Development Committee ______

Meeting of the

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ______

Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 7.00 p.m. ______

A G E N D A ______

VENUE Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG

Members: Deputies (if any):

Chair: Councillor Helal Abbas Vice-Chair: Councillor Shiria Khatun

Councillor Kosru Uddin Councillor Dr. Emma Jones, (Designated Councillor Craig Aston Deputy representing Councillor Craig Councillor Md. Maium Miah Aston) Councillor Anwar Khan Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed, 1 Vacancy (Designated Deputy representing Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Kosru Uddin and Shiria Khatun) Councillor Peter Golds, (Designated Deputy representing Councillor Craig Aston) Councillor Tim Archer, (Designated Deputy representing Councillor Craig Aston) Councillor Denise Jones, (Designated Deputy representing Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Kosru Uddin and Shiria Khatun) Councillor Bill Turner, (Designated Deputy representing Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Kosru Uddin and Shiria Khatun)

[Note: The quorum for this body is 3 Members].

If you require any further information relating to this meeting, would like to request a large print, Braille or audio version of this document, or would like to discuss access arrangements or any other special requirements, please contact: Zoe Folley, Democratic Services, Tel: 020 7364 4877, E-mail: [email protected]

"If the fire alarm sounds please leave the building immediately by the nearest available fire exit, to which a Fire Warden will direct you. Please do not use the lifts. Please do not deviate to collect personal belongings or vehicles parked in the complex. If you are unable to use the stairs, a member of staff will direct you to a safe area. On leaving the building, please proceed directly to the Fire Assembly Point situated by the lake on Saffron Avenue. No person must re-enter the building until instructed that it is safe to do so by the Senior Fire Marshall. The meeting will reconvene if it is safe to do so, otherwise it will stand adjourned."

LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

7.00 p.m.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive any apologies for absence.

2. DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

PAGE WARD(S) NUMBER AFFECTED 3. UNRESTRICTED MINUTES

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the 5 - 12 unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 12 th September 2012.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

To RESOLVE that:

1) in the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2) in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

5. PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS

To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings 13 - 14 of the Development Committee.

The deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is 4pm Monday 8 th October 2012.

6. DEFERRED ITEMS 15 - 16

6 .1 Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London. 17 - 62 Limehouse (PA/12/00925)

7. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION 63 - 66

7 .1 153-157 Commercial Road, London, E1 2DA 67 - 90 Whitechapel (PA/12/01133)

7 .2 Bow Cross Phase 11, Bow Cross Estate, Rainhill Way, 91 - 114 Bromley-By- London (PA/12/01019) Bow

7 .3 83 New Road, London, E1 1HH (PA/12/00605) 115 - 126 Whitechapel

7 .4 Land within former Truman's Brewery Site, on corner 127 - 162 Spitalfields of Spital Street and Buxton Street (PA/12/00090 and & PA/12/00091) Banglatown

7 .5 First Floor, 100 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL 163 - 172 Spitalfields (PA/12/01868) & Banglatown 7 .6 Capital Wharf, 50 Wapping High Street, London E1W 173 - 180 St (PA12/01850) Katharine's & Wapping 8. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS 181 - 182

8 .1 Phoenix School, 49 Bow Road, London, E3 2AD 183 - 190 Bow West (PA/12/02086)

8 .2 Planning Appeals Report 191 - 196

Agenda Item 2

DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS - NOTE FROM THE MONITORING OFFICER

This note is for guidance only. For further details please consult the Members’ Code of Conduct at Part 5.1 of the Council’s Constitution.

Please note that the question of whether a Member has an interest in any matter, and whether or not that interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, is for that Member to decide. Advice is available from officers as listed below but they cannot make the decision for the Member. If in doubt as to the nature of an interest it is advisable to seek advice prior to attending a meeting.

Interests and Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs)

You have an interest in any business of the authority where that business relates to or is likely to affect any of the persons, bodies or matters listed in section 4.1 (a) of the Code of Conduct; and might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well-being or financial position of yourself, a member of your family or a person with whom you have a close association, to a greater extent than the majority of other council tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the ward affected.

You must notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of any such interest, for inclusion in the Register of Members’ Interests which is available for public inspection and on the Council’s Website.

Once you have recorded an interest in the Register, you are not then required to declare that interest at each meeting where the business is discussed, unless the interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI).

A DPI is defined in Regulations as a pecuniary interest of any of the descriptions listed at Appendix A overleaf. Please note that a Member’s DPIs include his/her own relevant interests and also those of his/her spouse or civil partner; or a person with whom the Member is living as husband and wife; or a person with whom the Member is living as if they were civil partners; if the Member is aware that that other person has the interest.

Effect of a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest on participation at meetings

Where you have a DPI in any business of the Council you must, unless you have obtained a dispensation from the authority's Monitoring Officer following consideration by the Dispensations Sub-Committee of the Standards Advisory Committee:- - not seek to improperly influence a decision about that business; and - not exercise executive functions in relation to that business.

If you are present at a meeting where that business is discussed, you must:- - Disclose to the meeting the existence and nature of the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, if later; and - Leave the room (including any public viewing area) for the duration of consideration and decision on the item and not seek to influence the debate or decision

When declaring a DPI, Members should specify the nature of the interest and the agenda item to which the interest relates. This procedure is designed to assist the public’s understanding of the meeting and to enable a full record to be made in the minutes of the meeting.

Page 1 Where you have a DPI in any business of the authority which is not included in the Member’s register of interests and you attend a meeting of the authority at which the business is considered, in addition to disclosing the interest to that meeting, you must also within 28 days notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest for inclusion in the Register.

Further advice

For further advice please contact:- Isabella Freeman, Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services), 020 7364 4801; or John Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services, 020 7364 4204

Page 2 APPENDIX A: Definition of a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest

(Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, Reg 2 and Schedule)

Subject Prescribed description Employment, office, trade, Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on profession or vacation for profit or gain.

Sponsorship Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the relevant authority) made or provided within the relevant period in respect of any expenses incurred by the Member in carrying out duties as a member, or towards the election expenses of the Member. This includes any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Contracts Any contract which is made between the relevant person (or a body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest) and the relevant authority— (a) under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed; and (b) which has not been fully discharged.

Land Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the relevant authority.

Licences Any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the relevant authority for a month or longer.

Corporate tenancies Any tenancy where (to the Member’s knowledge)— (a) the landlord is the relevant authority; and (b) the tenant is a body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest.

Securities Any beneficial interest in securities of a body where— (a) that body (to the Member’s knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the relevant authority; and (b) either—

(i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or

(ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class.

Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 4 Agenda Item 3 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 12/09/2012 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)

LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS

MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

HELD AT 7.00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2012

Members Present:

Councillor Helal Abbas (Chair)

Councillor Shiria Khatun (Vice-Chair) Councillor Kosru Uddin Councillor Md. Maium Miah

Councillor Peter Golds Councillor Tim Archer

Other Councillors Present:

Non present.

Officers Present:

Jerry Bell – (Strategic Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) Fleur Brunton – (Senior Lawyer - Planning Chief Executive's) Benson Olaseni – (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) Mandip Dhillon – (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) Zoe Folley – (Committee Officer, Democratic Services Chief Executive's)

–

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Anwar Khan and Craig Aston for whom Councillor Peter Golds was deputising.

2. DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.

3. UNRESTRICTED MINUTES

The Committee RESOLVED

Page 5 1 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 12/09/2012 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 nd August 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1) In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2) In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

5. PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS

The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.

6. DEFERRED ITEMS

Nil Items.

7. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

7.1 12 Hanbury Street, London (PA/11/01488) - Withdrawn

It was noted that the application had been withdrawn from the agedna due to issues with the Certificates of Ownership.

The application would be reported to a subsequent Development Committee meeting once the issues had been addressed.

7.2 Site at the South West Junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, Glenworth Avenue, London (PA/12/01646)

Update Report Tabled.

Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) introduced the proposal regarding Site at the South West Junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, Glenworth Avenue, London (PA/12/01646). Mandip Dhillon (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report with a power point presentation. Ms Dhillon

Page 6 2 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 12/09/2012 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)

explained the site location and the proximity of the nearby conservation area, St Lukes School, St Johns Church listed building and the local Police Station. She explained the current conditions of the site and the unlisted status of the lighthouse. The Council’s Conservation team were satisfied with the plans and the demolition. She detailed the plans to relocate the Memorial plaque to a suitable alternative location and to replace the Rowan tree. The height and design mirrored the surrounding area. Each of the units would have private amenity space. The scheme was car and permit free. Overall, it would deliver much needed housing on a Brownfield site without any adverse amenity impact so should be granted permission subject to conditions.

Questions were raised about the relocation of the memorial plaque and tree. Members were keen to ensure that they were adequately relocated and to identify the new location in the plans. Members also questioned: the impact of the car free plans given they were family units; the policy support for this; the heritage value of the lighthouse; the measures to prevent the contamination of the neighbouring site from Japanese Knotweed and the history of the site as a burial site.

In response, Officers confirmed the plans to relocate the memorial site to Saunders Ness Road (at the front near number one). The tree would be located near by it. The Council’s permit transfer scheme only applied to social rented units not private units as proposed in this scheme. Officers and the Conservation area team were satisfied with the scheme. The team considered that the lighthouse was a modern structure, a view also supported by an expert local historian.

The applicant would be encouraged to work with the adjacent site owner to clear any Japanese Knotweed. However, the Council could not enforce this as part of this application as it fell outside its boundary. There was a conditions to address the issue on site.

Officers had carefully investigated the issue of the burial/ interment of ashes on site, but there was no record of this in the funeral books as detailed in the update report. Furthermore, there was an informative covering the discovery of any remains on site. This required the applicant to obtain a burial license from the Minster of Justice should any be discovered.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

1. That planning permission (PA/12/01646) at Site at the South West Junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, Glenworth Avenue, London be GRANTED for the erection of eight x three storey houses each containing three bedrooms inclusive of external amenity space and cycle parking subject to the following:

2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report.

Page 7 3 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 12/09/2012 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)

7.3 313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ (PA/12/00623 and PA/12/00624)

Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) introduced the proposal regarding 313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ (PA/12/00623 and PA/12/00624)

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.

