planning report PDU/2469/01 25 August 2010 Aberfeldy Estate

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (in the Borough of Tower Hamlets) planning application no.PA/01344/10

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

The proposal Estate renewal comprising the erection of 1,153 residential units (net gain of 855), 2,160 sq.m. live/work space and 3,115 sq.m. non-residential floor space comprising a mix of A1, A2, A3, A5, B8 and D1 uses, together with new landscaping, basement and surface vehicular and cycle parking. The applicant The applicant is Poplar HARCA, and the architect is Maccreanor Lavington Architects.

Strategic issues In this particular case the estate renewal raises a host of policy matters including proximity of the site to operational gas storage holders (hazardous installation), re-provision of existing affordable housing stock, housing mix, density, urban design and access, detailed design coding, climate change and transport.

Recommendation

That Tower Hamlets, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 113 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 115 of this report could address these deficiencies. The application does not need to be referred back to the Mayor if the Corporation resolve to refuse permission, but it must be referred back if the Corporation resolve to grant permission.

Context

1 On 22 July 2010, the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 1 September 2010 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he

page 1 considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 1A, 1B1c) and 1C1c) of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

1A “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats.”

1B 1c) “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 and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”

1C1c) “Development which - comprises or includes the erection of a building where…the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

3 Once the LTGDC 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 or allow the Corporation to determine it itself, unless otherwise advised. In this instance if the LTGDC resolves to refuse permission it need not refer the application back to the Mayor.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

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

6 The site covers 8.69 hectares and is located in Poplar, East London. The site is bounded by the multi-lane A12 approach to the west, and A13 East India Road to the south. Abbott Road links the two, bounding the east and northern parts of the estate, effectively creating an island development within these roads. Within the estate are a series of local roads, within which lie residential flats and houses, a school, community facilities and open spaces.

7 The proposed application site covers the majority of the above uses, but excludes the primary school. It includes 423 homes, of which 74% are affordable.

8 To the north of the site are industrial and residential developments adjacent to the River Lea. This includes the Poplar gas holders along Leven Road. To the south are substantial commercial developments on the fringe of the including existing and under- construction data centres, offices and vacant land. To the east lies the River Lea as it approaches the River Thames, and beyond that the Peninsula, which has been and is the subject of strategic planning applications for substantial residential-led mixed use development. To the west is the existing Brownfield estate, which includes the Grade II listed , designed by Erno Goldfinger.

9 Both the A12 and A13 form part of the Road Network (TLRN). East India (DLR) station is located 400m to the south. ( and DLR services) lies some 550m to the east. Four bus routes can be accessed within 400m, including route 309, which runs through the site, via Abbott Road. The public

page 2 transport accessibility level (PTAL) of the site varies between 3 and 4 (out of a range of between 1 and 6, where 6 is excellent).

Details of the proposal

10 Estate renewal comprising the erection of 1,153 residential units (net gain of 855), 2,160 sq.m. live/work space and 3,115 sq.m. of non-residential floor space comprising A1, A2, A3, A5, B8 and D1 uses, together with new landscaping, basement and surface vehicular and cycle parking. The layout of the existing estate and the proposed estate is shown below:

Figure 1 existing estate (source: design and access statement)

page 3

Figure 2 proposed layout (source: design and access statement) 11 The proposal seeks to relocate the main shopping frontage further south towards East India Dock Road. The rest of the blocks comprise a mix of perimeter blocks with a number of new open spaces. The blocks will range in height from 4 to 25 storeys with the majority of the blocks facing the A13 and the A12 ranging from 6-10 storeys. Family accommodation will be lower rise and located at closer proximity to community facilities and open space.

Housing proposals

12 The application seeks to demolish 298 residential units. Of these 92 units (334 habitable rooms) are private (purchased under the right to buy) and 206 (704 habitable rooms) are affordable social rented units. The proposed bedroom size mix is set out below:

Table 1 indicative bedroom size mix

1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4-bed 5-bed 6-bed total Social rent 30 93 103 42 49 18 335 (29%) Intermediate 27 23 15 15 5 0 85 (7%) Market 245 326 157 5 0 0 733 (64%) Total 302 442 275 62 54 18 1,153 (100%)

page 4 Table 2 total proposed habitable rooms/units comparison

Habitable rooms Units Social rent 1,381 (36%) 335 (29%) Intermediate 288 (8%) 85 (7%) Market 2,121 (56%) 733 (64%) Total 3,790 (100%) 1,153 (100%)

13 The proposal will be constructed over five phases. The decant process of those existing residents in the 298 units to be demolished will be housed either as part of the new proposals or in other nearby stock managed by Poplar HARCA. Case history

14 The site has been subject of pre-application discussion. GLA officers raised a number of matters including the principle of development in proximity to a hazardous installation, housing, design, climate change and transport. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

15 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EIP draft  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EIP draft  Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EIP draft  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Mix of uses London Plan  Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13;  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Equal opportunities London Plan; Planning for Equality and Diversity in Meeting the spatial needs of London’s diverse communities SPG; Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide (ODPM)  Tall buildings/views London Plan; RPG3A, Revised View Management Framework SPG  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  River Thames/flooding London Plan; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; PPS25, RPG3B  Historic Environment London Plan; PPS5

page 5 16 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 1998 Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

17 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation.  The draft Core Strategy (Submission).  The Leaside AAP (Interim guidance September 2007).  The Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework (Jan 2007).

