130-134 Pennington Street, Wapping in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Planning Application No

planning report PDU/2827/02 14 December 2011 130-134 Pennington Street, Wapping in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/11/01278

Strategic planning application stage II 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 Redevelopment of 134 - 140 Pennington Street to provide a mixed use hotel (class C1), apart- hotel (sui-generis) and retail (class A1) building with publicly accessible courtyard together with provision of vehicular and pedestrian access. The applicant The applicant is Al Mubarakia Ltd., and the architect is Dexter Moren.

Strategic issues The matters raised in the previous report relating to urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport, have been addressed through submission of further information, revisions to the proposals and the use of planning conditions.

The Council’s decision In this instance Tower Hamlets Council agreed a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date.

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

1 On 18 July 2011 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. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1B(c) of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “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… outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

page 1 2 On 24 August 2011 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2827/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 72 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 73 of that report could address these 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 27 October 2011 Tower Hamlets Council agreed a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within 20 working days of receipt of the Mayor’s stage two report, and on 5 December 2011 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 the 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 18 December 2011 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 fully comply with the London Plan; but that the following possible remedies could address these deficiencies:

 Inclusive access: Further information on the proposed ‘adaptations’, accessibility of the suites and availability of blue badge parking is required. In addition, the pedestrian ramp requires further detailed consideration to ensure the development is meeting the highest level of accessibility.

 Sustainable development: The applicant should confirm the reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions at each tier of the hierarchy as well as the overall savings, expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum and percentages, relative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development need to be addressed. The applicant should also seek to introduce further urban greening, and agree to a planning condition to secure any proposed sustainable drainage solutions.

 Transport: Further information is required in relation to the location of and access to cycle parking, coach parking and servicing impacts on the bus and highway networks, trip distribution. Transport for London would also welcome further discussion with regard to the section 106 mitigation measures towards cycle and walking improvements, bus and highway networks.

6 Paragraphs 7 to 17 below, detail how these issues have been addressed. Urban design

page 2 7 Following the stage one report and comments from Tower Hamlets Council and English Heritage, the applicant has submitted revisions to reduce the impact of the massing of the proposal. The changes are welcome and are as follows:

 Redesign of Chigwell Hill Elevation to vertically orientate hotel windows;  Refuse store ventilation louvers redesigned to align with the hotel windows above;  Entrance canopy raised to double height;  Roof plant area has been significantly reduced;  Plant screen revised to be open at the base for ventilation allowing closer proximity to plant equipment;  Retail entrance repositioned to be accessed from The Highway & associated retail level change;  Gym terrace and associated balustrade removed;  Curtain walling glazing revised to reflect rhythm of hotel windows below;  Additional planters added to stepped seating within the piazza;  Street access removed for aparthotel duplex units fronting Pennington Street;  Aparthotel columns on Pennington Street revised from concrete to dark brown terracotta cladding;  Low concrete wall on Pennington Street revised to terracotta baguettes.

8 In response to the comments relating to the use of materials and the impact that this had on the bulk of the proposal, the applicant has commented that the intention is to create a solid brick building in the context of local character and in keeping with Tobacco Dock and it is noted that this approach is supported in the Tower Hamlets committee report. As such, the impact on the heritage setting of the development is acceptable and a condition has also been applied to allow Tower Hamlets Council to test the materials on site prior to construction. Further detail has also been provided in response to the proposed glass link bridge and this element has now been assessed as acceptable. The applicant has also demonstrated that the concerns raised previously relating to privacy and active frontages have been addressed.

9 As such, all urban design issues have now been resolved.

Inclusive access

10 At the previous stage, further information was requested in relation to the level of ‘adaptations’ to ensure accessibility of the suites and the availability of blue badge parking. The applicant has since confirmed that it is proposed to provide 11 fully accessible bedrooms (5% of provision), with a further 12 suites capable of adapation (5% adaptable). This has been secured by a planning condition and meets the London Plan requirement for 10% of the bedrooms to be wheelchair accessible. The applicant has also noted that one disabled parking space will be provided on site, located adjacent to the main entrance on The Highway and this is welcome.