Tom Ridge speaking in opposition stated that had looked at the case file. According to this, 26 people not just the 21 recorded in the report had objected to the scheme along with the petition against with 12 signatures. He disputed that the criteria in policy for demolishing buildings in the conservation area had been properly applied. Particularly:

• The adequacy of the efforts to the maintain the building in use (point 4) - There was no mention of this in the report. The upper floor had already been adjusted as a hotel so this could be easily done. But this had not been fully explored;

• The suitability of any proposed replacement building (point 5) - This was a very standard design that conflicted with the historic buildings.

The proposal would dominate the historic gardens and spoil the setting of the Museum of Childhood. The latter would no longer be the tallest building in the area. It would ruin the cluster of protected buildings and gardens that formed a harmonious square. It would spoil the balance of the area. In response to Members questions, he stated that he was unaware of any consultation done by the applicant, other than the standard consultation carried out by the Council.

Mark Hogdson spoke in support of the application. The applicant had been working with Officers for over a year on the scheme. The plans sought to replace an out of date building with a new hotel that respected the area. The applicant had carried out a detailed heritage assessment and had tested the height and massing of the scheme given the sensitive nature of the area. The Conservation area experts were satisfied with the proposal and English Heritage had not raised any concerns. Officers considered that a five storey scheme in the area was acceptable. The plans would provide 27 new jobs, increase tourism with a commitment to use local firms. The design consisted of two elements– a dark brick section with a leaf detailed northern element to match the trees and Museum of Childhood. It would make a positive contribution to the heritage assets and the landscape.

In reply to Members, Mr Hogdson reported that the Applicant had spoken to the ward Councillors, but had not directly contacted residents themselves. However, the residents were consulted by the Council. He emphasised the purpose of the ‘leaf design’- to fit in with that part of the site and also compensate for any loss of greenery. It was required that details of the design be submitted for approval. Such work would be undertaken by a design specialist.

Page 8 4 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 12/09/2012 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)

Benson Olaseni (Planning Officer) presented the report with a power point presentation. He explained in detail the proposal, the site location and surrounding area and the proximity with the surrounding protected buildings including the Museum of Childhood. He explained the outcome of the consultation, the objections raised and the material considerations. In terms of land use, the proposal was considered acceptable given the site was not designated, was unsuitable for employment uses, the good transport links and the policy support for a hotel in this area. The Conservation team had raised no objections to the demolition given the lack of historic value of the existing building. The design and materials respected the area with the mix of traditional and contemporary brick work. It protected amenity with mitigation to restrict the hours of operation. The scheme was car free and there were no plans for onsite coach parking as the development would use the existing on street bays. Highways had raised no objections.

In response, Members expressed concern at the northern part of the proposed building. It was felt that the contemporary design, especially at the upper parts, was out of keeping with the conservation area and the more traditional museum of childhood. The design for this section was too overpowering. Whilst welcoming the scheme as a whole, it was felt that this aspect of the scheme should be reviewed to find a design more in keeping with the area.

In response, Officers considered that the design fitted in well with the area. The aim of the design was to blend in with the buildings and respect the greenery. The relevant Council experts had considered this design and felt that it was appropriate.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED :

That planning permission (PA/12/00623 and PA/12/00624) at 313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ be DEFERRED

It was agreed that the application be deferred to allow Officers to discuss further with the Applicant the appearance of the northern part of the site to address Members concerns over its contemporary design and to bring a revised application back to a future meeting.

(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Shiria Khatun, Kosru Uddin, Md. Maium Miah and Peter Golds)

8. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS

8.1 Raines Foundation Upper School, Approach Roach, London E2 9LY (PA/12/02022)

Update Report Tabled.

Page 9 5 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 12/09/2012 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)

Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) introduced the proposal regarding Raines Foundation Upper School, Approach Roach, London E2 9LY (PA/12/02022). Mandip Dhillon (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report.

It was noted that the Council could not determine applications for listed building consent for it own buildings.

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:

That the application (PA/12/02022) Raines Foundation Upper School, Approach Roach, London E2 9LY for internal alteration works, including forming of new doors, widening of existing doors, mechanical & electrical installation and associated work be referred to the Government Office for West Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.

8.2 Appeals Report

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED

That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted.

9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

(a) Park Poplar Business Park, 10 Prestons Road, London E14 9RL (PA/11/03375)

It was reported that the appeal against the decision by the Council to refuse would be dealt with by a public inquiry. The hearing would take place between Tuesday 4 th and Friday the 7 th December 2012, in the Town Hall Council Chamber.

(b) Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London (PA/12/00925)

At its last meeting in August, the Committee resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant to consider the reduction in height of the six storey element of the development. This was primarily to retain views to St Dunstan’s Church located in Stepney from the Hydraulic Tower and to understand whether this would improve Daylight conditions to the proposed residential units.

It is expected that Officer’s will present the deferred report at the October Development Committee.

However, prior to that meeting, Member’s were encouraged to visit the tower to understand the different views that exist. The Tower is open to the general public on Saturday 22 nd September 2012 at 1pm-5pm & on Sunday 23 rd September 2012 at 1pm-5pm.

Page 10 6 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 12/09/2012 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)

For member’s who are unable to visit the Tower on these dates please contact Nasser Farooq on [email protected] by Tuesday 25 th September 2012 and access arrangements will be made.

The meeting ended at 8.00 p.m.

Chair, Councillor Helal Abbas Development Committee

Page 11 7 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 Agenda Item 5

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PROCEDURES FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS

6.1 Where a planning application is reported on the “Planning Applications for Decision” part of the agenda, individuals and organisations which have expressed views on the application will be sent a letter that notifies them that the application will be considered by Committee. The letter will explain the provisions regarding public speaking. The letter will be posted by 1 st class post at least five clear working days prior to the meeting. 6.2 When a planning application is reported to Committee for determination the provision for the applicant/supporters of the application and objectors to address the Committee on any planning issues raised by the application, will be in accordance with the public speaking procedure adopted by the relevant Committee from time to time. 6.3 All requests from members of the public to address a Committee in support of, or objection to, a particular application must be made to the Committee Clerk by 4:00pm one clear working day prior to the day of the meeting. It is recommended that email or telephone is used for this purpose. This communication must provide the name and contact details of the intended speaker and whether they wish to speak in support of or in objection to the application. Requests to address a Committee will not be accepted prior to the publication of the agenda. 6.4 Any Committee or non-Committee Member who wishes to address the Committee on an item on the agenda shall also give notice of their intention to speak in support of or in objection to the application, to the Committee Clerk by no later than 4:00pm one clear working day prior to the day of the meeting. 6.5 For objectors, the allocation of slots will be on a first come, first served basis. 6.6 For supporters, the allocation of slots will be at the discretion of the applicant. 6.7 After 4:00pm one clear working day prior to the day of the meeting the Committee Clerk will advise the applicant of the number of objectors wishing to speak and the length of his/her speaking slot. This slot can be used for supporters or other persons that the applicant wishes to present the application to the Committee. 6.8 Where a planning application has been recommended for approval by officers and the applicant or his/her supporter has requested to speak but there are no objectors or Members registered to speak, then the applicant or their supporter(s) will not be expected to address the Committee. 6.9 Where a planning application has been recommended for refusal by officers and the applicant or his/her supporter has requested to speak but there are no objectors or Members registered to speak, then the applicant and his/her supporter(s) can address the Committee for up to three minutes. 6.10 The order of public speaking shall be as stated in Rule 5.3. 6.11 Public speaking shall comprise verbal presentation only. The distribution of additional material or information to Members of the Committee is not permitted. 6.12 Following the completion of a speaker’s address to the Committee, that speaker shall take no further part in the proceedings of the meeting unless directed by the Chair of the Committee. 6.13 Following the completion of all the speakers’ addresses to the Committee, at the discretion of and through the Chair, Committee Members may ask questions of a speaker on points of clarification only. 6.14 In the interests of natural justice or in exceptional circumstances, at the discretion of the Chair, the procedures in Rule 5.3 and in this Rule may be varied. The reasons for any such variation shall be recorded in the minutes. 6.15 Speakers and other members of the public may leave the meeting after the item in which they are interested has been determined.

Page 13 • For each planning application up to two objectors can address the Committee for up to three minutes each. The applicant or his/her supporter can address the Committee for an equivalent time to that allocated for objectors. • For each planning application where one or more Members have registered to speak in objection to the application, the applicant or his/her supporter can address the Committee for an additional three minutes.

Page 14 Agenda Item 6

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 10 th October 2012 Unrestricted 6

Report of: Title: Deferred Items Corporate Director Development and Renewal Ref No: See reports attached for each item Originating Officer: Owen Whalley Ward(s): See reports attached for each item

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report is submitted to advise the Committee of planning applications that have been considered at previous meetings and currently stand deferred. The following information and advice applies to them.

2. DEFERRED ITEMS

2.1 The following items are in this category:

Date Referen Location Development Reason for deferral deferred ce number PA/12/0 Land at Commercial Erection of buildings The Committee 22 nd 0925 Road, Basin Approach, between 3 and 9 resolved to defer the August London. storeys in height to application to allow 2012 provide 48 dwellings, the applicant to including affordable consider the reduction housing, together with in height of the six the provision of storey element of the landscaping works, development. This disabled parking and was primarily to retain infrastructure works. views to St Dunstan’s (Amended Church located in description) Stepney from the Hydraulic Tower and to understand whether this would improve Daylight conditions to the proposed residential units.

3. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED ITEMS

3.1 The following deferred application is for consideration by the Committee. The original reports along with any update reports are attached.

• Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London. PA/12/00925

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORTS UNDER ITEM 6

Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register: Name and telephone no. of holder: Application, plans, adopted UDP, Interim Eileen McGrath (020) 7364 5321 Planning Guidance and London Plan Page 15 3.2 Deferred applications may also be reported in the Addendum Update Report if they are ready to be reconsidered by the Committee. This report is available in the Council Chamber 30 minutes before the commencement of the meeting.

4. PUBLIC SPEAKING

4.1 As public speaking has already occurred when the Committee first considered these deferred items, the Council’s Constitution does not allow a further opportunity for public speaking. The only exception to this is where a fresh report has been prepared and presented in the “Planning Applications for Decision” part of the agenda. This is generally where substantial new material is being reported to Committee and the recommendation is significantly altered.

