planning report D&P/1995b/01 25 February 2014 Heron Quays West 2 (1 Bank Street) in the Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/13/03159

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

The proposal Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the demolition of the existing buildings and structures and construction of a building of up to 191.5m AOD (approximately 34 storeys), comprising a maximum of 129,857 sq.m. of office use (Use Class B1) and a maximum of 785 sq.m. of retail (Use Classes A1-A5), along with a decked promenade to West India Dock South, access and highway works, landscaping and other incidental works.

The applicant The applicant is South Quay Properties (a subsidiary of Group), the agent is DP9, and the architect is Adamson Associates International.

Strategic issues The principle of an office-led development is supported in strategic planning terms, however further information is required on London Plan policies in relation to mix of uses, urban design, tall buildings, strategic views, climate change, and transport. Policies on employment, the Blue Ribbon Network, historic environment, and inclusive access are also relevant to this application.

Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 67 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 21 January 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 3 March 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.

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

 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 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 one or more of the following descriptions— (c) the building is 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 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 Quays West 2 (HQW2) site, also referred to as 1 Bank Street, includes both land and water areas. The land portion of the site currently comprises the western part of a temporary landscaping site that extends across the wider previously consented Heron Quays West site (Ref PDU/1995/02). The temporary permission for the landscaping (Local authority ref PA/11/03796) expired in December 2013 and an application for an extension is being considered by Tower Hamlets Council. The site also extends into the water of West India Dock South, on the south side of the site. To the east lies the recently consented Heron Quays West 1 (HQW1) site.

7 The site is bounded by West India Middle Dock to the north, West India Dock South to the south, temporary landscaping to the east, and Westferry Road to the west. Within the site boundary is Heron Quays Road/Bank Street, including a security check point to enter the Canary Wharf Estate; two three-storey office buildings, to be demolished, including their piles in the water of West India Dock South; and the Grade I listed West India Middle Dock wall.

8 The red line boundary overlaps that with the consented HQW1 proposal. This is because both proposals include the two three-storey buildings that are to be demolished, allowing each proposal to be implemented ahead of the other, according to market demand.

9 The nearest section of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is the A1203 Limehouse Link, located approximately 550m to the north-west. Heron Quays Docklands Light Railway (DLR) station and Canary Wharf London Underground station (Jubilee line) are located approximately 220m and 320m to the east of the site respectively. Canary Wharf station, approximately 450m to the northeast, is currently under construction, with services due to begin in 2019. Five bus routes (135, 277, D3, D7 and D8) operate within 450m of the site, with the nearest stops located on Bank Street. The site is also accessible via the Thames Clipper services from the at . There are also three Cycle Hire Docking Stations located in close proximity, with the nearest located by Heron Quays DLR station. As

page 2 such, the public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of the site is 5, on a scale of 1-6 where 6 is the highest.

Details of the proposal

10 The application seeks outline planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site to provide a new building of up to 191.5m (AOD) (approximately 34 storeys or 185.5m above ground), with an approximate maximum GEA of 135,606sq.m. and a minimum GEA of 82,761sq.m. The building will be predominantly for office use (Use Class B1) but will potentially include some retail floorspace (Use Class A1 – A5). It will also have the potential for basement car parking, on-site servicing and a decked promenade to the West India Dock South, as well as works to Bank Street.

11 Publically accessible external space will be provided at ground level around the building to the north, south and west, while access to the east will be considered alongside implementation of the outline consent for the neighbouring HQW1 site.

12 All matters are reserved for future determination; however the application establishes the parameters for the scheme and sets 35 Design Guidelines for future development. In order to test the parameters, illustrative schemes are set out in the applicant’s Design and Access Statement.