11 In relation to the proposed ramp as part of the public piazza, the applicant has provided further information to demonstrate that an accessible route is provided for wheelchair users through the building, with alternative lift access. It has stressed that this is a proposed landscape feature rather than an accessibility measure, as it is not possible to create a fully Part M of Building Regulations compliant accessible ramp in this location due to the two metre level change. Tower Hamlets Council has also attached a planning condition to ensure that a full access management strategy is submitted to deal with issues such as directional signage, clear legibility of alternative accessible routes through the building for public, signage and wayfinding inside the building.

12 However, concern remains at the proposed use of slanted steps alongside the ramp and although the applicant has included planters to better separate the steps from the ramp, it is not clear that this is a fully inclusive and safe solution for a new area of public realm. In response to

page 3 these concerns, the following condition has been attached to the draft decision notice to allow an opportunity to review the use of slanted steps at the detailed design stage:

“Condition 6: Notwithstanding hereby approved, a full detail design of the public piazza and the access ramp and its relationship with the steps shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to superstructure works commencing on site. Such detailed design should ensure the space is easy and safe to be used by all.

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and maintained as such thereafter.”

13 As such, all matters relating to accessibility and inclusion have been adequately addressed. Sustainable development

14 Following comments made in the stage I report, further information relating to the Energy Strategy has been submitted in relation to the energy efficiency standards. These elements are now acceptable and the following planning conditions have been proposed to secure the energy strategy for the proposal:

Condition 19

“A minimum of 200 sq.m of photovoltaic panels (Annual power output 750kWh per kW peak output) shall be installed within the development hereby permitted. The renewable energy technologies shall be implemented in accordance with the proposals made in the ‘Energy Strategy Report dated 4th October 2011’ and retained for so long as the development shall exist.”

Condition 20

“A heat network supplying all spaces within the Pennington Street Development shall be installed and sized to the space heating and hot water requirements of the Development, and shall have the following characteristics:

It shall be operational prior to the full occupation of the development and shall thereafter serve all spaces within the Pennington Street Development. It shall be supplied with heat from either:

 An external district heating system; or

 Heat generating plant installed in a single energy centre located within the Pennington Street Development and that upon completion of the scheme includes combined heat and power capacity of at least 135 kWe. The CHP system will be designed to allow future connection to a future district heating scheme.

The energy efficiency and decentralised energy technologies shall be implemented in accordance with the proposals made in the ‘Energy Strategy Report – 4th October 2011’ and retained for so long as the development shall exist.”

15 A planning condition has also been proposed to secure the sustainable drainage solutions. As such, the climate change elements have now been suitably addressed.

page 4 Transport for London’s comments

16 At Stage 1, in order to mitigate the impact of the development, a £223,000 contribution towards the Mayor’s Cycle Hire scheme was requested, and this was agreed with the applicant. Tower Hamlets Council has, however, resolved to reallocate this sum towards social and community infrastructure. Further to this, subsequent information submitted by the applicant has highlighted a conflict between an adjacent permitted docking station on The Highway and the layout of the proposed hotel entrance. In light of this, the applicant has agreed to pay Transport for London’s (TfL) abortive costs associated with securing permission for the docking station which, on balance, is considered reasonable.

17 The applicant has agreed to contribute £15,000 towards the Legible London scheme and suitable arrangements have been agreed regarding the provision of disabled parking spaces, coach drop-off facilities and the location of visitor cycle stands. The layout of the proposed vehicle/taxi layby at the front of the hotel has also been agreed. Appropriate planning conditions and section 106 obligations have been agreed to secure a travel plan, delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan, as well as local pedestrian improvements.

18 In summary, TfL considers the development to be acceptable in transport terms. Response to consultation

19 The application was advertised through the use of site and press notices. In addition, consultation letters were sent to 572 neighbouring properties. Four responses were received in response to the consultations, two in support of the proposal and two providing comment on the need for construction impacts to be mitigated and for contributions to be sought for the immediate local area. The London and Middlesex Archaeology Society objected to the scheme on the grounds that it does little to preserve or enhance the character of the adjacent conservation area. These issues have been adequately dealt with in section 8 of Tower Hamlet’s committee report and do not raise any strategic planning concerns.

20 Statutory consultees responded as follows:

 English Heritage: supports the application following revisions to the roof plant but requires planning conditions.

 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority: no objection.

21 Planning conditions have been attached to the decision notice to address English Heritage’s concerns. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

22 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 the 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

23 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

page 5 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. The Mayor must also have regard to the guidance set out in GOL circular 1/2008 when deciding whether or not to issue a direction under Articles 6 or 7. Financial considerations

24 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.

