Bromley by Bow South Socio-Economics Impact Topic Report

Bromley by Bow South

Socio-Economics Impact Topic Report

April 2016 0

CONTENTS

01 Introduction 2

02 Legislative and Planning Policy Context 4

03 Methodology and Impact Significance Criteria 121

04 Baseline Conditions 20

05 Description of the Illustrative Masterplan 28

06 Potential Effects and Mitigation Measures 31

07 Residual Effects and Conclusions 40

08 Cumulative Effects Assessment 43

09 References 45

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited.

INTRODUCTION

2 01 INTRODUCTION

1.1 AECOM Infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd (AECOM) have been instructed by Danescroft Land Ltd, on behalf of the group of landowners (Danescroft Land Ltd, Lindhill Properties Ltd, British Land PLC, Vastint Holding B.V, Southern Housing Group, LLDC), to undertake a socio-economic assessment in relation to the redevelopment of the Bromley by Bow (South) site (herein referred to as ‘the Site’), allocated as Sub Area 4.1 of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) Local Plan 2015 to 2031 (Ref. 1).

1.2 It is the intention of the landowners to submit an illustrative masterplan to the Planning and Policy Decisions Team (PPDT) of the LLDC. This illustrative masterplan has been subject to environmental testing, and this report forms part of a series of Environmental Impact Topic Reports which have been produced to form a separate evidence base identifying any potential significant environmental effects of the operation of the maximum extents/ parameters of the illustrative masterplan, and where further work might be required to support a planning application for development of the Site, or any part thereof.

1.3 Both the illustrative masterplan and Environmental Impact Topic Reports will provide the basis upon which a series of redevelopment parameters and design guidelines will be developed for the Site. These parameters and guidelines will be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the Site. Both the illustrative masterplan and Environmental Impact Topic Reports will be appended to the SPD.

1.4 The Site is approximately 6ha in size and lies between the A12 to the west, the River Lea to the east and the railway line to the south. The Bow River Village (Bromley by Bow North) development borders the Site to the north. The illustrative masterplan consists of the construction of residential, retail, workspace, education and community buildings. The Site is located with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) and falls under the planning jurisdiction of the LLDC.

1.5 This report describes the national, regional and local policy context; assessment methodology used; baseline conditions; potential direct, indirect and induced impacts during the operational phase; wider development socio-economic impacts; mitigation measures and relevant residual impacts.

1.6 The report includes and has regard to:

• An economic impact assessment, including employment impact on the labour market and additional local spending; and

• A review of other relevant socio-economic effects, including the demand for social infrastructure such as education, primary health care, community facilities, open space, play space and retail provision (‘Type 1 impacts’).

1.7 The combined cumulative socio-economic impacts with other relevant development schemes (‘Type 2’ impacts) are discussed later in Section 8 of this Report. Planning History

1.8 Two planning permissions have previously been granted which cover the Site in part or whole and are summarised below. Where relevant, reference is made in this report to the information within these two planning applications:

• Hybrid planning permission (with some elements approved in detail) was granted for the Tesco application PA/09/02574 by the GLA in July 2010 for a mixed-use development, including a District Centre and a superstore. The area covered by the Tesco application sits entirely within the Site.

• Hybrid planning permission (with detailed planning permission for Phase 1) was granted for the Bromley by Bow (North) planning application PA/11/02423 by the GLA in July 2012 for a residential led mixed-use development. The Bromley by Bow (North) site comprises the area directly to the north of the Site, and includes the northern most portion of the Site.

LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

4 02 LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

Introduction

2.1 This section reviews the legislative and planning policy context in relation to socio-economics. The Proposed Development is situated in the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) local planning authority area. This section also considers LBTH planning policy where equivalent planning policy for the LLDC area is not published. Relevant Legislation National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref. 2) was adopted in March 2012 and sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England. These policies outline the Government’s vision of sustainable development, which should be interpreted and applied locally to meet local and community aspirations. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out that planning “should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs” . Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the NPPF outline the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth through the planning system.

2.3 With respect to economic development, local planning authorities should ensure that they:

• “Set out a clear economic vision and strategy for their area which positively and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth ;

• Set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated requirements over the plan period ;

• Support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting and, where possible, identify and plan for new or emerging sectors likely to locate in their area. Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances ;

• Plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries ;

• Identify priority areas for economic regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement ; and

• Facilitate flexible working practices such as the integration of residential and commercial uses within the same unit.”

2.4 With respect to community and social infrastructure, the NPPF identifies key principles that local planning authorities should ensure that they take into account, including:

• Support for “local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs” (para. 70);

• Ensuring the vitality of town centres by safeguarding “retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development” (para. 23);

• Emphasising the importance of “local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship” (para. 28);

• The potential to minimise journey lengths when people access shopping, leisure, education and other activities (para. 37);

• The requirement to plan for the needs of different groups within communities, taking into account young and older people’s needs (para. 50); and

• Planning positively for the provision and use of shared spaces and community facilities, e.g. community halls, schools, leisure and recreational opportunities (para. 70).

2.5 There is also an emphasis on encouraging strong, vibrant and healthy communities by creating a good quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect community needs and support wellbeing. The NPPF states that “access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities” .

2.6 The NPPF also notes the importance the Government attaches “to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities ”.

2.7 The Government’s key housing objective is to increase significantly the supply of housing and deliver a wide choice of high quality homes that people want and need. This is important in order to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (2014)

2.8 On 6th March 2014 the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) web-based resource was published (Ref. 3). This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning practice guidance documents cancelled when the website was published. The purpose of the new online national planning guidance is to give simplicity and clarity to the planning system. The content of the PPG is not materially relevant to this assessment of socio-economic effects. Regional Planning Policy The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for London – Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011 (March 2015)

2.9 The London Plan (Ref. 4) sets out an integrated social, economic and environmental framework for the future development of London to 2036. The context and nature of the Proposed Development is relevant to a number of London Plan policies:

• Policy 2.15: ‘Town Centres’ seeks to co-ordinate the development of London’s town centres to be competitive retail focused areas which offer a range of goods to local residents and visitors, appropriate to the size and scale of the town centre;

• Policy 3.1: ‘Ensuring Equal Life Chances for All’ presents the Mayor’s commitment to ensuring equal life chances for all Londoners, borne out of the recognition that meeting the needs of particular groups and communities is key to addressing inequalities and fostering diverse communities;

• Policy 3.3: ‘Increasing Housing Supply’ states that the Mayor will seek provision of “at least 33,400 homes across London annually, with the target being reviewed in 2015-16. The boroughs will be required to monitor housing capacity and provision, and identify new and existing housing proposal Sites for inclusion in their Local Development Frameworks (LDFs)” ;

• Policy 3.6: ‘Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation Facilities’ aims to ensure “that all children and young people have safe access to good quality, well-designed, secure and stimulating play and informal recreation facilities. Developments which include residential provision should make provision for play and informal recreation, where possible” ;

• Policy 3.11: ‘Affordable Housing Targets’ seeks to “ maximise affordable housing provision by seeking an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year over the plan period” . This replaces the Borough specific affordable housing targets of the London Plan in favour of the Boroughs setting their own targets to be achieved over the plan period;

• Policy 3.12: ‘Negotiating Affordable Housing on Individual Private Residential and Mixed use Schemes’ states that “the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought on these schemes having regard to;

o Current and future requirements for affordable housing at local and regional levels; o Affordable housing targets; 6

o The need to encourage rather than restrain residential development;

o The need to promote mixed and balanced communities;

o The size and type of affordable housing needed in particular locations; and o The specific circumstances of individual sites.”

• Policy 4.7: ‘Retail and Town Centre Development’ notes the Mayor’s support for “bringing forward capacity for retail, commercial, culture and leisure development in town centres” , where the size, scale and function of the development is appropriate. “Retail, commercial and leisure development should be focused on sites within town centres, or if no in-centre Sites are available, on sites on the edges of centres that are, or can be, well integrated with the existing centre and public transport” ;

• Policy 4.8: ‘Supporting a Successful and Diverse Retail Sector’ promotes the Mayor’s support for sustainable access to goods and the creation of a “successful, competitive and diverse retail sector” which serves Londoners at a local level, as well as having national and international appeal;

• Policy 4.9, ‘Small Shops’ states that “in considering proposals for large retail developments, the Mayor will seek contributions through planning obligations where appropriate, feasible and viable, to support the provision of affordable shop units suitable for small or independent retailers” ; and

• Policy 4.12: ‘Improving Opportunities for All’ seeks to improve access to employment and employment opportunities for Londoners, supporting local employment, development and training.

2.10 The Mayor published revised early minor alterations to the London Plan in October 2013. These are aimed at ensuring that the London Plan is fully consistent with the Government's National Planning Policy Framework. There are two minor alterations of relevance to this assessment. Policy 3.10 redefines ‘affordable housing’ to include affordable rented dwellings as well as social rented and intermediate tenure dwellings. Policy 3.11 recommends the percentage split of these three affordable housing tenures within residential schemes. 2.11 On 10 March 2015, the Mayor published the Further Alterations to the London Plan. The alterations are aimed at ensuring that the London Plan is a London expression of the Government's NPPF, and that key housing and employment issues emerging from an analysis of 2011 Census data are addressed; particularly the need to plan for the housing and economic capacity needed for London’s sustainable development. Specific changes of relevance to socio-economics include an increase to the target for new homes from 32,200 per annum to 42,000 per annum. The average annual and ten year housing supply minoring targets for the period 2015-2025 for the LLDC are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Average Housing Supply Monitoring Targets for the LLDC

Borough Minimum Ten -Year Target Annual Monitoring Target (2015-2025) (2015-2025) LLDC 14,711 1,471 Source: GLA, 2015 (Ref. 4).

2.12 The London Plan also sets out a public open space hierarchy that provides benchmarks for the provision of open space to meet the needs arising from residential development. Table 2 presents this hierarchy.