Principle of development

18 Small scale redevelopment of the area around the estate is picked up in the current the adopted 1998 Tower Hamlets UDP and proposals map (site 90) with some stronger reference in the draft Core Strategy to enhancement of the Aberfeldy neighbourhood centre alongside housing estate regeneration, which is also carried through in the Interim Planning Guidance, Leaside Area Action Plan (Policy L1). At strategic level, reference is made in the Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework to the potential for mixed use retail and commercial to the south east corner of the site (Sub Area 12: Poplar Riverside).

19 Principle of estate renewal is therefore only mentioned in the context of enhancement to the ‘local centre’ (current UDP reference, now referenced as ’neighbourhood centre’ in the emerging Core Strategy). Whilst this is the case a fundamental consideration regarding the principle of estate renewal, at the densities proposed, relates to the presence of the adjacent gas holder hazardous installation.

Health and Safety Executive guidelines

20 At the time of writing this report the HSE has not issued a formal position regarding the proposed application. The HSE’s role is purely advisory and, unlike the Mayor’s powers, it has no power to direct refusal of planning permission. Although planning authorities have discretion over the weight they attach to the HSE’s advice, current government guidance to planning authorities says “in view of their acknowledged expertise in assessing the off-site risks presented by the use of hazardous substances, any advice from HSE that planning permission should be refused for development for, at or near to a hazardous installation or pipeline should not be overridden without the most careful consideration1”.

21 The HSE can make one of two recommendations to the local planning authority; either to ‘advise against’ the grant of permission or ‘do not advise against’ the grant of permission based on heath and safety grounds. In reaching its recommendation the HSE has regard to the ‘Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations’ (PADHI) methodology. This considers land use in the consultation zone around the hazardous installation.

22 HSE’s advice for mixed-use development is based upon the application as a whole. Whilst individual parts of the development such as employment and community use attract a ‘do not advise against’ recommendation, the residential part of the application is likely to attract an ‘advise against’ recommendation. For mixed use developments any ‘advise against’ decision automatically takes precedence. The advice from the HSE is currently unknown, however given the densities

1 Circular 04/2000: Annex A, A5, Planning controls for hazardous substances http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/155160.pdf

page 6 proposed that fall within the middle consultation zone (including the residential tower to the east) the application will receive an advise against recommendation. In anticipation of this recommendation from the HSE the applicant has produced a full quantified risk assessment (QRA) which considers the risk to health and safety posed by the gas holders.

Source: design and access statement

23 The conclusions of the QRA are summarised below (extract from the Planning Statement):

 “The individual risk at the new development site, and indeed at any location beyond the Inner Zone boundary, is lower than most other risks to which people are regularly exposed every day.

 The societal risk associated with the gas holder site is not considered to be Intolerable, and falls within the “tolerable if ALARP (as low as is reasonably practicable)” level as defined by the HSE for COMAH (control of major accident hazards) compliance.

 Redevelopment of the site in line with the proposed plans would result in a small increase of the societal risk compared to the existing situation, but would not make it “intolerable”.

 High performance glazing should be used on the most exposed faces of the blocks in Site A.11 which face the gas holder station.

page 7  When considering potential individual developments close to major hazard sites, the acceptability of the risks, either individual or societal, can only be judged by balancing the calculated risks with the socioeconomic benefits.

 HSE would wish to ensure that, if planning permission were to be granted in cases which are advised against by PADHI, local authority officers understand the risks, and HSE consider that they have therefore been fully addressed”

24 London Plan policy 4A.34 and draft policy 5.22 consider development in the vicinity of hazardous substances. Policy 4A.34 specifically states “The Mayor will and boroughs should take into account the presence of hazardous substances in making policies and determining applications that relate to the development of land in the vicinity of establishments where hazardous substances are stored”. Draft policy 5.22 also states “when assessing developments near hazardous installations a) site specific circumstances and proposed mitigation measures should be taken into account when applying the Health and Safety Executive’s Planning Advice Developments near Hazardous Installations (PADHI) methodology; and b) the risks should be balanced with the benefits of development and should take account of existing patterns of development”.

25 The conclusions of the QRA are broadly set out above with some mitigation proposed. The proposed pattern of development is similar to existing, however, in certain parts of the proposal, within the middle consultation zone, the density is higher than currently exists, therefore triggering an advise against recommendation. At this time, GLA officers require the comments from the HSE on the conclusions of the QRA. Furthermore the GLA may seek a qualified independent assessment of the QRA and the risks posed by re-development at the proposed densities. It is not clear the intended lifetime of the gas holders and the long term future and how this relates to redevelopment opportunities.

26 As such and given the proposal exceeds the development guidance set out in the HSE’s PADHI methodolgy; the HSE’s formal comments are required for this matter to proceed. The GLA wish to open further joint dialog with the relevant stakeholders with a view to a joint commission to verify the proposed risks in this instance. This process would need to be undertaken as a matter of urgency in order to ensure the broad conclusions can inform key decision makers, including the Mayor should the application be referred back to him for final determination.

Affordable housing

Estate renewal

27 Policy 3A.15 of the London Plan resists the loss of housing, including affordable housing, without its planned replacement at existing or higher density. Paragraph 3.75 of the London Plan gives further advice on the Mayor’s approach to estate renewal. This approach is carried through to the draft replacement plan in policy 3.13 (B) and paragraph 3.75. More detailed guidance is set out in Section 20 of the Housing SPG and policy 3.15 of the draft London Plan. This clarifies that there should be no net loss of affordable housing, which can be calculated on a habitable room basis and should exclude right to buy properties. Replacement affordable housing can be of a different tenure mix where this achieves a better mix of provision.