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

26 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

27 The matters raised in the previous report relating to urban design, sustainable development and transport have been addressed through submission of further information, revisions to the proposals and the use of planning conditions.

28 There remains some concern at the proposed use of slanted steps, although provision has been made to address this issue at the detailed design stage through the use of a planning condition.

page 6

planning report PDU/2827/01 24 August 2011 130-134 Pennington Street, Wapping in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/11/01278

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

Strategic issues The principle of the development in this sensitive location is broadly supported, however, further work, revisions, and commitments are required with regard to urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport, to address outstanding concerns.

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 71 of this report, however, that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 72 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 18 July 2011 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 26 August 2011 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(c) of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “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… outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

page 7 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 is located within the City Fringe Opportunity Area and is bounded to the north by The Highway, Pennington Street to the south, Wapping Lane to the east and Chigwell Hill to the west. The site is located adjacent to the ‘St George in the East Conservation Area’ and the Grade1 listed Tobacco Dock is located immediately opposite the site on Pennington Street. There are also numerous listed buildings in the vicinity of the site, in particular, the Grade 1 listed St George’s in the East church is located on The Highway, opposite the proposed development site.

Figure 1: the proposed development site (source: Design and Access Statement)

6 The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of commercial and residential uses and is currently undergoing some regeneration. The former Tobacco Dock warehouse is currently vacant, although it was previously in a retail use. There have been several new developments in the immediate area, including a new flatted residential development which has been constructed which is located opposite the site on the corner of Wapping Lane and The Highway. Further along Wapping Lane a new residential development extending to nineteen storeys and containing 380 residential units was granted planning permission in 2008 and is currently under construction. In addition, the News International site is located on Pennington Street and consent was granted in 2010 for a comprehensive refurbishment and remodelling of the existing buildings on this site.

7 The site is bounded by Chigwell Hill to the west, Pennington Street to the South, Wapping Lane to the east and A1203 The Highway to the north. The Highway is part of the Transport for London road network. Cycle Superhighway 3 (CS3) can be accessed 210 metres north of the site on Hall Street. Four bus routes; 100, ELW, 339 and D3 serve the site, with stops that are located no more than 560 metres away. Shadwell stations, providing services on the DLR and Overground are 330 metres to the northeast of the site. Furthermore Wapping station (Overground) is located 560 metres south and the Tower Hill/ Gateway interchange (DLR, Circle and District lines) is

page 8 located 960 metres to the southwest. The site records a public transport accessibility level of 4 (within a range of 1 to 6, where 6 is classed as excellent).

Details of the proposal

8 The proposal is as follows: a hotel of 242 bedrooms, 63 serviced apartments (in separate blocks on Chigwell Street and The Highway), with a Class A1 retail unit at ground floor. The blocks are proposed to be linked by a six storey atrium which provides a visual link from Pennington Street and the new piazza to the St George’s in the East church on The Highway.

Figure 2: the proposed development (source: Design and Access statement)

9 The proposal also includes a pedestrian route from The Highway through to the new public piazza in addition to 80 cycle spaces at ground floor, with 2 disabled car parking spaces accommodated on Pennington Street for hotel guests. Case history

10 Planning permission was granted in March 1997 by the London Docklands Development Corporation (ref- T/96/0026) for the redevelopment of the site for retail, multi-screen cinema, car park, leisure, storage and servicing and a tunnel beneath Pennington Street to Tobacco Dock.

11 The pre-commencement conditions associated with the permission were discharged by the applicant in August 2002 and the planning permission was implemented through basement piling. The extant planning permission remains capable of being constructed. However, it should be noted that any new planning permission on this site will need to comply with changes in planning policy at both strategic and local levels since this permission was implemented. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

12 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Tourism/visitor infrastructure London Plan; Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (DCLG)

page 9  Opportunity Areas London Plan  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Inclusive access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Transport and parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

13 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 and the London Plan 2011.