13 The proposal takes account of the neighbouring recently consented HQW1 proposal (Ref. D&P/1995a/02) and provides the option for the buildings to be joined at podium level as part of a Reserved Matters application. In addition, the overlap allows the demolition of the two existing office buildings on the site to be implemented as part of either of the development proposals, regardless of which site is developed first. An application for non-material amendments to the consented scheme at HQW1 will be submitted to the Tower Hamlets Council in due course to ensure that the HQW1 scheme could be implemented in tandem with the proposal for HQW2.

14 The Design Guidelines maintain a minimum gap between the buildings of 13.92 metres, although this would not necessarily be to ground floor level as a low level podium could be included between the buildings. The Design Guidelines also ensure a pedestrian promenade deck around the building over West India Dock South.

15 The Grade I listed West India Middle Dock wall will remain unaffected by the proposal.

Case history

16 In April 1992, a planning application (Local authority ref. T/92/0010) was granted for the redevelopment of the site, together with part of West India Dock South, comprising 134,705 sq.m. gross floorspace, consisting of 121,000 sq.m. of office space, 5,000 sq.m. of retail and a new park. This application included 32 metre extension into the Dock and rose to 130m. AOD. The application was subsequently renewed in 1997 for a further period of five years and was implemented by way of construction of the associated infrastructure. It therefore remains a live consent.

page 3 17 More recently, in April 2008 the former Mayor considered a planning application (Ref. PDU/1995/02) for redevelopment of the site for part-12, part-21 and part 33-storey office building, with three basement levels of retail floorspace and a subterranean pedestrian link to the Jubilee Place retail mall and Canary Wharf underground station, together with a four storey building for food, drink and education and training uses. This application covered a wider area, including the neighbouring HQW1 site to the east. On 25 March 2008, Tower Hamlets Council informed the former Mayor that it was minded to grant planning permission for the proposal and on 10 April 2008, the former Mayor advised Tower Hamlets Council that he was content for the Council to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take. Permission for that application expired on 17 December 2013.

18 On 17 June 2013, the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application covering the neighbouring HQW1 site for outline permission, with all matters reserved, for the demolition of the existing buildings and structures, and construction of a building of up to 130,642sq.m. (GIA) and 191.5m AOD comprising office (Use Class B1) and retail (Use Class A1-A5) uses, along with a decked promenade to West India Dock South, access and highways works, landscaping and other minor works. On 2 October 2013, Tower Hamlets Council were advised that the Mayor was content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take.

19 On 8 November 2013, a request was received for a pre-planning application meeting with the Greater London Authority for a proposal on the HQW2 site for an outline planning application (with all matters reserved) for the demolition of existing buildings and the development of a new building of up to 191.5m AOD, providing up to circa 135,000 sq.m. (GEA) of office (use class B1a) floorspace with retail floorspace, basement, car parking, service bay and decked promenade into the West India Dock South. On 6 December 2013, a pre-planning application meeting was held with the Greater London Authority at City Hall and on 13 December 2013 a pre-application advice report was issued to the applicant. This report concluded that the principle of the proposal was supported; however further information was requested at submission stage in relation to the scale and design of the building and the space around it, the principle of development, sustainable development, and transport. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

20 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Employment London Plan; Land for Industry and Transport SPG  Retail/town centre uses London Plan; draft Town Centres SPG  Mix of uses London Plan  Blue Ribbon Network London Plan  Tall buildings/views London Plan, London View Management Framework SPG  Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG; Housing SPG; London Housing Design Guide; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Historic Environment London Plan; World Heritage Sites SPG; Circular 07/09  Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  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  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

page 4  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

21 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 Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document (2013) and the 2011 London Plan (with 2013 Alterations).

22 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework.  The draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (2014).

Principle of development

Office/employment/retail

23 The site lies within the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area as defined in London Plan Policy 2.13 and Table A1.1, which states that the Opportunity Area has an indicative employment capacity of 110,000 additional jobs up to 2031. Furthermore, London Plan Policy 2.10 ‘Central Activities Zone (CAZ) – Strategic Priorities’ identifies the Isle of Dogs as a strategically important, globally- oriented financial and business service centre where London Plan CAZ policies apply. The applicant states that the proposal has the potential to deliver a maximum of between 5,565 and 9,130 net additional full-time equivalent jobs.