Table 2: Open Space Hierarchy in London

Open Space Categorisation Guidance on Size of Sites Distance from Homes to Open Spaces (Hectares) (km) Regional Parks 400 3.2 to 8 Metropolitan Parks 60 3.2 District Park 20 1.2 Local Parks and Open Spaces 2 0.4 Small Open Spaces <2 <0.4 Pocket Parks <0.4 <0.4 Linear Open Spaces Variable Wherever feasible Source: GLA, 2015 (Ref. 4). Minor Alterations to the London Plan (2015)

2.13 On 16 December 2015, the GLA submitted the ‘intend to publish’ Minor Alterations to the London Plan (MALPs) (Ref. 5).There are no minor alterations of relevance to this socio-economic assessment. Supplementary Planning Guidance

2.14 The Greater London Authority (GLA) Children and Young People’s Recreation Guidance (SPG) (2012) (Ref. 6) refines further the London Plan 2011 Policy 3.6 ‘Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation Strategies’ (Ref. 4). The SPG recommends “a benchmark standard of 10 square metres (m 2) dedicated play space to be accessible to the newly resident children and young people living within new developments” . Existing facilities can contribute to some of the spatial requirement. The SPG recommends levels of accessibility to play space for new developments according to age groups. The breakdown is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Accessibility to Play Space in London

Age Group (years) Maximum Walking Distance from Residential Unit (Taking into Account Barriers) (m) Under 5s 100 5 - 11 years old 400 12+ 800 Source: GLA, 2012 (Ref. 6). Homes for London: The London Housing Strategy (2014)

2.15 ‘Homes for London: The London Housing Strategy’ (Ref. 7) was published in April 2014. The Strategy sets out the Mayor’s policies to increase the supply of well-designed housing of all tenures, in order to meet the needs of London’s growing population and particularly to support working households. Subsequent to the ‘GLA Act’ 2007 (Ref. 8), a housing strategy for London became a statutory requirement. There is a strong inter-relationship between the housing strategy and the Mayor’s London Plan (Ref. 4). 2.16 The strategy sets out aims in four key areas of intervention:

• Finance - through the implementation of a long term settlement for housing, with greater autonomy over property taxes and borrowing;

• Product - through an increased offer of support for working Londoners, who are critical to economic growth;

• Land - through fully exploiting the potential for increased levels of housing in highly accessible areas; and

• Quality - through the construction of dwellings with high and consistent design standards. 2.17 The Strategy sets out a challenging ambition to build at least 42,000 new homes per annum for the next ten years, at least 15,000 of which should be affordable, and 5,000 for long term market rent.

Local Planning Policy LLDC Local Plan 2015 to 2031

2.18 The LLDC Local Plan (Ref. 1) was adopted in July 2015 following review by an independent examiner. The Local Plan sets out the LLDC’s spatial vision for the area around the Olympic Park and outlines its mission to “ use the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of the London 2012 Games and the creation of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park to develop a dynamic new heart for east London, creating opportunities for local people and driving innovation and growth in London and the UK ”.

2.19 The following policies from the Local Plan are relevant to the illustrative masterplan:

• Strategic Policy SP1: ‘Building a Strong and Diverse Economy’ outlines that the LLDC “ will work with its partners to develop a strong local economy, driving the transformation of east London through :

− Expansion of opportunities for local, national and international business and promotion of cultural, tourist and leisure expansion;

− Supporting higher and further education expansion, including opportunities for postgraduate study and research, and promoting access to skills and employment training;

− Strengthening the local economic profile of the area, including support of flourishing business sectors and providing additional floorspace in a range of sizes, types and forms; and

− Growth of the town centre economies through development of appropriate scale and use to each location and maximising opportunities for vibrant interim uses throughout the area ”.

• Policy B.1: ‘Location and Maintenance of Employment Uses’ outlines that new employment should be focused around employment clusters and identified centres, and that new provision should be “ flexible, meeting the needs of a wide range of end users ”.

• Strategic Policy SP.2: ‘Maximising Housing and Infrastructure Through Provision within New Neighbourhoods’ outlines the LLDC will “ maximise opportunities for delivering high-quality, sustainable and affordable homes and provision of supporting infrastructure through :

− Delivering in excess of the London Plan target of 1,471 housing units per annum, of which a minimum of 455 will be affordable;

− Providing for identified size and tenure requirements, particularly family housing in all tenures;

− Providing specialist housing and specific housing products which contribute towards the overall housing mix and meet identified requirements;

− Safeguarding existing residential units and land; and

− Retaining existing community infrastructure and requiring the provision of new community infrastructure alongside new development ”.

• Policy H.1: ‘Providing a Mix of Housing Types’ outlines that LLDC aims to “ meet identified local and strategic requirements, containing a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units and larger, with units of two bedrooms and more constituting more than half the total ”.

• Policy H.2: ‘Delivering Affordable Housing’ indicates that affordable housing should be maximised on sites capable of providing ten units or more, broken down as 60% Affordable/Social Rent and 40% Intermediate.

• Policy CI.1: ‘Providing New and Retaining Existing Community Infrastructure’ outlines that the LLDC “ will require the provision of new community infrastructure as part of new major development proposals ”.

• Strategic Policy SP.3: ‘Integrating the Natural, Built and Historic Environment’ sets out that the LLDC “ will create a high-quality built and natural environment that integrates new development with waterways, green space and the historic environment ”.

2.20 The Site is located within Sub Area 4.1 ‘Bromley-by-Bow’ for a mixed use development comprising retail uses (a new District Centre), a primary school, 1.2ha park, riverside walk, community facilities, housing and employment generating businesses in a range of sizes and formats. LLDC Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (2015) 2.21 The LLDC Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule was adopted in April 2015 (Ref. 9). The document sets out the level of CIL that the LLDC will charge for different types of development. The LLDC charges one rate of CIL across its designated area, but applies different amounts of Mayoral CIL due to the four boroughs within it having different CIL rates. LLDC Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2015)

2.22 The LLDC Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2015 sets out the LLDC’s approach to section 106 (s106) agreements (Ref. 10). In January 2015 it was agreed by the LLDC Board that the SPD could be used for the negotiation of s106 agreements on an interim basis. Through s106 agreements, the LLDC aim to obtain planning obligations for affordable housing, public realm improvements, funding towards training schemes and the provision of affordable work space. London Borough of Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document (2013)

2.23 The Managing Development Document (MDD) (Ref. 11) was adopted by LBTH on April 17th 2013. The MDD provides guidance for managing development across the Borough and strategic guidance for key sites, and the planning policies and site allocations needed to achieve LBTH Core Strategy’s long-term spatial vision. It aims to “meet the Mayor’s priorities and to support delivery of affordable and family housing, jobs, new parks, schools and important services” . The MDD forms the basis of some of the assessment criteria, discussed further in Section 3.

METHODOLOGY AND IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

11 03

METHODOLOGY AND IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Introduction

3.1 This section of the report presents the following:

• Relevant standards and guidance which have been reviewed and referenced throughout preparation of this report;

• Identification of information sources which have been used throughout preparation of this assessment;

• Details of any consultation undertaken with respect to socio-economics;

• The methodology used in the assessment of socio-economics effects, including the criteria for the determination of sensitivity of receptor/importance of resource and magnitude of change from the existing or ‘baseline’ conditions;

• An explanation as to how the identification and assessment of potential socio-economics effects has been reached; and

• The significance criteria and terminology for assessment of the residual effects to socio- economics. 3.2 The following sources of information that define the illustrative masterplan have been reviewed and form the basis of the assessment of likely significant effects on socio-economics:

• KCA illustrative floor plans (KCA drawings 266-A-D-100-00, 266-A-D-100-05 and 266-A-D-100- Roof) and accommodation schedule (dated 25 th February 2016); and

• Bromley by Bow South Education Review (Ref. 11). Standards and Guidance

3.3 The following assessment seeks to establish the potential economic and social impacts of the illustrative masterplan and assess these against current baseline conditions. The effects of the illustrative masterplan are considered at varying spatial levels according to the nature of the impact considered. This approach is consistent with Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Guidance ‘Additionality Guide, A Standard Approach to Assessing the Additional Impact of Projects, 4th Edition’ (Ref. 13). Assessment Methodology Study Area

3.4 The Site lies within the jurisdiction of the LLDC. Where appropriate, the socio-economic baseline position and assessment against policy criteria for the LLDC will be considered. However, in instances where appropriate methods or criteria are not available for the LLDC, the illustrative masterplan is assessed with regard to LBTH criteria (the Borough in which the Site is located). Assessment Methodology

3.5 The illustrative masterplan sets out two scenarios for the tenure mix of residential units:

• Scenario 1: assumes zero affordable housing; and

• Scenario 2: assumes 35% of units are affordable, with a 60:40 split between social rent and intermediate tenures.

3.6 This assessment considers the socio-economic effects relating to the population associated with both scenarios.

3.7 The economic impact of the illustrative masterplan is considered relative to Greater London, as this represents the principal labour market catchment area (that is, the area which incorporates the population that may reasonably be expected to travel to and benefit from the illustrative masterplan). The Site lies in an area which is highly accessible from all areas of Greater London, and is served by labour from all boroughs across Greater London. The labour market catchment area incorporates the population that may reasonably be expected to travel to and benefit from the illustrative masterplan. Where appropriate, this assessment considers the scale of employment generated by the illustrative masterplan through applying employment densities outlined in the HCA Employment Densities Guide (Ref. 14).

3.8 Effects on social and community infrastructure are also assessed by various geographical impact areas, according to the most up-to-date and recent socio-economic data or policy available. 3.9 The likely number of future residents at the Site has been calculated based on the occupancy rates of the different sized homes. Occupancy rates are not provided by the LLDC Draft Planning Obligations SPD (Ref. 10). For the purposes of this assessment therefore,the population generated has been calculated based on the occupancy rates outlined in the LBTH Planning Obligations SPG (Ref. 15), which derives figures from the 2009 LBTH ‘Planning for Population Change and Growth’ report (Ref. 16) and analysis undertaken in the LBTH ‘New Housing and Proposed Development Survey’ (Ref. 17).

