Telehouse Far East, Sites 6 and 8 in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Planning Application No

planning report D&P/3275/02 27 August 2014 Telehouse Far East, Sites 6 and 8 in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/14/00074

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

The proposal Erection on Site 6 of a new 10 storey data centre building of 66m in height comprising approximately 24,370m2 of floor space including provision of roof top plant and satellite dish; reconfiguration of loading bay area to North building; new first floor bridge link to existing North building; erection on Site 8 of a new 12 storey office development 65m in height comprising approximately 13,283m2 of floor space; provision of car and cycle parking; re-routing of existing cycle path on Sorrel Lane; associated landscaping; provision of security fencing, gates and other associated works. The applicant The applicant is Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd. And the architect is Nicholas Webb Architects Plc.

Strategic issues Outstanding issues in relation to the historic environment, urban design, energy and transport have been satisfactorily resolved and the application is supported in line with London Plan policies.

The Council’s decision In this instance Tower Hamlets Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

page 1 “1B: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings…(c) …outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

“1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of…(c)…more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

2 On 17 April 2014 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/3275/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 70 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address those deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 21 July 2014 Tower Hamlets Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 18 August 2014 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Tower Hamlets Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Tower Hamlets Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 31 August 2014 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

5 At the consultation stage Tower Hamlets Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 70 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address those deficiencies. Taking each point in turn the following is noted:

Historic Environment

6 Tower Hamlets Council has secured an appropriately worded condition requiring the applicant to conduct a detailed archaeological investigation prior to commencement of works on- site.

Urban Design

7 In response to Stage I comments, the applicant has submitted high quality visuals to illustrate the proposals and these are considered acceptable.

8 The applicant met GLA officers on 11 August 2014. At this meeting, it was agreed that the data centre does not necessarily need to be lit by electrical lighting, but that this building and its east elevation in particular should have a clear presence at night. Applying reflective paint behind the external skin of the building was considered to be an appropriate alternative to address this issue. The applicant has agreed to take this approach forward and reach an agreement with Tower Hamlets Council in consultation with the GLA. The council has imposed a suitably worded condition to this effect. This is welcomed and accepted.

Energy

page 2 9 As requested at Stage I, the BRUKL sheet has been provided by the applicant supporting the savings claimed.

10 A plan showing the connection between the Telehouse West heat export point and the Telehouse East office building has been provided. It has been confirmed that the heat exchangers and heat pumps recovering and upgrading the waste heat will be located on the roof of the office building.

11 The applicant has provided further information and confirmed that enough waste heat is available to serve the demand of the office building.

12 The applicant has provided evidence of correspondence with Tower Hamlets energy officers confirming that there are no firm plans for delivery of the proposed networks in the vicinity of the application site in the near future. The applicant has confirmed that the scheme will be designed to be suitable for retrofit once the district heating is delivered.

13 The applicant has therefore satisfactorily addressed and resolved all outstanding issues in relation to energy raised at Stage I. Transport for London’s comments

14 At stage 1, TfL’s key concern related to the applicant’s need to close Sorrel Lane for security reasons and the consequent relocation of Cycle Superhighway 3 (CS3). A temporary diversion route during construction using Saffron Avenue (with changes to signage and surfacing) has been agreed with the applicant and Tower Hamlets Council, and a condition requiring this to be implemented prior to commencement of works has therefore been secured. The permanent diversion of CS3 prior to occupation has also been secured by condition. This is welcomed by TfL in accordance with London Plan policy 6.9.

15 Conditions have also been secured that require the developer to enter into a section 278 agreement to implement changes to the junction of Leamouth Road and Sorrel Lane and to safeguard the integrity of the East India Dock tunnel during construction. The wording of the latter condition will be agreed with TfL.

16 Although no justification for the proposed car parking levels have been provided, the quantum has nevertheless been slightly reduced to 29 spaces. Although the lack of justification is disappointing, this level of car parking is in accordance with London Plan standards and is therefore ultimately accepted by TfL. A car park management plan and electric vehicle charging points have also been secured by condition. Although cycle parking provision is lower than London Plan standards for a B8 use which is considered compatible with the data centre element of the proposal, it is considered reasonable having regard to its nature and very low staffing levels and is balanced by a provision in compliance with standards for the proposed office building. The provision of showers and lockers for cyclists is also proposed and this is welcomed by TfL.

17 A Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) have been secured by condition, and the Travel Plan secured through the Section 106 agreement.