24 The site also lies within the Canary Wharf Major Town Centre, as defined in London Plan Policy 2.15 ‘Town Centres’ and Table A2.1, which supports speculative office development on the most efficient and accessible sites, as well as retail development in line with Policies 4.7 ‘Retail and Town Centre Development’ and 4.8 ‘Supporting a Successful and Diverse Retail Sector’.

25 The principle of an office led scheme has been established under the wider previously consented Heron Quays West schemes. The intention to seek outline permission in order to allow maximum flexibility and encourage early delivery is recognised in this location. In summary, the proposal for an office led development is consistent with London Plan policies and is supported in strategic planning terms.

Mixed use – housing contribution

26 London Plan Policy 2.11 ‘CAZ – Strategic Functions’, together with Policy 4.3 ‘Mixed Use Development and Offices’ require increases in office floorspace to provide for a mix of uses including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies in the London Plan. Paragraph 4.17 of the London Plan recognises exceptions to this can be permitted where mixed uses might compromise broader objectives, such as sustaining important clusters of business activity, for example in the north of the Isle of Dogs, noting that contributions to off-site housing provision should therefore be required.

page 5 27 It is recognised that both the wider previously consented Heron Quays West proposal (Ref. PDU/1995/02) and the recently consented HQW1 proposal (Ref D&P/1995a/02) accepted that a contribution to affordable housing was not required, as there would instead be significant contributions to transport and other infrastructure. At pre-application stage, the applicant was advised that each application will be considered individually on its own merits, regardless of agreements on other sites, although it was recognised that similar levels of contributions as that agreed on the HQW1 application may be acceptable for HQW2.

28 The applicant has provided a summary of the contributions it considers relevant to the application for discussion as part of Section 106 negotiations with the Council. These appear to be similar to the sums agreed for the HQW1 Section 106, including a Crossrail contribution of between £15.2M and £24.7M. The Council should keep GLA officers informed of Section 106 negotiations in order for it to confirm that contributions are sufficient to negate the need for an off-site housing contribution.

Construction into the dock

29 The London Plan identifies the ‘Blue Ribbon Network’ (BRN) as London’s strategic network of water spaces, including the River Thames, canals, tributary rivers, lakes, reservoirs and docks; alongside smaller water bodies. It recognises the strategic and multi-functional role of the network as a transport corridor; for drainage and flood management; as a source of water; for the discharge of treated effluent; and in providing a series of diverse and important habitats, green infrastructure, heritage value, recreational opportunities, important landscapes and views. Thus, from a strategic land use perspective, the principle of constructing out into the Dock should be assessed against London Plan BRN Policies 7.24 to 7.30.

30 Policy 7.28A ‘Restoration of the Blue Ribbon Network’ states that “development proposals should restore and enhance the Blue Ribbon Network by…(c) preventing development and structures into the water space unless it serves a water related purpose.” Similarly, London Plan Policy 7.30 ‘London’s Canals and other Rivers and Waterspaces’ makes specific reference to development alongside London’s docks, and requires such development to “protect and promote the vitality, attractiveness and historical interest of London’s remaining dock areas by (a) preventing their partial or complete infilling...”.

31 The proposal involves the partial infilling of West India Dock South and as such is raises potential conflicts with a number of the BRN policies and objectives in the London Plan. However, as the applicant states, both the 1992 permission and the wider previously consented Heron Quays West proposal (Ref PDU/1995/02), as well as the recently consented HQW1 proposal (Ref D&P/1995a/02) have permitted a similar incursion. The applicant also argues that the development will improve the quality, usability and accessibility of the waterspace as it will include a new decked promenade pedestrian route around the building, with significant amounts of active frontage at ground level, including the potential for restaurants and bars to be located overlooking the dock. This is in line with Policy 7.27A ‘BRN: Supporting Infrastructure and Recreational Use’, which states that “new access infrastructure into and alongside the BRN will be sought”.

