planning report PDU/0018c/01 6 March 2013 Arrowhead Quay, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/12/03315

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

The proposal Erection of two buildings of 55 and 50 storeys to provide 792 residential units and ancillary uses plus ground floor retail uses, provision of ancillary amenity space, landscaping, public dockside walkway and pedestrian route, basement car park, servicing and a new vehicular access.

The applicant The applicant is Ballymore and the architect is Glen Howells.

Strategic issues The development of this excellent quality residential scheme is welcomed and is broadly in line with London Plan policy. The land use principle is accepted and the height of the buildings have an acceptable impact on strategic views. Further discussion is needed on affordable housing, noise, sustainable development and transport.

Recommendation

That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms however further discussion is needed on the issues set out in paragraph 77.

Context

1 On 6 February 2013 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 19 March 2013 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 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

page 1 Category 1A: Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats;

Category 1B: Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or building outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres;

Category1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of more than 30 metres high;

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 environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

6 The 0.57 hectare site has been vacant for several years. The site is bounded to the north by the West India Dock, to the east by private car parking and the (DLR) viaduct, to the south by Marsh Wall/Admirals Way and by Britannia International Hotel to the west. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site is currently not available. The nearest section of the Road Network (TLRN) is the A1261 Link/Aspen Way, approximately 720m north of the site. Burdett Road, located 1.4km to the north west is the nearest section of Strategic Road Network, while Poplar High Street, located less than 800m north makes up part of Cycle Super Highway Route 3.

7 The site is served by South Quay station, less than 450m east of the site, providing DLR services between Lewisham, Stratford and Bank. In addition the DLR can also be accessed from Heron Quays and stations, 400m and 650m north of the site respectively. The nearest station is Canary Wharf located approximately 500m north east of the site and estimated to be a 10 minute walk, offering access to the . From 2018 the site will also be served by Crossrail services at Canary Wharf.

8 There are four bus services (D8, D7, D3 and 135) available in the area. The nearest bus stops are located within 30m of the site on Marsh Wall and are all served by the D8. Additional bus stops are located further west on Westferry Road.

9 In addition, the site sits within walking distance of two Mayor’s Cycle Hire Docking stations, the first at Lighterman’s Road by Heron Quays DLR station and the second at South Quay West. As such, the site has a good public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 4 (on a scale of 1-6 where 6 is most accessible).

Details of the proposal

10 Erection of two buildings of 55 (188.4m AOD) and 50 (172.4m AOD) storeys to provide 792 residential units and ancillary uses plus ground floor retail uses including cafe, provision of

page 2 ancillary amenity space, landscaping, public dockside walkway and pedestrian route, basement car park, servicing and a new vehicular access. For comparison the height of 1 is 235m AOD)

11 Ancillary residential indoor and outdoor amenity space includes podium level amenity space and sky garden, a gym and swimming pool, cinema, residents’ lounge, business suite. Case history

12 The current proposal was the subject of a series of pre-application meetings in 2012. The principle of the development was supported and a number of changes were made in response to GLA officer comments.

13 The site has the benefit of planning permission, granted in September 2007, for a 16 and 26-storey office building (70,000 square metres and 119m AOD) with ground floor retail and restaurant uses. The previous Mayor supported the scheme (PDU2110/02).This permission has been partially implemented and therefore remains extant.

Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

14 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy  Density London Plan; Housing SPG  Urban design London Plan  Mix of uses London Plan;  Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG; draft Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  Retail/town centre uses London Plan  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, Revised 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  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  Blue Ribbon Network London Plan

15 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 Tower Hamlets Core Strategy 2010, the saved policies of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and the 2011 London Plan.

page 3 16 The following are also relevant material considerations:

 The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework;  The Managing Development Development Plan Document (submission version) which has been through EiP and for which the Inspector’s report has been received;

 The draft Revised Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan.

Principle of development

17 The site is located on the south side of West India South Dock on the Isle of Dogs. London Plan policy 2.13, supported by map 2.4, identifies the Isle of Dogs as an Opportunity Area with potential to deliver 110,000 additional jobs and 10,000 new homes by 2031. The strategic policy direction for the Opportunity Area, set out in Annex 1 to the London Plan, provides for new jobs to be focused in and around Canary Wharf and identifies scope to convert surplus business capacity south of Canary Wharf to housing.

18 In view of the site’s location outside the core office area around Canary Wharf, the redevelopment of this site for residential-led mixed use purposes is acceptable in principle.