3.10 A standard means of calculating the demand for education is through the application of child occupancy rates to the illustrative masterplan’s accommodation schedule. The LLDC Draft Planning Obligations SPD (Ref. 10) does not identify an approach to estimate the child yield associated with the illustrative masterplan. The LBTH SPD Supplementary Planning Document (Ref. 15) sets out a method for the calculation of child occupancy rates at new developments. For the purposes of this element of the assessment, this methodology has been followed. The SPD uses rates drawn from the ‘Planning for Population Change and Growth’ report (Ref. 16), which provides a breakdown of child occupancy for private, intermediate affordable and social rented tenure homes.

6.1 Proximity to pocket parks, small open space, local parks and district parks is assessed with regard to the hierarchy outlined in the London Plan (Ref. 4). The increase in population associated with the illustrative masterplan will place additional pressure on existing open space areas. For the purposes of this assessment consideration has been given to the requirements outlined in the LBTH Managing Development Document (Ref. 11).

3.11 Table 4 presents the different components of the assessment and the geographical scale at which they are assessed.

Table 4: Socio-Economic Effects by Geographic Scale

Impact Geographical Area of Impact Rationale for Impact Area

Employment generation during the Greater London Census 2011 Origin-Destination Statistics. operational phase (direct, indirect and induced impacts) Additional local spending by Greater London Office for National Statistics Region residents Additional local spending by hotel Greater London Office for National Statistics Region visitors Impact on housing Borough level The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for London Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011. Impact on affordable housing Borough level The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for London Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011. Impact on primary education Average travel-to-school area Department for Children, Schools and provision (2km) Families Local Authority Cross Border Matrix 2015 / National Travel Survey 2014 Impact on secondary education Average travel-to-school area Department for Children, Schools and provision (5.1km) Families Local Authority Cross Border Matrix 2015 / National Travel Survey 2014 Impact on health provision 1km radius Reasonable walking distance

Impact Geographical Area of Impact Rationale for Impact Area

Impact on open space Radii of 400m and 1.2km Further Alterations to the London Plan Impact on play space provision On site (or within 100m), 400m GLA SPG ‘Providing for Children and and 800m radii Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’, 2012

Significance Criteria

3.12 For socio-economics there is no accepted definition of what constitutes a significant (or not significant) socio-economic effect. It is however recognised that ‘significance’ reflects the relationship between the scale of effect (magnitude) and the sensitivity (or value) of the affected resource or receptor.

3.13 As such effects are assessed on the basis of:

• Consideration of sensitivity to effects - specific values in terms of sensitivity are not attributed to socio-economic resources/receptors due to their diversity in nature and scale, however the assessment instead takes account of the qualitative (rather than quantitative) ‘sensitivity’ of each receptor and, in particular, on their ability to respond to change based on recent rates of change and turnover;

• Magnitude of impact - this entails consideration of the size of the impact on people or business in the context of the area in which effects will be experienced; and

• Scope for adjustment or mitigation - the assessment is concerned in part with economies. These adjust themselves continually to changes in supply and demand, and the scope for the changes brought about by the project to be accommodated by market adjustment will therefore be a criterion in assessing significance.

3.14 The assessment process aims to be objective and quantifies effects as far as possible. However, some effects can only be evaluated on a qualitative basis. Effects are defined as follows:

• Beneficial classifications of significance indicate an advantageous or beneficial effect on an effect area (equivalent to a ‘study area’), which may be minor, moderate, or major in effect;

• Negligible classifications of significance indicate imperceptible effects on an effect area;

• Adverse classifications of significance indicate a disadvantageous or adverse effect on an effect area, which may be minor, moderate or major in effect; and

• No Effect classifications of significance indicate that there are no effects on an effect area.

3.15 Based on consideration of the above, where an effect is assessed as being beneficial or adverse, significance has been assigned using the scale below:

• Minor: a small number of receptors are beneficially or adversely affected. The effect is likely to make a small measurable positive or negative difference on receptors at the relevant area(s) of effect;

• Moderate: a moderate number of receptors are beneficially or adversely affected. The effect may make a measurable positive or negative difference on receptors at the relevant area(s) of effect; and

• Major: all or a large number of receptors are beneficially or adversely affected. The effect is likely to make a measurable positive or negative difference on receptors at the relevant area(s) of effect.

3.16 A statement is then made as to whether the effect is significant or not significant. Major effects are considered to be significant and professional judgement will be applied to determine whether moderate effects are significant. Minor and negligible effects are considered to be not significant.

Consultation

3.17 AECOM submitted a Scoping Opinion request to the LLDC PPDT setting out the proposed approach, methodology and scope of the Environmental Impact Topic Reports, including this Socio-economic Impact Topic Report, on the 10 th March 2016. The Scoping Opinion request also set out the committed developments to be included within the assessment of cumulative effects for each environmental impact topic report. The LLDC PPDT did not request any changes to the approach set out in the Scoping Opinion Request.

3.18 Subsequent to the submission of the Scoping Opinion Request, and a further review of the committed developments in the area, those currently under construction are taken to be in the baseline scenario (rather than assessed cumulatively) as these developments are likely to be completed and occupied prior to any works for the redevelopment of the Site getting underway.

3.19 Table 5 below and Figure 1 sets out the list of committed developments and where these are considered within this report. Limitations and Assumptions

3.20 The assessment of the significance of impacts has been carried out, as far as possible, against a benchmark of current socio-economic baseline conditions prevailing around the Site. As with any dataset, these may be subject to change over time, which may influence the findings of the assessment.

Table 5: Committed Developments

Application No. Scheme Applicant Address Description

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of two blocks ranging from five (5) to eight (8) storeys above Cooks Road, ground level with a maximum parapet height of 30m AOD to provide: 349 residential units including London, E15 affordable housing (Use Class C3), 3,113 sq. m of commercial floor space (Use Classes A1- Bellway 14/00191/FUL Cooks Road A3/B1/D1/D2), together with podium level, car parking including blue badge parking, cycle parking, Homes refuse areas, plant room, servicing, open space, landscaping. L.B Newham Considered in the assessment of cumulative effects

Land at Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 8 buildings ranging from 3 to 12 storeys in height, Marshgate Lane, comprising a total of 254 residential dwellings and 4,257 sq. m GIA of B1 (business) floor space, together Workspace 14 Pudding Mill, 14/00422/FUL Marshgate with basement, servicing, car parking, cycle parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping. Limited Stratford, London, E15 Considered in the assessment of cumulative effects 2NH

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of new development comprising linked buildings of one, five, 68-70 Stratford nine and eighteen storeys to provide 731 sq. m of commercial floor space (A1,A2,A3,B1,D1&D2) at 68-70 High Street, ground floor and 173 residential units, with 36 car parking spaces, 213 cycle parking spaces, refuse and 11/90619 FUMODA Stratford Lancaster PLC London, E15 recycling facilities, access, landscaping and amenity areas. High Street 2NE Considered in the assessment of cumulative effects

Redevelopment of the site to provide a 27 storey tower with a 6-storey street building comprising of 2902 Stratford Edge, residential units, 792 sq. m of offices at ground floor and first floor, 218 sq. m of a café/bar (Class A3/A4) 80-92 80-92 Stratford Manser or office or leisure use at ground and first floor with 65 car parking spaces, 150 cycle spaces, 32 06/90011 FUMODA Stratford High Street, Homes Ltd motorcycle spaces in a basement car park with access via the High Street and associated landscaping. High Street London, E15 2NE Considered in the assessment of cumulative effects

Application No. Scheme Applicant Address Description

10/90519/FUMODA 2 - 12 High 14/00112/VAR Street, Development comprising 15 and 35 storey building to provide 765 sq. m of commercial floor space and 191 residential units with 41 car parking spaces, 307 cycle parking spaces, gym, crèche, landscaping Capital Galliard *S73 App to Stratford, and riverside walkway. increase the car Towers Homes London, park by one floor Considered in the baseline but no alteration to E15 2PW the overall height*

Pudding Mill site (Site PDZ8), received outline planning permission with a total of 158,235sqm of floorspace, delivering 118,290m 2 residential (Class C3) (including up to 4000m 2 of Sheltered Housing), Pudding Mill 5,045m 2 retail (Classes A1-A3), 23,791m 2 office (Class B1a), 12,158m 2 employment (Class B1b/B1c), 11/90621/OUTODA/ Lane 2 2 Pudding Mill LLDC 169m leisure (Class D2) and 1,482m community (Class D1). PDZ8 *Newham* LB Newham The proposals also include a drop-in health centre, nursery school and general community space.

Considered in the assessment of cumulative effects

Demolition of existing hospital and construction of: 27 storeys & basement (block D), 18 storeys (Block E), and between 4-13 storeys (Blocks A-C) for 964 dwellings, 303 sq. m of A1, A2, A3 & A4 floor space, PA/08/1161 St Andrews Up to 897 sq. m (D1) and/or (D2) & 2,004sq. m Primary Care Trust (PCT) facility (D1). St Andrews Barratt Homes Hospital, Devas *Tower Hamlets* Street, E3 3NT Granted planning permission in 2009.

Considered in the baseline

Planning permission was granted in 2012 for a Masterplan delivering over 700 units and 100,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. As a portion of this committed development sits within the Site itself, only the Southern Thames elements outside of the Site are considered within the assessment of cumulative effects, comprising Bow River PA/11/02423 Housing Gateway (East demolition of the existing buildings and construction of 8 blocks to provide 453 residential units, a car Village Association London) dealership, an additional 1,718m 2 GIA commercial floorspace, open space and parking.