32 In addition, as discussed above, the permission would provide a significant contribution to maintaining and enhancing Canary Wharf’s role as a leading centre of international finance and commerce and in turn London’s world city status. It is agreed that the building would provide high quality office accommodation with the potential for large trading floors, which meets the requirements of modern financial and business institutions.

page 6 33 Whilst these matters alone would not necessarily outweigh the potential harm to the policy objectives of the London Plan, it would not be reasonable or in the interests of good strategic planning to object to the current scheme on the basis of the partial infilling of the dock. However, great care should be exercised to ensure that the retained dock waterspace has good public visibility, high levels of active frontage and incorporate high quality landscaping and materials. The applicant should take account of the comments under paragraphs 37 and 38 in this respect.

Existing occupiers

34 With respect to the loss of the buildings currently on the site, the applicant has committed to work with the current occupiers to assist with relocation, which is welcomed. This should be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement.

Tall buildings, urban design, historic environment and strategic views

35 The proposed scheme was assessed at pre-application stage, where a number of issues were raised regarding the design implications of the proposed building parameters. As detailed below, some of these issues have not been fully addressed, which is disappointing. For a building of such height and prominence to be acceptable, the key issues raised need to be addressed.

36 The design of the proposed scheme is limited to key parameters defining a massing envelope for the site and a set of 35 Design Guidelines. The proposed building envelope allows for a 13.92 metre gap between the proposed building and the neighbouring consented scheme (HQW1). As stated at pre-application stage, there is concern that this distance will not be sufficient to allow the two buildings to be distinguished as separate, especially in oblique views, including a strategic view as discussed below. This is further exacerbated in that the parameter plan also allows for both buildings to be of the same height (185.5 metres above ground), which means that the two buildings may appear as a single large, overbearing mass, and will have a detrimental impact on strategic views (see below). The applicant should consider modifying the maximum building envelope to increase the minimum separation between the buildings, ensure they will be of a different height, or include a design guideline to ensure that the two buildings will be distinguished as separate. A combination of all three responses is encouraged in order for the parameters to be fully supported by officers.

37 The maximum building envelope also allows the creation of a wedge shaped open space to the west of the building. There is concern that there is no parameter or guideline to ensure this space does not become a leftover and underused space. Given the location and prominence of this space the applicant is required to either increase the 4 metre pinch point at the south of the space, in order to provide a better and more legible connection to West India Dock South, or ensure that the main entrance to the building will be located along this edge. Furthermore, it is noted that Design Guideline 15 states only that “consideration should be given” to setting back the south-west corner of the building at lower levels to improve the pedestrian environment in this area and views to West India Dock South, which does not secure this approach. Officers acknowledge that the illustrative landscape proposals for this area provided by the applicant are of a high quality, however this is not secured by the parameters or the Design Guidelines.

38 The inclusion of a retail element, although relatively small, is welcome as it will provide active uses at ground floor level. However, the parameters allow for there to be no retail uses, which would be detrimental to the surrounding public spaces and in particular to the decked route over the dock. The applicant should consider a minimum provision of retail use in the outline application.

page 7 39 London Plan Policy 7.8 ‘Heritage Assets and Archaeology’ seeks to ensure that development respects heritage assets. The West India Middle Dock wall on the northern boundary of the site is a Grade I listed structure. Although this is included within the site boundary, it will remain unaffected by this planning application. At the pre-application stage, the applicant had identified a section of the West India Dock South wall that will be decked over, as being Grade II listed; however, further investigation has revealed that the listing does not extend to this part of the wall and it is not therefore listed. Although the structure is not statutorily protected, it remains a heritage asset and consideration should be given to its treatment in the scheme. It is accepted that the wall will be decked over and will not be damaged by the proposals, however the applicant should ensure that the heritage asset remains visible. Consideration should be given to this in the Design Guidelines.