19 London Plan policy 3.7 sets out that large residential developments should be properly masterplanned to co-ordinate the provision of social, environmental and other infrastructure. Although it is accepted, given the small size of the site, that social infrastructure cannot be provided on-site further discussion is needed over section 106 contributions and provision in the wider area. Urban design

20 The proposed scheme has been commented on extensively at the pre-application stage and officers are supportive of the current design.

21 The impact the development would have on protected views and world heritage sites has been explored and officers are satisfied the scheme will not have a detrimental impact on either.

22 Concerns regarding the quality, definition and role of the public realm around the buildings have all been addressed, with each space having been carefully designed to ensure they will be well used, safe and attractive. This is particularly welcomed to the east of the building where the DLR infrastructure makes this space particularly challenging to design.

23 The simple and well detailed architectural treatment of the building will create a pair of elegant and distinctive buildings that will contribute to creating an interesting and varied skyline to this emerging cluster of tall buildings.

24 The residential quality of the scheme is considered to be of a high quality and in line with most aspirations set out in the London Housing Design Guide. All of the units meet the London Plan space standards. The wider 1.4m wide balconies are particularly welcomed as they will now be of a sufficient size to be well used and a key asset to each flat.

page 4

Inclusive design

25 The supporting documentation sets out that the residential units will be designed to lifetime homes standards and units (10%) will be wheelchair accessible. The applicant has set out that the majority of units will be adaptable and as such their exact locations have yet to be identified. The units should be distributed across tenure types and flat sizes to give disabled and older people similar choices to non disabled people (unless the Council through its Accessible Housing Register work can advise on the need in this part of the borough for a particular size of wheelchair accessible unit).

26 At the pre-application stage some concerns were raised with regard to the provision of a water feature adjacent to the building entrance and with the shared surface proposed to the front of the building. The water feature has now been removed from the proposal. The shared surface has been amended to include a kerb line and these changes are welcomed, however the applicant should confirm that tactile paving is provided on both sides of the cross over outside the car park ramp exit. Given that there is no raised kerb at the taxi-drop off the applicant should investigate whether there is a place on Marsh Wall that taxis could also stop at if necessary to allow for wheelchair users to easily exit a taxi.

27 A further ramp should be included in the raised amenity space to the west of the building to allow access from the dockside as well as from the Marsh Wall. The applicant should also confirm if the fitness elements provided in the trim trail incorporate elements that can be used by disabled people.

28 The applicant should investigate whether a ramp could be included in the ground floor cafe rather than a platform lift and it should confirm that wheelchair accessible toilets will be provided.

29 The units which are identified as easily adaptable still require some structural alteration to meet the wheelchair standards - for example the door into the bedroom of the two bed flat on the north-east corner has to be moved to create a 1500 mm by 1800 mm space at the entrance. These units should be amended so that they are adaptable without structural changes to ensure full compliance with Lifetime Homes Standards. In addition the penthouse homes should be amended to be fully accessible removing the three steps within the home on the upper bedroom level.

Housing

30 The following residential mix is proposed:

page 5 Unit type Private Intermediate

Suite 204

1 bed 206 12

2 bed 337 24

3 bed 3 6

Total 750 42

31 As such the unit mix is heavily skewed towards smaller units with 53.3% of units being studios, one and two bed units. Given the location, the typology of the development and the constraints of the site this is acceptable in this instance.

32 14% of the intermediate units would be three bed and this is welcomed.

33 The provision of affordable housing was the subject of a number of meetings at the pre- application stage and through this process the applicant modelled a number of scenarios including on-site affordable rented housing. The applicant has discounted this approach on the basis that it does not maximise affordable housing provision. Nonetheless in response to GLA and Tower Hamlets’ officers desire for the provision of some on-site affordable housing 42 intermediate units have been included within the west tower located on floors three to eight. This provision represents 6.8% of the habitable rooms on-site.

34 The applicant has committed to providing the intermediate units in the first tower to be built and should this not be the west tower the applicant will submit a non-material amendment application to switch the intermediate units to the east tower. The applicant has submitted justification for the non-provision of affordable rented units on the grounds of the level of service charge and practical and funding issues relating to the inclusion of affordable rented and market in this same tower and this is accepted in this instance. It is envisaged that additional affordable housing will be provided off-site. This site should not be located in an area where there are a high proportion of social rented units. Further discussion is needed on this matter prior to Stage II.

35 The applicant has submitted a viability assessment and this is currently the subject of an independent viability assessment. Further discussion will be needed on this when the report is available in order to ensure that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing has been provided.