18 In summary, the transport issues raised at Stage 1 have been addressed, and the application is considered to be in accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan.

Response to consultation

page 3 19 A total of 605 neighbouring properties were notified about the application and invited to comments. The application was also publicised on site and in the local press. No response was received from members of the public.

20 Other consultees responded as follows:

 Environment Agency: No objection subject to conditions set out in paragraph 6.8 of the Committee Report, which also confirms that these matters would be secured via condition.

 English Heritage: No objection.

 Dockland Light Railway: No objection as there would be low risk to the DLR.

 London Fire and Emergency Authority: The applicant has confirmed that hydrants are available within 90 metres of each building entrance in reply to consultation response.

 Health and Safety Executive: No objection

 Metropolitan Police: The council has imposed a condition requiring the applicant to submit a Secure by Design Statement to be agreed in writing by Tower Hamlets Council. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

21 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance Tower Hamlets Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

22 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations

23 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

24 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the

page 4 Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

25 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion

26 Outstanding issues raised at Stage I in relation to historic environment, urban design, energy and transport have been resolved. The proposed development is therefore supported in line with London Plan policies.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development and Projects): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Yogesh Patil, Case Officer 020 7983 6538 email [email protected]

page 5

planning report D&P/3275/01 17 April 2014 Telehouse Far East, Sites 6 and 8, Oregano Drive, E14 in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/14/00074

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

Strategic issues The redevelopment of the existing vacant land for development of an office and data centre is supported. Concerns in regard to urban design, energy and transport should be addressed.

Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 70 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address those deficiencies.

page 6 Context

1 On 17 March 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 1 April 2014 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

“1B: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings…(c) …outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

“1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of…(c)…more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

3 Once Tower Hamlets Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The site comprises of two vacant plots separated by Sorrel Lane. The site 6 plot, to the north of Sorrel Lane, is located at the south-western corner of the junction between East India Dock Road and Leamouth Road. The site 8 plot, to the south of Sorrel Lane, is bounded to the south by Saffron Avenue, with Oregano Drive to the west. Leamouth Road forms its eastern boundary and the existing Telehouse campus is to the west. Site 8 also has the East India Dock Road Tunnel running underneath it. The two sites are flat in the central sections, although they are raised above the public highway to form two separate plateaux, separated by Sorrel Lane. Site 6 and Site 8 are approximately 2m and 1.5m above the surrounding paving respectively.

6 The immediate site context is dominated by the substantial buildings on the Telehouse campus to the west and the major road network surrounding this campus. To the south western perimeter are the larger scale London Borough of Tower Hamlets Town Hall and administrative offices. To the east of the Site and along Leamouth Road is the former East India Dock Wall, which is a Grade II Listed structure. The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) runs to the south, swinging north, beyond Leamouth Road and the River Lea.

7 East India Docklands Light Railway (DLR) station is located 450m to the south of the site. DLR services also stop at Canning Town station 900m to the east of the site, which also provides access to Jubilee line London Underground (LU) services. There is a bus stop located on East India Dock Road adjacent to the site serving route 115. The 277 route is accessible from stops on Saffron Avenue to the south-west of the site, and the 309 service from stops on Poplar High Street, 250m to the north. As such, the site has an average Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3 on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 6 (excellent).

Details of the proposal

8 The proposed development comprises of the following:

page 7  A 66 metre high data centre building of 24,370 sq. m. floorspace housing technical processing equipment and support functions;

 A 59 metres high office building of 13,283 sq. m floorspace

 A total of 32 car parking spaces including 4 disabled parking spaces. 20% equipped with electric charging points and passive provision for an additional 20%.

 A total of 106 cycle parking spaces. Case history

9 The applicant has provided details of the planning history of the site in the Design and Access Statement, two key events of which have been set out as follows. In 2001, Tower Hamlets Council resolved to grant planning permission for the erection of an 11 storey building to be used for data centre and/or offices, switch centre, restaurant and energy centre. Further, in 2008 Tower Hamlets Council resolved to grant planning permission for erection of nine new buildings ranging from 36 storeys to 8 storeys high to provide 796 residential flats together with some commercial and community floorspace, an energy centre, 236 car parking spaces and pedestrianisation of Sorrel Lane. However, it is understood that S106 agreement for both these schemes was not signed.