40 As per London Plan Policy 7.12 ‘Implementing the London View Management Framework’ and London Plan supplementary planning guidance ‘London View Management Framework’ (LVMF), the applicant has provided a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment that examines seven LVMF views, as well as a range of other views. This includes an assessment framework (‘Implementation Point 14’) as suggested in London Plan supplementary planning guidance ‘London’s World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings’. The Assessment states that if both HQW1 and HQW2 are built to the same height, that in the context of the cumulative schemes there would be no detrimental impact on strategic views. As detailed above, officers are concerned with this aspect of the Assessment in respect of LVMF view 5A.1 (Greenwich Park: the General Wolfe Statue), and the applicant should consider modifying the maximum building envelope to increase the separation between buildings, ensure they will be of a different height, or include a design guideline that will secure this. Inclusive access

41 The aim of London Plan Policy 7.2 ‘An Inclusive Environment’ is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, not just the minimum. Details included in the applicants’ Design and Access Statement and the inclusion of “Guideline 4: The Building will be designed with specific regard to disabled people” in the Design Guidelines indicates that the proposals conform to the requirements of London Plan policy in this respect. Climate change

Energy

42 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 solar control glazing and low energy lighting and controls. The demand for cooling will be minimised through solar control glazing and low energy lighting. The applicant has also confirmed that the cooling hierarchy will be followed during the detailed design process and that overheating analysis will be carried out to reduce the risk of overheating.

43 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 724 tonnes per annum (29%) in regulated CO2 emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. However these savings include savings from waste heat pumps. For the purposes of demonstrating compliance to the London Plan, heat pumps should be accounted for in the ‘Be Green’ tier of the energy hierarchy. The applicant should resubmit the figures demonstrating that Part L 2010 will be met by efficiency measures alone (excluding the heat pumps).

page 8 44 The applicant has identified that the Barkentine district heating network is within the vicinity of the development but is not proposing to connect to the network. Connection to the network should continue to be prioritised and evidence of correspondence with the network operator should be provided. Evidence should also be provided to demonstrate that opportunities for connection to nearby heating and/or cooling providers have been properly investigated. The applicant has provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available.

45 The applicant is proposing to install a site heat network. The site heat network will be supplied from a single energy centre. This will be located in the basement of the building. Further information on the indicative floor area of the energy centre should be provided.

46 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.

47 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 44kWp of solar PV on the roof (approximately 315sq.m.). A plan of the proposed installation at roof level has been provided. Further information should be provided on whether the installation is likely to be at risk from overshading (and therefore reduced outputs) from nearby buildings.

48 A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 18 tonnes per annum (1%) will be achieved through the ‘Be Green’ element of the energy hierarchy. As mentioned above, for London Plan purposes the savings associated with the heat pumps should be accounted for in this tier of the energy hierarchy.

49 Based on the energy assessment submitted, a reduction of 742 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development is expected, equivalent to an overall saving of 30%. The calculation should be resubmitted after addressing the comments above, this is required for monitoring purposes.

50 The on-site carbon dioxide savings fall short of the targets within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. The applicant should address the comments above and if there is little further potential for carbon dioxide reductions on-site, in liaison with the Council, the developer should ensure that the shortfall in carbon dioxide reductions, equivalent to 262 tonnes of CO2 per annum, is met off-site.

Climate change adaptation

51 London Plan Policies 5.9 to 5.15 state the requirements in relation to climate change adaptation. The applicant has provided a response to all of these policies in the Sustainability Statement, which is welcomed, although the outline nature of the proposals limits the detail that can be included at this stage. The proposal includes provisional green roof areas and flood storage reservoirs at basement level, with storm water discharge to the docks forming part of the drainage strategy agreed with the Environment Agency. The proposed responses to climate change adaptation do not raise any strategic issues and the Council should secure measures by condition.

page 9 Transport

52 TfL notes that the application is made in outline, with all matters reserved for future determination. The planning decision and any associated Section 106 agreement should therefore be constructed to reflect the need for mitigation relevant to the scale of development agreed at the reserved matters stage. The mitigation discussed below relates to the illustrative scheme as presented in the transport assessment, which assumes building out to the maximum development parameters proposed.