14 As the proposed application site is located within the City Fringe Opportunity Area, the Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance City Fringe Action Area Plan (adopted 2007) and the draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2008) are also relevant material considerations, in addition to the draft Planning and Design Brief which was issued for the site in July 2010. Principle of development

15 London Plan Policy 4.5 seeks the provision of a further 40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms in the period up to 2031, to support London’s growth and development as a global tourist and business destination and also sets out that it is necessary to recognise the need for apart-hotels in the context of the broader policies of the Plan. The London Plan states that beyond the Central Activities Zone, capacity for this additional provision should be identified within town centres, and in other locations such as Opportunity Areas, subject to these sites having good public transport access, to central London, and other national and international transport termini.

16 The proposed hotel and apart-hotel is located within the City Fringe Opportunity Area, in line with London Plan policy 4.5. The proposed development site is also located nearby to Shadwell Station which is served by the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and to London Overground services and Wapping Station which is also served by the DLR. In addition, several bus services can be accessed from The Highway, which runs adjacent to the site, as such there is no strategic concern with the principle of hotel and apart-hotel development on this site.

17 In addition, the draft Planning and Design Brief prepared as part of the pre-application discussions by Tower Hamlets Council sets out that hotels and serviced apartment uses are appropriate land uses for the site, subject to a demonstrable need. A hotel demand study has been submitted in support of the application which notes that there is continued demand for hotel rooms and apart-hotels in both the City of London and Canary Wharf. But, given that the proposed development is located between these two prime demand generating areas, the study sets out that “a unique product will need to be created at Tobacco Dock providing sufficient appeal to its potential customer base to drive demand” and that the target market will need to be “willing to substitute prime location for a fresh and fun hotel that offers more attractive rates than those located within close proximity to… the City or Canary Wharf.” It is therefore, vital that the applicant is convinced of the viability of the proposal, particularly given the uncertainty relating to the future use of Tobacco Dock and the reliance on this as a demand generator. As Tobacco Dock is also under the ownership of the applicant, it is suggested that further information be provided as to the intended future purpose of this site.

page 10 18 For monitoring purposes, Tower Hamlets Council will also need to ensure that the proposed 242 hotel bedrooms are counted towards its total proportion of the required 40,000 new hotel rooms in London to be delivered by 2031 and that the provision of an apart hotel in this location will not impact negatively on delivery of housing in the borough. A planning condition will also be required to limit the duration of stays to a maximum of 90 days in the apart-hotel to ensure that the provision of apart-hotel accommodation does not impact on the strategic objective of increasing London’s housing supply (London Plan policy 3.3 ‘Increasing housing supply’. The proposed ancillary retail use is acceptable in line with London Plan policy 4.8 ‘Supporting a successful and diverse retail sector’.

19 There is no strategic concern relating to the principle of the proposed hotel, apart-hotel and retail uses on this site, provided the applicant is convinced of the commercial viability of the scheme and provisions are made to limit the duration of stay within the apart hotel element. Urban design

20 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan (2011) and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within chapter seven which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 7.1 ‘Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities’ sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage and World Heritage Sites, views, the public realm and the Blue Ribbon Network. New development is also required to have regard to its context, and make a positive contribution to local character within its neighbourhood (policy 7.4 ‘ Local character’).

Layout and views

21 The area is a mix between the original fine grain development, monolithic Victorian industrial remnants and post-war redevelopment, dominated by News International, Tobacco Dock and St George-in-the-East. While the two Grade 1 listed buildings to the immediate north and south of the site (St George-in-the-East and Tobacco Dock, respectively), are important in terms of the local context, they do not have a historical relationship with each other. However the protection of their setting is vital, and preservation and enhancement of local views should be maximised to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 7.8 ‘Heritage assets and archaeology’ which sets out that “development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail”.

22 The proposal offers a good response to the enhancement of views by creating a visual link between the buildings, via a glass atrium in the building. This is supported; however its execution is compromised by the occurrence of internal footways at every level, which restricts the views available. An alternative solution would be to provide an additional core from the reception level to the western building, removing the need for a footway at all levels.

23 The solid perimeter edge to the north is supported. This replicates the strong perimeter edge form of historic development along the Ratcliffe Highway. A setback has been added to the building line to accommodate a taxi drop-off zone. The additional space that this provides responds positively with the gardens opposite, and also provides a slightly better setting for the scale of the building. The position of the plaza at the rear of the building is supported, providing a setting for the Tobacco Dock entrance. As noted within the access section below, the applicant will need to provide additional details to demonstrate that the proposed level change is accessible.

page 11 24 The internal layout of the hotel and serviced apartment elements is logical and would provide a reasonable standard of accommodation for visitors. The applicant and eventual occupier should ensure that the meeting rooms provide an active frontage onto The Highway by remaining visually permeable from the street; some landscaping in this area would improve the setting and provide a level of privacy for users of these rooms.

