planning report D&P/2826a/02 29 May 2014 Land North of Westfield Shopping Centre, Ariel Way in the Borough of Hammersmith &Fulham planning application no. 2013/05115/OUT

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

The proposal Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved) for the demolition of existing buildings, the closure and alteration of highways, and comprehensive redevelopment of the site with a mixed use scheme with buildings ranging from 2 - 23 storeys (up to 88m tall) to provide up to 61,840sqm retail use; 8,170sqm restaurant and café use; 2,065sqm office use; 1,600sqm community/health/cultural use; 3,500sqm leisure use; and up to 1,347 residential units. The scheme will include a basement with an energy centre together, new pedestrian routes and open spaces, cycle parking, car and motorcycle parking and vehicular access and servicing facilities. The applicant The applicant is Westfield Shoppingtowns Limited, and the architect is Allies & Morrison.

Strategic issues The issues raised by the Mayor relating to retail impact, affordable housing provision, residential quality, play space, density, urban design, climate change and transport have been satisfactorily resolved.

The Council’s decision In this instance Hammersmith & Fulham Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Hammersmith & Fulham 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 5 December 2013 the Mayor of London received documents from Hammersmith & Fulham 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 Categories 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

 Category 1B: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.

 Category 1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London

2 On 15 January 2014 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2826a/01, and subsequently advised Hammersmith & Fulham Council that (the application was broadly acceptable but did not fully comply with the London Plan at that stage, with the reasons and remedies set out in paragraph 114 of that report.

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 3 April 2014 Hammersmith & Fulham Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 20 May 2014 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Hammersmith & Fulham Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Hammersmith & Fulham 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 2 June 2014 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

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

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

Update

Retail

6 At consultation stage further analysis of retail impact was requested, in particular considering impact of the proposal on the Knightsbridge and the West End International Centres. Clarification was also sought with regards to assumptions on rates of growth and densities, and officers also sought confirmation from the Council that it was satisfied that the appropriate sites were tested in the sequential tests.

7 The applicant was unable to provide separate analysis of impact of the proposal on Knightsbridge and West End as the data was not available, but was able to demonstrate the ongoing strong performance of Central London/West End during operation of the current Westfield centre, demonstrating that the existing centre was complementary to rather than competitive with the other international centres.

8 The applicant has extrapolated that given the demonstrated resilience of the existing centres, that the impact of the proposed extension on the West End and Knightsbridge would not be significant. The assessment shows that of the cumulative projected impact of all development on the West End of 10%, only 0.6% is attributed to Westfield. The applicant also noted that the proposed anchor tenant is present in both the West End and on the Kings Road in RB Kensington in Chelsea near Knightsbridge, and would not seek a location where it might negatively impact its

page 2 existing locations. GLA officers determined that on balance, the anticipated impact is not a significant concern.

9 The applicant ran further sensitivity tests on growth to address GLA officer concerns on assumptions and variations in data inputs; this resulted in a small increase in impact (0.1%) on some centres, however this impact does not raise concern given its scale.

10 Officers are therefore satisfied that outstanding questions relating to the retail impact of the proposals have been addressed.

Affordable Housing

11 At consultation stage, the applicant had proposed 10.9% affordable housing but had not submitted a viability appraisal to demonstrate that the scheme delivered the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing.

12 The applicant has since submitted a viability appraisal which has been reviewed by consultants for the Council, who suggested that the scheme could support a higher proportion of affordable housing. The applicant has since increased the offer to 12% or 162 units, with three points at which viability would be further reviewed to deliver up to 88 additional units, which would represent 18.6% of the total development (250 units).

13 The Council continues to negotiate the details of the review mechanisms with regards to timing of the delivery of the affordable units and methodology of the review, however the quantum as proposed is welcomed and supported, as is the requirement for review of viability going forward.

14 The applicant has also confirmed that the residential mix reflects the Council’s requirements for affordable housing, in that 40% of the social rented and 21% of the intermediate (representing 32% of all affordable housing) units will be 3–bed units.

Residential Quality

15 The Council has included a planning condition requiring conformity of reserved matters applications for the residential blocks with the space standards set out in the Housing SPG and Lifetime Homes standards, which is welcomed.

16 In terms of the weaknesses identified in flat layouts, aspect and long corridor access, the Council has noted that these details are currently indicative given the outline stage of the proposals, and will be given special consideration at detailed design stages to ensure the number of single aspect units and number of units per core are minimised. For example, the Council has confirmed that the parameter plans do allow sufficient space for the residential units to achieve superior ceiling heights to compensate for north-facing aspects. The Design Codes have been amended to reflect the aspiration for the higher floor-ceiling heights for single aspect units as well.

Children’s Play Space

17 The provision of play space as illustrated in the submitted materials has been secured by condition. Furthermore concern was raised at consultation stage that residents in blocks K and B would not benefit from access to safe and well sized playspace. The applicant has since revised the design codes to specify that residents in blocks K and B will have access to the communal play space contained within block C.

Density

18 At consultation stage the applicant was asked to consider the density in terms of ‘net’ residential density. The net residential density is calculated as 299 units per hectare, which remains

page 3 within the density range for Central London with a PTAL rating of between 4 and 6. This is acceptable.

Urban design

19 At consultation stage concern was raised over the degree of transparency and access across the ‘public room’ / atrium and degree to which the proposals enhanced east/west connectivity, visibility and legibility and confirmation that transparency would be preserved. The applicant was asked to provide further detailed design of the enclosure, bridges, and atrium walls/windows, and also details on how Block A meets the ground. The applicant declined to provide further design detail, and considered that they had provided enough information with their original submission and noting that design of those spaces would form part of a reserved matters applications for blocks A and B.

20 Notwithstanding the applicant’s opinion on the sufficiency of the submitted materials, the applicant has provided further illustrations of the visibility through the proposed atrium to the west, which emphasised the importance of a transparent roof and walls. The applicant has also amended the design code for block A to require as much visual transparency as possible to the roof of the atrium, including through bridges, taking into account the need to minimise overheating from solar gain, and also to ensure that the arrangement of glazing and structure should maximise not only views of the sky, but also the east/west route through. The revised design code also notes that the floor surfaces for interior and exterior areas should be equivalent or as near as possible, taking into account the variations in requirements for indoor and outdoor use.

21 The Council has proposed a planning condition requiring details of the design of the ‘public room’ to be submitted under reserved matters in line with the aspirations above; the section 106 requires that area as part of the east-west route to be retained as publicly accessible 364 days/year unless otherwise agreed by the Council.

22 All outstanding issues will be determined and clarified as part of the reserved matters applications; planning conditions also require submission of details of landscaping and materials for all external and public spaces, as well as submission of reserved matters in accordance with the design codes and the design and access statement. Matters relating to urban design are therefore considered to have been addressed to a sufficient degree and are no longer a concern.

23 At Stage 1, TfL raised concerns about the Transport Assessment being based on a net increase in floorspace rather than the gross increase as the submitted parameter plans did not reference any areas for demolition. This has been addressed through reference to a table that incorporates floorspace to be demolished within the Parameter Report within a planning condition. This is welcomed by TfL.

Climate Change

24 The applicant was asked at stage 1 to consider additional measures to achieve further carbon reductions beyond the currently predicted 16%. The applicant has not been able to provide further detail or consider further strategies as these are reliant on detailed design, however they have noted that their energy statement commits to improving on part L 2010.

25 At consultation stage the applicant was asked to demonstrate how a larger energy centre for a district energy network could be accommodated on site; since the GLA Decentralised Energy Project Delivery Unit has reviewed their requirements and no longer requires a larger site in this location. Details of routing for a heat network was requested at consultation stage, and whilst the details of any route for the heat network will be submitted as reserved matters, the section 106 agreement requires the applicant to provide a connection point to an eventual district energy network, and to design all dwellings to connect to such a network in the future.

page 4 26 The applicant was asked to consider improving the surface water runoff performance of the site to 100% attenuation; the applicant will explore further opportunities as the reserved matters applications are brought forward.