5. RECOMMENDATION

5.1 That the Committee note the position relating to deferred items and to take any decisions recommended in the attached reports.

Page 16 Agenda Item 6.1

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item Number: Development 10 th October 2012 Unrestricted Committee Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Ref: PA/12/00925

Case Officer: Nasser Farooq Ward: Limehouse (February 2002 onwards)

1 Application Details

Location Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London.

Existing Use: Derelict site former industrial uses. Most recently been used for the storage of materials in relation to the development of the adjoining site.

Proposal: Erection of buildings between 3 and 9 storeys in height to provide 48 dwellings, including affordable housing, together with the provision of landscaping works, disabled parking and infrastructure works. (Amended description)

Drawing no’s 1274_0001, 1274_0100 G, 1274_0101G, 1274_0104K, 1274_0106J, 1274_0108K, 1274_0050, 1274_0051, 1274_0210G, 1274_0211F, 1274_0212D, 1274_0213F, 1274_0301, 1274_0302, 1274_0303, 1274_0304 and 1274_0305.

Documents -Air Quality Assessment dated April 2012 prepared by Mayer Brown. -Daylight/ Sunlight report dated 29 th March 2012, prepared by Savills -Updated Daylight/Sunlight, revived via Letter dated 20 th August 2012, prepared by Savills -Design and Access Statement dated March 2012, prepared by RMA Architects reference 1274_001 -Energy Statement Second Submission dated 26 th July 2012, prepared by Hodkinson Consultancy -Heritage Statement dated March 2012, prepared by Waterman Energy, Environmental & Design Limited. -Noise and Vibration Assessment rev B, dated April 2012 prepared by Mayer Brown including the following information: • Foundation Assessment for Proposed Apartment Block prepared by RTL dated 29 th June 2012 • Air-Borne Noise Mitigation Package prepared by Mayer Brown dated July 2012 • Acoustic Specification for Glazing dated 12/06/2012. • Appendix 6 Hydraulic Accumulator Tower Foundation Assessment and Sketches

-Statement of Community Involvement dated March, 2012 prepared by HardHat. -Sustainability Statement V.3 dated March 2012, prepared by Hodkinson Consultancy.

Page 17 -Supporting Planning Statement dated March 2012, prepared by Savills -Transport Assessment dated April 2012, prepared by Mayer Brown

Applicant: Bellway Homes Ltd (Thames Gateway)

Ownership: Canals and Riverside Trust (formally British Waterways)

Historic Buildings: Within the development: Grade II Listed viaduct to the south Grade II Listed tower to the south east

Adjacent to the site: Grade II Listed Viaduct to the north-east Grade II Listed terrace to the north (683-691 Commercial Road) Grade II Listed terrace to the west of the site (604-608 Commercial Road)

Conservation Area: South-eastern part of the site falls within the St Anne’s Church Conservation Area The site is adjacent to Lowell Street Conservation Area The site is also near the Regents Canal and Narrow Street Conservation Areas. 2. Background

2.1 This application was reported to Development Committee on 22 nd August 2012 with an officer recommendation to GRANT planning permission (subject to conditions) for the erection of buildings between 3 and 9 storeys in height to provide 52 dwellings, including affordable housing, together with the provision of landscaping works, disabled parking and infrastructure works..

2.2 Officers recorded that Members were minded to defer the determination of the planning application to enable the applicant to discuss the potential to reduce the height of the six storey element of the development to reduce the loss of views from the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower especially towards St Dunstan’s Church in Stepney. Members also considered that a reduction in height may improve lighting conditions to proposed Block A fronting Commercial Road.

3.0 Further information.

3.1 After liaising with the GLIAS and the East End Waterway Group and taking on board members concerns, the applicant, has agreed to the removal of two storeys (from the six storey element) of the scheme. The planning impacts of this change are discussed with in this report.

3.2 Following the committee meeting, council officers visited the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower to assess the existing view, in particular the north – westerly view to St Dunstan’s Church in Stepney Green.

3.3 Officer’s considered th e view to St Dunstan’s Church to be very limited with only the top spire and flag of the church visible above a very dense line of trees, this is the view experienced by Open London visitors to the site in September. In addition, officers emphasise that th ere are no policy protection for these views in the Core Strategy or the London Plan.

Page 18 4.0 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this revised application against t he Council's approved planning policies contained in the Core Strategy 2010, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan, the Council's Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), the London Plan 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework and has found that:

4.2 The proposal is in line with the Mayor of London and Council’s policy, as well as Government guidance which seek to maximise the development potential of sites. As such, the development complies with policy 3.4 of t he London Plan (2011), policy SP02 of the Core Strategy (2010) and policy DM3 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012) which seeks to ensure the use of land is appropriately optimised.

4.3 The proposed development is acceptable in term s of design and appearance. As such, the scheme is in line with policies 7.1 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011, Policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010), policies DM24 and DM26 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and saved poli cy DEV1 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, which seek to ensure buildings are of a high quality design and suitably located.

4.4 Subject to conditions requiring the submission of full details and material samples the scheme is considered t o enhance the street scene and local context, posing no significant adverse impact on the character, appearance and setting of the Grade II listed structure and buildings within the vicinity of the site, nor the character and appearances of the St Anne’s C hurch, Lowell Street, Regents Canal and Narrow Street Conservation Areas. As such, the proposal is in accordance with government guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 7.8 and 7.9 of the Mayor’s London Plan (2011) as well as Policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010), saved policy DEV1 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies DM23, DM24 and DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012), which seek to protect the appearance and setting of listed buildings and conservation areas.

4.5 The proposal provides an acceptable amount of affordable housing and mix of units. As such, the proposal is in line with policies 3.8, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 of the London Plan 2011, saved policy HSG7 of the Counc il’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policy DM3 of Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP02 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010 which seek to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing choices.

4.6 The scheme provides acceptable space standards and layout. As such, the scheme is in line with policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, DM4 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP02 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010 and policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2011 which seek to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.

4.7 The proposed amount of amenity space is acceptable and in line with saved policy HSG16 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policy DM4 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP02 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010), which seek to improve amenity and liveability for residents.

4.8 The proposal woul d not give rise to any unduly detrimental impacts in terms of privacy, overlooking, sunlight and daylight, and noise upon the surrounding residents. Also, the scheme proposes appropriate mitigation measures to ensure a satisfactory level of residential ame nity for the future occupiers. As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy

Page 19 the relevant criteria of saved policy DEV2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP1 0 of the of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010 which seek to protect residential amenity.

4.9 Transport matters, including parking, access and servicing, are acceptable and in line with policies T16 and T19 of the Council’s Unitary Develo pment Plan 1998, policy DM20 and DM22 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP08 and SP09 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) which seek to ensure developments minimise parking and promote sustainable transport options.

4.10 The development, through a series of methods including a CHP plant communal gas fired boiler and Photovoltaic Panels would result in a satisfactory reduction in carbon emissions and also seeks to secure the code for sustainable homes level 4 which is in accordance with policy SP11 of the Core Strategy and the energy hierarchy within the London Plan (2011) policies 5.2 and 5.7, and policy DM29 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), which seek to reduce carbon emissi ons from developments by using sustainable construction techniques and renewable energy measures.

4.11 Contributions have been secured towards the provision of affordable housing; education improvements; public realm improvements; community facilities; health care provision and access to employment for local people in line with Regulation 122 of Community Infrastructure Levy 2010; saved policy DEV4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998; and policy SP02 and SP13 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, which seek to secure contributions toward infrastructure and services required to facilitate proposed development.

5.0 RECOMMENDATION

5.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

5.2 The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:

5.3 Financial contributions

a) £10,160 towards employment initiatives for the construction phase. b) £12,348 towards Idea stores and Library facilities. c) £37,990 towards Leisure and/or Community Facilities d) £156,021 towards the provision of education. e) £78,639 towards public open space f) £68,671 towards the provision of health and wellbeing. g) £1,470 towards sustainable transport h) £24,000 towards Bus Stop improvements along Commercial Road i) £7,786 for the 2% monitoring fee.

Total Contribution financial contributions £397,085

5.4 Non-financial contributions

j) Minimum of 35% affordable housing, measured in habitable rooms comprising of: 2 x one bed and 4 x two bed shared ownership 1 x one bed and 4 x two bedroom units at affordable rent (set at pod levels) 5 x three bed units at social rent. k) Car free development.

Page 20 l) Access to employment initiatives for construction through 20% of non-technical t otal construction jobs to be advertised through the Council’s job brokerage service. m) An expectation that 20% of total value of contracts which procure goods and services are to be to be achieved using firms located within the borough. n) Retention of public access to the Hydraulic Tower o) Any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

5.5 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.

5.6 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following matters:

5.7 Conditions

1. Three Year time limit for full planning permission 2. No development within 100m of Crossrail boring machine. 3. No development until detailed construction drawings are approved. 4. Development in accordance with plans 5. Details of materials 6. Details of lighting to the arches, defensib le space, Balcony Screening, Entrance drawings and railings and gates 7. Boundary Plan 8. Landscape details and management plan 9. Contaminated land – details to be submitted for approval 10. Details of ramp access 11. Details of noise mitigation measures including to communal amenity space 12. Secure by design 13. Compliance with Energy Statement detailed energy strategy 14. Installation of a heat network 15. Installation of Photovoltaic Panels 16. Detail of measures to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 17. Details of deliver and service management strategy 18. Construction Hours (8am – 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am – 1pm Saturday only). 19. Scheme of highways works 20. Development to comply with lifetime homes standards 21. 10% wheelchair housing retained 22. Provision of refuse facilities in accordance with drawing 23. Provision/retention of cycle spaces 24. Provision of disabled spaces 25. Construction management plan 26. The development shall comply with the requirement of ‘Secured by Design’ 27. Accumulator Tower Access Management Plan 28. Any other conditions(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal

5.8 Informatives

1. This development is to be read in conjunction with the s106 agreement 2. Developer to enter into a s278 agreement for works to the public highway (Commercial Road Managed by Transport for London

Page 21 3. Developer to contact Council’s Building Control service 4. Developer to contact Network Rail prior to commencement of development 5. Developer to contact Crossrail prior to commencement of development 6. Any other informatives(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

5.9 That if, within three months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

6.0 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Design

6.1 The reduction of two storeys (from 6 storeys to 4 storeys) in height to part of the development closest to the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower, is considered acceptable in terms of design and appearance.