Considered in the baseline

Application No. Scheme Applicant Address Description

10 Hectare mixed-use development comprising: 1,200 new homes (40% 3 beds), 620,000 sq. ft. of Vastinct business and commercial space, including local shops =, cafes, restaurants and other community 12/00336/LTGOUT Strand East Strand East facilities, together with a 350-bedroom hotel. LandProp Considered in the assessment of cumulative effects

Demolition of existing storage/warehouse buildings & redevelopment to provide 1,778 sq. m mixed Lock commercial (B1) & 109 residential units (C3) within three buildings from 5/6 to 12/13 storeys, new ground Keepers Units 1, 2 & 3 level community amenity & children’s playspace; disabled and car club residential parking spaces and PA/11/03549/A1 Riverside Formally Peabody Industrial Estate, commercial service bays. *Tower Hamlets* known as: 18 Gillender Granted planning permission in 2012 ‘Sun Flour Street, E3 Mill’ Considered in the baseline

THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUE THAT IT WAS ISSUED FOR AND IS SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT LEGEND Site Boundary Borough Boundary Cumulative Impacts 1: Cooks Road (14/00191/FUL) 2: Marshgate (14/00422/FUL) 4 3: 68-70 Stratford High Street (11/90619/FUMODA) 4: 80-92 Stratford High Street (06/90011/FUMODA) 2 5: 2-12 Stratford High Street (10/90519/FUMODA) 6: Pudding Mill Lane (PDZ8 LCS) 6 (11/90621/OUTODA/PDZ8) 7: St Andrews Hospital (PA/08/1161) 3 8: Bow River Village (PA/11/02423) (Outside Site boundary Only) 9: Strand East, Vastinct 1 (12/00334/LTGOUT) (Outside Site boundary Only) 10: Lock Keepers (PA/11/03549/A1)

5 9 Newham

Based up boundaries sourced from London borough planning portals 8 Copyright Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown Copyright and database right 2016.

Purpose of Issue FINAL

Client d x m . Tower Hamlets s DANESCROFT LAND LIMITED t n e m p o

l Project Title e v e D d e t t i BROMLEY-BY-BOW m m

o SOUTH C

1 e r u g i

F Drawing Title \ s p a M _ 2 0 \ h t u COMMITTED DEVELOPMENTS o S w o 7 B y b y Drawn Checked Approved Date e l m JW AH VN 19/04/2016 o r B AECOM Internal Project No. Scale @ A3 3 4 5

8 60322164 1:6,000 8 4

0 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO AND SUBJECT TO THE 6 \ TERMS OF AECOM'S APPOINTMENT BY ITS CLIENT. AECOM ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY s

m FOR ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS ORIGINAL CLIENT OR e t FOLLOWING AECOM'S EXPRESS AGREEMENT TO SUCH USE, AND ONLY FOR THE s y PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED AND PROVIDED. S n o i AECOM t a Scott House m r Alençon Link, Basingstoke o f

n Hampshire, RG21 7PP

I 10

- Telephone (01256) 310200

4 Fax (01256) 310201 0

0 www.aecom.com 5 \ : K : Drawing Number Rev e m a N e l i 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 M ± FIGURE 1 F

BASELINE CONDITIONS

20 04

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Introduction

4.1 This section of the report provides a description of the current baseline conditions present at the Site in relation to socio-economics. In order to assess the potential effects of the illustrative masterplan, it is necessary to determine the environmental conditions, resources and sensitive receptors that currently exist on the Site and in the surrounding area. These are known as ‘baseline conditions’ and should be considered in the context of each assessment.

4.2 This section establishes the current baseline with regard to the following characteristics relevant to the illustrative masterplan:

• Existing site;

• The local economy;

• Population and labour force;

• Housing profile and housing need;

• Primary and secondary education;

• Primary healthcare;

• Open space;

• Play space; and

• Retail provision. 4.3 This section considered data for LLDC area where available and the LBTH, as the borough in which the Site is located, where not available. Baseline Conditions Employment

4.4 Information on current employment has been provided for four of the five business currently located on-site by the landowners. Employment relating to the Tesco site was not provided. To estimate the employment associated with the Tesco site, the appropriate HCA Employment Densities (Ref. 14) has been applied to the known quantum of floorspace. Table 6 presents this analysis.

Table 6: Existing Employment Generating Floorspace

Land Use Employment Employment Gross Gross Employment Generating Density Employment 1 Source Floorspace (m 2 per Leycol Printers 1,632 - 70 Information provided Petit Forestier/Colas Ltd. 511 - 20 Information provided Public house 223 - 8 Information provided Trad Ltd Scaffolding unknown - 25 Information provided Tesco 5,710 17 336 Employment estimated Total - - 459 - Source: HCA, 2015 (Ref. 14); current landowners; AECOM Calculations.

4.5 It is estimated that there are approximately 459 workers currently located on-site (gross).

1 It is assumed that each job is FTE where the nature of employment (full or part time) is not specified, and that each part time job equates to 0.5 FTE. 21

Local Economy

4.6 In the last quarter of 2015, 5.65 million people were employed in the Greater London area. The number is forecast to increase to 5.75 million by 2017 (Ref. 18). According to the Census 2011, 21.4% of the London workforce lives outside Greater London (Ref. 19).

4.7 Table 7 presents a detailed breakdown of employment sectors by geographic area (Ref. 20). Based on the most recently available data, it can be seen that London’s economy is dominated by the professional, scientific and technical (13.5%), business administration and support (10.2%) and health (10.1%) sectors.

4.8 The sector with the highest proportion of employment in LBTH is the financial & insurance sector, accounting for 26.4% of employment, significantly higher than recorded within London (7.4%) and Great Britain (3.6%) as a whole. It can also be seen that there are somewhat greater levels of employment recorded within the business administration & support services (12.1%) and information & communication (8.8%) sectors than regionally. Conversely, the LBTH has a smaller proportion of employment within the retail (1.4%) and arts, entertainment, recreation & other services (3.9%) sectors than within London (8.1% and 10% respectively), and Great Britain as a whole (10% and 4.4% respectively).

Table 7: Employment by Economic Sector

Sector LBTH (%) London (%) Great Britain (%)

Agriculture, forestry & fishing 0.0 0.0 1.6 Mining, quarrying & utilities 0.3 0.6 1.2 Manufacturing 1.4 2.4 8.2 Construction 1.6 3.1 4.6 Motor trades 0.2 0.8 1.8 Wholesale 2.3 3.2 4.0 Retail 3.9 8.6 10.0 Transport & storage (including postal) 2.0 4.7 4.4 Accommodation & food services 5.0 7.5 7.1 Information & communication 8.8 7.8 4.0 Financial & insurance 26.4 7.4 3.6 Property 2.0 2.4 1.8 Professional, scientific & technical 13.6 13.5 8.2 Business administration & support services 12.0 10.2 8.5 Public administration & defence 3.8 4.5 4.4 Education 6.5 8.0 8.9 Health 7.8 10.1 13.1 Arts, entertainment, recreation & other 2.4 5.1 4.4 services Source: ONS, 2015 (Ref. 20). Population and Labour Force

4.9 The resident population of the LBTH increased from 196,106 in 2001 (Ref. 21) to 254,096 in 2011 (Ref. 19), representing a 29.6% increase over the time period. This is a significantly higher level of population increase compared with the Greater London average over the same period (14%). In 2011, 188,383 or 74.1% of LBTH residents were of working age (defined by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as aged 16 to 64). This is higher than the Greater London average of 69.1%.

4.10 According to the ONS Annual Population Survey 2014, 155,800 or 76.6% of working age people in LBTH were economically active compared to 76.7% within Greater London during the same year (Ref. 22). The LBTH workforce was slightly less qualified than the Greater London average, with 87.9% of individuals holding a qualification compared to 92.2% within Greater London. In addition, the workforce is slightly less qualified than the national average, where 91.2% of the working age

population holds some form of qualification. A total of 44.2% of LBTH's working age population have a degree or higher degree (NVQ4 and above), slightly below that recorded within Greater London (49.1%) and above that recorded within Great Britain (36%).

4.11 According to the English Indices of Deprivation 2015, LBTH is the 2nd most deprived borough in London (of 33) and the 10 th most deprived local authority in England (of 326) (Ref. 23). 23.6% of Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in LBTH are ranked in the top 10% most deprived in England. Housing Profile and Housing Need

4.12 Housing need in the LLDC is discussed in the Local Plan Background Paper: Housing (Ref. 24). It outlines a high level of demand for two and three bedroom homes across the four LLDC boroughs. 4.13 In 2014 there were 109,880 dwellings in the LBTH out of a total of 3,427,650 dwellings in Greater London (Ref. 25). In terms of tenure, a large proportion (39.5%) of all households in LBTH are social or intermediate rented which is considerably higher than both the Greater London (23.6%) and Great Britain (17.7%) averages. The distribution across each form of tenure is detailed in Table 8.

Table 8: Tenure of Households in LBTH, London and England 2014

Sector LBTH (%) London (%) Great Britain (%)

Private (Owner Occupied / Privately Rented or Lived Rent 60.5 76.4 82.3 Free) Social Rented (Council, RSL, Other public sector) 39.5 23.6 17.7 Source: DCLG, 2015 (Ref. 25). Education

4.14 Education provision relevant to the illustrative masterplan has been assessed considering Audit Commission guidance. In terms of the availability of education places, the Audit Commission states that “it is unrealistic and probably undesirable to aim for a perfect match at each school ; a sensible approach would be to plan for a 95% occupancy rate at schools and accept some variation, say plus or minus 10% around this target” (Ref. 26).

4.15 The National Travel Survey 2013/14 states that the average distance travelled to school by primary and secondary school children in London is 2km and 5.1km respectively (Ref. 27). According to data collected by the Department for Education's (DfE) Local Authority Cross Boarder Movement survey (Ref. 28) in 2014, 97.6% of primary school children living in the LBTH were studying in the Borough, with 0.9% and 0.4% studying in the London Boroughs of Hackney (LBH) and Newham (LBN) respectively (with the remaining 1.1% studying in other locations). For secondary school pupils, 94.3% of children living in the LBTH were studying in the Borough, with 1.1% and 1% studying in LBN and LBH respectively. Given the Site’s proximity a number of different boroughs, it is realistic to assume some leakage of primary school education from the illustrative masterplan into these boroughs. The baseline for primary and secondary schools will therefore consider provision in all boroughs within 2km and 5.1km respectively of the Site.