27 All outstanding matters relating to climate change have been resolved. ’s comments

28 As identified at Stage 1, the shopping centre extension will generate significant additional demand on surrounding transport networks. In particular, impacts on TfL roads, signals, bus services and infrastructure.

29 TfL wrote to the Council prior to committee in support of the application and transport assessment, and in doing so identified a number of issues to be addressed through further work on the section 106 agreement and planning conditions. TfL also requested to be closely involved in the detailed design and further reserved matters applications. The issues for which TfL has a key role are as follows:

1. Bus priority and highway improvements on Ariel Way 2. Updated VISSIM traffic modelling 3. Bus service contribution 4. Passive provision for the relocated bus station 5. Car parking management (a) Restriction of 508 existing car parking spaces (b) Restriction of 0.4 spaces per residential unit (c) Active control of the proposed northern John Lewis car park (d) Variable message signage (e) Electric vehicle parking 6. Cycle parking 7. Highways contributions 8. Delivery and servicing 9. Construction management 10. Travel plans

30 These issues have now been satisfactorily resolved in the draft s106 agreement (dated 29th May 2014) and through planning conditions. This is subject to further work at the detailed stage between the Council, applicant and TfL. Further more specific comments are provided below.

Access and Highways Layout

31 A number of changes to the indicative layout of Ariel Way have been considered, proposed and accepted by TfL. This will provide sufficient physical space between building plots to allow for an acceptable highways design. Given the importance of Ariel Way for the bus network in this part of West London, a condition has been secured requiring the applicant to submit, and have approved by the council and TfL, detailed highways designs prior to commencing each phase of the development.

32 A dedicated taxi rank has also been secured by condition. This is welcomed by TfL.

Car Parking

33 At Stage 1, TfL raised concerns about the level of car parking proposed for both the residential and commercial uses on site. The level of residential parking is above the maximum ratio permitted by the White City OAPF by 69 spaces. This should be kept under review using the residential car park management plan, which has been secured through the section 106 agreement,

page 5 and will be developed in consultation with TfL. Blue badge parking, controlled parking zones, restrictions on issue of parking permits and Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) have also been secured.

34 A commercial car parking management plan has also been secured in the section 106 agreement and will be developed in consultation with TfL. Blue badge parking spaces, EVCPs and five car club spaces have all been secured. In order to address TfL’s concerns over the level of commercial car parking, the section 106 agreement restricts use at all times of 508 car parking spaces from either the application site, or the neighbouring car park.

Highway Impact

35 At Stage 1, TfL requested further traffic modelling and a requirement to enter into the formal audit process. Following extensive discussion with the applicant an approach to ongoing highways modelling has been agreed. The modelling is being updated to enable further testing at detailed stage. The section 106 requires this work to be completed and mitigation agreed with TfL prior to commencement of development. This will be a requirement of obtaining approval under the Traffic Management Act 2004 for the highway alterations proposed as part of the development.

36 A highways contribution of £2.5m has been secured, and will be paid to TfL via the council, for off-site highway works on TfL roads, signalling and road space management strategies, including Variable Message Signing (VMS). The council will work with TfL in allocating this money based on the results of the area wide traffic modelling. TfL may also draw from the White City Opportunity Area Framework Contribution, if the works identified require additional funding, as well as using contributions from other developers in the White City OA.

Buses

37 Since stage 1 further discussion has taken place between TfL, the Council and the applicant. This has resulted in a revised layout of Ariel Way, incorporating bus priority measures, bus stops and changes to access and egress from the proposed northern car park being secured in the section 106 agreement. The final design will be tested through the further modelling discussed above, and will be developed in partnership with TfL and in accordance with TfL standards. An enforcement strategy has also been secured as the bus lanes will be located on private roads.

38 A sum of £450,000 for additional bus capacity within the White City Opportunity Area (OA) has also been secured in the section 106 agreement and is payable to TfL via the Council.

39 At stage 1 TfL requested further clarification on the proposed “passive provision” for a partially relocated bus station and standing facilities. The applicant and the council have indicated that this would be dealt with through a reserved matters application. TfL has security of tenure at the bus station and is protected via a lease against any changes to the way the facility operates. However, TfL requests that any details or reserved matters applications in relation to this site are sent to TfL for consideration and approval. The applicant has also confirmed that unfettered access to the existing bus station will be maintained at all times. This will ensure accordance with London Plan Policy 6.2.

Rail and Underground

40 A sum of £3.9m has been secured in the section 106 agreement towards platform lengthening at Shepherds Bush Underground station. No specific financial contribution has been secured towards Wood Lane station, however the section 106 encourages further discussions with TfL as part of implementation of the OAPF, including use of the White City Opportunity Area Framework Contribution. It is also welcomed that conditions protecting

page 6 infrastructure have been secured on the application, and works cannot commence until these requirements have been satisfied.

Walking and Cycling

41 Following further discussions the general approach to pedestrians and cyclists is acceptable for an outline application. Infrastructure will need to be developed further as part of any subsequent reserved matters application, upon which TfL will be consulted where appropriate. Plan 10 of the section 106 agreement identifies 24 hour access for use by pedestrians. Further information has also been provided in relation to pedestrian facilities along the existing eastern access road following concerns raised by TfL, and it is now accepted that the route is of sufficient quality for residents of the proposed Block C.

Cycle Parking

42 The level of residential cycle parking proposed is acceptable and in accordance with the London Plan.

43 The level of cycle parking for commercial uses, in particular retail, is significantly below standards found in the Further Alterations to the London Plan, which could amount to 454 spaces. A section 106 obligation which requires a minimum requirement of 122 spaces has been secured. The applicant is then required to monitor and survey usage and provide further provision in publically accessible spaces across the site up to London Plan standards, as part of reserved matters application in consultation with TfL. Promoting cycling will also need to form part of the travel plan. This will ensure accordance with London Plan policy 6.1 and 6.13.

Travel Plan

44 Travel Plans for both the residential and retail uses have been secured through the section 106 agreement in line with London Plan Policy 6.3. At Stage 1 TfL had highlighted areas where the draft plans could be improved to ensure enforcement and behaviour change, and this advice should be borne in mind when submitting the final plans. The Council has agreed to consult TfL on the plans prior to them being agreed to ensure accordance with TfL best practice guidance.

Construction and Servicing

45 A Delivery and Servicing Plan has been secured in the section 106 agreement and this is supported. A Construction Logistics Plan (CMP) has been secured by planning condition... The council has agreed to consult with TfL prior to agreeing the CMP to ensure that this is consistent with the wider highways strategy for the White City area and contributes towards reducing congestion in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.14. Both documents will be developer using TfL guidance.

46 Subject to the issues raised in this report being addressed at detailed design stage, and through further consultation with TfL in discharging planning conditions and s106 obligations, TfL considers the application to be acceptable on transport grounds, in accordance with the London Plan and White City OAPF. TfL will continue to work with the GLA, Council and landowners in the OA to developer transport infrastructure and mitigation across the OA, including prioritisation, allocation and expenditure of the White City Opportunity Area Framework Contribution. Response to consultation

47 The application was advertised by site and press notices, and with letters of consultation sent to 3,199 neighbouring properties. A total of 12 responses were received; 5 letters of objection and 7 letters of support were received. Concerns raised by objectors related to the following:

page 7  Sustainable development: concern for ongoing operation of existing businesses during construction in terms of traffic, access, noise, dust and vibration.  Transport: concern regarding interruption to pedestrian access particularly between the north of Freston Road and Westfield; concern regarding increased levels of noise and pollution as well as increased traffic congestion. 48 In relation to the objections raised, matters relating to transport and sustainable development, these matters have been dealt with by the Council in their report, in this and the previous report to the Mayor, with the scheme found to be acceptable and in accordance with the London Plan.