28 Private housing that forms part of estate renewal schemes need not provide the normal level of additional affordable provision as required by policy 3A.10, where this is necessary to cross subsidise redevelopment. This would need to be justified through a financial appraisal.

page 8 29 In this instance there is a net gain of 214 affordable units (965 habitable rooms). The numbers put forward clearly meet the policy aspirations for no net loss of affordable housing. Whilst this is the case the planning statement refers to the proposed mix and quantum as indicative. As such there must be clarity regarding the target quantum and housing mix, in particular the proportion of family units. Some flexibility can be built in at this stage, however there should be agreed minimum targets to establish a policy compliant approach to housing delivery and the principle of no net loss and priority to family housing in terms of housing bedroom size mix. These matters will need to be set out in the section 106 agreement and must be clarified before the application is referred back to the Mayor for a final decision.

30 The merits of the financial statement have not been underpinned by background assumptions and technical data that inform the costs and values being used. This material will need to be submitted to the GLA and if necessary, independently appraised at the applicant’s expense. In addition, the status of the live/work units needs to be clearly defined in the context of affordable housing provision. Further discussion on this matter is required in order to substantiate the current housing offer being proposed.

Density

31 Policy 3A.3 of the London Plan aims to maximise the potential of a site taking account of local context, London Plan design principles and public transport capacity. Table 3A.2 of the London Plan provides a framework for assessing density based on habitable rooms and dwellings per hectare. Policy 3.4 and table 3.2 of the draft London Plan moves away from maximising the potential of sites to optimising housing potential. The themes are similar but with a stronger focus on local context whilst retaining the principle considerations of design quality and public transport accessibility. The Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework (henceforth the Framework) sets out indicative density guidance for Poplar Riverside as 225-725 habitable rooms per hectare.

32 The site records a public transport accessibility level of between 3 (northern end) and 4 (southern end). The applicant advises that the existing estate has a density of 279 habitable rooms per hectare, rising to 340-450 to the southern part of the site. The context is predominantly urban in character. The applicant advises that proposed density on completion of the regeneration will be 440 habitable rooms per hectare. On a phased basis this is broken down as follows:

Source: Planning statement

33 Having regard to the circumstances of this site, the London Plan suggests a density in the range of 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare, which applies to the more accessible parts of the site. Less accessible parts would be at the lower end of this scale. It is unclear how the table shown above can result in a density of 440 habitable rooms per hectare across the site. The table would produce a site wide density of 834 habitable rooms per hectare across all phases. It is therefore unclear how the detail in the table has resulted in the calculation in the planning statement. In this context, the density of some specific phases goes significantly above the

page 9 guidance in the London Plan, as does the overall site density and it is unclear how local context has been a factor in the proposed approach.

34 In some exceptional cases a higher density may be considered acceptable where there are other strategic benefits associated with the application. The scheme should deliver an exceptional design, make generous contributions to affordable housing and family housing and deliver an exceptional approach to sustainability. Additionally, there should be open and amenity space and clear consideration to encouraging biodiversity and sustainable transport, amongst other matters including the relevance of local context. At this stage, the level of development and density calculation has not been justified and needs to be clearly tested.

35 The uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of these kinds of densities is further compounded by the concerns regarding the principle of development in proximity to the hazardous installation, which would seek a much-reduced density where the risk to health and safety is greater. This matter requires further independent testing. At this stage the current approach to density remains unclear and has not been justified. Urban design

36 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 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, tall and large- scale buildings, built heritage and views. The draft London Plan includes further detailed design policy in Chapter 7.

Master plan layout

37 The master plan layout uses some very well established urban design principles, however the success of the current proposed arrangement is limited and requires substantial re- configuration to ensure the delivery of a successful master plan.

New neighbourhood village

38 It is proposed that the heart of the new estate, comprising retail, community and faith uses will be relocated south, towards the A13. The new location takes the shopping frontage away from the centre of the estate, away from the key bus through route and further away from the key underpass link through to the Brownfield estate. The design logic is based on a failing shopping frontage as concluded in the design and access statement.

39 It is unclear how removing the passing trade from internal circulation will benefit the success of the retail component of the scheme. It is likely to have the opposite impact. For the retail provision to thrive it should be accessible via the main through route of the estate. It would appear that the only benefits of locating uses south relate to phasing and bringing the core shopping parade closer to the new A13 crossing. Whist these are relevant considerations, the successful functioning of the shopping area needs to be tested against the predicted movements in order to underpin this important design decision.

40 Aberfeldy St and general connectivity would benefit if the street was read as a complete regular street to the A13 rather than two distinct spaces comprising a square and then a street to the north. They should have a coherence of a regular London street.

page 10 41 Further consideration is therefore required regarding the location of the shopping parade as it is not clear that the proposed relocation would result in a successfully functioning local centre. As part of this re-appraisal, the number, size and mix of shop units need to be considered, alongside opportunities to ensure there will be passing trade to activate the shopping area.

42 The A12/A13 Junction should see significant pedestrian improvements as part of any development proposal to improve connectivity in the area.