Housing

6.2 The reduction in two storeys from the originally proposed development results in the loss of four residential units including two affordable units. The applicant is still providing 35% affordable housing.

6.3 The reduction in the height of the building has resulted in the reduction of the number of residential units proposed from 52 to 48 units, with a total of 142 habitable rooms. Of these, 16 flats would be affordable housing. By habitable room the scheme provides a total of 35% affordable accommodation comprising 68% affordable/social rent and 32% intermediate. This is explained in the table below:

6.4 Market Sale Intermediate Affordable/Social Totals Housing Rent Units Hab Units Hab Units Hab Units Hab Rooms Rooms Rooms Rooms 1 Bed 8 16 2 4 1 2 11 22 2 Bed 20 60 4 12 4 12 28 84 3 Bed 4 16 0 0 5 20 9 36 Totals 32 92 6 16 10 34 48 142

6.5 Of the 10 rented units, these are broken down as follow:

• 5 one and two bedroom units at Affordable Rent at POD Levels (1 Bed £152.70 per week inclusive of service charges) (2 Bed £168.17 per week inclusive of service charges) • 5 three bedroom units at Social Rent levels.

6.6 Given the application proposes 35% affordable housing, with the 5 affordable family sized units at social rent, and the remainder at POD levels within the affordable rent tenure, the proposed development is in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Housing policies as outlined above.

Dwelling mix

Page 22 6.7 In total 9 family sized units are provided, around 18% of all the accommodation. Policy SP02 requires 30% of developments to be 3 bedroom units or larger, but within the social rented sector 45% should be for families.

6.8 In this case, 50% of the units within the rented tenure would be family sized. Whilst the overall 18% provision of family sized accommodation is not policy compliant, it is considered that given the spatial constraints of the site with noise sensitive facades, the provision of family housing has been maximised at the lower, more accessible areas of the development.

6.9 It is considered that there is a suitable mix of units within the scheme and that it would provide for a wide range of occupants, therefore promoting a mixed and balanced community.

Daylight conditions to proposed residents.

6.10 The two storey reduction in the development will inevitably improve daylighting conditions to proposed dwellings especially those located within the Courtyard.

6.11 Officers considered that the development originally proposed, provided an acceptable standard of accommodation, however because the two storey reduction will further improve conditions, it is also considered acceptable.

6.12 The revised daylight calculations (ADF) indicate a further 8 habitable rooms meet the BRE Guideline. The remaining failures are now a lot closer to BRE guidelin es and are considered acceptable.

Any other issues

7.0 Further representations.

7.1 Following the committee of 22 nd August 2012, the Council has received 4 letters from local residents objecting to the scheme and one letter supporting the principle of the development. The objections raised are on the following grounds: - Design - Size of apartments - Density - Impact on views

7.2 These issues have been considered in the original report to committee and are considered acceptable by officers.

7.3 In addition, the following issues have also been raised, which are outside the scope of this application: - No public enhancements (Officer comment: the applicant has agreed to various s106 contributions aimed at mitigating the impact of the development) - Sales strategy (Officer comment: the Council is unable to control the sales strategy of the development)

7.4 In addition, the Council has received further letter from the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society and East Waterway Group confirming the withdrawal of their objection to the scheme as a result of the changes made to the scheme.

Page 23 8.0 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Officers consider that the revised proposal is acceptable for the reasons set out in Section 4 of this report and planning permission should be granted for the development subject to the conditions and the prior completion of a s106 agreement.

Page 24 Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item Number: Development 22nd August 2012 Unrestricted Committee Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Ref: PA/12/00925

Case Officer: Nasser Farooq Ward: Limehouse (February 2002 onwards)

1 Application Details

Location Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London.

Existing Use: Derelict site former industrial uses. Most recently been used for the storage of materials in relation to the development of the adjoining site.

Proposal: Erection of buildings between 3 and 9 storeys in height to provide 52 dwellings, including affordable housing, together with the provision of landscaping works, disabled parking and infrastructure works.

Drawing no’s 1274_0001, 1274_0100 F, 1274_0101 F, 1274_0104 H, 1274_0106 G, 1274_0108 H, 1274_0050, 1274_0051, 1274_0210 F, 1274_0211 D, 1274_0212 D, 1274_0213 D, 1274_0301, 1274_0302, 1274_0303, 1274_0304 and 1274_0305.

Documents -Air Quality Assessment dated April 2012 prepared by Mayer Brown. -Daylight/ Sunlight report dated 29 th March 2012, prepared by Savills -Design and Access Statement dated March 2012, prepared by RMA Architects reference 1274_001 -Energy Statement Second Submission dated 26th July 2012, prepared by Hodkinson Consultancy -Heritage Statement dated March 2012, prepared by Waterman Energy, Environmental & Design Limited. -Noise and Vibration Assessment rev B, dated April 2012 prepared by Mayer Brown including the following information: • Foundation Assessment for Proposed Apartment Block prepared by RTL dated 29 th June 2012 • Air-Borne Noise Mitigation Package prepared by Mayer Brown dated July 2012 • Acoustic Specification for Glazing dated 12/06/2012. • Appendix 6 Hydraulic Accumulator Tower Foundation Assessment and Sketches -Statement of Community Involvement dated March, 2012 prepared by HardHat. -Sustainability Statement V.3 dated March 2012, prepared by Hodkinson Consultancy. -Supporting Planning Statement dated March 2012, prepared by Savills

Page 25 -Transport Assessment dated April 2012, prepared by Mayer Brown

Applicant: Bellway Homes Ltd (Thames Gateway)

Ownership: British Waterways

Historic Buildings: Within the development: Grade II Listed viaduct to the south Grade II Listed tower to the south east

2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council's approved planning policies contained in the Core Strategy 2010 , the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan, the Council's Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), the London Plan 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework and has found that:

2.2 The proposal is in line with the Mayor of London and Council’s policy, as well as Government guidance which seek to maximise the development potential of sites. As such, the development complies with policy 3.4 of the London Plan (2011), policy SP02 of the Core Strategy (2010) and policy DM3 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012) which seeks to ensure the use of land is appropriately optimised.

2.3 The proposed development is acceptable in terms of design and appearance. As such, the scheme is in line with policies 7.1 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011, Policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010), policies DM24 and DM26 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and saved policy DEV1 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, which seek to ensure buildings are of a high quality design and suitably located.

2.4 Subject to conditions requiring the submission of full details and material samples the scheme is considered to enhance the street scene and local context, posing no significant adverse impact on the character, appearance and setting of the Grade II listed structure and buildings within the vicinity of the site, nor the character and appearances of the St Anne’s Church, Lowell Street, Regents Canal and Narrow Street Conservation Areas. As such, the proposal is in accordance with gove rnment guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework , Policies 7.8 and 7.9 of the Mayor’s London Plan (2011) as well as Policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010), saved policy DEV1 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies DM23 , DM24 and DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission

Page 26 version 2012), which seek to protect the appearance and setting of listed buildings and conservation areas.

2.5 The proposal provides an acceptable amount of affordable housing and mix of units. As such, the proposal is in line with policies 3.8, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 of the London Plan 2011, saved policy HSG7 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policy DM3 of Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP02 of th e Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010 which seek to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing choices.

2.6 The scheme provides acceptable space standards and layout. As such, the scheme is in line with policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, DM4 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP02 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010 and policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2011 which seek to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.

2.7 The proposed amount of amenity space is acceptable and in line with saved policy HSG16 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policy DM4 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP02 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010), which seek to improve amenity and liveability for residents.

2.8 The proposal would not give rise to any unduly detrimental impacts in terms of privacy, overlooking, sunlight and daylight, and noise upon t he surrounding residents. Also, the scheme proposes appropriate mitigation measures to ensure a satisfactory level of residential amenity for the future occupiers. As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant criteria of saved policy DEV2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP10 of the of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010 which seek to protect residential amenity.

2.9 Transport m atters, including parking, access and servicing, are acceptable and in line with policies T16 and T19 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policy DM20 and DM22 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP08 and SP09 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) which seek to ensure developments minimise parking and promote sustainable transport options.

2.10 The development, thorough a series of methods including a CHP plant communa l gas fired boiler and Photovoltaic Panels would result in a satisfactory reduction in carbon emissions and also seeks to secure the code for sustainable homes level 4 which is in accordance with policy SP11 of the Core Strategy and the energy hierarchy within the London Plan (2011) policies 5.2 and 5.7, and policy DM29 of the Managing Development DPD (S ubmission version 2012), which seek to reduce carbon emissions from developments by using sustainable construction techniques and renewable energy measures.

2.11 Contributions ha ve been secured towards the provision of affordable housing; education improvements; public realm improvements; community facilities; health care provision and access to employment for local people in line with Regulation 122 of Community Infrastructure Levy 2010; saved policy DEV4 of the Council’ s Unitary Development Plan 1998; and policy SP02 and SP13 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, which seek to secure contributions toward infrastructure and services required to facilitate proposed development.

Page 27

3. RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

3.2 The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:

3.3 Financial contributions

a) £9,149 towards employment initiatives for the construction phase. b) £13,356 towards Idea stores and Library facilities. c) £41,092 towards Leisure and/or Community Facilities d) £170,851 towards the provision of education. e) £85,058 towards public open space f) £69,099 towards the provision of health and wellbeing. g) £1,590 towards sustainable transport h) £26,000 towards Bus Stop improvements along Commercial Road i) £8,324 for the 2% monitoring fee.

Total Contribution financial contributions £424,519

3.4 Non-financial contributions

j) Minimum of 36% affordable housing, measured in habitable rooms comprising of: 3 x one bed and 4 x two bed shared ownership 1 x one bed and 5 x two bedroom units at affordable rent (set at pod level) 5 x three bed units at social rent k) Car free development. l) Access to employment initiatives for construction through 20% of non-technical total construction jobs to be advertised through the Council’s job brokerage service. m) An expectation that 20% of total valu e of contracts which procure goods and services are to be to be achieved using firms located within the borough. n) Retention of public access to the Hydraulic Tower o) Any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

3.5 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.