49 Those in support of the scheme included local businesses and the Chamber of Commerce, and welcomed investment in jobs, improvement to transport and access, creation of jobs and introduction of more residents and customers for the area.

50 With regards to statutory consultees, BAA Airports, Ealing Council, Natural England and the Health and Safety Executive raised no objections. Other statutory consultees responded as follows:

 English Heritage: Objected to the potential for encroachment of the proposal on the listed DIMCO building. In response the applicant amended the parameters to ensure any deviation allowed would be limited around DIMCO to that consented in 2012. English Heritage confirmed the amendments are acceptable and raise no further objection.

 English Heritage (Archaeology): Requests a programme of archaeological work, which the Council has secured by way of condition.

 Environment Agency (EA): Raised objection relating to the surface run-off and drainage strategy, seeking amendment to the strategy to allow for climate change. The applicant has submitted a revised strategy and Flood Risk Assessment to the satisfaction of EA who have withdrawn their objections.

 Hammersmith Society (HS): welcomes revisions including active frontages at ground level, but raised concerns regarding scale and bulk along the West Cross Route, height setting a precedent in the area, quality of environment with regards to noise and air quality, and potential for overshadowing on White City Green.

 Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group (HFHBG): Sought introduction of variation to the area and use of DIMCO as a focal point; raised concerns regarding the height of the proposal and the precedent set for the rest of the borough.

 LBHF Disability Forum: No objections, subject to conditions securing the accessible design principles set out in design codes including housing distribution, provision of blue badge parking, scooter space, Changing Places and shop mobility schemes, along with consultation with the forum on reserved matters applications.

 Network Rail: No objection subject to conditions and informatives ensuring proposal does not affect Network Rail land or infrastructure.

 London Fire Brigade: No objection subject to provision of two additional fire hydrants and renewal and enhancement of existing hydrants.

 Crime Prevention Officer: No objection to principle of development, with conditions requiring development compliance with Secure By Design principles and further detail developed at reserved matters stage.

page 8  Thames Water: Concerned about surface water and combined sewer drainage flooding/overflows. Raised concern over insufficient capacity of water supply and wastewater infrastructure to support proposed demand. Requests conditions requiring submission of a piling method statement, impact studies of water supply infrastructure including magnitude of future required capacity and connection points, submission of a drainage strategy for on and off site drainage, and requirement to complete drainage works set out in the above strategy before foul or surface water from the site is accepted into the public system. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

51 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

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

53 The applicant has agreed to a section 106 financial contribution of £20 million, to be delivered at various milestones of the development. Of that, £12.5 million will be put towards social and physical infrastructure identified in the White City OAPF, and approximately £6.5m towards transport improvements including platform lengthening at Shepherds Bush Overground station, bus capacity improvements and off-site highways works; a further £9 million (approximately) has been secured through the Mayoral CIL>

54 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

55 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.

56 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).

page 9 Conclusion

57 The extension of Westfield shopping centre and delivery of over 1,300 homes together with other uses contribute to the delivery of the objectives for the White City Opportunity Area and is therefore strongly supported. The issues raised at stage I have been satisfactorily resolved and the application now complies with the London Plan.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Alexandra Reitman, Case Officer 020 7983 4804 email [email protected]

page 10

planning report D&P/2826a/01 15 January 2014 Land North of Westfield Shopping Centre, Ariel Way in the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

planning application no. 2013/05115/OUT

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

The proposal Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved) for the demolition of existing buildings, the closure and alteration of highways, and comprehensive redevelopment of the site with a mixed use scheme with buildings ranging from 2 - 23 storeys (up to 88m tall) to provide up to 61,840sqm retail use; 8,170sqm restaurant and café use; 2,065sqm office use; 1,600sqm community/health/cultural use; 3,500sqm leisure use; and up to 1,347 residential units. The scheme will include a basement with an energy centre together, new pedestrian routes and open spaces, cycle parking, car and motorcycle parking and vehicular access and servicing facilities. The applicant The applicant is Westfield Shoppingtowns Limited, and the architect is Allies & Morrison.

Strategic issues The principle of mixed-use regeneration, with housing, retail, and leisure uses is in accordance with strategic objectives for the White City Opportunity Area and is strongly supported. The masterplan scheme is generally well designed and complies with London Plan urban design policies, including in respect of the proposed tall buildings. There are, however, outstanding issues and clarification required in relation to some aspects, including retail, affordable housing delivery, energy, public realm and transport.

Recommendation That Hammersmith & Fulham Council be advised that the application is broadly acceptable but does not fully comply with the London Plan at this stage, with the reasons and remedies set out in paragraph 114 of this report.

Context

1 On 5 December 2013 the Mayor of London received documents from Hammersmith & Fulham 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 15 January 2014 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

page 11 2 The application is referable under Categories 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

 Category 1B: Development 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.

 Category 1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London

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

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

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

6 The 7.64 hectare site is located in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and within the White City Opportunity Area. The site is partially within and immediately adjacent to the Shepherd’s Bush town centre which is identified as a metropolitan centre in the London Plan.

7 The site is bound to the north and north-west by a viaduct for the Hammersmith & City London Underground line; to the east by the West Line and the West Cross Route (A3220); to the south by the Westfield London Shopping Centre and Ariel Way; and to the west by the White City Bus Station and the Grade II listed DIMCO Building. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is immediately beyond the site to the east, with the West Cross Route marking the borough boundary. In contrast to the previous application on this site, the current proposal excludes the DIMCO building and the bus station to the south of Ariel Way and immediately to the east of Wood Lane.

8 Ariel Way runs through the site from Wood Lane in the west to the access road onto the elevated West Cross Route in the east. The southern part of the site provides car park and servicing access to the existing shopping centre from both east and west; the application also takes in part of the existing shopping centre. The northern part of the site is occupied by the White City Industrial Estate, which comprises several single-storey industrial and warehouse buildings, as well as a 7-storey office block called Network House.

9 Beyond the Hammersmith & City Line to the north are industrial and warehouse buildings of 2-3 storeys. East of the site, beyond the of the West Cross Route the landscape is varied, comprising a recently completed office development with several 8-storey buildings along the West Cross Route, recent 4-6 storey housing, and several 20-storey Council blocks. Beyond the DIMCO building and bus station to the west of the site is Wood Lane, the BBC Television Centre and a multi-storey car park.

10 The site is not in a conservation area, although the Wood Lane Conservation Area extends directly north and west of the site, beyond the Hammersmith & City Line viaduct. The

page 12 conservation area includes the Grade II listed BBC Television Centre which lies to the northwest of the site.

11 The site is within easy walking distance of White City, Wood Lane and Shepherd’s Bush Underground stations, served by the Hammersmith and City Line and the Central Line, Shepherds Bush Overground station, together with two bus stations and numerous other bus stops. The majority of the site records an excellent public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 6a to 6b, the highest possible, although for a small area in the north-east of the site this drops to 5, still representing very good accessibility.

Details of the proposal

12 The applicant is seeking outline permission with all matters reserved including means of access within the site, layout, scale, appearance, and landscaping. The proposal involves demolition and redevelopment of the site to provide a retail extension to the existing Westfield London shopping centre, a new department store, restaurants, up to 1,347 residential units, office, leisure and community uses, 1,936 car parking spaces, 1,574 cycle spaces, areas of public realm and pedestrian routes through the site. The site will incorporate a deck or ‘plinth’ to separate vehicular access, servicing and deliveries at grade and allow for better quality pedestrian access on an elevated public realm, to connect to RBKC to the east. The public realm proposals also incorporate open space and a square at ground level to the north of the site, which include passive provision for connections north through the Hammersmith & City Line viaduct and east over the West Cross Route.