Dee Street connection

43 The connections from the estate to the wider context is one of the most challenging aspects to creating a successful master plan in this case. At pre-application, officers suggested investigation of a possible bridge link across the A12 landing within the new estate at Dee Street, thereby linking to the Brownfield Estate. A straight bridge cannot be implemented without the removal of the block fronting Ettrick Street. The nature of the switch back ramp does however result in a complex and land hungry arrangement that has limited surveillance and would be very substantial and intimidating structure from the street. It creates a fairly hostile relationship that is unsuccessful and is likely to compromise the use of the open space that surrounds it at Dee Street. If such an option is pursued the bridge would need to be included in the construction of a building to enable it to minimise impacts to the public realm.

44 The bridge solution is therefore unlikely to create the desired benefits without compromise to the master plan. In this case, officers suggest focusing on improvements to the existing underpass on Dee Street, which leads into the Brownfield estate link and the Aberfeldy-River Lea- Canning Town link. The solution should look to creating a direct relationship from the underpass entrance to the crossroads at Dee Street and Aberfeldy Street, which should be the focus of the local shopping core. To achieve this there would need to be substantial excavation up to the mouth of the underpass. Improvements would also need to extend through to the Balfron Tower side and may be subject to heritage implications. This should be considered along with a management strategy, which would include proposed lighting and possible options for widening parts of the underpass, similar to the solution proposed at By Bow station.

45 The arrangement of blocks A.01 and A.02 in this part of Dee Street is not successful. The proposed arrangement results in a number of floating blocks where it is not clear which part of the building is the front and which is the back. This is important to the success of the street space in terms of the visual appearance, but also in terms of safety and surveillance. The layout needs further consideration to ensure a comprehensive solution is achieved similar to the rest of the master plan.

46 In terms of lighting, Dee Street needs to be considered as key to the master plan lighting strategy given it is a main route through the site.

47 The frontage onto the A12 is also unresolved. Investigation into raising the ground floor so it is level with the height of the A12 needs to be considered. A street relationship could be introduced with heavy planting to act as a buffer between the A12 and residential blocks.

Block onto Braithwaite Park

48 The park should benefit from a clean line of built form fronting the southern end, which would reflect the relationship of the western end along the existing row of terraced houses. As such the northern blocks to A.10 and A.11 should link to the existing block to be retained, and a break should be introduced further to the west to match the existing street pattern. This approach would frame the park as a key part of the estate.

page 11

Corner of Blair Street, Abbot Road and Oban Street

49 This junction is currently fairly successful and includes the curved route north to south through the existing A.11 block. This is likely to be a desire line from north to south and the retention of this route should be investigated, particularly with the introduction of the links to the River Lea via Oban Street.

Shadowing

50 The scale of buildings, in particular along Blair Street needs to be modelled to show the impact of seven storey blocks onto the north side streets and gardens. The existing buildings to the north comprise two storey terraces. The impact of introducing the new blocks should be modelled to show the extent of shadowing.

Street pattern

51 The arrangement of blocks has limited cohesion with the existing routes. Whilst routes do not necessarily need to line up, the legibility and permeability of the estate would be improved where this can be reasonably achieved. For example, the breaks in the blocks could be amended to line up directly with Wooster Gardens and Goodway enabling greater symmetry and permeability.

Principle of the residential tower

52 London Plan policy 4B.9 supports tall buildings where they “create attractive landmarks enhancing London’s character, help to provide a coherent location for economic clusters of related activities and or act as a catalyst for regeneration and where they are also acceptable in terms of design and impact on their surroundings”. The policy goes on to steer boroughs to identifying suitable locations for tall buildings and that these “may include parts of the CAZ and some Opportunity Areas”. Policy 4B.10 sets out the detailed design aspects of tall buildings.

53 Policy 7.7B & C of the consultation draft replacement London Plan moves away from active encouragement to careful management and covers various tests for the location and design of tall and large-scale buildings. Site specific guidance for Poplar Riverside is set out in the Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework. The Framework does not identify specific areas within the framework boundary for tall buildings, however, there is a presumption within the document (Paragraph 2.178) that such an approach may be suitable in certain cases where appropriate, subject to other policy tests.

54 In this instance, the principle of a tall building in this location needs further justification. The key existing landmark building is the 27 storey Balfron Tower designed by Erno Goldfinger. This is part of the adjacent Brownfield estate and is a grade II listed building. The other notable link to tall buildings is the planning permission for a range of towers on the former Pura Foods site on Leamouth Peninsula. In terms of identifying the appropriateness of a tall building on this site, the case is not entirely clear or justified. The cluster at the Peninsula is somewhat separate, physically and visually from the proposal site, and the Balfron Tower stands in most views as an individual building in its immediate context and not currently forming part of an existing or emerging cluster.

55 There are other taller clusters towards the River Thames including those at New Providence Wharf and around East India DLR, however, these are some distance from the proposal site. Further consideration is required to meet the policy tests in the London Plan and draft replacement London Plan.

page 12 56 Subject to the above the applicant will also need to justify the outline design approach to the architectural detail of the tall building. CABE and English Heritage guidance seeks that for buildings of this scale a detailed application should be prepared in order to fully assess the impact of tall buildings on the surrounding environment. The scale and form of the building appears unrefined and bulky, it also lacks elegance in terms of its massing. Further work is therefore required before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

Detailed design, access and coding

57 There is a considerable amount of indicative guidance regarding appearance and detail of the master plan. Elements of this work must be extracted to form a design and access code that will inform subsequent reserved matters applications. This would need to form one of the approved documents secured within the planning permission. This should inform, amongst other matters the following detail:

 block layouts (already shown in the parameters of the Design & Access Statement);  access points to blocks, key level changes;  possible number of cores (minimum and maximum);  location of steps/ramps;  example block study showing flat layouts;  key important links to be introduced;  single aspect units;  space standards (see London Housing Design Guide);  architectural appearance and detailed finish;  100% Lifetime homes and wheelchair accessible homes (conditioned);  Heritage considerations in the context of the conservation area and listed buildings.