10 In November 2013, the applicant engaged in pre-application discussions with Tower Hamlets Council and GLA officers, as well as with TfL officers in October 2013, as part of development of the current scheme. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

11 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Economic development London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy; Employment Action Plan  Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG; Housing SPG; London Housing Design Guide; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy;  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  Employment London Plan; Land for Industry and Transport SPG  Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Tall buildings/views London Plan, London View Management Framework SPG  Historic Environment London Plan; World Heritage Sites SPG; Circular 07/09  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy;  Air quality London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy;  Health London Plan; Health Inequalities Strategy  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy

page 8 12 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the September 2010 Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and the 2011 London Plan.

13 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework  The Managing Development Document (April 2013)  The Lower Lee Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework (January 2007)

 The draft Revised Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan Principle of development

14 The development will be located on two plots of land lying vacant since the infilling of the East India Dock in the 1980’s. It is also noted that the northern part of the site had been granted planning permission for an 11 storey data centre building in 2001 although the S106 agreement was never signed.

15 London Plan Policy “2.13 Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas” states that development proposals within opportunity areas should contribute towards meeting and where appropriate exceeding the minimum guidelines for indicative estimates for employment capacity. The London Plan Annex 1 identifies an indicative employment capacity of 50,000 jobs in the Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area.

16 The proposed development site lies within ‘sub-area 14: Blackwall and Leamouth’ identified in the Mayor’s 2007 Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF). Paragraph 4.237 of the OAPF states that the sub-area “…should build on its established office activity at Clove Crescent, Saffron Avenue and Coriander Avenue…and that… development in the sub-area could deliver up to 7,000 sqm of office floorspace in areas east of the established commercial core.”

17 Tower Hamlets Council’s September 2010 Core Strategy: SO16 sets out the strategic objective to support growth of existing and future businesses in accessible and appropriate locations. Spatial policy SP06 specifies that that Tower Hamlets Council will seek to support, maximise and promote the competitiveness of the Tower Hamlets economy and promote the creation of a sustainable, diversified and balanced economy by ensuring a sufficient range, mix and quality of employment uses and spaces.

18 Although the site lies outside and immediately to the east of the ‘Local Office Location’ (LOL) identified on Tower Hamlet Council’s 2013 Adopted Policies Map, Policy DM15 of Tower Hamlets Council’s 2013 Managing Development Document (MDD) supports the redevelopment of employment sites outside of spatial policy areas. Further, the Core Strategy identifies the proposed development site as a ‘civic and commercial area’ as part of the vision for Blackwall.

19 It is also pertinent to note that the applicant, Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd. has been established at the East India Dock since the late 1980’s and expanded operations over time as a result of growth in Information Technology and has a strategic data centre build programme which aims to deliver incremental space to meets its business needs. The applicant has stated that proposed development for an office building and data centre will be an addition to the applicant’s existing campus to the west and will enable Telehouse to expand and provide significant benefits to the UK digital economy by maintaining the competitiveness of London and the UK as a whole.

page 9 20 The proposed scheme will provide a welcome addition of a total of 37,653 sq. m. of non- residential floorspace of which 24,370 sq. m. will be for the data centre and 13,283 sq. m. will be for offices and will provide an equivalent of 149 full time jobs.

21 The proposed land uses are therefore considered acceptable and appropriate in accordance with the London Plan, the Lower Lea Valley OAPF and Tower Hamlets Council’s Core Strategy.

Historic Environment:

22 The site lies in an ‘Archaeological Priority Area’ identified on Tower Hamlets Council’s April Adopted Policies Map (April 2013). Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states “where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation”. Further, London Plan Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology states that “…development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate”.

23 The applicant has submitted an Archaeology and Cultural Heritage report in Section 6 of the Environmental Report submitted with this application. This report which considered the potential impact of the proposed development on archaeology and cultural heritage has identified that the proposals could involve permanent loss of unknown but potentially high value heritage assets and recommends that these impacts be mitigated through a programme of archaeological investigation. This is welcomed and supported and should be secured with an appropriately worded planning condition. Urban design and tall buildings

24 The scheme proposes two new buildings, a data centre of 10 storeys (62 metres high) on site 6 and an office building of 12 storeys (59 metres high) on site 8, separated at ground level by Sorrell Lane. Both sites are in prominent locations on key routes into Tower Hamlets and Central London.

25 The proposed development has been discussed at pre-application stage and at subsequent meetings. While the scheme was considered broadly acceptable, significant concerns were raised by officers in relation to the appearance of the data centre. While the applicant has responded positively to these concerns, officers are disappointed that some aspects are not yet fully addressed.