13 The overall quantum of uses proposed are as follows:

Use Maximum quantum (use class) (Gross External Area) Permitted scheme Current proposal (2012) (2013) Retail (A1, shops) 52,0891 sq.m. 61,840 sq.m.* Retail (A3-A5, restaurants/cafes, hot food takeaways) 5,167 sq.m. 8,170 sq.m. Residential (C3) 1,522 units 1,347 units Community/Health/Cultural uses (D1) 1,600 sq.m. 1,600 sq.m. Offices (B1) 600 sq.m. 2,065 sq.m. Leisure (D2) 1,850 sq.m. 3,500 sq.m. Car parking 1,479 1,936 spaces Table 1: Quantum of uses proposed * net increase / uplift of retail proposed over existing as proposal incorporates demolition of some existing

14 The development will be accommodated in five development plots. The proposed height parameters range from 2-23 storeys above ground, with some buildings built on the 2-storey high podium that would be built over the roads and servicing infrastructure below. Ground floor frontages, whether above the podium or at ground level, would generally be active with retail, office and community uses, or residential entrances. Car parking would be provided in a dedicated car park at roof level of the department store, and at the base of the residential block.

15 Plot A is in the centre of the site, and comprises 3 buildings plus an enclosed atrium connecting them. The 3 blocks are a extension of the Westfield Centre, the new department store on the northern part of the site, and a 7-storey block between the mall and the department store, which provides further retail space on the lower 3 floors and office space on the upper 4 floors. There is a northern entrance to the department store at ground level, and one at podium level to the south; vehicular access is under the podium.

page 13 16 Plot B features an 11-storey residential block above the podium (14 storeys above ground level) that adjoins the 7 storey block of plot A and faces onto the pedestrian route ‘Silver Street’ to the east. It will feature restaurant and community uses at the ground floor (podium) level, car park access below the podium, and residential above.

K A B C A A D

(Source: Allies & Morrison)

17 Plot C, which is closest to the West Cross Route, features a single, large perimeter block which will be primarily residential with car parking, energy centre and a bus stand in the base below podium level. The block features a large, communal central courtyard at podium level which is surrounded by the residential blocks; eleven-storey blocks along the western and northern sides of the block, an eight-storey block on the southern end, two 23-storey towers at the northeastern and southeastern corners of the block, and a range of 11-14 storey blocks along the eastern edge.

18 Plot D is a part-2, part-10 and part-12 storey block closest to Wood Lane and Wood Lane Station. This block does not sit on the raised plinth, and instead opens at ground level on Ariel Way. It features restaurant/cafe uses at ground level, with residential units above in an L-shaped block.

19 Plot K is a part-8, part 14-storey linear block that runs along the southern boundary on the eastern side of the site, facing Plot C and lining the pedestrian route along Ariel Walk to the new Ariel Square at the southeastern corner of the site. Restaurant and community uses will be accommodated on the ground floor at podium level, car and cycle parking below podium at ground level, and residential units above.

20 The applicant proposes to plant a minimum of 120 new trees as well as 3,414 sq.m. of soft landscaping. 4,855 sq.m. of private and communal landscaped spaces will be provided in blocks C and D, along with 5,893 sq.m of green and brown roofs. The scheme includes a 25-metre wide green space running along the Hammersmith & City Line viaduct, part of the wider ‘White City Green’ proposed in the White City OAPF to the north of the anchor store and residential blocks. A small square is proposed between plots A and D, and the fully pedestrianised podium level will feature landscaping around all blocks.

21 The proposals provide for east/west movement at podium level on Ariel Walk and through the mall link, and at ground level on Ariel Way which runs from Wood Lane under the podium to the West Cross route. Several north/south links are proposed, Marathon Way on the eastern boundary at ground level, Silver Street on the plinth between the main residential block and the department store and mall extension, and Relay Square, at ground level between the department store and block D.

page 14 22 The current network of roads and access roads which dominates the southeastern part of the site will be reconfigured, and decked over to allow access and servicing routes to remain whilst providing for a high quality public realm at podium level.

23 The application is supported by an Environmental Statement and Impact Assessment that require some parameters to be fixed as a ‘maximum’ for testing purposes. These parameters have been illustrated in parameters plans which have been submitted for approval. The details in the parameters plans include development plot locations at ground and podium level, building lines, building heights, general areas of pedestrian routes and open spaces and land uses. Any planning permission at this stage would be limited by condition requiring reserved matters applications to adhere to the details set out in these parameter plans.

24 The applicant has also submitted Design Codes for each plot and the public realm, and provided an illustrative design within the Design and Access Statement, which shows one way in which the development could be brought forward within the above parameters. The applicant proposes that the application be subject to condition that any reserved matters applications be brought forward in accordance with the relevant Design Code.

Case history

25 Planning permission was granted in 2012 for outline permission with all matters reserved (ref. 2011/02940/OUT) for the comprehensive redevelopment and regeneration of the site to provide approximately 55,000 sq.m. retail extension to the existing Westfield London shopping centre, up to 1,522 residential units, a leisure facility and community uses, car parking spaces, areas of public realm and pedestrian routes through the site to provide connections to RBKC to the east as well as passive provision for connections north through the Hammersmith & City Line viaduct. The 2012 permission covered a wider application site boundary than the current application, incorporating the DIMCO building and the bus station.

26 That application was referred to the Mayor, who, on 11 November 2011, considered GLA report PDU/2826/01, and advised Hammersmith & Fulham Council that the proposed development was acceptable in strategic planning terms. Following the resolution of issues concerning retail, affordable housing, urban design, access, sustainable development, transport and parking, the Mayor considered GLA report PDU/2826/02, and on 7 March 2012 advised Hammersmith & Fulham Council that he was content for the application to be granted.

27 The applicant has since progressed discussions with a key anchor tenant which has necessitated a number of design amendments to the scheme. GLA and TfL officers have met the applicants at pre-application stage to discuss the principles of design and transport. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

28 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy  Retail/town centre uses London Plan; draft Town Centres SPG  Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy  Density London Plan; Housing SPG

page 15  Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG; Housing SPG; London Housing Design Guide; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Tall buildings/views London Plan, London View Management Framework SPG  Historic Environment London Plan  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy;  London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy

29 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 2011 Hammersmith & Fulham Core Strategy and Proposals Map; the Hammersmith & Fulham Development Management Local Plan (July 2013), and the 2011 London Plan with 2013 Alterations.

30 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (January 2014);  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework;  The Hammersmith & Fulham Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (July 2013); and

 The White City Opportunity Area Planning Framework (December 2013).

Land use principle and regeneration

31 As discussed above, the site benefits from an extant planning permission for an outline application comprising substantial retail and residential uses, community, leisure and office use along with landscaping, parking and servicing. The principle of developing this site to provide the proposed uses has, therefore, been clearly established. Retail/town centre uses

32 As noted above, the principle of the development on this site for retail and leisure town centre uses has been established by the existing permission. The principle of the edge-of-centre location being appropriate for town centre uses continues to be supported by London Plan policy 4.7b and the draft Town Centres SPG, which emphasise that such development will be encouraged on the edge of the town centre if the site is well integrated with the existing centre and accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.

33 This proposal doubles the amount of leisure floorspace over the previous proposal, which is welcomed as it will contribute to an evening economy and respond to the need identified in the OAPF. The proposal anticipates that this will represent an extension of the cinema use in the current mall and will be provided in block A.

page 16 34 The proposed increase in retail use represented by this proposal is also supported by the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan which considers that Shepherd’s Bush town centre has future potential to attain International Centre status in the London Plan town centre network, in recognition of Westfield London’s global renown and its wide range of high quality and high order comparison goods retailing and specialist offers.