Primary Education 4.16 Table 9 presents data on the 33 primary schools within 2km of the Site.

Table 9: Primary Schools within 2km of the Site

Number of Number of Surplus / Surplus School Pupils on School Deficit (-ve) Places at Roll Places 95% Capacity Ben Jonson Primary School 593 630 37 6 Bygrove Primary School 211 200 -11 -11 Carpenters Primary School 413 450 37 15 Culloden Primary - A Paradigm Academy 508 630 122 91 Curwen Primary and Nursery School 680 690 10 0 Gainsborough Primary School 368 420 52 31 Grange Primary School 204 210 6 0 Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Primary 202 205 3 0 School Hallsville Primary School 412 420 8 0 Keir Hardie Primary School 383 420 37 16 Lansbury Lawrence Primary School 415 429 14 0 Malmesbury Primary School 523 525 2 0 Manor Primary School 357 420 63 42 Manorfield Primary School 645 660 15 0 Marner Primary School 570 630 60 29 Mayflower Primary School 317 309 -8 -8 Old Ford Primary - A Paradigm Academy 625 618 -7 -7 Old Palace Primary School 419 420 1 0 Olga Primary School 211 210 -1 -1 Our Lady and St Joseph Catholic Primary 364 420 56 35 School Portway Primary School 660 840 180 138 Ranelagh Primary School 421 480 59 35 Ravenscroft Primary School 453 630 177 146 St Agnes RC Primary School 205 210 5 0 St Helen's Catholic Primary School 421 420 -1 -1 St Luke's Primary School 207 210 3 0 St Paul with St Luke CofE Primary School 225 240 15 3 St Saviour's Church of England Primary 203 201 -2 -2 School Star Primary School 618 630 12 0 Stebon Primary School 448 630 182 151 The Clara Grant Primary School 448 450 2 0 Wellington Primary School 373 420 47 26 West Ham Church Primary School 288 315 27 11 Total 13,390 14,592 1,202 745 Source: DfE, 2016 (Ref. 29); DfE, 2016 (Ref. 30); AECOM Calculations. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

4.17 The data indicates that there was a total surplus of 1,202 places within primary schools located within 2km of the Site in May 2015 (Ref. 29). If it is assumed that 95% occupancy should be planned for, as per Audit Commission Guidance (Ref. 26) and that a 95% occupancy rate means a school has no further capacity, there would be a total surplus of 745 places for primary school children within 2km of the Site.

4.18 There are two primary schools, Solebay Primary Academy and Woolmore Primary School, that have not yet been taken into account in the calculation of capacity. Rolls at these schools are not yet reflective of the balance of supply at each school, as the full complement of year groups are not yet

established. It is assumed therefore that the capacity at these schools will increase supply locally, providing extra capacity 2

Secondary Education

4.19 Table 10 presents data on the 40 secondary schools within 5.1km of the Site.

Table 10: Secondary Schools in within 5.1km of the Site

Number of Number of Surplus / Surplus School Pupils on School Deficit (-ve) Places at 95% Roll Places Capacity Bacon's College 1,051 1,200 149 89 Bethnal Green Academy 946 900 -46 -46 Bishop Challoner Catholic Federations of Boys School 574 600 26 0 Bishop Challoner Catholic Federations of Girls School 894 1,100 206 151 Brampton Manor Academy 1,725 1,950 225 128 Cardinal Pole Roman Catholic School 1,039 1,060 21 0 Central Foundation Girls' School 1,470 1,472 2 0 Clapton Girls' Academy 1,125 1,185 60 1 Connaught School for Girls 588 600 12 0 Eastlea Community School 913 1,200 287 227 Forest Gate Community School 1,029 1,050 21 0 George Green's School 1,097 1,261 164 101 Haggerston School 1,006 1,066 60 7 Kingsford Community School 1,451 1,500 49 0 Lammas School and Sixth Form 687 900 213 168 Langdon Park Community School 919 981 62 13 Lister Community School 1,333 1,350 17 0 Little Ilford School 1,316 1,350 34 0 Morpeth School 1,479 1,502 23 0 Mossbourne Community Academy 1,288 1,400 112 42 Mulberry School for Girls 1,434 1,438 4 0 Norlington School and 6th Form 507 600 93 63 Oaklands School 780 788 8 0 Plashet School 1,349 1,374 25 0 Raine's Foundation School 699 750 51 14 Rokeby School 751 900 149 104 Sarah Bonnell School 1,188 1,200 12 0 Sir John Cass Foundation and Redcoat 1,580 1,555 -25 -25 St Angela's Ursuline School 1,357 1,361 4 0 St Bonaventure's RC School 1,250 1,256 6 0 St Michael's Catholic College 786 750 -36 -36 Stepney Green Mathematics and Computing College 917 900 -17 -17 Stratford School 892 900 8 0 Swanlea School 1,235 1,258 23 0 The Bridge Academy 1,074 1,150 76 19

2 These new schools have not been included in the rolls and capacity table as the number of school places they offer is known but not the number of pupils on their rolls. These schools are expected to fill up progressively starting from the first form. The number of pupils at these schools will grow year on year with a new intake of students each September. 25

Number of Number of Surplus / Surplus School Pupils on School Deficit (-ve) Places at 95% Roll Places Capacity The City Academy, Hackney 975 1,170 195 137 The Cumberland School 1,455 1,500 45 0 The John Roan School 1,259 1,400 141 71 The Petchey Academy 1,188 1,350 162 95 The Urswick School 805 866 61 18 Total 43,411 46,093 2,682 1,324 Source: DfE, 2016 (Ref. 29); DfE, 2016 (Ref. 30); AECOM Calculations. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

4.20 The data indicates that there was a total surplus of 2,682 places within secondary schools located within 5.1km of the Site in May 2015 (Ref. 29). If it is assumed that 95% occupancy should be planned for, as per Audit Commission Guidance (Ref. 26) and that a 95% occupancy rate means a school has no further capacity, there is a total surplus of 1,324 places for secondary school children living within 5.1km of the Site. 4.21 There are 11 secondary schools that have not been taken into account in the calculation of capacity 3. Rolls at these schools are not yet reflective of the balance of supply at each school, as the full complement of year groups are not yet established. It is assumed therefore that the capacity at these schools will increase supply locally, providing extra capacity2. Primary Health Care Provision

4.22 The NHS Tower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) serves the population of the Site and is current made up of 36 practices that currently administer care for 287,590 registered patients (Ref. 31). There are currently 224 GPS in the CCG (Ref. 31), who work 196.6 full time equivalent (FTE) hours (Ref. 32). This equates to an average patient list size of 1,643 patients per GP, a level of provision that is better than both the target patient list size of 1,800 patients per GP as recommended by the Department for Health (Ref. 33) and the England average patient list size of 1,731 (Ref. 31). 4.23 There are five GP practices located within 1km of the Site (estimated to be a typical walking distance). At these five practices there are a total of 39 GPs, and new patients are currently being accepted at four practices (information for St Andrew’s Health Centre is unknown) (Ref. 34). These three GP practices have an average list size of 957 patients registered to each GP, a level of provision better than the England average. Table 11 provides further detail about these practices.

Table 11: GP Practices within 1km of the Site

School List Size GPs Patients per Currently GP Accepting New Patients? Aberfeldy Practice 6,353 9 706 Yes Bromley-by-Bow Health Centre 14,734 19 775 Yes St Andrew’s Health Centre 9,621 6 1,604 Unknown Stroudley Walk Health Centre 4,420 3 1,473 Yes West Ham Medical Practice 2,197 2 1,099 Yes Total 37,325 39 954 - Source: NHS, 2015 (Ref. 31); NHS, 2016 (Ref. 34). Figures may not sum due to rounding. Parks and Open Spaces

4.24 Information regarding the provision of open spaces in the LLDC is provided in its Local Open Space Review (Ref. 35). It identified some deficiencies for access to smaller open spaces in the area, including local parks and open spaces, small open spaces and pocket parks. The LBTH has eight protected local parks, of which one (Three Mills Green) is within the Site catchment.

4.25 Table 12 identifies open space within varying distances of the Site in line with GLA guidance.

3 Bow School, Compass School Southwark, East London Arts & Music, East London Science School, Hackney New School, London Enterprise Academy, Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy, Oasis Academy Silvertown, The Royal Docks Community School, University Technical College, and Greenwich and Wapping High School. 26

Table 12: Open Spaces within the Catchment Area of the Site

Open Space Categorisation Site Guidelines (Ha) Open Space Park (GLA Guidance) Categorisation distance range from Site (km) Regional Parks 400 3.2 to 8 Victoria Park Metropolitan Parks 60 3.2 Mile End Park West Ham Park District Park 20 1.2 Mill Meads Three Mills Green Local Parks and Open Spaces 2 0.4 Grove Hall Park etc. Small Open Spaces etc. <2 <0.4 Bob’s Park Pocket Parks etc. <0.4 <0.4 Twelve Trees Crescent Source: GiGL, 2016 (Ref. 36); AECOM Research.

4.26 There is one Regional Park and one Metropolitan Park within 3.2km of the Site, two District Parks within 1.2km of the Site, and a Local Park and Open Space, a Small Open Space and a Pocket Park each all within 400m of the Site. Child and Young People’s Play Space

4.27 The LLDC Local Open Strategy Review (Ref. 35) identifies a number of formal play spaces, although none of which are within 800m of the Site.

4.28 The GLA SPG ‘Shaping Neighbourhoods: Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ (Ref. 6), gives the details of the play spaces available within 800m of the Site. The SPG outlines the maximum walking distances from homes for children and young people. For those aged under 5 the maximum walking distance from the home is 100m, for those aged 5-11 it is 400m and for children and young people aged over 12 years the maximum walking distance is 800m.

4.29 Table 13 presents the play areas within 800m of the Site, which is the maximum radial distance from which play space for children should be accessible from their homes in accordance with the SPG.