3.6 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following matters:

3.7 Conditions

Page 28 6. Details of lighting to the arches, defensible space, Balcony Screening, Entrance drawings and railings and gates. 7. Boundary Plan 8. Landscape details and management plan 9. Contaminated land – details to be submitted for approval. 10. Details of ramp access 11. Details of noise mitigation measures including to communal amenity space 12. Secure by design. 13. Compliance with Energy Statement detailed energy strategy 14. Installation of a heat network 15. Installation of Photovoltaic Panels. 16. Detail of measures to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. 17. Details of deliver and service management strategy 18. Construction Hours (8am – 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am – 1pm Saturday only). 19. Scheme of highways works. 20. Development to comply with lifetime homes standards. 21. 10% wheelchair housing retained. 22. Provision of refuse facilities in accordance with drawing 23. Provision/retention of cycle spaces 24. Provision of disabled spaces 25. Construction management plan. 26. The development shall comply with the requirement of ‘Secured by Design’. 27. Any other conditions(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Develo pment & Renewal.

3.8 Informatives

1. This development is to be read in conjunction with the s106 agreement 2. Developer to enter into a s278 agreement for works to the public highway (Commercial Road Managed by Transport for London 3. Developer to contact Council’s Building Control service. 4. Developer to contact Network Rail prior to commencement of development. 5. Developer to contact Crossrail prior to commencement of development. 6. Any other informatives(s) considered necessary by the C orporate Director Development & Renewal.

3.9 That if, within three months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS

Proposal

4.1 The application seeks planning permission for the residential development of the site , through the erection of a three to nine storey building.

4.2 A total of 52 residential units are proposed.

Site and Surroundings

Page 29

4.3 The site bounded to the north by Commercial Road and to the west by Basin Approach. It is broadly rectangular, narrowing as it extends towards to the south east.

4.4 At the southeast corner, where St Anne’s Church Conserva tion Area extends into the site, there is a Grade II listed structure which falls within the site. This is a mid nineteenth century former Hydraulic Accumulator Tower, octagonal in shape, linked with a chimney stack which is also octagonal in shape.

4.5 The site is currently used as a storage compound, with stockpiled materials, partially demolished structures and unsightly advertising hoardings.

4.6 Crossing Commercial Road to the north east of the site is the Grade II listed wrought iron Lattice Bridge, part of a former railway route, built c. 1880. The northern abutment of the bridge contains a drinking fountain, also Grade II listed.

4.7 A number of industrial units are located within the arches under the bridge to the east of the site. Further east past the Lattice Bridge is a 5 storey residential property called Regents Canal House.

4.8 Immediately to the north of the site across Commercial Road sits a terrace of three storey plus basement houses which are Grade II Listed (683-691 Commercial Road) these fall within the boundary of the Lowell Street Conservation Area (this extends north from the centre of the road).

4.9 Further west of the site on the southern side of Commercial Road exists a Grade II Listed terrace (604-608 Commercial Road).

4.10 To the south of the listed terrace at 604-608 Commercial Road and across Basin Approach exists a recently completed residential development between two and nine storeys in height.

4.11 In addition to the above conservation areas, the Narrow Street Conservation Area is located 38m to the southeast of the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower and Regents Canal Conservation Area is located 53m to the west of the site.

4.12 The following map shows the location of the application site in relation to these heritage assets.

Page 30

Map 1: Showing application site in relation to the heritage assets

Planning History

4.13 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:

PA/03/00606 Application for Outline Permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide (Application site a mixed-use scheme in a total of 8 buildings of between 2 and 16 storeys in including site to height, comprising of Use Classes A1, A2 , A3 and B1 (3070.93sq.m), Class the west) C1 hotel (205 rooms, 7066.18sq.m), Class C3 residential dwellings including key worker housing (187 units for private sale, 67 key worker units, 3790.41sq.m), Class D1 creche (442.15sq.m) and leisure facility (1040.41sq.m); alteration to existing vehicular access, alteration to highway to provide new coach lay-by, creation of new pedestrian access, creation of new access to Limehouse DLR Station, provision of new steps from Commercial Road to the Grand Union Canal towpath, a ssociated car parking (139 spaces) and amenity space. Withdrawn 04/09/2003

PA/08/2207 Erection of buildings between two and nine storeys to provide 34 dwellings (5 (To the west of x studio, 10 x one bedroom, 13 x two bedroom, 5 x three bedroom and 1 x the application five bedroom units) and 493 sqm of commercial floorspace (Flexible uses for site) Use Class A3 (restaurant), Use Class B1 (office), Use Class D1 (non- residential institutions), or Use Class D2 (assembly and leisure). Associated landscaping and infrastructure works. Approved on 04/02/2009 n.b This consent has been implemented.

5. POLICY FRAMEWORK

5.1 For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Determination” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:

Page 31 5.2 Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2025 (adopted September 2010)

Policies SP02 Urban living for everyone SP03 Creating healthy and liveable neighbourhoods SP04 Creating a green and blue grid SP05 Dealing with waste SP09 Creating attractive and safe streets and places SP10 Creating distinct and durable places SP11 Working towards a zero-carbon borough SP12 Delivering placemaking

5.3 Unitary Development Plan 1998 (as saved September 2007)

Policies DEV1 Design requirements DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV4 Planning Obligations DEV50 Noise DEV51 Soil tests DEV56 Waste recycling HSG7 Dwelling mix and type HGS16 Housing amenity space T16 Traffic priorities for new development.

5.4 Managing development DPD (Submission Version 2012)

Policies DM3 Delivering Homes DM4 Housing standards and amenity space DM11 Living buildings and biodiversity DM15 Local job creation and investment DM20 Supporting a sustainable transport network DM22 Parking DM23 Streets and public realm DM24 Place-sensitive design DM25 Amenity DM29 Achieving a zero carbon borough and addressing climate change

5.5 Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control

Policies DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character and design DEV3 Accessible and inclusive design DEV4 Safety and security DEV5 Sustainable design DEV6 Energy efficiency and renewable energy DEV10 Disturbance from noise pollution DEV11 Air pollution and air quality DEV15 Waste and recyclables storage DEV16 Walking and cycling routes and facilities DEV19 Parking for motor vehicles

Page 32 HSG3 Affordable housing provision in individual private residential and mixed use schemes HSG10 Calculating the provision of affordable housing.

5.6 London Plan 2011 (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London)

3.3 Increasing housing supply 3.5 Quality and design of housing design 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities 3.8 Housing choice 3.10 Definition of affordable housing 3.11 Affordable housing targets 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds 5.1 Climate change mitigation 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 5.3 Sustainable design and construction 5.5 Decentralised energy networks 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals 5.7 Renewable energy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs 5.13 Sustainable drainage 5.17 Waste capacity 5.21 Contaminated land 6.9 Cycling 6.11 Walking 6.13 Parking 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities 7.2 An inclusive environment 7.4 Local character 7.5 Public realm 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 8.2 Planning obligations

5.7 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted Jan 2012)

5.8 National Planning Policy Framework

Community Plan

The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application:

A better place for living safely A better place for living well A better place for learning, achievement and leisure A better place for excellent public services

6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE

Page 33 6.1 The views of the Directorate of Development & Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.

6.2 The following were consulted regarding the application:

Environmental Health - Contaminated Land 6.3 A condition on th is application is recommended to ensure the developer carries out a site investigation to investigate and identify potential contamination and remediation.

6.4 (Officer comment: A condition is recommended to this effect)

Environmental Health- Noise & Vibration 6.5 This site falls within an area which is exposed to high levels of noise and vibration, including ground borne noise which has not been taken into consideration by the applicant. As such environmental protection require agreement on the noise mitigation measures required to protect future occupants, including adequate acoustic ventilation.

Following receipt of additional information, Environmental Health has advised that suitable mitigation measures are in place such as high perfor mance glazing which will reduce the levels of noise to the rooms serving the development

6.6 (Officer comment: Crossrail have requested a condition requiring full details of the construction drawings prior to the implementation of the development. Officers consider that full details can be dealt with via conditions to ensure the mitigation details are implemented )

6.7 Environmental Protection Health and Housing Team Housing comments have been received regarding the size of units and compliance w ith the London Plan. These have been noted.

6.8 Landscape Section No comments received

6.9 (Officer comment: A landscape condition is recommended to ensure the landscaping proposed is of sufficiently high quality)

Crime Prevention Officer 6.10 There appear to be a number of areas on the ground floor that may make climbing easier (ground floor balconies/walls etc), and these need to be looked at in finer detail to design the problem out.

6.11 There are some ground floor windows that do not have any form of external defensible space and a secure by design condition is recommended for this scheme.

6.12 (Officer comment: The plans have been amended to ensure defensible space is provided for all the units and a secure by design conditio n is recommended should planning permission be granted)

Transportation & Highways 6.13 Public Transport Accessibility is very good to excellent, between levels 5-6.

Page 34 6.14 Three disabled parking spaces, 52 Sheffield-stand residential & visitor cycle parking spaces , and one regular space for delivery vehicles are proposed. A further 52 Sheffield-type spaces are conveniently provided with level access at the ground floor of each of the cores. The total number of cycle spaces are 104. These are all acceptable in design and number . A condition is recommended to ensure the arches are well lit.

6.15 With its high PTAL level of 5, the site is suitable for a car-and-permit-free agreement. Furthermore, in the nearest on-street parking there are areas of parking stress, particularly at the 7 spaces in Mill Place were 100% occupied.

6.16 As the site is distant from an LBTH maintained public highway, a s278 is not appropriate in this case.

6.17 Refuse is to be stored at the base of the core bloc ks, and from the notation of a further refuse area under the arches near the access, it would appear the refuse is to be moved across the site to be ready for waste collections. This is acceptable.

6.18 A Construction Management Plan will be required prior to implementation, and a condition to require the applicant to maintain and retain all the parking spaces shown on the ground floor plan for that purpose only.

6.19 (Officer comment: These comments have been noted. Conditions to secure details of lighting to the arches, as well as a Construction Management Plan are recommended should consent be granted)

Access to Employment 6.20 The developer should exercise best endeavours to ensure that 20% of the construction phase workforce will be local residents of Tower Hamlets. LBTH will support the developer in achieving this target through providing suitable candidates through the Skillsmatch Construction Services.