35 The existing permission provided for a maximum of 57,000 sq.m. retail and cafe floorspace. The current application proposes a maximum of 81,314 sq.m. new retail and cafe floorspace, but also proposes the demolition of approximately 11,000 sq.m. of existing retail floorspace in the existing mall to enable the development. The net increase in retail floorspace would therefore be 61,840 sq.m., along with 8,170 sq.m. of cafe/restaurant use.

36 The current proposal therefore represents an increase of approximately 13,000 sq.m. of retail floorspace over the existing approval. The applicant has submitted a retail assessment in support of the application which concludes that the greatest impact of the proposals will be on Hammersmith but notes that any negative impact must be considered in the context of an overall high level (27%) of turnover growth in Hammersmith. The submitted assessment indicates that there will be an impact on Central London/West End, Hammersmith, Kensington High Street, Ealing, Fulham, Harrow and Kings Road (East).

37 There are several aspects of the retail impact assessment that should be clarified prior to the proposal being referred back to the Mayor. Given the future potential of the town centre to attain International Centre status in the London Plan hierarchy, the applicant should revisit the Central London/West End figures to provide separate figures for Knightsbridge, West End, and the rest of Central London.

38 Clarification is also requested for a range of matters in the retail impact assessment including assumptions made regarding growth in special forms of trading, rate of growth of floorspace productivity and sales densities, along with clarification of how areas have been measured and how the recent consent for an extension to the Marks & Spencer store has been incorporated. The Council should also be satisfied that the assessment has identified and tested the appropriate sites in the sequential tests.

39 The general mix of uses and principle of additional retail on this site proposed in this scheme is in accordance with the strategic objectives of the London Plan and WCOAPF, and are supported, subject to clarification of the above matters. Housing

40 The scheme proposes a mixed use development containing up to 1,347 homes. Although the proposal represents a reduction in units from the previously consented scheme, this site excludes two blocks which would have contained those units. Notwithstanding this reduction, the current scheme represents over 25% of the expected new homes for the WCOA and is welcomed in principle.

41 The proposed unit and tenure mix is set out below:

Tenure Studio 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed Total Private 22 400 731 47 1,200 Intermediate 0 28 17 12 57 Rent Social Rented 0 18 36 36 90 Total 22 446 784 95 1,347

page 17 Affordable housing

42 The proportion of affordable housing proposed is 10.9%, subject to viability. This is a higher proportion than secured under the previous permission, although given the overall reduction in units proposed, represents a net reduction of 15 units. The proposed affordable housing offer meets the London Plan and Revised Early Minor Alterations expectation that there be a 60:40 split between social/affordable rent and intermediate housing.

43 Whilst the split is compliant with London Plan policy, the proposal falls short of the expectation in the Development Infrastructure Funding (DIF) Study which confirms that it would generally be viable to provide at least 15% affordable housing as well as the suggested DIF tariff and other payments.

44 The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal to the Council to support the proposed level of affordable housing, which will be subject to independent appraisal. Further discussion would be expected before the application is reported back at Stage 2 in relation to the viability appraisal and details shared with GLA officers, in order to be satisfied that the scheme is maximising affordable housing delivery and meeting local needs and in accordance with London Plan policy 3.12 and the White City OAPF.

45 Provisions will also need to be put in place for re-appraising the viability of the scheme prior to implementation given the outline nature of the application, length of time that may pass from initial toolkit appraisal to actual build out and the expectation that there are likely to be abnormal costs. As with the previous permission, appropriate mechanisms would need to be secured in any s106 agreement. The draft s106 planning obligations together with the Council’s independent assessment should be shared with GLA officers prior to the Stage 2 referral in order to be clear that the approved scheme reflects London Plan policy and the Housing SPG.

Housing mix

46 The proposed mix comprises 2% studio units, 33% 1-bed units, 58% 2-bed units, and 7% 3-bed units. 32% of the social rented and intermediate units are 3-beds (and 40% of the rented units are 3-beds). The applicant and Council should confirm that the proposed mix would meet local housing needs, with the agreed mix secured as part of any planning permission.

Residential quality

47 The applicant has provided a range of indicative flat layouts for the different plots, although the detailed design of residential dwellings will be submitted as reserved matters. Indicative flat layouts illustrate the potential for some dual-aspect flats and creative approaches to parts of the site which face more hostile environment. However, there appears to be a potential in several cases for long corridor access and single-aspect units which face buildings opposite (rather than expansive views). These weaknesses in the design should be given special consideration at detailed design stages, to ensure the number of single aspect units and number of units per core are minimised.

48 The applicant has set out in the parameters report that all residential dwellings will be designed to meet Lifetime Homes standards, and will be able to achieve the minimum unit size standards and dwelling space standards as well as external amenity space standards set out within the Housing SPG. This is welcomed and these commitments should be secured as part of any planning permission.

page 18 Children’s play space

49 The applicant has indicated the Landscape and Public Realm Strategy that up to 213 children are predicted to live in the development, of which 113 would be under the age of 5 and therefore requiring 1,130 sq.m of doorstep play space. The strategy suggests the proposal provides for almost 2,000 sq.m. of doorstep play space which is welcomed especially given the density of the scheme.

50 The majority of under-5 playable space is provided within the communal courtyards in blocks C and D, and the revisions to block C in particular will make for a much improved quality of amenity space in the enlarged courtyard over the previous proposals. However, the suggestion that the landscaped areas on Silver Street contribute to the doorstep playable space are not entirely convincing. The applicant should confirm that residents in blocks K and B will have access to doorstep playable space that is of an appropriate size and layout.

Density

51 The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) that ranges from 5 to 6b, and is classified as central in character whereby a density range of between 650-1,100 habitable rooms per hectare is suggested in the London Plan or 140-450 units per hectare. The applicant has provided a density calculation which considers the residential density across the whole site, resulting in 176 units per hectare, however given the mixed use nature of the scheme and significant proportion of non-residential floorspace, the applicant should provide a calculation of density based on net residential density and in accordance with the guidance set out in paragraph 3.35 of the Housing SPG.

52 There may also be merit in calculating the plot ratio, given the mix of uses. Nevertheless, in light of the location within the White City Opportunity Area and contribution that the scheme is making to place shaping in the area, a high density scheme would be appropriate for this site, reinforced by its high quality design and access to public realm and open space.

Tall buildings and urban design

53 The proposals build on the principles set out in the scheme which was consented in 2012. The main changes are the redesign of the retail blocks (A), the consolidation of the eastern residential block (C), the introduction of a separate residential block (K) and a realignment of the central north/south link (Silver Street) and east/west link (Ariel Walk), along with changes to building heights including the introduction of a second 23-storey tower.

54 The re-alignment of the north/south route of Silver Street is a successful revision that maintains the principles of the OAPF in terms of enhancing connections to the north and encouraging movement through the site. It also successfully reduces the visual impact of block C by making that elevation shorter, and provides a more natural link to likely future desire lines to the west for residents and visitors approaching the site from Wood Lane and White City LUL Stations.

55 There was extensive discussion at the pre application stage about the retention of a clearly legible east west link as promoted by the OAPF. In the initial iterations of the new scheme this clarity had been lost. However in response to feedback from both the Borough and GLA the east west alignment has been reinstated, albeit part of the route is now within the enclosed mall. Officers note that the aspiration in the OAPF for the east/west route through the site is that the route would be open and part of the public realm, rather than seen as part of an internal mall environment, to provide for site legibility and connectivity to the wider Opportunity Area, including clear views of the BBC TV Centre. To this end, the previous consent incorporated a canopy along

page 19 this route but maintained open sides, allowing fuller transparency and a clear sense of east/west movement. In contrast, the current proposal creates a glazed, enclosed atrium that is punctuated by north/south walkways at upper levels; the proposal provides a degree of transparency but does not create the sense of an outdoor, public route or the visual and physical connection with the wider area that existed in the original proposals. The sense of connectivity is further challenged by the change in levels between Ariel Walk and Ariel Way. Given this, it is essential that the detail designs of the atrium and of the route through it are as transparent as possible, and clearly articulate that the space is part of a public route rather than as separate private domain.