Table 13: Play Spaces within 800m of the Site

Maximum Walking Distance from Name Approximate Size (ha) Home 100m - - 400m Bromley Recreation Ground 0.1 Grove Hall Park 0.1 800m - - Source: AECOM Research. 4.30 Table 13 shows that, while there are no play facilities within accessibility of the Site for children aged under 5 (within 100m of the Site), there are two facilities appropriate for use of children aged 6 and over (within 400m of the Site). Retail Provision

4.31 The LLDC Retail & Leisure Requirements Review (Ref. 37) identifies a need for 61,300m2 of comparison goods floorspace in the LLDC by 2031. It indicates that Bromley-by-Bow has potential for the development of complementary retail, commercial, leisure and community uses. In addition, the LBTH Retail & Leisure Capacity Study (Ref. 38) provides an indication of retail (A1) needs in the Borough in which the Site is located. It estimates a net requirement for 16,600m 2 of comparison goods and 10,560m 2 of convenience goods floorspace in the Borough up to 2017.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE MASTERPLAN

28 05

DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE MASTERPLAN

Introduction

5.1 This section provides a description of the illustrative masterplan in relation to socio-economics. This section also outlines the redevelopment parameters which are applicable to the assessment of a worst-case scenario for socio-economics. Review of Illustrative Masterplan

5.2 The illustrative masterplan proposes the following provision of relevance to socio-economics:

• The provision of 1,690 residential units across different tenures (private, intermediate, affordable) and accommodation type (1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms);

• The provision of a 2 Form of Entry (FE) primary school;

• Provision of 727m 2 of social infrastructure;

• Employment-generating floorspace, including:

− 4,160m 2 of Workspace;

− 2,324m2 of Retail space;

− 727m 2 of Social Infrastructure space; and

− 1,341m 2 of Store space.

• Open space provision, comprising:

− 11,398m 2 of public open space; and

− 10,084m 2 of communal courtyards. 5.3 Figure 2 below shows the layout and uses of the illustrative ground floor.

5.4 The illustrative masterplan sets out two scenarios for the tenure mix of residential units:

• Scenario 1: assumes zero affordable housing; and

• Scenario 2: assumes 35% of units are affordable, with a 60:40 split between social rent and intermediate tenures. For the purposes of this assessment, we assume that the social rent/intermediate units are evenly distributed across different unit sizes. Environmental Design and Management

5.5 The illustrative masterplan has evolved to incorporate a number of uses that will be of benefit to future residents and those existing residents in the surrounding area, as per the requirements of the LLDC Local Plan Policy for Sub Area 4.1 (Ref. 1). It has also been informed by the Bromley by Bow Education Report (Ref. 11).

Figure 2 – Illustrative Ground Floor Plan

POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

31 06

POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Introduction

6.2 This section outlines the significance of likely operational effects of the illustrative masterplan in relation to socio-economics and provides mitigation measures and further considerations recommended for later detailed design associated with any future planning application for the Site, or any part thereof. Operational Effects Employment Generated During the Operational Phase

6.3 The illustrative masterplan will generate long-term jobs once complete and operational. In estimating operational job generation, it is important to consider not just the gross effects of the illustrative masterplan, but also the net effects taking into account leakage, displacement and multiplier effects, as well as any loss of jobs associated with the existing Site. Gross Operational Employment

6.4 The illustrative masterplan includes the following employment-generating land uses:

• Workspace: 4,160m 2 Net Internal Floorspace Area (NIFA);

• Retail: 2,324m 2 (NIFA);

• Social Infrastructure: 727m 2 Gross Internal Floorspace Area (GIFA);

• Store (retail): 1,341m 2 (GIFA); and

• 2 FE School: 2,844m 2 (GIFA). 6.5 Employment densities are applied to the employment-generating floorspace to understand the gross operational employment associated with the illustrative masterplan. Employment densities are not estimated for education facilities as the level of employment generated at each facility is not directly proportional to floorspace within each facility. We assume that the 2 FE Primary School will support 420 school places 4. Comparison between data on the school workforce in England (Ref. 39) and primary school capacity data (Ref. 29) indicates that each 2 FE Primary School in England generates on average 43 FTE workers.

6.6 For the purpose of this assessment, we assume the configuration of space that represents the ‘worst- case’ scenario in socio-economic terms. This assumes that the retail (A1-A5) space is used for its least employment-generating function.

6.7 Table 14 presents the gross employment generated by the Proposed Development, applying employment densities to the floorspace set out above in accordance with the HCA Employment Densities Guide (Ref. 14).

4 Assuming 30 pupils per FE, over seven year groups. 32

Table 14: Proposed Employment Generating Floorspace

Land Use Employment Generating Employment Density Gross Employment Floorspace (m 2 per employee)

Workspace (B1) 2,324 (NIFA) 12 122 Retail (A1-A5) 1,146 (NIFA) 19 (A1 Use Class) 67 Social Infrastructure (D1) 727 (GIFA) 36 20 Store (A1) 1,207 (NIFA) 5 17 71 School (D2) 2,844 (GIFA) N/A 43 Total - - 603 Source: HCA, 2015 (Ref. 14); AECOM Calculations.

6.8 The illustrative masterplan is estimated to generate employment for 603 FTE workers, gross. A complete assessment of the net employment created by the illustrative masterplan should take into account the number of jobs that currently exist on-site. Subtracting the existing employment on-site of 459 FTE workers (gross) indicates that the gross additional employment generated by the illustrative masterplan is 144. Leakage

6.9 Leakage effects are the benefits to those outside the impact area. Analysis carried out on Census 2011 data indicated that 21.4% of people working in London live outside Greater London (Ref. 19). This corresponds to a low to medium leakage rate as set out by HCA Additionality Guidance (Ref. 13) and implies that the majority of employment opportunities will go to people living within the impact area. A 21.4% adjustment was applied to the estimated 144 net jobs created by the operational phase. From this it is estimated that 113 persons from outside Greater London and 31 persons from Greater London will be working at the Site on average per year. Displacement

6.10 Displacement measures the extent to which the benefits of a project are offset by reductions of output or employment elsewhere. Any additional demand for labour cannot simply be treated as a net benefit - it has the potential to remove workers from other positions and the net benefit takes into account the extent that this occurs. 6.11 The HCA Additionality Guide (Ref. 13) sets ‘ready reckoners’ for displacement. Within the context of Greater London, a low displacement of 25% is considered appropriate according to the HCA Guide. Applying this level of displacement to the total gross direct employment figure of 144, results in a net direct employment figure of 108. Multiplier Effect

6.12 In addition to the direct net operational employment generated by the illustrative masterplan itself, there will be an increase in local employment arising from indirect and induced effects of the employment activity. Employment growth will arise locally through the supply chain associated with the employment activities (indirect or supply linkage multipliers). Additionally, part of the income of the employees and suppliers will be spent in Greater London, generating further employment (in terms of induced or income multipliers).

6.13 The impact of the multiplier depends on the size of the geographical area that is being considered, the local supply linkages and income leakage from the area. The HCA Additionality Guide (Ref. 13) provides a ‘ready reckoner’ of composite multipliers – the combined effect of indirect and induced multipliers. Greater London is likely to have ‘strong’ supply linkages based on the scale of its economy. Therefore a multiplier of 1.7 is determined from the HCA guidance to be the most appropriate measure of multiplier effects. Applying this multiplier to the figure for total net direct employment of 108 results in a net indirect employment of 76.

5 GIFA is translated into NIFA at a ratio of 1:0.9 as per HCA guidance for retail uses (Ref. 14). 33

Net Additional Impact

6.14 Table 15 presents the net operational employment created by the illustrative masterplan, taking leakage, displacement and multiplier effects into account. For the Proposed Development, the total net employment created within Greater London is estimated to be 145 jobs and 39 jobs from outside Greater London, supporting a total of 184 net additional jobs on average per year.

Table 15: Net Operational Employment in Greater London

Greater London Outside of Greater Total (Average no. of jobs London (Average no. of jobs per per annum found (Average no. of jobs per annum found either on- either on-site or annum found either on- site or through indirect through indirect site or through indirect employment off -site) Gross Direct Additional 113 31 144 Employment Displacement -28 -8 -36 Net Direct Additional 85 23 108 Employment Net Indirect Additional 60 16 76 Employment Total Net Additional 145 39 184 Employment Source: AECOM Calculations.

6.15 In the context of a large labour pool of workers in Greater London, the direct, indirect and induced employment created by the operational phase of the illustrative masterplan is likely to have a minor beneficial , long-term effect on the Greater London economy. Value of Local Spending by Residents

6.16 As outlined in Section 3, the likely number of future residents at the Site has been calculated for both Scenarios 1 and 2 in accordance with the LBTH Planning Obligations SPG (Ref. 15). As the population derived from each scenario differs by the tenure mix, we will estimate the indicative number of residents for each scenario separately. Scenario 1 6.17 Table 16 sets out the accommodation schedule for Scenario 1.

Table 16: Accommodation Schedule for Scenario 1

Open Market Intermediate Social Rent Total 1 Bedroom 676 0 0 676 2 Bedrooms 676 0 0 676 3 Bedrooms 338 0 0 338 Total 1,690 0 0 1,690 Source: Bromley by Bow South 266-A-SCH_Schedule of Accommodation (25th February 2016) (Ref. 40). Note: figures may not sum due to rounding.

6.18 Table 17 shows that 3,208 people will reside at the Site under Scenario 1.

Table 17: Total Number of Residents in Scenario 1

Open Market Intermediate Social Rent Total 1 Bedroom 994 0 0 994 2 Bedrooms 1,298 0 0 1,298 3 Bedrooms 916 0 0 916 Total 3,208 0 0 3,208 Source: AECOM Calculations. Note: figures may not sum due to rounding.

Scenario 2

6.19 Table 18 sets out the accommodation schedule for Scenario 2, assuming that the intermediate and social rent units are evenly distributed across unit sizes.

Table 18: Accommodation Schedule for Scenario 2

Open Market Intermediate Social Rent Total 1 Bedroom 439 95 142 676 2 Bedrooms 439 95 142 676 3 Bedrooms 220 47 71 338 Total 1,099 237 355 1,690 Source: Bromley by Bow South 266-A-SCH_Schedule of Accommodation (25th February 2016) (Ref. 40). Note: figures may not sum due to rounding.