Children’s play space

36 Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 44 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 440 sq.m. of playspace.

37 The development provides for 526 sq.m. playspace on-site thus exceeding the SPG requirements. The child playspace is located at podium level as well as within the western garden at ground floor level.

page 6 Density

38 The applicant calculates the density of the scheme as 2,700 habitable rooms per hectare which is well above the London Plan density guidelines of 650-1,110 habitable rooms per hectare for sites with a public transport accessibility level of five.

39 Given the nature of the site, the character of the surrounding area and the high quality of the residential accommodation and overall design quality of the scheme this is acceptable in this instance.

Noise

40 A noise assessment has been submitted with the application. This has been assessed by the GLA’s noise consultants for assessment. The noise and vibration survey and impact assessment are adequate to support the planning application. The assessment sets out that for a limited number of balconies between the second and tenth residential storey of the East Tower facade overlooking the DLR, noise levels are likely to exceed World Health Authority recommendations for amenity areas. However the assessment sets out that it is considered unlikely that in the urban context of the site noise would significantly impact upon their intended amenity use. The Council should consider whether the proposed mitigation measures and resultant noise levels within the balconies are acceptable and whether further mitigation measures are required.

41 Planning conditions should be included on the decision notice to cover the following items: demolition and construction noise and vibration; indoor ambient noise levels; building services plant noise emission limits; noise from retail uses; and reasonable practical noise mitigation measures for balconies and other external amenity areas.

42 Although PPG24 is no longer current the London Housing Design Guide continues to measure suitability of sites for single aspect units against Noise Exposure Categories (NEC). As such no single aspect units should be provided in NEC C or D. As such a noise assessment needs to be submitted which sets out the NEC categories for the site. Sustainable development

Climate change mitigation

43 The applicant has followed the energy hierarchy and is proposing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32%, thus exceeding the London Plan requirement, which is welcomed. The development will reduce regulated carbon dioxide emissions marginally (less than 1%) below those of a 2012 Building Regulations compliant development through energy efficiency alone. A 210 kWe combined heat and power plant is proposed and, will provide 32% carbon dioxide savings. The applicant has investigated connection to the Barkantine district heating network (DHN) which is in the vicinity of the development. However, discussions with the network operator indicate that there is not and will not be, in the foreseeable future, any spare heat capacity to serve the proposed development. This is accepted however, the applicant should provide a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available. The applicant should confirm that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies but is not proposing to install any renewable energy technology for the development. This is acceptable in this instance.

page 7 Climate change adaptation and flood risk

44 The Flood Risk Appraisal (FRA) confirms that the site is within Zone 3. The FRA also confirms that the site is protected from flooding to a high standard by the Thames Barrier and associated river walls.

45 Residential accommodation is to be located from the third floor and above and therefore is not at risk of being inundated although the ground floor and basement would be at risk of any over-topping or breach of flood defences. Therefore the proposals need to consider the residual risk of flooding.

46 The FRA makes a generic assessment that the risk of inundation to the site is low, based on the Tower Hamlets strategic flood risk assessment and does not propose any residual risk management options. This approach is not acceptable and is not in line with London Plan policy 5.12 and may lead to a conclusion that the Exceptions Test has not been passed. This is of particular concern as in any flood event large parts of the Isle of Dogs may be under water and it is likely that anyone occupying the development would need to remain in the building, possibly for some time. Anyone within the basement areas may be at particular risk.

47 Therefore it is important that the development addresses the residual risk of flooding, especially given the presence of basement parking areas. Such measures should include:

 Subscription to the Environment Agency Flood Warning Service;  Drawing up a flood emergency plan for each building;  Providing safe refuge within the buildings as it is unlikely that a suitable dry access route will be available in the event of a flood;  Ensuring that the buildings remain safe and comfortable in the event of a flood, this should include ensuring that all utility services can be maintained operational during a flood, for example by placing vital services, such as electricity supplies, lift power and control gear, in flood-proof enclosures;  A sump within the basement to aid the removal of floodwater

48 Relevant measures should be specified and secured by an appropriate planning condition in order for the development to comply with London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood Risk.

49 The drainage strategy states that surface water from the buildings roof areas will be discharged directly to the West India Dock South without attenuation. This is acceptable in principle especially as some of the roof areas will be living roofs and will attenuate some rainwater, however rainwater harvesting opportunities should be investigated.

50 It is proposed to discharge rainwater from hard landscaping areas to a Thames Water Surface Water sewer with attenuation tanks limiting the discharge to a Greenfield 5l/s rate. It is not clear why these areas cannot also discharge into the adjacent dock, with suitable pollution prevention measures for any areas that may be used for vehicle access.