Figure 3: the proposed development view from Pennington Street (left image) and The Highway (right image) (source: Design and Access Statement).

Height, scale and mass

25 When viewed from the north, the building appears as a monotlithic form, drawing its cues from similar historic and modern development within the area. This is in contrast to the finer grain development to the north of The Highway and in pockets surrounding the site. Much of the larger-form development is relatively recent, having been created as a result of single land ownership during the gentrification of the docks. The result is that many of the buildings occupy full blocks or frontages, resulting in an impression of significant scale, and depending on the treatment, massing.

26 It is debatable whether scale and mass of the proposed building would have a positive relationship to the listed buildings. The proposal responds to the form of more recent development. However while the proposed building would not detract in views of the listed buildings from the viewpoints assessed as part of the planning application, its scale would be significant. The applicant notes that historic wharf-related buildings on Pennington Street also have a significant mass and scale, but these do tend to have smaller proportions. In this case, the scale of the proposal is appreciably larger than others in the immediate vicinity. The extrusion of the footprint to seven or more storeys would also result in the building having a significant mass. The height of the building is slightly, but appreciably, larger than its immediate neighbours. These factors, combined with the proposed use of materials (as discussed below), would combine to offer the impression of the proposed development appearing overly ‘bulky’.

27 While this is not necessarily to the detriment of the setting of the listed buildings, the building would be out of context with its surroundings and care will need to be taken to address this in line with London Plan policy 7.6 ‘Architecture’ which sets out that “buildings and structures should be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances, activates and appropriately defines the public realm”.

page 12 Figure 4: View west from Pennington Street along Wapping Lane (source: Design and Access Statement)

Appearance

28 The concepts underpinning the materials are appropriate. However the application of the materials over the scale proposed appears unrelenting, especially on the northern and western facades. This is a result of the application of the ‘cigar box’ treatment over large areas of the facade, with minimal relief, and is accentuated by the scale and massing of the building. Other areas of the facade appear to be reserved for hotel signage – these are currently empty brick panels that contribute to the impression of large scale massing and the applicant should provide further images to detail where the signage is proposed on the frontages.

Figure 5: view south from The Highway along Wapping Lane (source: Design and Access Statement)

29 While there are some areas of inactive frontage at street level, these are generally minimal and occur at level changes.

page 13 Internal guest experience

30 Paragraph 4.30, in support of London Plan Policy 4.5, seeks to ensure that new visitor accommodation is of a high quality, and positively contributes to visitors’ impressions of their time in London, in order to encourage repeat visits. Although there are no adopted London Plan standards for hotel room quality, every opportunity should be taken to ensure that guests within the hotel are offered the best possible standard of accommodation. The plans submitted indicate that all of the guest rooms and apart hotel suites have external views and this is supported. A small minority of rooms would be at or close to street level directly facing onto Chigwell Hill, which could result in noise and privacy concerns for occupiers of these rooms. 31 The applicant should also ensure that corridors between lifts and rooms are as easy and as direct as possible. The routes across the bridge link will need to offer easy-opening mechanisms for passengers with luggage. The provision of three lifts within the central core and two for the apart- hotel should manage the expected demand effectively.

32 There are concerns that the proposal is bulky in terms of its scale and massing, and that the proposed use of materials further exacerbates this. In addition attention is required to improve the frontages onto The Highway and the appearance of the glass atrium which links the two main blocks. The proposals should therefore be revised in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 7.1, 7.6 and 7.8.

Inclusive access

33 London Plan Policy 7.2 ‘An inclusive environment’ seeks to ensure that proposals aim for the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum), and that the design process has considered how everyone, including disabled and deaf people, older people, children and young people, will be able to use the places and spaces that are proposed. The GLA strongly recommends that the Council requires an accessibility management plan to be secured by condition, in order to ensure the development meets the highest standards of inclusive design, and is appropriately managed and maintained in terms of access and inclusion.