6.20 Table 19 shows that 3,220 people will reside at the Site under Scenario 2.

Table 19: Total Number of Residents in Scenario 2

Open Market Intermediate Social Rent Total 1 Bedroom 646 114 177 937 2 Bedrooms 844 168 344 1,355 3 Bedrooms 595 95 238 929 Total 2,085 376 759 3,220 Source: AECOM Calculations. Note: figures may not sum due to rounding. Additional Local Spending

6.21 To provide a conservative estimate of new local spending, it is assumed that some of those moving to the new market units will already be resident in the local area (Greater London) and will not generate net new expenditure. To account for this a displacement rate of 25% based on HCA guidance has been applied (Ref. 13).

6.22 Leakage is estimated to take into account the level of expenditure that is likely to take place on a regional (South East) rather than Greater London level. As London is a large urban economy with a strong retail and services offer, it is anticipated that 90% of household expenditure will be retained within the metropolitan area (Ref. 13). 6.23 The application of these assumptions results in a total net expenditure of £6,766 per person per annum in Greater London (Ref. 41), as shown in Table 20 .

Table 20: Direct, Indirect and Induced Spending per Person per Annum in Greater London

Gross Direct Expenditure Net Direct Expenditure Total Net Expenditure (accounting for (accounting for leakage) displacement) Expenditure per Person (£) 10,024 6 7,518 6,766 Source: HCA, 2014 (Ref. 13); ONS, 2014 (Ref. 41); AECOM Calculations.

6.24 To ensure a conservative estimate of new local spending, those residents occupying social rented accommodation in the Affordable Housing scenario are likely to already reside in London and be on housing waiting lists and as such these residents have been excluded from the expenditure calculation.

6 This is estimated by applying an average household size of 2.5 across London, as per the 2011 Census (Ref. 19), to average weekly household expenditure in London (£480.60) (Ref. 41). 35

6.25 Table 21 presents the average expenditure figures across both Scenarios 1 and 2.

Table 21: Direct, Indirect and Induced Spending in Greater London by Assessment Scenario

Scenario Gross Direct Expenditure Net Direct Expenditure Total Net Expenditure (accounting for (accounting for leakage) displacement) Scenario 1 32,153,183 24,114,887 21,703,398 Scenario 2 24,665,794 18,499,346 16,649,400 Source: HCA, 2014 (Ref. 13); ONS, 2014 (Ref. 41); AECOM Calculations.

6.26 The Site is estimated to result in a value of additional local spending of approximately £21.7m and £16.6m in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively.

6.27 The expenditure created by the future residents of the Site in both scenarios is likely to have a minor beneficial , long-term, permanent effect on the Greater London economy. This effect is not significant. Housing

6.28 The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for London Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011 sets ten year housing delivery targets for each borough for the period 2015-2025. The annual monitoring target for the LLDC is 1,471 new homes per annum (see Table 1) (Ref. 4).

6.29 The illustrative masterplan will contribute to meeting the target by adding 1,690 units to the existing housing stock of the LLDC. This represents 115% of the LLDC’s annual housing target. 6.30 Once the redevelopment of the Site is complete, the additional 1,690 residential units are likely to have a significant, moderate beneficial , long-term, permanent impact on meeting the targets for new housing provision in the LLDC. This effect is significant. Affordable Housing

6.31 Affordable housing is made up of homes subsidised below market values (‘intermediate’ homes) and social rented homes.

6.32 The London Plan (Ref. 4) does not outline a strategic, London-wide target for affordable housing provision, however it notes that “the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought subject to viability” and that importance should be placed on strategic targets at borough level. The LLDC Core Strategy (Ref. 1) outlines a target of 445 affordable homes per annum.

6.33 The Scenario 1, set out in Table 16 , does not provide any affordable units, which is likely to have a negligible effect on affordable housing provision in the LLDC.

6.34 The Scenario 2, set out in Table 18 , provides 592 affordable dwellings over different sizes and tenure types. Overall in socio-economic terms it is assessed to have a minor beneficial , long-term, permanent effect on affordable housing provision in the LLDC. This effect is not significant.

6.35 For the purpose of this assessment the scenario representing the worst socio-economic outcome has been assumed, and that no affordable units will be provided (Scenario 1). The illustrative masterplan is therefore assessed to have a negligible effect on affordable housing in the LLDC. Education

6.36 The illustrative masterplan will result in an increased demand for education if any households with children occupy the residential units. This impact is assessed in the following section. Child Occupancy Rates and School Yield

6.37 A standard means of calculating the demand for education is through the application of child occupancy rates to the illustrative masterplan’s accommodation schedule. The approach to identifying child occupancy rates is discussed in further detail in Section 3.The School Yield set out in the LBTH SPD relates to the education demand resulting from the child yield. This takes into account the proportion of children attending private primary and secondary schools and therefore presents the likely uptake of places, rather than the gross number eligible. The SPD estimates that approximately

10% of children will attend private schools within the Borough and therefore applies a discount of 10% to their school yield assumptions.

6.38 The estimated number of new school places required for children (attending primary and secondary schools) residing in the illustrative masterplan is shown in Table 22 .

Table 22 Estimated School Places Required (Pupil Yield)

Scenario Primary Secondary Total

Scenario 1 47 10 57 Scenario 2 153 63 216 Source: AECOM Calculations. Note: figures may not sum due to rounding. Primary Education

6.39 It is estimated that 47 and 153 children inhabiting the Site could require primary school places under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively. The baseline conditions show that there is currently a surplus of 1,202 primary school places within 2km of the Site. As per the baseline conditions, if a 95% occupancy rate is assumed to indicate no spare capacity, there are a total of 745 surplus places.

6.40 In addition, the illustrative masterplan will include the provision of a 2 Forms of Entry (FE) primary school. The capacity at this school will be sufficient to facilitate the additional demand for primary school places as a result of the illustrative masterplan, while increasing the number of available places for existing residents in the area.

6.41 The illustrative masterplan is likely to therefore have a moderate beneficial , long-term, permanent effect on primary education provision under both scenarios. The effect is significant. Secondary Education

6.42 It is estimated that 10 and 63 children inhabiting the Site could require secondary school places under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively. The baseline conditions show that there is currently a surplus of 2,682 secondary school places within 5.1km of the Site. As per the baseline conditions, if a 95% occupancy rate is assumed to indicate no spare capacity, there are a total of 1,324 surplus places. The illustrative masterplan is likely to therefore have a negligible effect on primary education provision under both scenarios. The effect is not significant. Primary Healthcare

6.43 The baseline figures for the NHS Tower Hamlets CCG suggest that there are currently 196.6 FTE GPs, and a ratio of 1.463 registered patients per FTE GP in the CCG area, a level of provision better than the target of 1,800 patients per GP (Ref. 33). At the five GP practices within 1km of the Site, there are a total of 39 GPs with an average patient list size of 957 patients per GP.

6.44 The illustrative masterplan will place additional demands on local primary healthcare provision and increase the overall practice list size within 1km of the Site. The 3,208 additional residents in Scenario 1 and 3,220 additional residents in the Scenario 2 will increase the overall list size within 1km of the Site to 1,039 and 1,040 patients per GP, respectively. This means that a better level of service will continue to be provided locally than that of the target of 1,800 patients per GP.

6.45 As such, the illustrative masterplan is likely to have a negligible impact on primary healthcare provision given that existing services are likely to be able to absorb the increased demand from future residents of the Site. Open Space

6.46 The illustrative masterplan will accommodate between 3,208 and 3,220 residents depending on the tenure scenario. The Site is located closely to a number of publicly accessible open spaces that fulfil the criteria in the London Plan Open Space Hierarchy (Ref. 4). 6.47 Policy DM4 of the LBTH Managing Development Document (Ref. 11) requires communal amenity space to be provided for all new developments over 10 units at a rate of 50m 2 for the first 10 units and a further 1m2 for every unit thereafter. A minimum private amenity space of 5m 2 is required for 1-2 person dwellings with an extra 1m 2 provided for each additional occupant.

6.48 The illustrative masterplan will provide 11,398m 2 of public realm, 11,398m 2 of public open space and 10,084m 2 of communal courtyard space. The breakdown of the provision of this space compared to the LBTH MDD requirements under Scenario 1 is set out in Table 23 .

Table 23 Open Space Provision and Requirements in Scenario 1

Type of Space Provided Requirement (m 2) Proposed Provision (m 2) LBTH Policy Standard Met? Communal Amenity Space 1,730 11,398 Yes Private Amenity Space 5,912 10,084 Yes Total 7,642 21,482 Yes Source: AECOM Calculations.

6.49 The breakdown of the provision of this space compared to the LBTH SPD requirements under Scenario 2 is set out in Table 24 below.

Table 24 Open Space Provision and Requirements in Scenario 2

Type of Space Provided Requirement (m 2) Proposed Provision (m 2) LBTH Policy Standard Met? Communal Amenity Space 1,730 11,398 Yes Private Amenity Space 5,924 10,084 Yes Total 7,654 21,482 Yes Source: AECOM Calculations. 6.50 Table 23 and Table 24 above show that both scenarios meet the LBTH standards for open space provision and mitigate the additional demands for open space generated by the new residents and employees of the Site.

6.51 Based on the existing provision of accessible local open space in the LLDC, and the provision of both public and private space as part of the proposals, the illustrative masterplan is assessed to have a minor beneficial , long-term permanent effect on open space provision. The effect is not significant. Play Space

6.52 The GLA’s SPG recommends that 10m 2 of play and recreation space be provided for each child and young person under the age of 17 years (Ref. 6). However, in order to calculate the estimated future number of children living at the Site, the child occupancy method set out in Tower Hamlets New Housing Development Survey (2009) (Ref. 17) has been applied to the accommodation schedules set out in Table 17 and Table 19 above.

6.53 Estimates of the play space requirements under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are presented in Table 25 and Table 26 , respectively.