56 In order to address this point the applicant has been asked to carry the floor surface treatment for Ariel Way through the atrium space so that the sense of the east/west street passing through the enclosed space is maintained. In addition the applicant has been asked to further develop the glazed enclosure design, and the design of the bridges that cross it to ensure that clear lines of site can be achieved through the centre of the site so that a sense of destination can be achieved when approaching from the east and west. In addition the applicant has undertaken to explore the potential for parts of the east and west facing glazed screens to be openable in good weather. The applicant should as part of the current outline planning application provide a detailed set of drawings to demonstrate how the proposals will achieve the sense of open and public space, connectivity, movement and transparency that is set out as the site guidance in the OAPF before this application is referred back to the Mayor at Stage 2 .

57 The ongoing commitment to delivering high quality public realm along the viaduct as well as along Marathon Way is welcomed, as well as the indication of ‘passive provision’ for a cycle and pedestrian connection over the West Cross Route, however the applicant should also provide a more detailed proposal of how a connection over the West-Cross Route from White City Green can be delivered as part of this development. Further consideration should be given to the placement of the hard landscaped area northwest of Relay Square, as TfL have confirmed that it is unlikely that a connection through the railway viaduct to the north would be feasible at that point. It is essential that the proposals for the current site are compatible with proposals emerging on the site to the north and with TfL restrictions on use of the viaduct arches; to that end, the applicant should to engage with the landowners to the north and LBHF/GLA/TfL to progress the design of the wider White City Green.

58 Further detail on how the public realm functions at the base of block A on the western elevation, e.g. where vehicle access below the plinth, should also be provided, as this is likely to be a difficult interface.

59 The rebalancing of massing of block C in particular has resulted in a greater concentration of height along the eastern boundary of the site, however this has been achieved in a manner that is sensible and appropriate to the context. The beneficial corollary to this is that the scale of the department store building along the viaduct and White City Green has been reduced with the elimination of the residential above, so that there is greater variety in building heights when looking south into the site, and more sunlight penetration into the White City Green over the top of the department store.

60 In terms of the residential blocks C, K and D, care has been taken to ensure sun and light penetrates into most internal amenity spaces and the massing is not overbearing in the public realm. The use of setbacks, fragmentation of the blocks and modulation of the facades successfully creates variation and adds interest and character to the proposed buildings.

61 The additional tall building on the northeastern corner will adopt the same design principles as the previously consented tall building on the southeastern corner of block C, and the new building forms an elegant counterpoint to the latter building. The nature of the design principles which informed the tall building design has resulted in each tower having slight variation in its

page 20 elevations, in response to the specific context of its own site. The towers are therefore similar and are read as a pair, but with distinctions that create variety and interest in the skyline.

62 The provision of a variety of flat sizes and configurations, including duplexes and units with dual aspect is welcomed; the layout incorporates multiple cores which allows for many front doors and entrances to provide natural surveillance and activity. The applicant should ensure that the number of private front doors that open directly onto the public realm is maximised.

63 The architectural quality of the scheme will be managed through the reserved matters and detailed design processes, but is informed by the design codes and illustrative designs submitted as part of this application. These tools provide the potential for a high quality scheme, which is essential given the density and intensity of use proposed; the applicant and Council must ensure that the stated commitment to quality of the residential elements of the scheme, public realm and external finishes is carried through in the detailed designs.

Access

64 The application is accompanied by an access statement, and follows the same principles, standards and provisions as those which were set out in the previous consent with regards to access. The proposal commits to meeting Lifetime Homes standards, providing as a minimum 10% wheelchair accessible housing, and to provisions within the public realm and landscape design to ensure that the site and spaces are accessible for all, including lift access up to podium level. The applicant has committed to providing a blue badge space for all wheelchair accessible residential units, as well as the appropriate level of blue badge parking for visitors to the shopping centre.

65 All the access related commitments outlined in the application should be secured by way of condition at detailed design stage, and commitments to achieving level access should also be secured. A car parking management plan would be appropriate so as to ensure that there are sufficient blue badge spaces kept available for the accessible units, and the management of taxi drop-off and community transport points should also be subject to a management plan.

Climate change mitigation

66 The applicant is proposing to reduce the carbon emissions by 16%, and while the proposal is broadly acceptable, further information is required before the carbon savings can be verified. The proposal which falls well short of the 40% target within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. The applicant should consider the scope for additional measures aimed at achieving further carbon reductions.

Energy Efficiency

67 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development, although this will only result in 5% savings compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. The demand for cooling will be minimised through low energy lighting, solar control glazing and reduced window sizes where necessary. The applicant should provide further information (e.g. sample SAP worksheets including efficiency measures only) to demonstrate that the domestic element also exceeds Part L 2010 by efficiency measures alone.

page 21

District heating

68 The applicant is proposing to install a site heat network and has confirmed that all building uses (domestic and non-domestic) will be connected to the network, which will be supplied from a single energy centre.

69 The applicant has also identified that the site is within the White City Opportunity Area district heating area, and that there are plans for district heating in the area. The GLA Decentralised Energy Project Delivery Unit (DEPDU) has identified the applicant’s site as the preferred location for an oversized energy centre which would be able to provide enough energy to neighbouring sites.

70 Although the applicant has provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to wider district heating network should one become available, given DEPDU’s preferred approach, the applicant should demonstrate how a larger (up to 3,000 sq.m.) energy centre could be incorporated to be able to provide heat supply to the BBC site, as well as with potential for additional CHP units to supply elsewhere in the OA. The applicant should also confirm that the proposed route for the heat network as submitted will be safeguarded, is compatible with that proposed by DEPDU, and illustrate how all buildings on the site will link into the network.

Combined Heat and Power

71 A total of 10% savings will be achieved from a combined heat and power plant, which will provide the lead heat source for the site heat network. Further information should be provided on the monthly load profiles for the development as a whole to justify the to justify the sizing of the CHP system.

Renewable energy

72 The proposal incorporates 1,500 sq.m. of photovoltaic cells on the roofs of the buildings, resulting in a further 1% savings. Climate change adaptation

73 The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement, carried out in accordance with LBHF and GLA guidance, and including relevant Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM pre- assessments. It is intended that all homes meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and ‘Very Good’ for the non-residential space.

74 The documents set out a number of techniques proposed to reduce energy consumption and cut carbon emission in line with the Mayor’s standards. Water saving measures are proposed, and at detailed design stage the will be further investigation of rainwater harvesting and the use of greywater systems. Sustainable urban drainage is proposed to achieve surface water reductions through the use of attenuation storage, green and brown roofs and soft landscaping on site. The applicant has committed to meeting the same level of attenuation as achieved in the previous consent, a reduction of the runoff rate by 73%. The applicant is encouraged to investigate options at detailed design stage to further increase the reduction in runoff to achieve the WCOAPF aspirations of 100% attenuation.

page 22

Transport

75 As noted above, the current proposal incorporates an increase in commercial floorspace of 73,510 sq.m. , but also anticipates a loss of approximately 11,000 sq.m. due to the partial demolition of existing shopping centre. The submitted transport assessment has therefore been undertaken on the basis of the net increase in retail floorspace of 61,840sq.m., however TfL has requested clarification as to the amount of demolition which can be secured through outline consents in general or under the existing parameter plans. Depending on the outcome of this the assessment may need to be carried out on the basis of gross increase of commercial floorspace, as was the case for the previous application. All comments below are caveated on this basis.

Access and Highways Layout

76 The revised development proposals include significant changes to the layout of Ariel Way. The proposed layout has been safety audited, which highlights a number of issues for consideration at the reserved matters stage. However, the safety audit specifically highlights that no pedestrian or cycle facilities are present on the plans. Although it is accepted that permission for the detail of the internal road layout is not being sought, it should be ensured that there is sufficient physical space between building plots to provide appropriate facilities and also that any facilities that are provided (advanced cycle stoplines, pedestrian crossings etc) are taken into account within the highways modelling of the new layout. As such, some further consideration may need to be given to these issues prior to the outline consent being issued to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 6.10.