34 The applicant is proposing to provide two wheelchair accessible rooms on each of the six floors which are located in close proximity to the lift core and a further twelve accessible suites which (24 rooms in total). This would meet the strategic minimum 10% target for the provision of wheelchair accessible hotel rooms, and is supported in accordance with London Plan Policy 4.5 ‘London’s visitor infrastructure’. However, the design and access statement sets out that “hotel rooms will be capable of being adapted in future to meet accessibility standards” and it is unclear from this statement whether the rooms to be provided will, in fact, be fully accessible. The applicant should indicate what adaptations are likely to be required in order to make these rooms accessible. In addition, from the plans provided it is not clear that the bathrooms provided in the suites will be fully accessible and a detailed plan of the suite rooms (and bathroom in particular) is therefore requested.

35 London Plan Policy 6.13 ‘Parking’, and Table 6.2, outlines the requirements for car parking within development proposals to meet the needs of disabled people. The development as a whole is proposed to be ‘car-free’ and as such, no car parking spaces are provided on site for disabled users. Instead it is proposed that disabled guests will use the public car park located to the south of the site on Wapping Lane. As such, the applicant should provide the following information to ensure that this is a truly inclusive option:

 Is the proposed public car park fully accessible?

page 14  Is the route between the car park and the hotel fully accessible (i.e. flat and level, with a direct route)?

 Are there blue badge spaces available for long stays in the car park? If not, is the applicant able to negotiate blue badge spaces within this public car park for the exclusive use of the hotel?

36 The pedestrian routes to and through the hotel should ensure full and easy access for all users. The design of the proposed pedestrian ramp through the site raises a number of concerns with regard to providing a fully inclusive and accessible pedestrian environment. The applicant should confirm the gradient of this ramp and if possible, this should be a gentler gradient than that of Wapping Lane in order to provide a true alternative route.

37 Although it is acknowledged that this ramp and staircase arrangement is primarily intended as a piece of landscaping within the public piazza, the long ramp and tapering steps are far from best practice in terms of inclusive design for all users (regardless of whether an accessible approach is also provided). If the tapering steps are primarily intended as seating, then it is considered that more accessible seating could be provided, with a clearer differentiation between this and the ramp element. This proposal as submitted is visually confusing for all users and the use of steep tapering steps merged with a slope and planting containers is a particular concern for visually impaired users and families with small children. The applicant should reconsider this approach to ensure all elements of the proposals are fully accessible and compliant with London Plan policy 7.2 ‘An inclusive environment’.

Figure 4: the proposed ramp in public piazza (source: Design and Access Statement)

38 In addition, the use of a revolving door for the main hotel entrance, while in line with Part M of the building regulations does not represent the most inclusive approach to accessing the building and should be reconsidered.

39 At present the proposal does not fully comply with London Plan policies 7.2 or 6.13 and resolution of the issues outlined above is required. In addition, further information is required to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 4.5.

Sustainable development

40 London Plan climate change policies, set out in Chapter 5, collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change, and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. London Plan Policy 5.2 sets out an energy hierarchy for assessing applications, London Plan Policy 5.3 ensures future developments meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, and London Plan policies 5.9-5.15

page 15 promote and support the most effective climate change adaptation measures including passive thermal regulation, urban greening, and water management.

Energy efficiency

41 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 energy efficient lighting and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery. Based on the information provided, the proposed development appears to be approaching 2010 Building Regulations. Instead of using 2006 regulations, the applicant should model, and use 2010 Building Regulations compliant modelling to demonstrate compliance through energy efficiency alone to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 5.2 ‘Minimising carbon dioxide emissions’.

District heating

42 The applicant states that are no existing district energy schemes within the neighbouring areas which would be suitable for connection to the site. The applicant has however provided a commitment to ensuring the boiler plant and heating systems are designed so that that is can connect to future district heating schemes. The applicant should confirm the size and location of the plant room to allow officers to fully assess the scheme against London Plan Policy 5.5 ‘Decentralised energy networks’.

Combined heat and power

43 London Plan Policy 5.6 ‘Decentralised energy in development proposals’ requires proposals to evaluate the feasibility of combined heat and power (CHP) systems, and paragraph 5.37, in support of this policy, states that CHP systems must be designed to run efficiently and be optimally sized. A 135kWe CHP unit is proposed to provide the development 70% of the site’s total combined district hot water and space heating requirements.