26 London Plan Policy 7.5 states that public realm should be made comprehensible by using gateways, focal points and landmarks where appropriate. Policy 7.6 requires developments of the highest architectural quality incorporating the highest quality materials and design appropriate to its context. Policy 7.7 further states that tall buildings should individually or as a group, improve the legibility of an area, by emphasising a point of civic or visual significance where appropriate.

27 The proposed development, and in particular the east elevation of the data centre building will be highly visible from the immediate and wider public domain. The applicant has rightly recognised that the east elevation of the data centre could potentially be seen as a gateway from the east into docklands, the east end of London and the city and is therefore a key aspect to the success of the building.

page 10 28 At pre-application discussions, the applicant was asked to consider the treatment of the proposed building elevation and massing, in particular this prominently visible east elevation, to reflect and highlight its function as a digital data centre. Since then the applicant has engaged positively with design officers and updated the proposal to incorporate the suggested design changes. The day time visuals are shown in figures 1 and 2 below. These changes are supported and welcomed.

Figure 1: Pre-application stage: Data Centre east elevation facing Leamouth Road showing an art display wall using large video or LED screens (no moving images)

Figure 2: Stage 1: Data Centre redesigned east elevation facing Leamouth Road

page 11 29 In relation to the appearance of the building at night, the applicant has proposed up- lighting this elevation as shown in figure 3 below. However, officers are concerned that the proposed up-lighting does not do justice to the proposed elevations and the presence of the building at night. Officers accept the challenges regarding maintenance requirements and technical challenges of having a complex lighting system within the façade, but do not consider the alternative up-lighting proposal to be a suitable alternative in this instance. Up-lighting can be very effective when the building elevation has a lot of relief and articulation creating an interesting play of shadows on the façade – the location where this would work on the data centre would be on the corner where the chrome flues are located.

Figure 3: Stage 1: Data Centre redesigned east elevation facing Leamouth Road- night view

30 The applicant is therefore asked to set out an alternative lighting arrangement that could be incorporated within the façade itself, to make this highly visible elevation come to life at night.

31 The applicant has stated that there are a number of maintenance issues associated with providing lighting within the eastern façade but is prepared to accept a planning condition for resolution of this issue at a later stage. Whilst this is an acceptable approach in principle, it creates a risk that GLA officers will not be able to effectively influence the final outcome of the lighting proposals. Therefore, Tower Hamlets Council is asked to impose an appropriately worded condition to requiring the applicant to submit details of the lighting proposals to the GLA for approval.

32 Officers are also disappointed with the quality of CGI’s submitted and strongly urge the applicant to provide high quality ‘Accurate Visual Representation’s’ (AVR’s), in particular for the east elevation of the data centre. The applicant should refer to Appendix C of the Mayor’s March 2012 London Views Management Framework (LVMF) for further information on AVR’s.

page 12 33 In relation to the layout, the site has two points of access on Oregano Drive, one from Saffron Avenue and second from Coriander Avenue. Due to need for security, the applicant has proposed closing off access to Leamouth Road from Sorrel Lane with a vehicle gate. The applicant was urged to take this approach further, in consultation with TfL and Tower Hamlet’s Council, by considering closing off access to Leamouth Road from Sorrell lane permanently by providing a continuous and well landscaped edge with trees and hedges along Leamouth Road and by moving some or all of the parking spaces to this landscaped edge while providing a prominent landscape feature to the east of the office building, where the car parking is currently located. Officers consider that this approach could also provide a safer environment for vehicles on Leamouth Road rather than a give-way junction as currently proposed.

34 In response, the applicant has stated that they do not own the land, and are currently seeking a licence to take over the management and upkeep of Sorrel Lane from the landowner Funeven Estates. Thus the applicant is not in a position at this stage to confirm that the closure of Sorrel Lane and the extension of the landscaped strip across Sorrel Lane can be delivered.

35 The applicant has further stated that whilst the road is owned by Funeven Estates, the part closest to Leamouth Road has both Transport for London and Tower Hamlets Council interests. Therefore detailed discussions with all 3 parties will be required to reach an agreement to close Sorrell Lane, which the applicant cannot confirm at this current time.

36 Whilst the applicant is unable to deliver this aspiration at this stage they are prepared to pursue this idea during the construction phase of the development when there will be more time for such discussions on the matter. This is welcomed and the applicant is strongly urged to engage with the landowner, Tower Hamlets Council and TfL and take this approach further.

37 The closing of Sorrell Lane for security reasons requires cycle route CS3 to be diverted. The applicant should continue discussions with TfL to resolve this issue as set out in the transport section of this report.