51 This point should be clarified in order to comply with the London Plan Sustainable Drainage hierarchy contained within Policy 5.13. These measures should then be secured via an appropriate planning condition.

Transport

Trip Generation & Site access

page 8

52 At pre-application stage TfL requested that a schedule of committed developments be included within the assessment, as well as justification as to why particular sites were chosen from the TRAVL database to establish the likely trip generation. This has been provided as part of the transport assessment and therefore, TfL is satisfied and has no further issues with respect to trip generation methodology and assessment output.

53 The access to the site was also discussed in detail at the pre-application stage and TfL requested that a Stage 1 safety audit be submitted to ensure the proposed ramp and new junction access are both safe and accessible. This was not received and remains outstanding.

Parking

54 The development proposes 102 car parking spaces for the 792 residential units at a ratio of 0.12 spaces per unit. This includes 10 Blue Badge spaces along with 20% active and a further 20% passive provision of electric vehicle charging points (EVCP). TfL welcomes the low level of car parking proposed, in line with London Plan policy 6.13 Parking, however further discussion is needed regarding the level of blue badge spaces. Whilst it is understood that the provision of 80 spaces in line with London Plan policy is unlikely to be practical in this instance some spaces in addition to the 10 proposed should be capable of future conversion to blue badge spaces. The applicant has confirmed that three of the blue badge spaces would be in an area of the basement with 2.6m clearance to allow the use of wheelchair hoists and this is welcomed.

55 TfL supports the proposed car parking management plan (CPMP) and requests this is secured by condition. However, TfL has concerns regarding the suggested option for residents to purchase car parking spaces. TfL requests commitment from the applicant to lease the spaces instead thus allowing for future flexibility.

56 TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to investigating the viability of providing a car club on the site and recommends if successful, all residents are offered free membership for the first year as a travel plan measure to encourage sustainable travel. Discussions with car club operators are strongly encouraged.

57 A total of 838 cycle parking spaces have been proposed for the development, with 824 allocated to the residential units, including 20 for visitor parking, and the remaining 14 for commercial, retail and cafe uses.

58 The proposed number of spaces is in accordance with London Plan policy 6.9 Cycling. However, following discussions held at pre-application stage, TfL has concerns over the type of cycle parking provided and seeks clarification that all 838 cycle parking spaces will be free of charge for residents.

59 TfL welcomes the proposed showers and changing facilities, however requests confirmation that these facilities will be available for all staff to use to encourage sustainable travel.

Buses

60 The transport assessment states that the development will not result in an unacceptable impact on local buses given the anticipated 1% increase in bus patronage. TfL however does not consider the methodology used to assess existing services capacity to be accurate as it is based on the maximum capacity of the bus network in both directions. TfL plans the network to a ‘planning capacity’ which corresponds to circa 80% of the total available capacity in each direction. This allows for daily fluctuations and growth over the lifetime of a contract. Furthermore, TfL considers

page 9 the bus demand generated by the development as a proportion of spare capacity that is most relevant. There is currently a capacity problem on Westferry Road northbound in the morning peak. This is partly due to the impact of various developments that have been implemented on the Isle of Dogs and especially in the Millennium Quarter.

61 The trips generated by this development plus other developments are likely to exacerbate the existing situation and generate a need for further capacity on the bus network beyond that already funded by contributions secured from other completed developments. As such, and in line with the approach taken by TfL for other developments, a financial contribution of £475,000 is requested towards bus impact mitigation in line with London Plan policy 6.2 Providing Public Transport Capacity and Safeguarding Land for Transport.

Docklands Light Railway

62 The development site is in close proximity to the DLR tracks and to ensure that the proposed works do not compromise the safe and effective operation of the DLR network and associated structures TfL requests that conditions be attached to any planning permission in order to safeguard DLR infrastructure. These suggested conditions were detailed in TfL’s response to the Council.

63 TfL requests that the applicant provides real time information boards as part of the development. These should provide information on departures and service updates for local bus, London Underground, DLR and river service departures. The boards should be situated in a communal area, in a prominent and accessible location to encourage the uptake of sustainable transport modes in line with the London Plan policy 6.1 ‘Strategic Approach’. TfL requests that a sum of £40,000 is secured within the section 106 agreement for this purpose.