58 A significant proportion of this work has been undertaken, for example that set out in page 98 and 104 of the ‘illustrative design and access statement’. This needs to form part of the approved documentation to give the Mayor confidence in assessing the proposals against London Plan design and access policy, emerging policy and emerging design guidance on housing and space standards. The GLA would welcome further discussion on the merits, scope and content of such a document/code.

Access and space standards

59 London Plan Policy 4B.5 (and draft replacement London Plan policy 7.2) requires proposals for development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum building regulation requirements). The most challenging aspect in respect of accessibility is the conflict of raising access levels to meet the mitigation required for possible flooding. For example, the residential entrances to block A.07 have been designed to cope with the flood defense issue with an indicative solution through a ramped access at the rear. This is a poorly executed design solution that will mean access to the building will be at the rear of the site for anyone unable to negotiate the stepped entrance.

60 This particular issue requires further work and should be considered as part of the design coding for reserved matters applications. Commitment to 100% lifetime homes and wheelchair accessible homes should be conditioned, and set out in the design code with flat layouts

page 13 illustrating the required standards. This should be linked into the space standards set out in the Mayor’s London Housing Design Guide. Open space and children’s play space

61 The London plan makes consistent reference to the protection and enhancement of London’s open spaces. Paragraph 3.262 states that “London’s distinctive network of open spaces, from the green belt to local play spaces should be strongly protected, made more accessible and enhanced”. Detailed polices to underpin this aspiration are set out throughout the plan but in particular in Chapter 3D. Specific policies include Policy 3D.8 ‘realising the value of open space and green infrastructure’ and Policy 3D.13 ‘Children and young people’s play and recreation strategies’. The latter is supplemented by the GLA SPG ‘Providing for children and young people’s play and informal recreation’ March 2008

62 Policy 3D .13 of the London Plan sets out that “the Mayor will and the boroughs should ensure developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 1,709 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 17,088 sq.m. of playspace.

63 The application proposes approximately 23,352 sq.m. of play space, which includes 14,200 sq.m. of existing space (existing Leven Road park and Millennium Green) which will be subject to upgrade and an additional 2,400 sq.m. of open space in the form of a new linear park (East India Green). Some of the locations, including Dee Street open space need further consideration and should form part of the wider master plan discussions as raised in the master plan comments. Dee Street open space is located in direct proximity to the A12, a poor environment for play space. As part of the Council’s objectives for the area in interim and emerging policy, open space delivery is key, including improving the links through the estate. The quantum of space appears on face value to be significant, however the ability to use each space effectively and how they will function in terms of the breakdown of age groups and real identifiable needs should be explored in discussion with the Council and other stakeholders.

64 In terms of delivery timing, the application is supported by a detailed phasing plan that clearly illustrates how, over the build out period, provision of play and open space will be met. In each case, through each phase, sufficient open and play space appears to have been identified. This is fully supported, but as above, the practicalities of access, need, target age ranges and equipment, should be further defined and should be secured as part of planning conditions to ensure the relevant areas are completed and usable prior to commencement of subsequent phases. Climate change mitigation

65 London Plan policies 4A.4 to 4A.7 require the submission of an energy demand assessment along with the adoption of sustainable design and construction, demonstration of how heating and cooling systems have been selected in accordance with the hierarchy and how the development will minimise carbon dioxide emissions, maximise energy efficiencies, prioritise decentralised energy supply, and incorporate renewable energy technologies, with a target of 20% carbon reductions from on-site renewable energy. These policy themes are further strengthened in Chapter 5 of the draft London Plan.

page 14 Baseline emissions

66 The baseline emissions have been calculated using benchmarks based on similar new build developments. Given the outline nature of the application, this is an acceptable approach. The regulated carbon dioxide emissions of the proposed development, based on a 2006 Building Regulations compliant development, have been estimated to be 3,504 Tonnes of CO2 per annum. An estimate of the unregulated emissions should also be provided. The total emissions at each stage of the energy hierarchy should be provided in tabular form.

Energy efficiency

67 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 requirements set by building regulations. Other features include natural ventilation, utilising the effect of thermal mass and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery.

68 A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 25% compared to the Target Emissions Rate of a 2006 Building Regulations compliant development will be achieved through the application of passive design and energy efficiency measures. This level of savings is supported. Assuming a 25% reduction, the development would emit approximately 2,628 tonnes of regulated carbon dioxide emissions per annum after the first element of the energy hierarchy.

69 The applicant should quantify the percentage savings on a whole energy basis, i.e. including regulated and unregulated, from energy efficiency alone.

District heating

70 No information has been provided on existing or potential district heating schemes in the area. The applicant should investigate district heating schemes with the vicinity of the proposed development. If there are no existing networks the applicant should commit to ensuring the development is equipped with the provision for future connection to a district heating scheme, should one be installed locally.