6.21 To ensure local businesses benefit from this development the Employment a nd Enterprise section expect that 20% goods/services procured during the construction phase should be supplied by businesses in Tower Hamlets. LBTH will support the developer in achieving this target through inter-alia identifying suitable companies through East London Business Place.

6.22 The Council will seek to secure a financial contribution of £9,149 to support and/or provide the training and skills needs of local residents in accessing the job opportunities created through the construction phase of all new development.

6.23 (Officer comment: These requests have been secured within the s106 package)

Communities, Localities & Culture 6.24 Communities, Localities and Culture note that the increase in population as a result of the propose d development will increase demand on the borough’s open spaces, sports and leisure facilities and on the borough’s Idea stores, libraries and archive facilities.

6.25 A total contribution of £13,356 is required towards Idea Stores, Libraries and Archives A total contribution of £41,092 is required towards Leisure Facilities A total contribution of £85,058 is required towards Public Open Space.

Page 35 A total contribution of £1,590 is required towards Smarter Travel. A total contribution of £18,895 is required towards public realm improvements.

6.26 (Officer comment: These requests have been secured within the s106 package , with the exception of the public realm improvements. This is not considered necessary as the pavements around the site are either privately owned or maintained by Transport for London)

Corporate Access Officer 6.27 The gate into the development must be inclusively designed and may need to be hands free automated if required.

6.28 The wheelchair adaptable units do not all appear to have a space in the corridor for storage recharging of a second wheelchair or sufficient storage, detailed plans at 1:50 showing furniture layouts are required

6.29 (Officer comment: the details for the gates will be secured by condition. The detailed drawings have been submitted and are considered acceptable)

Energy Efficiency Unit 6.30 The revised energy strategy is considered acceptable, subject to conditions securing the delivery of the strategy.

6.31 (Officer comment: The requested conditions are recommended to the planning permission)

Waste Management 6.32 Waste storage arrangements are satisfactory as described in the design and access statement. The distance of the bin store from the collection point should not be more than 10 Meters and all the collection points.

6.33 (Officer comment: Refuse is to be collected from Basin Approach within 10m from the collection point)

Crossrail Limited 6.34 The site of this planning application is identified within the limi ts of land subject to consultation under the Safeguarding Direction.

6.35 The implications of the Crossrail proposals for the application have been considered and the detailed design of the proposed development needs to take account of the construction of Crossrail.

6.36 Crossrail recommend a number of conditions to secure the safety of the tunnel beneath the site.

6.37 (Officer comment: These conditions are recommended on the consent)

Docklands Light Railway 6.38 DLR’s Guidance for Developers should be a condition should the application be consented.

6.39 Any works beneath the railway would need to be approved by DLRL, so that maintenance and repair access to the brick viaduct is not reduced.

Page 36

6.40 Lastly, vehicular access beneat h the viaduct would need to be height restricted, to prevent impact damage from high vehicles on the historical viaduct.

6.41 DLRL supports this maximised use of public transport and seek a contribution from the developer of £80,000 to fund the installation of an Electronic Status Update Board at Limehouse station – the closest station.

6.42 (Officer comment: An informative will be attached advising the applicant to contact DLR prior to the commencement of the development to discuss their requirements . With regards to the £80,000 contribution, officers do not consider this meets the test for the set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 )

English Heritage 6.43 The scale of the development is appropriate in relation to Commercial Road and t he setting of the Accumulator Tower is very distinctive. English Heritage query whether there scope to reduce the height of the eastern section of the proposed development to allow more visual space around the listed tower.

6.44 Recommend that the application is determined in accordance with local policy.

6.45 (Officer comment: The application has been recommended in accordance with the Councils development plan, with regards to the request to reduce the height o f the six storey element. It is considered that this is not necessary and this is discussed further in the design section of the report)

English Heritage Archaeology 6.46 There are no archaeology implications from the proposal.

6.47 (Officer comment: This is noted)

Environment Agency 6.48 No objections to the proposal. An informative is recommended advising the applicant to ensure any proposed piling methods do not pose a pollution risk to controlled waters.

6.49 (Officer comment: W hilst Environmental Agency have requested an informative, it is considered that this is necessary to be conditioned. A condition requiring a Piling Method Statement prior to any piling taking place is therefore recommended)

Limehouse Community Forum 6.50 No comments received.

Network Rail 6.51 No comments received.

Thames Water

6.52 The proposed development will not have an adverse Impact on the Thames Water Sewage Network

Page 37 6.53 Prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer.

6.54 On the basis of information provided, Thames Water would advise that with regard to water infrastructure we would not have any objection to the above planning application.

6.55 Thames Water recommend an informative advising the applicant of the water flow rate and a condition requesting details of the design and depth of foundations for any piling methods.

6.56 (Officer comment: these comments have been noted. T he proposed condition requested regarding the design and depth of the foundations will be conditioned as will the relevant informative be placed)

Transport for London 6.57 It is understood that no general car parking will be provided, with the except ion of three disabled parking spaces and 1 servicing bay; this is welcomed by TfL.

6.58 TfL requests that future residents will be exempted eligibility for local parking permits with the developer enters into a ‘car free’ agreement with the local authority.

6.59 The proposed provision of cycle parking exceeds the minimum London Plan standards, this is welcomed by TfL.

6.60 It is recommended that a Residential Travel Plan be produced to promote sustainable travel by future residents.

6.61 (Officer comment: Given the provision of cycle spaces within the development, the high public transport accessibility level and the s106 agreement to secure the development as car-free, it is considered sufficient measures are in place to promote sustainable modes of transport)

6.62 A delivery & servicing plan (DSP) should be submitted and be secured by conditions/ obligations.

6.63 The developer shall enter into a S278 Agreement with TfL under Highways Act 1980 to improve/ make good of the footway along the site’s boundary on A13 Commercial Road to TfL’s satisfaction prior to the occupation of the site. TfL requests this should be secured by condition/obligation.

6.64 Boundary treatment plan must be submitted for agreement with and approved by T fL prior to construction commences on site and be subject to condition.

6.65 TfL requests that a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) be secured by conditions/ obligations.

6.66 (Officer comment: Conditions based on the above have been recommended)

6.67 TfL will be looking to seek a total of £26K toward the upgrade of two bus stops on Commercial Road just west of the application site

6.68 (Officer comment: The bus stop contribution is considered necessary to the consent and will be

Page 38 secured within the S106 agreement)

7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION

7.1 A total of 372 neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the application and invited to comment. T he application has also been publicised in East End Life and on site.

7.2 The Council received 18 letters in objection to the development from local residents raising the following issues:

7.3 - Daylight/ Sunlight /Loss of view and shadowing impacts on Regents Canal (Officer comment: The application has been accompanied with a technical Daylight/Sunlight report which demonstrates that the proposal will have an acceptable impact in terms of Daylight/ Sunlight. This is discussed further within this report)

7.4 - Loss of views of St Dunstan’s Church from the Grade II listed Hydraulic Accumulator Tower (Officer comment: The London Docklands Development Corporation installed an internal staircase within this tower in the 1990s. Since this date the tower has been used twice a year as a viewing platform. Objectors contend that the six storey element of the scheme in particular would restrict views from the tower to the St Dunstan’s Church. Whilst loss of view is not normally a material planning consideration, consideration and weight has been given to this ground of objection in these circumstances . However, the overriding benefits of the proposal are considered to outweigh this partial loss of view . Furthermore, it should also noted that views from this tower to St Dunstan’s church are not protected views)

7.5 - Arch to the south of the tower should be reserved for public access and enjoyment of the tower. (Officer comment: There is a single arch located to the south of the tower which has no particular usage. The request made by the objectors has been passed onto the owners of the site for their consideration. However, given planning permission is likely to be required for this change of use, any application (should one be submitted) will nee d to be considered on it’s own merits. With relation to the current planning submission, it is not considered necessary to request this.)

7.6 - Loss of views from existing residential properties (Officer comment: Amenity impacts of the proposal are disc ussed within the amenity section of this report. Loss of views is not normally considered a material planning consideration)

7.7 - Thames Water unable to provide water to the premises. (Officer comment: Thames water have advised that they are able to pr ovide water to the premises and have requested an informative on the permission advising of the flow rate.)

7.8 - Privacy issue (Officer comment: The privacy impacts of the proposal are considered further in the amenity section of this report)

7.9 - Noise pollution (Officer comment: The privacy impacts of the proposal are considered further in the amenity

Page 39 section of this report)

Procedural Issues:

7.10 - Lack of notification (Officer Comment: The application was advertised by press notice, si te notice and by letters to local residents as shown in the map appended to this report. This is in accordance with the Council’s statutory duties and the Council’s statement of community involvement)

7.11 - No mention of the Crossrail line running underground. (Officer Comment: The applicant is aware of the proposed Crossrail Tunnel underneath the site, and Crossrail have raised no objections subject to the imposition of conditions.)

7.12 The Council also received an objection from the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society (GLIAS) raising the following issues: - Loss of view (Officer comment: this relates to views from St Dunstan’s Church as discussed above. Officers conclude the impact of the six storey element of the scheme is acceptable in terms of enhancing the appearance of the Grade II listed Tower. This is discussed further in t he Design section of this report)

- Landscaping inappropriate to the arches (Officer comment: Full details of landscaping will be conditioned to ensure acceptability)

- No objections are raised to the nine storey element of the scheme - GLIAS support the development as ‘Car- free’ - GLIAS support the use of traditional stock brick (Officer comment: The comments are noted)

8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:

1. Principle of the Land Use and Density 2. Design and appearance 3. Amenity Impacts 4. Dwelling mix and affordable housing 5. Quality of proposed accommodation 6. Highways 7. Energy and sustainability 8. Planning obligations

Principle of land use and density

Land Use

8.2 Delivering housing is a key priority both nationally and locally and this is acknowledged within the National Planning Policy Framework, Strategic Objectives 7, 8 and 9 of the Core Strategy and policy 3.1 of the London Plan which gives Boroughs targets for increasing the number of housing units.