77 A dedicated taxi rank is proposed as part of the scheme, and should be included as part of the relevant reserved matters application and conditioned appropriately. However, it is unclear whether a valet parking area is proposed and what the usage and impact of this may be and this should be clarified.

78 The development proposes three new north/south pedestrian routes through the site, two at ground level (which are both proposed to be suitable for cyclists) and one at podium level. The intention is that these could then be extended through the Hammersmith and City line viaduct and provide access into the adjacent M&S site as promoted by the White City OAPF. Whilst TfL welcome the principle of this, the viaduct is not within the red line boundary of the site and in places there would be operational restrictions on achieving this. Consideration should therefore be given to these issues, and a meeting to address this should be set up shortly.

79 As well as Ariel Way, an additional east-west pedestrian and cycle route is intended to be opened up along the edge of the Hammersmith and City line viaduct. Again, there may be operational issues relating to London Underground infrastructure which would need to be resolved prior to the delivery of this route. In addition, given the issues with highways congestion TfL would encourage the applicant to take every opportunity to open the site up to pedestrians and cyclists in order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of travel. To this end, although the designs make passive provision for a potential future pedestrian and cycle bridge across the West Cross Route adjacent to the Hammersmith and City Line , TfL strongly requests the land ownership and infrastructure issues be resolved and improvements funded through this application to deliver this aspiration.

page 23

Car Parking

80 608 residential car parking spaces are proposed at a ratio of 0.45 spaces per unit. This is above the recommended range within the OAPF transport study and as such is unacceptable to TfL. It is stated that the parking provision includes an allowance for the future development of blocks E and F of the previously consented scheme. However, as these blocks do not form part of this application and due to their distance from the residential parking basement, TfL objects to this position. Suitable conditions will also need to be imposed to ensure that blue badge parking spaces and Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) are provided in accordance with the London Plan at the reserved matters stage. A Car Park Management Strategy should also be secured by condition, and any legal agreement should include a mechanism whereby future residents are prevented from applying for parking permits in the surrounding Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

81 Although the proposal incorporates 1,328 commercial car parking spaces, the applicant claims that only 820 additional retail / leisure spaces will be available at any one time. However, there is no detail on how the applicant proposes to operate any mechanism to control or ensure that the number of available spaces is restricted as proposed, other than a brief mention of a Car Park Management Plan. The applicant has also proposed to remove some car parking from the existing Westfield car park to deliver this cap on additional parking, despite claiming in discussions on the consented scheme that existing lease requirements made this impossible. However, the removal of existing spaces does not form part of the Parameters Report and it is unclear how the removal of parking spaces outside the current proposal’s red line boundary could be secured. Given these uncertainties, the applicant should provide clarity about the mechanisms that would deliver their proposed approach. In the absence of this the current proposals are considered unacceptable to TfL and contrary to London Plan policy 6.13. The applicant should provide evidence of adequate controls and plans which demonstrate how the strategies would be implemented, and the Council must ensure they are secured by condition or legal agreement.

82 Regardless of what level of commercial car parking is ultimately agreed, it is welcomed that 10% of all spaces are to be provided with an EVCP, with a further 10% passive provision. Five car club spaces are also proposed, which is welcomed. However, further information on blue badge spaces will be required before the parking proposals can be considered acceptable.

Trip Generation

83 Trip generation has been carried out using the same methodology as for the consented scheme, which is considered acceptable by TfL.

Highway Impact

84 The approach to highways modelling was discussed extensively during the pre-application process, with TfL expressing concern that the only model used for the application had not been through a formal audit process. Officers have reiterated that unless and until this process is completed, the results of the highway modelling can only be considered as provisional. The applicant should also note that a fully audited and approved model will be a requirement for the revised layout of Ariel Way, and in view of the challenging timescales to commence work, the applicant is encouraged to begin the process of approving the model as soon as possible.

page 24 85 Nevertheless, there appear to be discrepancies within the model which require explanation. Details of these technical discrepancies have been sent to the applicant under separate cover, and must be resolved prior to approval. Notwithstanding this, the initial model results suggest that journey times across the White City area increase significantly from the existing situation to a future year with OAPF and Westfield development. This would be consistent with TfL’s work on the OAPF transport study which stated that, particularly at weekends, even the level of traffic generation considered under Scenario B of the OAPF would be difficult to accommodate on the highway network without significant mitigation.

86 The proposed development would result in a number of arrivals 50% higher on a Saturday than was considered under Scenario B in the OAPF transport study, and as such TfL have concerns over whether the vehicle trips arising from this application could be accommodated on the existing highway network, even with mitigation as identified through the OAPF and funded through the previous consent. This raises an important issue for the developer, Council and TfL about the scale of transport interventions and mitigation required, how these are secured and delivered through the section 106/ DIFS funding to allow development to proceed.

Buses

87 It is accepted that the relocation of bus standing away from the DIMCO building does not form part of the proposals for this planning application, with the existing bus station being outside of the site’s red line boundary. However, the application does set aside an area for provision of bus standing on the north-eastern part of the site and the application is clear that it is ‘designed to facilitate the relocation of White City Bus Station’ (5.29 of the TA). If this safeguarded area for bus layover is to be used, more detail on size, height and column locations will be required before any approval to a move can be given.

88 Although the application does not specify the relocation of the bus station, the inclusion of a future bus station area within the proposals will constrain TfL’s ability to influence the design of any replacement bus standing in the future, as its location and size will be set by the current consent. In order to avoid this safeguarded space becoming an unoccupied void if the movement of the bus standing was not implemented, TfL requires an analysis of journey time to be carried out for buses not just with the bus stand in its existing location, but also with standing relocated, before they are able to support the principle of a bus standing in the proposed location. The applicant should note that the highway model issues identified above will need to be resolved before firm conclusions can be drawn about any changes to journey time.

89 From an initial consideration of the layout and model results as presented in the transport assessment, TfL have a serious concern over the vulnerability of buses to congestion on Ariel Way, both with and without the bus stand relocation. It is therefore felt that consideration needs to be given to bus priority measures on Ariel Way, which would need to be provided in a way that does not increase delay for general traffic. Failing to address this at this stage may prejudice later opportunities to relocate the bus standing. It is also queried whether the new car park requires two points of access. If the northern-most entrance to the new car park were to be removed, this may result in significantly less general traffic using this section of Ariel Way.

90 It is also noted that at present, no consideration has been given in the application to the potential location of bus stops around the new road network, which may be required in particular should the bus station be relocated. Bus stop locations will need to be assessed against available footway widths, impact on traffic and pedestrian routes to and from them.

page 25 91 As part of the previous application a sum of £450,000 was secured for additional bus capacity through the White City Opportunity Area (OA). This level of contribution will be the minimum expected as part of this application, although should the impacts on bus journey time from either the development or the relocation of the bus station be significant, additional funding to be able to maintain bus frequencies may be required.

Rail and Underground

92 As part of the previous consent, a total contribution of £3.9m was secured towards platform lengthening at Shepherds Bush Overground station. It is vital that this contribution remains secured through the revised consent as the funding is needed to support committed schemes which will be critical to enable the station to continue to operate when the full impact of the revised scheme is accounted for. However, it is noted that no financial mitigation was secured towards London Underground stations, and TfL would welcome discussions on the potential for this to be secured through this revised application, given the anticipated increased demand.

93 It should also be noted that there is a significant amount of London Underground infrastructure both adjacent to and below the site. Appropriate controls will need to be placed on any permission to ensure that these will not result in an unacceptable impact on London Underground infrastructure. Suggested conditions for this have been sent to the council.