71 The applicant states that the only location for a centralised energy centre is on Leven Road which is in close proximity to the existing natural gas holders at Leven road gas works and poses a safety risk. They also claim that the eleven year phased construction timescale reduces the feasibility of a centralised energy centre.

72 Four separate energy centres incorporating gas fired CHP and back up gas boilers are therefore proposed over the four phases of the development.

73 The applicant should explore options that aim to minimise the number of energy centres. This should include consideration of whether the energy centres proposed for the early phases could be made sufficiently large to serve later phases. Details of the floor areas for the energy centres should also be provided.

74 The applicant should also provide a schematic showing how the community heating will evolve during phasing. A schematic of the communal heating network showing all buildings/uses connected into it should be provided as part of the energy assessment.

page 15 Combined heat and power

75 The applicant should provide more details on the proposed combined heat and power (CHP) plant including the size of the engines proposed (kWe/kWth) and demand profiles for heating, cooling and electrical loads. In line with the London Plan energy hierarchy, the size of the CHP should be optimised based on the thermal load profile before renewable energy systems are considered for the site. An estimate of the regulated carbon dioxide emissions per annum of the development after CHP has been incorporated, as well as the percentage carbon dioxide reductions in regulated emissions from CHP over and above those due to energy efficient design, should be provided. An estimate of carbon dioxide savings on a whole energy basis should also be provided.

Cooling

76 The applicant should provide a robust cooling strategy, which sets out measures that aim to minimise the need for active cooling systems. Where the use of natural and mechanical ventilation is not enough to maintain comfort levels, the applicant should identify areas where active cooling will be provided and should provide details of how this will be provided.

Renewable energy

77 The applicant has proposed installing 10 sq.m. of photovoltaic (PV) modules on the roof which would produce 1kW of peak power.

78 The applicant should provide drawings showing the amount of roof that is available within the development that could be used to install photovoltaic modules with suitable orientation and free of shading. The applicant should quantify the amount of roof area that could be used to install PV modules as well as the carbon dioxide savings that may be realised through the use of this technology.

79 An estimate of the regulated carbon dioxide emissions per annum of the development after renewables has been incorporated, as well as the percentage carbon dioxide reductions in regulated emissions over and above those due to energy efficient design and CHP, should be provided. An estimate of carbon dioxide savings on a whole energy basis should also be provided.

Summary

80 While the target to reduce overall emissions by 55% compared to 2006 Building Regulations is supported, further detailed evidence of how the technologies proposed will achieve such a reduction is required. Climate change adaptation

81 The London Plan promotes five principles in policy 4A.9 to promote and support the most effective adaptation to climate change. These are to minimise overheating and contribution to heat island effects, minimise solar gain in summer, contribute to flood risk reductions, including applying sustainable drainage principles, minimise water use and protect and enhance green infrastructure. Specific policies cover overheating, living roofs and walls and water.

82 Chapter 5 of the draft London Plan also considers climate change adaptation, specifically policies 5.9 through to policy 5.15. The application responds to some of the policy requirements including energy efficient design, solar gain and flood risk.

page 16 Overheating (Policy 4A.10)

83 The policy requires that developers should demonstrate how new development could be made heat resilient in terms of design, construction and operation. The energy strategy and design and access statement seeks a range of passive design measures. This should however be set out clearly in the design code having regard to the requirements of noise mitigation measures that may seek secure fixed windows on certain elevations. As such mechanical ventilation will be required in certain instances. This will need to be further developed having regard to the energy targets above and it should be clearly linked within the design coding to inform the reserved matters stages of the design.

Living roofs and walls (Policy 4A.11)

84 The policy expects these to be incorporated where feasible. There is provision of 2,350 sq.m. proposed. The target proposed should be set as a minimum across the renewal area. The Council should consider a condition to include green and brown roofs and walls wherever feasible.

Flooding (Policy 4A.13) and sustainable drainage (Policy 4A.14)

85 The approach to flood risk and surface water drainage is not clear. The site is at a significant level of risk with regards to the effects of a breach of the River Lea defences and subsequent flooding. Two main solutions have been considered:

A) Locating all ‘more vulnerable’ development on the first floor or above, with ‘less vulnerable’ development located on the ground floor;

B) Land raising immediately behind the breach location to ensure that failure of the River Lea flood defences would not result in flooding of the site.

86 The first has been discounted as the total area of proposed non-residential land use amounts to less than 50% of the available ground floor space. There would also be associated design disadvantages such as inactive street frontages access and failure to meet lifetime home standards.

87 The second option is to be pursued. It is however unclear how this matter has been progressed. Further update is required regarding this matter, including the comments from the Environment Agency and how this will be secured in terms of detailed design, drawings and planning conditions.

Water use (Policy 4A.16)

88 The policy sets a maximum water use target of 105 litres per person per day for residential dwellings. The policy seeks to maximise rainwater-harvesting opportunities and promotes the use of grey water recycling and dual potable systems. The applicant should commit to these technologies which should also be appropriately conditioned by LTGDC. Noise

89 London Plan policy 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes states that the Mayor will, and boroughs should reduce noise by, among other things, “minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals” and that new noise sensitive development should be separated from major sources of noise wherever practicable. This theme is carried through in policy 7.15 of the draft London plan.

page 17 The advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 24 (PPG24): Planning and noise is also relevant.