38 The proposed height and massing of the proposal is broadly in keeping with the prevailing character of the area and does not raise any strategic concerns. Energy

BE LEAN

Energy efficiency standards

39 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include heat recovery, variable speed drives and low energy lighting. The demand for cooling will be minimised by designing the data centre to be cooled via an indirect air optimisation system with efficient multistage heat exchangers. Cooling demand in the office will be reduced by specifying solar control glazing and using internal blinds to reduce solar gains.

40 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 6786 tonnes per annum (63%) in regulated CO2 emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. BRUKL sheets including efficiency measures alone should be provided to support the savings claimed.

page 13 BE CLEAN

District heating

41 The applicant has identified that there is a proposed district heating network within the vicinity of the development. Connection to the network should be prioritised and evidence of correspondence with the network developer considering opportunities for connection and timescales should be provided.

42 The applicant has provided a commitment to ensuring that the office building is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available. The applicant is not currently proposing to make the data centre building suitable for connection given the low heat load of this building. This is accepted in this instance.

43 The applicant is proposing to connect the office building to the existing Telehouse West building, using waste heat from Telehouse West and heat pumps feeding a low temperature hot water loop to heat the new office building. A layout of the connection point on the Telehouse West building site has been provided. A sketch of the proposed network and plant room size and location within the new office building site should be provided.

44 Further information should be provided to demonstrate the extent of the waste heat contribution to the new office building’s demands and to clarify how the carbon savings have been calculated.

Combined Heat and Power

45 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of CHP. However, due the intermittent nature of the heat load, CHP is not proposed. This is accepted in this instance.

46 The applicant should note that, for the purposes of the London Plan, carbon savings from heat pumps should be accounted for in the “be green” tier of the energy hierarchy.

BE GREEN

Renewable energy technologies

47 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 200m² on the roof of the office block.

48 Waste heat heat pumps will be used to heat the office building (see above) and a VRF heat pump will be used to heat the ancillary office within the data centre building.

49 A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 26 tonnes per annum (0.7%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy (see table below).

OVERALL CARBON SAVINGS

50 Based on the energy assessment submitted at stage I, the table below shows the residual CO2 emissions after each stage of the energy hierarchy and the CO2 emission reductions at each stage of the energy hierarchy.

page 14 51 Table: CO2 emission reductions from application of the energy hierarchy

Total residual Regulated CO2 emissions regulated CO2 reductions emissions (tonnes per (tonnes per (per annum) annum) cent) Baseline i.e. 2010 Building Regulations 10,780 Energy Efficiency 3,994 6,786 63% CHP 3,994 0 0.0% Renewable energy 3,968 26 0.7% Total 6,812 63%

52 A reduction of 6,812 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development is expected, equivalent to an overall saving of 63%.

53 The carbon dioxide savings exceed the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan however further information needs to be provided before the carbon savings can be verified. Transport

54 This planning application was the subject of a pre-application meeting with TfL in October 2013, and detailed comments were provided by TfL to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets on 21st March 2014.

55 Although it is understood that no buildings will be constructed immediately over the East India Dock tunnel, its proximity requires TfL to agree a construction methodology prior to works commencing on site, to ensure that the works will not result in an unacceptable impact to TfL structures. As such, a condition preventing commencement of works on site until such agreement has been reached must be attached to the grant of any planning permission.

56 Due to the need for security for the proposed new data centre, it is proposed to close Sorrel Lane at its junction with Leamouth Road. This would necessitate alterations to this junction and the permanent diversion of CS3. At pre-application stage two potential diversions of CS3 were discussed, the ‘green’ route via East India Dock Road and Nutmeg Lane and ‘red’ route via Leamouth Road and Saffron Avenue. The applicant has suggested that the red route is preferable and represents an improvement on the existing alignment.

57 Discussions on the best diversion route are ongoing, but TfL requests that agreement on a realignment of CS3 is reached prior to determination of the application to ensure consistency with London Plan policy 6.9. Should an acceptable solution be found, the diversion will need to be secured via appropriate planning conditions or obligations, which may require subsequent highways agreements.