Walking and Cycling

94 As discussed in the Access section above, the impact of changes to the highway layout on pedestrian desire lines, cycle routes and footway capacity will need to be further understood. The nature of any pedestrian and cycle facilities along the realigned Ariel Way may also require consideration, as little is currently shown on plans.

95 The provision of north/south and east/west pedestrian and shared use routes across the site is welcomed. However, it is noted that the proposed ‘Public Room’, part of the main east/west pedestrian route across the site, is enclosed with access provided through doors. It should be ensured that access via this route is maintained at all times, even outside of the opening hours of the shopping centre via an appropriate condition or planning obligation.

96 It is also noted that at its eastern end, this route feeds into ‘Ariel Square’. However, pedestrian connections into this square from other directions are not clear. Access from the east is restricted by the West Cross Route, and to the south pedestrians must negotiate a and complex signal junction (currently shown with no crossing points). In the interests of ensuring this space is well used, consideration should be given as to how access will be obtained into the square from outside the site.

97 It is noted that the Pedestrian Comfort Guidance assessment that was undertaken identified increasing levels of crowding north of Shepherds Bush station. In addition, the PERS audit submitted, whilst highlighting that the majority of the pedestrian environment around the site is of good quality, does highlight narrow footway widths and a lack of surveillance in this area. As this is the obvious route for residents of Plot C to use to access the station, TfL would question whether there are any interventions which could be carried out to maximise footway width and provide more activity on this link.

98 For the residential uses, 1,476 cycle parking spaces are proposed in line with London Plan standards. This is welcomed, but a suitable condition should be imposed on any consent requiring locations and details of cycle parking to be submitted at the Reserved Matters stage to ensure this is provided appropriately. Access routes to cycle parking also need to be confirmed.

page 26 99 For the commercial uses on site, the approach taken for the consented scheme was that, as there were areas of underused cycle parking within the wider Westfield site at present, lower quantities of well-located cycle parking should be provided, with an agreement that an additional 98 spaces would be installed. The new application takes the same approach. However, TfL feel that the provision should be increased proportionally with the increase in commercial floorspace, resulting in a requirement for 122 spaces. Locations for these spaces will need to be agreed through the reserved matters application.

100 Given the installation of a significant number of additional cycle hire docking stations near the site and the cycle interventions proposed through the OAPF, TfL would expect cycle hire usage to increase in future. As it is understood that one of the docking stations at the eastern end of Aerial Way may need to be relocated to enable the development, TfL would be interested in exploring the potential of increasing the size of this site as part of its relocation to accommodate this anticipated growth in usage.

Travel Plan

101 It is intended to update the existing Westfield travel plan to account for the non-residential uses on site, and a condition requiring submission of this updated plan (or a similar planning obligation) should be secured as part of any consent. A summary of the existing travel plan has been provided, and whilst the format and content is generally good it is very much focussed on the retail and leisure elements of the development. Further consideration should therefore be given to the office and community elements of the scheme, in line with TfL guidance.

102 In addition, it is noted that through the existing travel plan, whilst targets relating to public transport and car usage have been met, there is still a significant shortfall in the number of staff walking or cycling to work. It appears that few of the existing anchor tenants provide showers or lockers for staff and as such, TfL would encourage the development of further such measures to encourage staff walking or cycling.

103 A separate residential travel plan has been submitted, and should be secured through the section 106 agreement for the site. Whilst the format of the plan is generally good, TfL would question why the targets are aiming for a reduction in public transport use whilst not aiming for a reduction in car use, one of the stated objectives of the plan. In addition, the measures could be more ambitious and don’t mention, for example, the provision of car club spaces or funding for car clubs through the plan.

Construction and Servicing

104 The application proposes to both utilise spare capacity within the existing Westfield service yard and to create a new service yard within Block B. Swept path drawings have been provided, which is welcomed. However, although a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) has been submitted, it does not at present contain much of the information that TfL require in their guidance. A much more developed DSP should be secured by condition and should be developed in accordance with TfL guidance.

105 Similarly, although a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) has been provided as an appendix to the transport assessment, it is very limited in detail. It may be that more detail can be agreed once enabling works have been granted planning permission. However, it is vital that prior to commencement of any works a full CLP is approved by the council, in consultation with TfL.

Summary

page 27 106 Clarification on the ‘netting’ of floorspace within an outline application will need to be provided, and a mechanism to control and cap parking numbers agreed. Journey times for traffic and in particular for buses will need to be maintained across the area and at present there is not sufficient confidence that this will be the case, in particular given the modelling issues raised. Pedestrian and cycle access may require further consideration, and the impact of the bus station relocation discussed further. Mitigation across all modes of transport will also need to be discussed in further detail. Section 106 Contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

107 As stated in the transport section, the previous permission provided section 106 contributions towards mitigating the development’s transport impact across a number of modes as informed by the DIF Study. The scale and content of these obligations should form the starting point for the current proposals, although given the additional development and trips proposed it is considered appropriate that further mitigation is discussed. As stated above this could include funding towards a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the West Cross Route or measures to mitigate impact on highways, buses and underground. TfL would welcome further discussion with the Council and applicant on this matter.

108 In addition, Hammersmith and Fulham Council is currently consulting on a preliminary draft charging schedule for its CIL, with the intention that this will be published in summer 2014. Should these proposals be granted permission after that date the Council’s CIL will be levied as appropriate for this area; the rates as currently proposed will be £100 per square metre of residential floorspace and £80 per square metre for commercial floorspace (with the exception of office use). Notwithstanding this, it is understood that Hammersmith and Fulham Council expect the section 106 process to operate alongside its CIL as not all transport mitigation (for example additional bus capacity) could be delivered through this levy. Further discussions on how the CIL will operate will be required.

109 The Mayor of London introduced his Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1 April 2012. Most development that receives planning permission after this date will be liable to pay this CIL. The proposed development is in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, where the charging rate is £50 per square metre of floorspace. Further details can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayoral-community-infrastructure-levy. Local planning authority’s position

110 The Council is still reviewing the application. 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 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. 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.

page 28 Financial considerations

112 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

113 London Plan policies regarding opportunity areas, mix of land uses, housing, affordable housing, tall buildings, urban design, climate change and transport are relevant to this application. The application broadly complies with the London Plan, there are some outstanding issues that need to be resolved and these and their potential remedies are set out below.  Principle of development and town centre uses: The principle of a retail-led mixed use development with residential, offices, leisure and community space is acceptable on this regeneration site in the White City Opportunity Area. The applicant must confirm details of the retail impact assessment and anticipated impacts on the West End and Knightsbridge.  Housing: The viability assessment should be independently assessed in the context of the OAPF and DIF tariff. Details of this, together with confirmation of any review mechanism should be shared with the GLA prior to the Stage 2 referral to ensure a scheme that is compliant with London Plan housing policies. The density needs to be calculated accurately.  Urban design and tall buildings: The enclosure of the east/west link along Ariel Walk should be revised to ensure greater transparency and connectivity; the delivery of a bridge link over the West Cross Route should be progressed and pursued; review of the public realm to the north of Relay Square. Coordination with the site to the north on public realm should be pursued.  Climate change: The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions however, further revisions and information is required before the proposals can be considered acceptable and the carbon dioxide savings verified. Further progress on delivery of a district heating network should be demonstrated.  Transport: a number of transport issues as detailed above require resolution in respect of the transport assessment and proposed mitigation in order to ensure compliance with the London Plan. The mechanism to control and cap parking numbers agreed, modelling issues relating to journey times for traffic and in particular for buses will need to be addressed. Pedestrian and cycle access may require further consideration, and the impact of the bus station relocation discussed further. Mitigation across all modes of transport will also need to be discussed in further detail.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Alexandra Reitman, Case Officer 020 7983 4804 email [email protected]

page 29