Table 25 Estimated Play Space Requirement under Scenario 1

Age Group Total Child Yield Total Play Space Recommended (m 2) Under 4s 42 423 5 – 10 52 521 Over 10s 11 112 Total 106 1,055 Source: AECOM Calculations. Note: figures may not sum due to rounding.

Table 26 Estimated Play Space Requirement under Scenario 2

Age Group Total Child Yield Total Play Space Recommended (m 2) Under 4s 90 903 5 – 10 171 1,704 Over 10s 70 699 Total 331 3,307 Source: AECOM Calculations. Note: figures may not sum due to rounding. 38

6.54 KCA architects have indicated that the play space requirement will be met on-site under both scenarios. Based on the provision of additional play space as part of the proposal to meet the additional needs of the new resident population, the illustrative masterplan is assessed to have a negligible effect on play space provision. Retail Facilities

6.55 The illustrative masterplan will provide 1,341m 2 (GIFA) of store (A1) floorspace and 2,324m 2 (NIFA) of flexible retail (A1-A5) floorspace. This level of provision represents a positive contribution to the stock of retail floorspace in the LLDC, reducing the net requirement projected for these areas (see baseline). It is therefore assessed that the illustrative masterplan will have a minor beneficial , long-term, permanent effect on primary education provision under both scenarios. The effect is not significant.

Additional Mitigation and Monitoring

Operational Phase Mitigation

6.56 There are no adverse socio-economic effects predicted for the operational phase of the illustrative masterplan that might require mitigation or monitoring that have been identified by the assessment. Further Considerations for Detailed Design and Future Planning Applications

6.57 Any development/planning applications being submitted for the Site, or any part thereof, should consider the play space requirements of the scheme, particularly in relation to on-site provision for under 5s which needs to be located within 100m of the Site (if not within the Site).

6.58 It may also be appropriate to consider the potential socio-economic effects relating to the construction phase of any scheme being proposed on the Site.

RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND CONCLUSIONS

40 07

RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

7.1 This section provides a summary of the residual effects for socio-economics. Residual Effects 7.2 Table 27 presents a summary of the residual effects. It demonstrates that the illustrative masterplan will have a significant beneficial effect on the provision of primary education facilities. There are no adverse socio-economic effects.

Table 27 Summary of Residual Effects for Socio-economics

Residual Effect Initial and (re)statement Sensitivity of classification of Mitigation Description of Magnitude of significance resource / effect and and Effect of impact (incorporating receptor statement of Monitoring mitigation and significance monitoring)

Completed and Occupied Development Operational Minor Beneficial No mitigation Minor Beneficial None applied Minor Employment (not significant) required (not significant) Additional Local Minor Minor Beneficial No mitigation Minor Beneficial None applied Spending (not significant) required (not significant) Minor Minor Beneficial No mitigation Minor Beneficial Housing None applied (not significant) required (not significant) No mitigation Affordable Housing None applied None Negligible Negligible required Moderate Beneficial No mitigation Moderate Beneficial Primary Education None applied Moderate (significant) required (significant) Secondary No mitigation None applied None Negligible Negligible Education required No mitigation Primary Healthcare None applied None Negligible Negligible required Minor Beneficial No mitigation Minor Beneficial Open Space None applied Minor (not significant) required (not significant) No mitigation Play Space None applied None Negligible Negligible required Minor Beneficial No mitigation Minor Beneficial Retail Facilities None applied Minor (not significant) required (not significant)

Conclusions

7.3 The illustrative masterplan will have a number of beneficial impacts on the surrounding neighbourhoods. This includes the provision of employment opportunities, generated an estimated 184 net additional jobs once operational. The residents of private and intermediate units within the illustrative masterplan are estimated to increase expenditure in the local area by approximately £16.6m or £21.7m annually. The illustrative masterplan will support a new 2FE Primary School, which will meet the additional requirements on primary school places in the local area resulting from the new residential population, while providing additional places for the existing resident population of the local area. The illustrative masterplan will also bring forward 21,482m 2 of open space, between 2,300m 2 to 3,500m 2 of retail floorspace, and provides on-site play space to meet the needs of the new resident population.

7.4 In addition to the positive impacts the scheme will have on surrounding neighbourhoods and the wider area, the scale of the illustrative masterplan is likely to bring about ‘catalytic’ effects such as the creation of a better local physical and economic environment, which could in turn attract further investment to the area.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

43 08

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Introduction

8.1 This section provides an assessment of cumulative effects in relation to socio-economics. Assessment of Type 1 Interaction Effects 8.2 The Type 1 Interaction Effects are summarised in Table 27 above. Assessment of Type 2 In-Combination Effects with Committed Developments

8.3 There are six development schemes in the vicinity of the Site (at the time of writing) which have the potential to create cumulative effects in conjunction with the illustrative masterplan.

8.4 If all six schemes are brought forward, a considerable number of net jobs will be generated from office and retail provision. This is assessed to have a moderate beneficial , long-term, permanent effect on the Greater London economy.

8.5 If all six schemes are developed, nearly 5,000 new residential units are expected to come forward. This will be a substantial contribution to the provision of open market and affordable housing within the local area, providing a range of apartments, family homes and types of tenure for new residents. The residents within these units are likely to spend a large proportion of their income in Greater London. The additional spending of the combined schemes is assessed to have a moderate beneficial , long- term, permanent effect on the Greater London economy.

8.6 New residents within these six residential schemes are likely to place additional demand on existing social infrastructure such as education services, primary healthcare, open space and play space facilities. However, in line with the principles relating to planning obligations set out in the LLDC Community Infrastructure Levy (Ref. 9) it is assumed that each of the proposed schemes would agree an appropriate level of CIL contribution to help mitigate against any adverse socio-economic effects. The CIL contributions from the schemes would help to contribute towards provision of social infrastructure and mitigate any adverse effects which could occur. The resulting impact is therefore judged to be of negligible significance.

8.7 In summary, it is assumed that in line with the LLDC Community Infrastructure Levy each development would mitigate against any adverse effects on services and social infrastructure in the area. The schemes would have a beneficial employment creation, office and retail provision, and additional local spending.

REFERENCES

45 09

REFERENCES

Ref. 1 London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), (2015); Local Plan 2015-2031.

Ref. 2 Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), (2012); National Planning Policy Framework, DCLG. Ref. 3 DCLG, (2015); National Planning Policy Guidance, DCLG.

Ref. 4 Greater London Authority (GLA), (2015); The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for London Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011.

Ref. 5 GLA. (2015); Minor Alterations to the London Plan: Housing Standards. Intend to Publish (December 2015).

Ref. 6 GLA, (2012); Draft SPG: Shaping Neighbourhoods: Children And Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation.

Ref. 7 GLA, (2014); Homes for London: The London Housing Strategy Ref. 8 GLA, (2007); GLA Act.

Ref. 9 LLDC, (2015); Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule.

Ref. 10 LLDC, (2014); Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document. Ref. 11 LBTH, (2013); Managing Development DPD, Submission Document

Ref. 12 Quod, (2016); Bromley-by-Bow Education Review.

Ref. 13 Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), (2014); Additionality Guide, 4th Edition, Homes and Communities Agency, London.

Ref. 14 HCA, (2015); Employment Densities Guide: 3rd Edition.

Ref. 15 LBTH, (2013); Revised Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Ref. 16 LBTH, (2009); Planning for Population Change and Growth.

Ref. 17 LBTH, (2009); New Housing and Development Survey.

Ref. 18 GLA Economics, (2015); London's Economic Outlook: Autumn 2015. Ref. 19 Office of National Statistics (ONS), (2015); 2011 Census, ONS.

Ref. 20 ONS, (2015); Business Register and Employment Survey.

Ref. 21 ONS, (2001); Census 2001. Ref. 22 ONS, (2015); Annual Population Survey 2014.

Ref. 23 DCLG, (2015); English Indices of Deprivation 2015.

Ref. 24 LLDC, (2014); Local Plan Background Paper: Housing. Ref. 25 DCLG, (2015); Number of Dwellings by Tenure and District.

Ref. 26 Audit Commission, (1996); Trading Places, The Supply and Allocation of School Places, HMSO, London.

Ref. 27 Department for Transport (DfT), (2014); National Travel Survey 2013/14, DfT, Newport. Ref. 28 Department for Children, Schools and Families (DfCSF), (2014); School Cross Border Movements, London.

Ref. 29 DfE, (2016); School Capacity 2014/15. Ref. 30 DfE, (2016); Schools in England (April 2016).

Ref. 31 NHS Business Services Authority (BSA), (2015); Practice List Size and GP Count (October 2015).

Ref. 32 NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre, (2015); FTE GPs by Clinical Commissioning Group.

Ref. 33 NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU), (2007); HUDU Planning Contribution Model Guidance Notes. Ref. 34 NHS Choices, (2016); GP Practices and Surgeries. Accessed March 2016.

Ref. 35 LLDC, (2014); Local Open Spaces Review.

Ref. 36 Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL); (2016); iGiGL. Accessed March 2016. Ref. 37 LLDC, (2014); Retail & Leisure Requirements Review.

Ref. 38 LBTH, (2009); Tower Hamlets Retail & Leisure Study.

Ref. 39 DfE, (2015); School Workforce in England: November 2014. Ref. 40 Danescroft Land Ltd, (2016); Bromley by Bow South 266-A-SCH_Schedule of Accommodation (25th February 2016).

Ref. 41 ONS, (2014); Family Spending: 2011-2013.

ABOUT AECOM In a complex and unpredictable world, where growing demands have to be met with finite resources, AECOM brings experience gained from improving quality of life in hundreds of places.

We bring together economists, planners, engineers, designers and project managers to work on projects at every scale. We engineer energy efficient buildings and we build new links between cities. We design new communities and regenerate existing ones. We are the first whole environments business, going beyond buildings and infrastructure.

Our Europe teams form an important part of our worldwide network of nearly 100,000 staff in 150 countries. Through 360 ingenuity, we develop pioneering solutions that help our clients to see further and go further. www.aecom.com