Cycling & Walking

64 TfL welcomes the submission of a pedestrian environment review system (PERS) audit and understands that the results confirm the surrounding area to be of a high quality environment for pedestrians. However the Council should agree, secure and implement any improvements identified as a result of the audit through the section 106 agreement.

65 TfL requests the applicant contributes towards the implementation of Legible London signage within the immediate vicinity of the site. Legible London is a way finding initiative to encourage walking and cycling. It should be noted that the approximate cost for a pair of signs is £15,000.

66 Due to the scale of the proposed development, and subject to acceptable cycling provision, it is not anticipated that the proposals would have a substantial negative impact on the cycle hire docking stations in close proximity to the site or the cycle hire scheme. However, TfL is keen to encourage uptake of the scheme among residents and users of the building and requests that robust measures be included in the travel plan to encourage uptake of the scheme. This should include provision of information about the scheme in residents’ and employees’ information packs, references in marketing materials, and the funding of a year’s membership for each resident. TfL considers that this would be sufficient to satisfy the applicants’ requirement to facilitate the cycle hire scheme as set out in the London Plan policy 6.9 Cycling.

page 10 Travel Planning

67 TfL welcomes the full workplace and residential travel plan submitted in support of the application, this has passed the ATTrBuTE assessment tool and should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

68 The delivery and servicing plan (DSP), requested at the pre-application meeting was submitted with the application which is welcomed. TfL recommends this is approved by the Council in consultation with TfL prior to occupation. TfL further requests that its submission should be secured through planning condition.

69 At the pre-application stage TfL also requested that a construction logistics plan (CLP) be submitted in support of the application. Although one was not received, the application does make reference to the CLP being prepared in accordance with TfL’s guidance. Considering the location of this development, the potential of using the River Thames for construction should be investigated within the CLP, although it is understood that it is likely that the CLP cannot be finalised prior to a contractor being appointed for construction.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) & Crossrail Obligations

70 In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3, Community Infrastructure Levy, the Mayor commenced CIL charging for developments permitted on or after 1 April 2012. It is noted that the proposed developments are within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, where the Mayoral charge is £35 per square metre Gross Internal Area (GIA). Further details can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayoral-community-infrastructure-levy

71 London Plan Policy 6.5 and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ (July 2010) set out the mechanism for contributions towards Crossrail. The SPG states that contributions should be sought in respect of proposals for uplifts in floorspace for office, retail and hotel uses in central London where there is a cumulative uplift in such floorspace of more than 500 sq.m. This application proposes such an uplift, and the charge would be as follows:

Land Use Existing Proposed Net change Crossrail Crossrail (sqm) (sqm) (sqm) charge per charge sqm Office 0 0 0 £186 £0 Retail 0 701 701 £119 £83,419 Hotel 0 0 0 £82 £0 Total Crossrail charge payable on commencement to TfL £83,419

72 The applicant should note that the Mayor’s CIL charge will be treated as a credit towards the section 106 liability and therefore only the larger of the two amounts will normally be sought. Notwithstanding this, Tower Hamlets Council should include the full Crossrail sum of £83,419 within the section 106 agreement.

page 11 Summary

73 In summary, TfL requests contributions towards bus capacity of £475,000, real-time information boards and Legible London signage, and that the necessary Crossrail SPG charge/CIL is secured, along with any improvements identified in the PERS audit. A Stage 1 Safety Audit for the access ramp and confirmation of type of cycling parking is also requested for the development to comply with the transport policies of the London Plan. Local planning authority’s position

74 Local planning authority officers are currently assessing the application. Legal considerations

75 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

76 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

77 London Plan policies on land-use principle, urban design, tall buildings/views, world heritage sites, inclusive design, housing, affordable housing, child playspace, density, noise, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and transport are relevant to this application. The application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms however further discussion is needed on the issues set out below:  Principle of development: Whilst the provision of a residential led development of this site is supported in principle further discussion is needed regarding the provision of social infrastructure in the wider area and associated section 106 contributions.

 Affordable housing: Further discussions are needed on viability, the level of affordable housing and off-site provision.

 Noise: A noise assessment needs to be submitted which sets out the NEC categories for the site.

 Sustainable development: the applicant should provide a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available. The applicant should provide confirmation that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. Further discussion and commitments are needed regarding flooding and drainage.

page 12  Transport: Contributions should be provided towards bus capacity, real-time information boards and Legible London. Any improvements identified in the PERS audit should be funded. A stage I safety audit for the access ramp should be carried out and confirmation of the type of cycle parking should be provided.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Emma Williamson, Case Officer 020 7983 6590 email [email protected]

page 13