53 The development proposes a maximum of 107 car parking spaces for the illustrative schemes presented, and it is understood that all of these are intended for use by the office aspect of the development only. This equates to the provision of 1 space per 1,259 sq.m., and whilst TfL would strongly encourage a car-free development in recognition of the site’s highly accessible location and the existing low car mode share for the Canary Wharf estate, it is acknowledged that the proposals are within the maximum standards set by the London Plan. It is understood that this level of provision is based on the maximum amount of B1 floorspace being built out, and as such TfL would recommend that a suitable condition is attached to the grant of any planning permission linking the maximum amount of car parking to the total floorspace that is eventually built out, to ensure it remains London Plan compliant. The applicant’s commitments to ensuring that London Plan standards for blue-badge holder parking and electric vehicle charging points are met through the development are welcomed, and TfL expects these to be secured through planning conditions.

54 It is proposed that a minimum of 1,123 cycle parking spaces would be provided for the office element of the illustrative scheme with visitor parking spaces provided at ground floor level. This is in accordance with the London Plan and therefore supported. The number of spaces for the retail aspect of the development will be established once the exact mix of land- uses has been determined. Whilst this is supported, it is recommended that this requirement is secured by a suitably worded condition. In addition it is recommended that a minimum cycle parking ratio for each land use, in line with the London Plan standards, should be agreed as part of any outline planning permission, and be secured via a planning condition.

55 As demonstrated in the applicant’s transport assessment, the proposed development is likely to generate additional demand on the bus network in peak hours, particularly along the Westferry Road corridor, which currently runs in excess of its planned capacity. Without appropriate mitigation, capacity constraints on this corridor are expected to increase, considering the cumulative impact of future development on the Isle of Dogs. TfL requests that the applicant contributes towards such mitigation, in line with London Plan Policy 6.1. The cost of providing an additional journey in the peak hour equates to £90,000 per year, and whilst TfL would normally expect this to be pump-primed for a total period of 5 years, in accordance with that secured for the neighbouring development, TfL would in this instance be satisfied for this to be pump-primed for 3 years (or a total of £270,000). TfL therefore requests that such a contribution be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

56 As further detailed in TfL’s initial response to Tower Hamlets Council dated 11 February 2013, in order to accommodate the cumulative increase in trips arising from the proposed development alongside others in the vicinity, and improve accessibility, TfL considers that the facilities at Heron Quays station require upgrading. The cost of these works is expected to be around £550,000, and a contribution towards this is requested to be secured as part of this application. In line with what was secured from the neighbouring site, TfL would consider a contribution of £250,000 towards these works to be appropriate as directly related to the scale of impact, and would therefore request that this is secured through the Section 106 agreement. Furthermore, TfL requests that the applicant commits to installing real-time DLR departure

page 10 screens in communal areas of the development. These screens would show departures from Heron Quays station and allow users to accurately time their walk to the station. This should also be secured through a Section 106 agreement.

57 It is noted that a dedicated taxi drop off/pick-up lay-by facility is proposed outside the site on Bank Street. While this is supported, it is essential that sufficient space is provided so that passengers can safely board and alight taxis. Going forward, all proposed designs should be reviewed by TfL, Taxi and Private Hire, who will also be able to liaise with the taxi trade associations in relation to the location of the taxi rank and drop-off bays, and TfL would recommend that such a requirement be secured by condition.

