellings/hectare – n/a Number of affordable units proposed – 29 Previous land use – Industrial Existing parking spaces – 80 Proposed parking spaces – 58 PTAL – 3 Constraints (listed building, conservation area, mol, etc) - Adjacent to (setting of) White Post Lane and Fish Island Conservation Area.