Page 40

8.3 Core Strategy 2010 (Core Strategy) policy SP02 sets Tower Hamlets a target to d eliver 43,275 new homes (2,885 a year) from 2010 to 2025. An important mechanism for the achievement of this target is reflected in London Plan 2011 (London Plan) policies 3.3 and 3.4 which seek to maximise the development of sites and thereby the provisio n of family housing to ensure targets are achieved.

8.4 The site does not have an allocation in the Unitary Development Plan nor the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012). Taking this into account, and given the surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, it is considered that this development would be an acceptable use of previously developed land and would be in accordance with the above planning policies.

Density

8.5 The London Plan density matrix within policy 3.4 suggests that densities within urban sites with good transport links should be within the range of 450-700 habitable rooms per hectare. This is reinforced by policy HSG1 of the Interim Planning Guidance and policy SP02 (2) of the Core Strategy (2010) w hich seek to correspond housing density to public transport accessibility and proximity town centres.

8.6 Policy HSG1 of the IPG specifies that the highest development densities, consistent with other Plan policies, will be sought throughout the Boroug h. The supporting text states that, when considering density, the Council deems it necessary to assess each proposal according to the nature and location of the site, the character of the area, the quality of the environment and type of housing proposed. Consideration is also given to standard of accommodation for prospective occupiers, microclimate, impact on neighbours and associated amenity standards.

8.7 The proposed density when taking into account the arches to the south which provide some of the associated infrastructure (cycle spaces, disabled spaces and refuse storage) is around 550 habitable rooms per hectare. This falls comfortably within the recommended guidelines.

8.8 Furthermore, as discussed further below, it is not considered that the proposed scheme gives rise to any of the symptoms of overdevelopment. As such, the density is considered acceptable given that the proposal poses no significant adverse impacts and meets the recommended guidelines.

Design and Appearance

8.9 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained in Chapter 7. Saved policy DEV1 in the UDP and Policy DEV2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (October 2007) states that developments are require d to be of the highest quality design, incorporating the principles of good design.

8.10 These principles are further supported by policy SP10 in the Core Strategy (2010) and policy DM24 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012).

8.11 London Plan policies 7.6 and 7.7 seek to ensure tall buildings are of an appropriate des ign and located to help create attractive landmarks and be a catalyst for regeneration. These aims are further supported by policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy , policy DM26 of the Managing

Page 41 Development DPD (submission version 2012), and DEV27 in Interim Planning Guidance (October 2007).

8.12 London Plan policy 7.9 and policy SP10 in the Core Strategy (adopted 2010) seek to preserve the character and appearanc e of conservation areas and the setting of heritage assets. These policies are reinforced by policy DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) and policies CON1 and CON2 in the Interim Planning Guidance (October 2007)

The Proposed Scheme

8.13 The application proposes the erection of a building between three and nine storeys in height with associated works including disabled parking and cycle spaces in the arches to the south.

8.14 The proposed scheme has been designed to res pect the context of the surrounding area, which comprises a wide variety of housing typologies, such as the three-storey plus basement terraced housing fronting Commercial Road, and the taller residential buildings to the south and west of the site. The site’s relationship with the listed viaducts and Hydraulic Tower are also an important consideration which has been taken into account.

8.15 Fronting Commercial Road and along Basin Approach, the building is proposed to be three storeys in height with a setback fourth storey, and the building is set back from the pavement edge to align with the adjacent listed terrace and provide defensible space for the proposed ground floor units.

8.16 To the south the building rises in height to nine storeys bef ore falling to around six storeys in height nearest to the Listed Hydraulic Accumulator Tower.

8.17 The nine storey element is marginally higher (3 metres) than the adjoining tall building consented under PA/08/02207.

8.18 The building entrances are well positioned and the proposed ground floor units have adequate defensible space. The proposal creates an internal courtyard play area for the development and a roof terrace at fourth floor level. The level of amenity space provision is discussed in greater detail within the Amenity section of this report.

8.19 In terms of built form, the siting, mass and bulk of the development is considered to be an appropriate response to the scale of the adjoining development. With regard to the setting of the listed Hydraulic Tower, the building line has been set back to create an enhanced view of the Tower which currently does not exist. The side of the building is to be aligned with trees which will have an effect to draw attention to the listed tower.

Design and appearance

8.20 A number of materials are proposed for the external façade of the building.

8.21 The proposed development is to be primarily of yellow stock brick, with metal rainscreen cladding complemented with aluminium windows with PPC panels. T he staircases are to be constructed with silver coloured timber faced rainscreen panels and the internal courtyard is to be faced in white render, making full use of its reflective properties.

Page 42 8.22 The proposed materials are consistent wi th those found in the surrounding area and the proposed bronze metal rainscreen panels for the setback elements and part of the nine storey building help add some architectural detailing to the development.

8.23 The use of these varied materials woul d create a distinctive building within the streetscene which contributes positively to the locality.

Impact upon heritage and listed building

8.24 As outlined above , the sites location is within an area of high heritage value surrounded by a number of listed buildings within the St Anne’s Conservation Area, and adjacent to the Lowell Street Conservation Area.

8.25 There is one Grade II Listed Monument within the site - the Hydraulic Tower built C1855. This was the first hydraulic pumping stati on on the Regents Canal Dock and is now used twice a year as a viewing tower.

Photo showing Listed tower to the left (taken from within the site)

8.26 The site is currently used as a storage compound, with stockpiled materials, partially demolished structures and unsightly advertising hoardings, which does not form an attractive setting for the Grade II Listed tower located within the site or for surrounding listed structures and conservation areas.

8.27 It is considered that the development has been sensitively designed taking into account the importance of these heritage assets. The proposed stock brick and three storey height facing Commercial Road preserve and enhance the settings of the listed terraces adjacent and opposite the site.

8.28 The proposed tapering of the six storey building away form the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower would enhance its setting and improve permeability into the site. This is shown in the following plan.

Page 43

Part ground floor plan showing tapering of building in relation to the listed tower.

8.29 Conditions have been recommended requiring full details of all external materials, landscaping treatments and elevation details to ensure the highest possible and the most appropriate level of design quality.

8.30 Overall, the proposed redevelopment of the site results in a high quality well designed building , which would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the St Anne’s Conservation Area and improve the setting of the adjoining Lowell Street Conservation Area.

8.31 Furthermore, the proposed design would improve the setting of the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower, the neighbouring listed terraces as well as the listed structures in the vicinity of the site.

Design Conclusion

8.32 The proposal provides a high quality development that would contribute to an identified housing need. The design approach is not considered to pose an adverse impact on the character, appearance and setting of the Grade II listed structure and buildings within the vicinity of the site, nor the character and appearance of the St Anne’s Church and the Lowell Street Conservation Areas.

8.33 The proposed height of the development responds to its local context in accordance with London Plan policies 7.6 and 7.7, policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy and policy DM26 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012 ) which seek to ensure building heights are suitably designed to be of high quality and appropriate height and scale to their context.

Security and Safety

8.34 Policy 7.3 of the London Plan, policy DEV1 of the UDP and policy DEV4 of the IPG seek to ensure that developments are safe and secure.

8.35 No details of how the development will meet the secured by design standards have be en provided. In order to ensure that the development maximises the safety of residents, details of how the development meets secured by design standards should be submitted for approval

Page 44 and it is recommended that this is required by condition.

8.36 Wi th such a condition imposed on the permission it is considered that the development would adequately provide a safe and secure environment and accord with policy 7.3 of the London Plan and policy DEV1 of the UDP.

Amenity

8.37 Adopted policy SP10 of the Core Strategy, saved policy DEV 2 of the UDP and DM25 of the Development Management DPD (submission version 2012) seek to protect residential amenity by ensuring neighbouring residents are not adversely affected by a loss of privacy or a material det erioration in their daylighting and sunlighting conditions. New developments will also be assessed in terms of their impact upon residents visual amenities and the sense of enclosure it can create.

Privacy

8.38 It is not considered that any loss o f privacy or overlooking would occur as a result of the north or south or east facing habitable windows given the separation distances in excess of 20m and given the sites are separated by Commercial Road and the elevated viaducts. Furthermore, the separation distances are in excess of the minimum privacy distance outlined within policy DEV2 of the Unitary Development Plan and DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012), which seek a separation distance of 18 metres.

8.39 With regard s to the development to the west of the site, given this is located around 14m from the site, is separated by Basin Approach and has no habitable rooms facing this site it is considered that the proposal will not give rise to any adverse privacy concerns.

8.40 Within the northern part of the block there are some windows and balconies which have a western aspect. These face out over a single storey warehouse building and not across to Reservoir Studios. It is therefore not considered that there would be any loss of privacy caused by these windows.

Daylight/sunlight

8.41 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan, policy SP02 of the Core Strategy and policy D M25 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) also seek to ensure development are designed to provide appropriate living conditions in term of daylight and sunlight received by the proposed development.

8.42 A technical study of the impacts upon daylight and sunlight has been submitted with the application which looks at the impact of the development on the neighbouring properties.

Daylight and Sunlight (Impacts)

8.43 Daylight is normally calculated by two methods - the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and No Sky Line (NSL). BRE guidance in relation to VSC requires an assessment of the amount of daylight striking the face of a window. The VSC should be at least 27%, or should not be less than 20% of the former value, to ensure sufficient light is still reaching windows. These figures should be read in conjunction with other factors including NSL . NSL calculation takes into

Page 45 account the distribution of daylight within the room, and again, figures should not exhibit a reduction beyond 20% of the former value, or there will be a discernible loss of daylight.

8.44 The report demonst rates that properties to the north east and west all receive a minor loss of daylight of less than 10% of their former values under the Vertical Sky component method . Given a loss of 20% is considered to be a noticeable loss of daylight, a 10% loss is in accordance with BRE Guidelines and is considered acceptable.

8.45 The greatest loss of daylight is to the ground floor of the two towers (31-63 and 64-96 Limehouse Basin) located to the south of the development. These are impeded by the existing railway line and would lose around 13% of VSC. Again, given this is below the recommended guidelines, it is not considered that losses in daylight would be discernible to existing neighbouring properties.

Overshadowing

8.46 Within the development, th e applicant has providing a transient overshadowing assessment which looks at the likely showing of the proposal on the surrounding area within three key dates: - 21 st March (this is when the sun is at mid point in the sky) - 21 st June (this is when the sun is at it’s highest point in the sky) - 21 st December (this is when the sun is at it’s lowest point in the sky)

8.47 21 st March On 21 st March, the report highlights the proposed development would have some shadowing impacts on the adjoining development a t 602 Commercial Road early in the morning. However, given that there is no prolonged over shadowing as a result of this development it is considered acceptable.