58 With regards to the proposed barrier on Sorrel Lane, the final decision for a highways layout will need to be made by the Council as highway authority for Leamouth Road. However, discussions with TfL’s traffic signals team have highlighted issues with signals equipment that would need to be resolved prior to implementation. The Council will also need to consider whether it is safe to convert the exit into a give way given the number of lanes on Leamouth Road at this location.

page 15 59 32 car parking spaces are proposed to provide for both the data centre and office uses. Of these, four are intended for blue badge holders with the remaining spaces associated with maintenance of the data centre. Whilst the need for operational parking linked to the data centre is understood, any data from the existing uses on site which would help to justify this level of provision would be helpful. Regardless of the level of car parking ultimately agreed, a car park management plan should be secured by condition on any consent for the site, setting out how spaces will be reserved for operational use. Ten percent of spaces should be actively provided with electric vehicle charging points, with passive provision for an additional ten spaces in line with London Plan policy 6.13.

60 It is proposed to provide 106 cycle parking spaces for the development, 18 for the data centre and 88 for the office use. Although London Plan standards require 53 for the office use and 48 for the data centre, the reallocation of spaces away from the data centre and to the office appears sensible in this instance given the low levels of staffing anticipated. As such, this overall provision is considered acceptable by TfL although it should be acknowledged that Tower Hamlets’ standards require a higher level of provision. The provision of showers and lockers for cyclists is proposed as part of the travel plan, and this is welcomed by TfL.

61 The trip generation methodology is considered appropriate, and it is considered that the trips associated with the new development will not result in an unacceptable transport impact.

62 A draft Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) have been submitted, which is welcomed. These should be secured by condition on any consent and in particular the final CLP will require additional information, particularly around cycle safety given the proximity of CS3.

63 A framework travel plan has been provided in support of the application, and this is welcomed. The structure and content of the plan is generally good, with only some minor alterations required.

64 The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is approaching an Examination in Public of its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Should the CIL be adopted prior to this application being granted consent, it is currently anticipated that CIL would be charged at a level of £60 per square metre for the proposed office use. CIL has been identified as a funding source for a variety of transport measures within the borough. For those measures where CIL has not been identified as a funding source TfL may seek Section 106 contributions towards their implementation to ensure that the impact of this development is sufficiently mitigated in accordance with the relevant London Plan policies.

65 In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3 ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’, the Mayor has agreed a CIL Charging Schedule which commenced in April 2012. It will be paid by most new development in Greater London. Boroughs are arranged into three charging bands with rates of £50 / £35 / £20 per square metre of net increase in floorspace respectively. The proposed development is within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets where the proposed Mayoral charge is £35 per square metre. More details are available via the GLA website http://london.gov.uk/

66 In summary, although the number of trips that this development is anticipated to generate will not result in an unacceptable impact on the transport network, further consideration of the impacts of the proposed changes to access to ensure the security of the data centre are required. In particular, a scheme for diversion of Cycle Superhighway route 3 and the method of its delivery must be agreed prior to the application being determined.

page 16 Local planning authority’s position

67 Tower Hamlets Council is currently assessing the application and at the time of writing this report, its position is not known. Legal considerations

68 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

69 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

70 The proposed development will help the applicant to expand its business, create new jobs and provide significant benefits to the UK digital economy by maintaining the competitiveness of London and the UK as a whole. The proposed landuse principle is in line with London Plan policies and is supported and welcomed.

71 Whilst the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms, on balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan. The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Historic Environment: The proposed scheme could involve permanent loss of unknown but potentially high value heritage assets on the site. Tower Hamlets Council should secure an appropriately worded condition requiring the applicant to conduct a programme of archaeological investigation.

 Urban Design: Tower Hamlets Council is asked to impose an appropriately worded condition to requiring the applicant to submit details of the night lighting proposals to the GLA for approval; the applicant is asked provide high quality AVR’s to illustrate the proposals and is strongly urged to engage with the landowner, Tower Hamlets Council and TfL to consider permanently closing off access to Leamouth Road from Sorrell Lane.  Energy: BRUKL sheets including efficiency measures alone should be provided to support the savings claimed; a sketch of the proposed network and plant room size and location within the new office building site should be provided; further information should be provided to demonstrate the extent of the waste heat contribution to the new office building’s demands and to clarify how the carbon savings have been calculated.

page 17  Transport: Condition preventing commencement of works on site until a construction methodology is agreed with TfL; a car park management plan should be secured by condition; Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) should be secured by condition; agreement with TfL is required on a realignment of cycle superhighway CS3 and issues related to junction of Sorrel Lane and Leamouth Road should be resolved prior to determination of the application; further information should be provided to TfL in relation to car parking provision; further information regarding cycle safety should be provided in the CLP and minor alterations are required to the framework travel plan.

page 18