44 A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 209 tonnes per annum 24% will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

45 Officers note that the energy strategy would appear to indicate that the CHP plant would only be used to supply a proportion of the hot water requirements of the hotel. However, the applicant should optimise the CHP plant so that it contributes not only to the development’s hot water demand, but also provides a proportion of the development’s space heating and pre-heating requirements of the ventilation air, prior to considering renewables, in line with the principles of London Plan policies 5.2 and 5.6.

Cooling

46 A combination of shading measures will be implemented to reduce overheating risks / cooling consumption including solar control glazing and vertical shading.

Renewable technologies

47 London Plan Policy 5.7 requires that, within the framework of the energy hierarchy, development proposals should provide a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through the use of onsite renewable energy generation. In response to this the applicant has proposed 200 sq.m. of solar water heating panels to meet the development’s renewable requirement. Under this proposal, a reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 20 tonnes per annum (2.4%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

page 16 48 The use of CHP and solar thermal are not compatible technologies at they both compete for the same base load. Instead, the applicant should reconsider making a similar photovoltaic (PV) commitment (200 sq.m) as PV is more compatible with CHP. Drawings showing the roof area potentially available for PV should be provided as an appendix to the strategy.

Energy assessment summary

49 Taking into account the comments above, the applicant should confirm the reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions at each tier of the hierarchy as well as the overall savings, expressed in tonnes of CO2 per annum and percentages, relative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

Urban greening

50 London Plan Policy 5.10 seeks to promote and support urban greening, such as new planting in the public realm, and green infrastructure, to contribute to the adaptation to, and mitigation of, the effects of climate change. The applicant is strongly encouraged to seek to incorporate further urban greening, wherever possible, to soften the nature of the proposal, and mitigate its contribution to the urban heat island effect.

Sustainable drainage

51 London Plan Policy 5.13 seeks to ensure that development utilises sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), unless there are practical reasons for not doing so, and aims to achieve greenfield run-off rates. The applicant is strongly encouraged to seek to incorporate sustainable drainage measures on the site. Transport

52 In view of the good accessibility level of this site, Transport for London (TfL) welcomes the car free approach, save for disabled provision. Nevertheless, in order to prevent overspill parking and to encourage more sustainable modes, occupiers of the development should be prevented from obtaining an on street parking permit through the section 106 process.

53 The provision of 20 employee cycle parking spaces is welcomed by TfL as it would accord with London Plan policy 6.9 ‘cycling’. This should nevertheless be reviewed once staffing levels are set.

54 Five cycle parking spaces are to be provided for visitors to the development. This is broadly welcomed, however TfL requests confirmation of their actual in order to ensure that all cycle parking spaces are secure and easily accessible.

55 In order to facilitate the expansion of the mayor’s cycle hire scheme in accordance with London Plan policy 6.9 ‘Cycling’, TfL requests a contribution towards the implementation of a footway docking station directly adjacent to this site. Further discussions are therefore welcome with respect to this matter.

56 The proposal suggests the use of the existing bus stop on The Highway for use as a coach drop-off and pick-up area. However if coaches were to use this stop in connection with this development, it will block the nearside lane for westbound traffic on The Highway. Therefore in order to avoid disruption to traffic flow on The Highway, a heavily trafficked part of the TLRN and to ensure smooth traffic flow in accordance with London Plan policy 6.11 ‘smoothing traffic flow’, TfL requests that only the servicing area on Pennington Street is used to accommodate coach

page 17 drop-off and pick-up. The servicing area may have to be extended to accommodate both servicing vehicles and a 15m coach at the same time.

57 In addition, there is a bus stop on Wapping Lane, which may have to be temporarily suspended during construction. When it is reinstated, the developer should provide it with a bus cage. This cage could provide an alternative location for coaches to drop-off/pick up and therefore avoid traffic delay on The Highway.

58 The transport assessment predicts 55% of public transport trips will be undertaken by the DLR. However, TfL is concerned that the condition of the walking routes to the nearest DLR stations are not of a standard that will encourage the use of this mode. TfL believes this will ultimately lead to visitors avoiding walking to the station and instead use the bus services that are located more conveniently to the site. TfL therefore considers that unless walking routes to the DLR stations are upgraded by the developer and the public realm is enhanced, DLR or Overground trips should be reassigned to the bus network with appropriate mitigation to be assessed on this basis.

59 Assuming that trips have not been reassigned to the bus network, the size and nature of this development would not generate the need for a contribution to mitigate its impact on the bus network. However, this matter should be reconsidered subject to any changes to the agreed mode split.