58 As stated above, the area is well served by Cycle Hire docking stations, but these are currently operating close to capacity. Office workers account for a large proportion of the scheme’s users, and TfL considers that the proposed scheme will bring a high number of potential new users to the area. TfL continues to develop the network in Tower Hamlets, and considers that there is a need for a new 24-point docking station in the vicinity of the site to accommodate the increase in demand, at a cost of £185,000. Consistent with London Plan Policy 6.9 ‘Cycling’, TfL would therefore welcome a contribution from the applicant towards such a facility. Based on that secured from the neighbouring site, TfL would consider a sum of £70,000 to be an appropriate contribution towards the delivery of this, to be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

59 TfL welcomes the submission of a framework travel plan which is in accordance with TfL’s guidance. A full travel plan, specific to future occupiers, should be secured through the planning permission and agreed with Tower Hamlets Council. The draft Delivery & Servicing Plan (DSP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) prepared by the applicant are welcomed. The provision of the final CLP and DSP, and their implementation thereafter, should be secured through condition, to be approved by the Council prior to commencement/first occupation on site.

Community infrastructure levy

60 In view of the strategic regional importance of Crossrail to London’s economic regeneration and development, and in order to bring the project to fruition in a suitably timely and economic manner, contributions will be sought from development likely to add to or create congestion on London’s rail network that Crossrail is intended to mitigate. The approach for collecting contributions towards Crossrail is set out in the Mayor’s ‘Use of Planning Obligations in the Funding of Crossrail and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy’ Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Section 106 agreement should therefore be worded to reflect the requirement for a Crossrail contribution to be paid on commencement of development, based on the methodology outlined in the SPG. Whilst the final figure will be determined by the total scale of development approved at the reserved matters stage, the applicant is advised that the illustrative schemes would all attract a maximum contribution of £24,767,815.

61 In accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3, the Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater London. The Mayor’s CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail. The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands. The rate for Tower Hamlets is £35 per sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and the Council once the components of the development have themselves been finalised.

62 The applicant should note that London councils are also able to introduce CIL charges which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Tower Hamlets has yet to adopt a CIL, but the

page 11 Council has consulted on a draft charging schedule. Further details are available on Tower Hamlets’ website.

63 The Mayor’s CIL charge (but not the borough’s) will be treated as a credit towards the Section 106 liability. The practical effect of this will be that only the larger of the two amounts will normally be sought.

Local planning authority’s position

64 Tower Hamlets Council expect to take the application to Committee on 10 April 2014. Legal considerations

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

66 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion

67 London Plan policies on employment, mix of uses, the Blue Ribbon Network, urban design, tall buildings, strategic views, historic environment, inclusive access, climate change, and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Employment: The proposal for an office led scheme is consistent with London Plan policies and is supported.  Mix of uses: The proposed mix of uses is acceptable; however the Council should confirm the level of Section 106 contributions before it can be confirmed that these are sufficient to negate the need for an off-site housing contribution.  Blue Ribbon Network: While the proposal does not meet all of the policy objectives of the London Plan in this respect, taking into account the previously consented schemes and the benefits arising from the provision of high quality office floorspace in this location, it would not be reasonable or in the interests of good strategic planning to object to the current scheme on the basis of the partial infilling of the dock.  Tall buildings, urban design, historic environment and strategic views: The applicant should consider modifying the maximum building envelope in relation to the consented HQW1 scheme, including the effect on LVMF views; reconsider the approach to the wedge shaped open space to the west of the building in order to secure a successful design; and increase the minimum amount of retail space to be included in the scheme.

page 12  Inclusive access: The proposals conform to the requirements of London Plan policy in this respect.  Climate change: The applicant should provide a recalculation of emission reductions in line with the London Plan energy hierarchy; evidence of correspondence with nearby providers; more detail on the proposed energy centre; more information on potential PV overshadowing; and investigate opportunities to meet the shortfall in carbon reductions off-site.  Transport: TfL is satisfied that the proposed development could be considered to be in general accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan, subject to suitable conditions and Section 106 contributions.

68 The application does not yet comply with the London Plan, however the changes stated above could lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): 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] Martin Jones, Case Officer 020 7983 6567 email [email protected]

page 13