90 The application site contains several major sources of noise including road traffic noise from the A12 to the west and the A13 to the south. The residential parts of the proposed development will be particularly sensitive to road noise and mitigation will be required as appropriate.

91 It would be helpful to draw up a set of design principles, for example, a hierarchy of preferred mitigation methods for new housing where it will be subject to significant noise from existing sources – in order to ensure successful designs are achieved. This is an approach taken for other sites with similar constraints. The GLA would be happy to discuss such a hierarchy with the developers and both Authorities.

92 The Environmental Statement indicates that most of the new residential properties on the A12 and A13 stretch would be, on a worst case scenario basis, within PPG24 Noise Exposure Category (NEC) ‘C’ or ‘D’. PPG24 advises that in such cases, planning permission should normally be refused; similarly the London Housing Design Guide indicates that there should be no single aspect units where such noise conditions exist. Whilst it is not uncommon in London to grant planning permission for residential development in NEC ‘D’, this is normally where noise levels do not exceed the relevant thresholds by large margins, and in such circumstances, very high levels of sound insulation must be provided.

93 The application proposes to use sound insulation to protect new residential properties from unacceptable noise conditions. However, in line with London Plan policy 4A.20, it will be essential to fully explore the sort of design and layout measures e.g. placing habitable rooms on quieter facades, and only to use sound insulation when design measures alone are unable to achieve acceptable noise conditions, particularly as sound insulation can lead to issues with overheating.

94 There is sufficient flexibility in the application for these issues to be properly addressed at reserved matters stage, however at this stage these matters should be developed within the design coding. Where sound insulation is essential and windows need to kept closed, the need for ventilation systems (preferably passive) should be assessed. Air quality

95 London Plan policy 4A.19 Improving air quality states that the Mayor will, and boroughs should, achieve reductions in pollutant emissions and public exposure to pollution by, among other things, “improving the integration of land use and transport policy and reducing the need to travel especially by car” and “ensuring at the planning application stage, that air quality is taken into account along with other material considerations and that formal air quality assessments are undertaken where appropriate, particularly in designated Air Quality Management Areas.”. This is also reflected in policy 7.14 of the draft London Plan. This part of the borough is within an Air Quality Management Area.

96 A comprehensive assessment of the air quality impacts of the proposed development has been undertaken. The assessment methodology is appropriate and includes impacts from the construction and operational phases of the development, including construction dust and construction traffic emissions and emissions from the proposed energy centres.

97 A package of mitigation measures to reduce the air quality impacts of construction activity is proposed. This is acceptable. Detailed design considerations including the orientation of individual buildings and their proximity to areas where air quality is likely to be worst, may have a

page 18 significant impact on the emissions they are exposed to. Where reserved matters applications may significantly and adversely differ from those predicted in the environmental statement, screening will be required and further air quality assessments may be necessary. Transport for London’s comments

98 It is proposed to provide 400 car parking spaces as part of the redevelopment proposals, including two spaces for car club use. This level of provision is in line with the parking standards set out in London Plan Policy 3C.23 ‘Parking Strategy’ and draft replacement London Plan Policy 6.13 ‘Parking’, and is therefore acceptable. TfL would also encourage a minimum of 10% of all car parking spaces to be allocated to disabled drivers.

99 TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to submitting a supplementary paper providing details of a car parking management plan. This is required to ensure that parking will be managed and allocated in a way which prioritises sustainable transport. Future occupants of the site should be excluded from eligibility from any further local authority car parking permits, and this should be secured as part of a Section 106 agreement.

100 TfL expects the applicant to commit to meeting the requirements for at least 20% of all parking to be fitted with active electric vehicle charging points, as outlined in Policy 6.13 ‘Parking’ of the Mayor’s draft replacement London Plan. Passive provision should also be made available for all remaining spaces, to future proof the development. TfL expects this to be secured through planning condition.

101 Further details should be submitted regarding the level of cycle parking to be provided within the development. Nevertheless, TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to a condition which ensures that TfL cycle parking standards are met within each of the development phases and uses. TfL considers that a clause within the Section 106 agreement would, however, be more appropriate.

102 TfL urgently requires details of the trip generation organised by phase of development, as well as that for the non-residential modes on site. This will allow TfL to take a view on the likely impact of the proposed development on the transport network, throughout the 11 year build-out period. Overall, TfL is concerned that the applicant has currently underestimated the bus mode share whilst overestimating the walk mode share of the proposed development. There are also inconsistencies in the trip generation figures as presented in the applicant’s transport assessment, which should be addressed. Furthermore, TfL is not of the opinion that the actual level of car trips will relate directly to the level of car parking and further reasoning behind this methodology is therefore required.

103 The applicant’s transport assessment refers to the proposals for an at-grade crossing over the A13, linking the development site to East India Dock DLR, via Nutmeg Lane. TfL considers that the provision of this crossing is essential to enhancing the permeability of the proposed development site and the wider area. Given the strategic nature of the highway network, TfL does, however, consider that further traffic modelling is necessary to ensure that such a crossing is feasible and acceptable, particularly in light of the Mayor’s strategy for smoothing traffic flow on London’s strategic highway network. TfL recommends that the applicant enters into a Section 278 agreement with TfL (as highway authority) to deliver the crossing and welcomes further discussions with all interested parties in this respect.