60 TfL considers the proposed hotel and apart-hotel may create a significant increase in demand for taxis and private hire vehicles. TfL welcomes further discussion with the developer in order to determine whether a taxi rank is required.

61 TfL considers that the provision of two vehicular accesses from The Highway to enable a left-in, left-out arrangement is acceptable in principle. The access should nevertheless be laid out as a shared surface in order to ensure footway capacity would be maintained.

62 A crossing point has been proposed on the western side of The Highway/ Wapping Lane junction. TfL considers this not to be feasible due to its close proximity to the proposed vehicular entrance point and bus stop. It would require the introduction of ‘all red phase’ for traffic at the junction, which would cause further delays to traffic on the highway network.

63 In order to manage travel demand and in accordance with London Plan policy 6.3 ‘Assessing the capacity of development proposals’, TfL welcomes the submission of a Travel Plan. The travel plan should be secured by section 106 agreement.

64 TfL are satisfied that servicing will take place from Pennington Street. In order to manage demand on the network, it is requested that a full Delivery & Servicing Plan (DSP) should be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the site in line with the London Plan, Policy 6.14 ‘Freight’. The plan should be secured via Section 106 agreement.

65 TfL also request a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) to be submitted and approved by both the local authority and TfL prior to construction work commencing on site. TfL requests that construction vehicle movements should be carefully planned and co-ordinated to avoid the network peak where possible to minimise traffic impact to the TLRN. In order to safeguard traffic flow, all construction vehicles must be capable of entering and exiting the site at access/exit point away from the Highway in forward gear. The developer will also need to discuss the impact on bus infrastructure and services during construction with TfL.

page 18 66 The developer will be required to enter into a s278 agreement with TfL to undertake any works on the TLRN to include, but not restricted to the following: renewal of footway around the site, provision of an at-grade vehicular crossover for the taxi drop-off; provision of a formalised central reserve on The Highway; install a bus cage on Wapping Lane.

67 As stated above TfL requests that subject to the outcome of any assessment of the pedestrian environment leading to the nearest DLR station, the developer should contribute towards such improvements. TfL also requests a contribution of £15,000 towards the provision of Legible London wayfinding in order to encourage walking, particularly amongst occupants of the hotel and apart hotel.

68 TfL also welcomes further discussions with regard to any section 106 mitigation that has been identified. Local planning authority’s position

69 The Council is understood to support the principle of development on this site but is in the process of reviewing the application. Legal considerations

70 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

71 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

72 London Plan policies on employment, visitor infrastructure, opportunity areas, urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Principle of development: The principle of a hotel and apart-hotel development at the site, within the boundary of the City Fringe Opportunity Area, is supported in line with London Plan Policy 4.5. Retail use is supported in line with London Plan policy 4.8.  Urban design: There are a number of outstanding concerns relating to the scale and bulk of the massing and the impact on the heritage setting of the development that need to be addressed to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 7.1, 7.6, 7.8 and 4.5.

page 19  Inclusive access: There are several matters which require resolution to ensure the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion are met, in line with London Plan Policy 7.2 and parking policy 6.13.  Sustainable development: Several matters require further resolution to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10 and 5.13.  Transport: Further work is required by the applicant in order to comply with London Plan policies 6.9, 6.11, 6.10, 6.13 and 6.14. 73 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:

 Urban design: The applicant should address the comments made in the urban design section of this report relating to the scale and bulk of the massing and the impact on the heritage setting of the development.  Inclusive access: Further information on the proposed ‘adaptations’, accessibility of the suites and availability of blue badge parking is required. In addition, the pedestrian ramp requires further detailed consideration to ensure the development is meeting the highest level of accessibility.  Sustainable development: The applicant should confirm the reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions at each tier of the hierarchy as well as the overall savings, expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum and percentages, relative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development need to be addressed. The applicant should also seek to introduce further urban greening, and agree to a planning condition to secure any proposed SUDS. Transport: Further information is required in relation to the location of and access to cycle parking, coach parking and servicing impacts on the bus and highway networks, trip distribution. TfL also welcomes further discussions with regard to the section 106 mitigation that have been identified towards cycle and walking improvements, bus and highway networks.

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] Shelley Gould, Case Officer 020 7983 4803 email [email protected]

page 20