104 Subject to refining the trip generation analysis as detailed above, TfL considers that the additional bus demand likely to be generated by the proposals in the context of other developments in the area will create the need for bus capacity enhancements. Based on initial

page 19 assessments, the cost for enhancing bus capacity is estimated to be £1.32m, and contributions towards its implementation should therefore be pooled from local developments. TfL would therefore welcome further discussions with the applicant with the aim of securing a contribution from the redevelopment of the Aberfeldy Estate, in line with London Plan Policy 3C.2 ‘Matching Development to Transport Capacity’ and draft replacement London Plan Policy 6.2 ‘Providing Public Transport Capacity and Safeguarding Land for Transport’.

105 In order to encourage the use of buses to, from and within the estate, and to promote inclusive accessibility to all users of the proposed development, TfL considers that the nearby bus stops refs. BP517, BP519, BP1655, BP3498, and BP516 should be improved to comply with TfL guidance, and the cost of this should be borne by the developer. This will ensure consistency with London Plan Policy 3C.20 ‘Improving Conditions for Buses’ and should be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

106 TfL would welcome further discussion with the applicant regarding a contribution towards the cost of further improvements considered necessary at East India DLR station, including the lengthening of platform shelters to increase boarding capacity. Provision should also be made available within the site for real-time DLR information, such as DAISY boards, for which the developer should allow up to £20,000.

107 The applicant has committed to providing further information on the safety and accessibility of walking routes to bus stops. Should these routes be found to be deficient, TfL expects the development to bear the cost of any improvement works in order to mitigate the impact of additional walking trips that are expected.

108 The submission of a travel plan in line with London Plan Policy 3C.1 ‘Integrating Transport and Development’ is welcomed. The travel plan has, however, failed its ATTrBuTE evaluation in its current form and few changes have been noted from the discussions at pre-application stage. The plan must set out the management strategy for the entire development and commit each individual occupier to producing a suitable travel plan for their organisation as defined by the travel plan thresholds in TfL’s travel planning best practice guidance. Timescales for individual targets on a site-wide scale should also be refined and the plan must define a clear and structured monitoring strategy,

109 The submission of a construction method statement is welcomed, and the commitment to the borough’s code of construction practice is noted. Efforts should be made to minimise construction traffic travelling to/from the site during peak hours. As requested at pre-application stage, a delivery and servicing plan should similarly be submitted, which should seek to rationalise servicing with the aim of reducing the total number of trips made and to avoid critical times on the road network. The delivery and servicing plan should identify efficient and sustainable measures to be undertaken once the development is occupied, and be secured by condition. Local planning authority’s position

110 The officer recommendation is unknown. Legal considerations

111 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 Corporation must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft

page 20 decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the Corporation under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the 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

112 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion

113 London Plan policies on hazardous installations, affordable housing, urban design, access, climate change, noise, air quality 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 in the vicinity of a hazardous installation (non compliant): the proposal generates an ‘advise against’ recommendation, based on the HSE’s PADHI methodology.  Affordable housing (non compliant): no affordable housing targets have been agreed, the proposed quantum and housing mix represents indicative delivery. The financial submission is insufficient, no definition of live/work units.  Density (non compliant): the proposed density calculation appears incorrect and is likely to exceed the guidance in the London Plan without justification.  Design (non complaint): The overall master plan needs a significant amount of further work. There are a number of blocks that need reconsideration further testing and discussion. Principle and form of the tall building requires further testing. A detailed design code is also required to ensure that subsequent design will be fully consistent with the objectives of London Plan policy 4B.1.  Open space and children’s play space (non compliant): whilst the proposals will provide significant open space and play space opportunities across the master plan area, the uses, management and age related equipment needs to be clearly defined.  Climate change mitigation (non compliant): a technical response is required to a number of aspects of the proposed energy strategy.

 Climate change adaptation (non compliant): the design and overheating aspects require further work. The approach to flooding is unclear.

 Noise (non compliant): mitigation and design measures need to be secured through detailed design coding.

 Transport: (non compliant): Further information is required by TfL to ensure that sustainable methods of transport are promoted, that the likely impact of the scheme on the transport network is acceptable, and that appropriate mitigation can be secured

114 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan

115 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

page 21  Principle of development in the vicinity of a hazardous installation: the comments from the HSE are required in order to establish whether the HSE accept the conclusions of the risk assessment. The appropriateness of development at this proposed density should then be considered further, including the option for independent appraisal of the risk assessment which should be considered as a joint commission with the other Authorities.  Affordable housing: further discussion on the provision of affordable housing and minimum targets is required. This includes the minimum targets for bedroom size mix. Further material to support the headline financial figures and live/work definition is required. These may also required further independent scrutiny.

 Density: the density needs to be clearly calculated across the relevant parts of the master plan and where this exceeds guidance in the London Plan, adequate justification will be required. This must also be tested against the comments from the HSE.

 Design: The design requires a full and comprehensive response as there are a number of strategic concerns set out in the main body of this report.

 Open space and children’s play space: the applicant should engage with the Council to determine the detail of how each space will contribute to the required provision, including age target ranges, management and equipment amongst other matters.

 Climate change mitigation: further technical work is required as set out in the main body of this report.

 Climate change adaptation: further technical work is required as set out in the main body of this report

 Noise: the design code will need to be developed to ensure that mitigation measures and design measures to manage the noise impacts from the A12 and A13 will create an acceptable living environment.

 Transport: Further technical work is required as set out in the main body of this report.

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] Matthew Carpen, Case Officer 020 7983 4272 email [email protected]

page 22