8.48 The report illustrates the shadow will not cross Commercial Road to the north on 21 st March and as such there will not be any shadowing impacts to the listed terrace to the north.

8.49 21 st June The report demonstrates that the shadowing impact of the proposal on 21 st June is likely to be similar to 21 st March outlined above. Howev er, given the sun is at it’s highest point in the sky the shadowing will be confined to the early morning and late evening.

21 st December 8.50 The resulting shadowing on 21 st December is likely to be the greatest than at any time during the year, giv en the sun is at its lowest point in the sky. The report illustrates that 602 Commercial Road is already shadowed by the development to the south early in the morning and as such the shadow has little impact on this development.

8.51 From 11am to 2pm the proposed development is envisaged to cause shadowing to the Grade II listed terrace to the north of the site. However, in relation to the overall shadowing this impact is relatively minor and considered acceptable.

Visual amenity / sense of enclosure

8.52 The se issues are considered to be subjective. Following an assessment of the application,

Page 46 officers consider that given the separation distances involves between the application site and surrounding buildings the proposed development will not give rise to any adverse impacts in terms of visual amenity or sense of enclosure.

8.53 In conclusion, it is considered that there would be no significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of the surrounding occupants, and the density and proximity of the building is appropriate for the character of an urban area such as this.

Dwelling mix and affordable housing

Affordable housing

8.54 Policies 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan (2011) define Affordable Housing and seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing taking into account site specific circumstances and the need to have regard to financial viability assessments, public subsidy and potential for phased re-appraisals.

8.55 Policy SP02 of LBTH’s Core Strategy (201 0) seeks to maximise all opportunities for affordable housing on each site, in order to achieve a 50% affordable housing target across the Borough, with a minimum of 35% affordable housing provision being sought.

8.56 Consideration has also been give n to the recent government announcements that HCA grant funding has been drastically cut and to the changes made to the national definition of the affordable rented product which offers eligible households dwellings at a rent of up to 80% of local market r ents. The definition of affordable housing has therefore changed and as outline below in more detail now includes social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing.

8.57 Part 1 of Policy DM3 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) sets out the Council’s approach to the new affordable rent product. The policy reaffirms the Core Strategy target for 70% of new affordable housing to be for Social Rent and 30% for Intermediate. Where it can be demonstrated that it is not viable to p rovide this level of Social Rent housing then Affordable Rent will be accepted. The policy confirms that the delivery of larger family homes should still be prioritised for Social Rent.

8.58 The subtext to Policy DM3 of the Managing Development DPD (Pa ragraph 3.3) provides further detail on what acceptable Affordable Rent levels are likely to be for the Borough as a whole. This has been informed by research carried out for the Council by POD (2011) which takes into account local socio economic circumstances. In practice, rental levels on each individual scheme will be need to be agreed with Council to reflect the particular local housing market of that area and the needs of the borough.

8.59 Social rented housing is defined as: Rented housing owned a nd managed by local authorities and registered social landlords, for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also include rented housing owned or managed by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arr angements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency as a condition of grant.

8.60 Affordable rented housing is defined as: Rented housing let by registered providers of social housing to households who ar e eligible for

Page 47 social rented housing. Affordable Rent is not subject to the national rent regime but is subject to other rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent.

8.61 Intermediate affordable housing is defined as: Housing at prices and rents above those of social rent, but below market price or rents, and which meet the criteria set out above. These can include shared equity products (e.g. HomeBuy), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent but d oes not include Affordable Rented housing.

8.62 The application proposes 52 residential units with the total number of habitable rooms being 154. Of these, 28 flats would be affordable housing . By habitable room the scheme provides a total of 35.7% affordable accommodation comprising 78% affordable/ social rent and 22% intermediate. This is explained in the table below:

Market Sale Intermediate Affordable/Social Totals Housing Rent Units Hab Units Hab Units Hab Units Hab Rooms Rooms Rooms Rooms 1 Bed 7 14 3 6 1 2 11 22 2 Bed 23 69 4 12 5 15 32 96 3 Bed 4 16 0 0 5 20 9 36 Totals 34 99 7 18 11 37 52 154

8.63 Of the 11 rented units, these are broken down as follow:

• 6 x one and two bedroom units at Affordable Rent at POD Levels (1 Bed £152.70 inclusive of service charges) (2 Bed £168.17 inclusive of service charges) • 5 three bedroom units at Affordable Social Rent levels.

8.64 Given the application proposes 35.7% affordable housing, with the 5 affordable family sized units at social rent, and the remainder at POD levels within the affordable rent tenure, the proposed development is in accordance with the requirements of the Councils Housing policies as outlined above.

Dwelling mix

8.65 In total 9 family sized units are provided, around 17% of all the accommodation . Policy SP02 requires 30% of developments to be 3 bedroom units or larger, but within the social rented sector 45% should be for families.

8.66 In this case, 45% of the units within the rented tenure would be family sized. Whilst the overall 17% provision of family sized accommodation is not policy compliant, it is considered that given the spatial constraints of the site with noise sensitive facades, the provision of affordable housing has been maximised at the lower, more accessible areas of the development

8.67 It is considered that there is a suitable mix of units within the scheme and it would provide for a wide range of occupants, therefore promoting a mixed and balanced community.

Wheelchair housing

Page 48

8.68 The London Plan requires that 10% of all housing developments are suitable for wheelchair users. In this case five units within the ground floor across all tenures are proposed to be wheelchair accessible. This is recommended to be conditioned as part of the consent.

Quality of accommodation

Internal space

8.69 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan sets out minimum internal space standards which are recommended for all residential developments. The Mayor’s design guide also gives advice o n the quality of the internal space. For examples storage areas should be provided, separate living rooms and kitchens are encouraged as are dual aspect flats.

8.70 Each of the flats meets the minimum standards within the London Plan. All the flats ar e dual aspect and have separate storage facilities. Which is encouraged within the Major’s housing design guide.

Daylight and Sunlight

8.71 The report tests the Average Daylight Factor (ADF) for each of the lower ground floor flats which represent the worst case scenario.

8.72 The ADF calculation takes account of the size and reflectance of a rooms surfaces, the size and transmittance of its window(s) and the level of VSC received by the window(s). British Standard 8206 recommends ADF values for residential accommodation. The recommended daylight factor level for dwellings are:

• 2% for kitchens; • 1.5% for living rooms; and • 1% for bedrooms.

8.73 With regards to the “Internal Daylight” within the proposed development, rooms at ground a nd first floor within the proposed development have been analysed in terms of light levels received , given that they represent the worst case scenario. It is suggested that out of the 48 rooms analysed, 30 rooms would comfortably meet BRE requirements. 8 of the 18 rooms which are below BRE requirements are bedrooms which are considered less of a priority in terms of daylighting than living areas. Despite this, 5 of these bedrooms would achieve ADF greater than 0.70%, and thus marginally short of the 1% suggested minimum.

8.74 The ten remaining windows are combined Kitchen/Living and Dining areas, six of which are located at ground floor level and four at first floor level. The worst three rooms are particularly constrained by the orientation of the de velopment and would receive ADF levels of 0.15%, 0.67% and 0.51% respectively. The remaining failures are 0.75% and above with a further 5 receiving an ADF above 1.34%.

8.75 When considering these outputs, it is important to assess the layout of the units in order to understand the amenity value of the units as a whole. All of the affected rooms are served by balconies and private amenity space . The balconies provide additional alternative amenity, but are also responsible for inhibiting the daylight levels received to the windows below, thereby

Page 49 reducing the ADF value achieved by the rooms. This obstruction is one of the reasons for these rooms falling below the BRE target value. Therefore, there is a clear trade-off in relation to the reduced dayligh t potential for these windows as a result of the balconies and the additional alternative amenity which they provide. A more flexible approach is therefore required to the levels of daylight for these windows and the rooms they serve. Furthermore, 51 of t he 52 units are dual aspect, therefore benefiting from daylight from other facades. It is also considered that Daylight conditions will improve across each additional floor as the units receive more access to the sky.

8.76 It is considered that given the urban location, scale and density of the development, that daylight levels within proposed development would overall be acc eptable in accordance with the BRE guidelines. It should be noted that given the urban context the application site is in, and because the majority of the units (63% at ground and first floor) are capable of achieving the minimum daylight standards, the proposal would still provide satisfactory means of accommodation for future occupiers.

Privacy

8.77 The development is con sidered to afford sufficient privacy to the occupants of the proposed units. A distance of 18m is proposed between the two facing wings of the proposed building . This is in accordance with the 18m minimum distance required for directly facing habitable rooms.

8.78 Privacy screens are recommended to as conditions to ensure those balconies which are located in close proximity are suitably screened.

Noise and vibration

8.79 The application site sits within an area characterised by high noise expos ure given Commercial Road is located to the north, and the Docklands Light Railway is to the south. In addition, the proposed Crossrail railway line is proposed to run directly beneath the site.

8.80 A noise and vibration assessment has been submitted with the applicati on to understand the impact these would have on the proposed development. This has been reviewed by the Councils Environmental Health Team, who have confirmed that suitable glazing is proposed to ensure a reduction in noise to the pro posed rooms serving the development is to an acceptable level.

8.81 Officers consider that this matter can be controlled via the conditions ensuring the relevant mitigation measures are in place to ensure the proposed development will not adversely i mpact on the amenity of future residents.

Air Quality

8.82 Policy 7.14 of the London Plan, policy SP03 of the Core Strategy and policy DEV11 of the IPG seek to ensure that air quality is protected. Air pollution has an impact on human health, bi odiversity, crops and forests, materials, buildings and cultural heritage. Air Quality testing has identified that the whole of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has poor air quality. As such, London Borough of Tower Hamlets is an air quality control zone.

Page 50 8.83 An air quality assessment has been submitted with the application which outlines the mitigation measures proposed by the development. These include:

• A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) • A Construction Method Statement (CMS).

The Councils Air Quality officer considered these measures acceptable and they will be conditioned as part of the Construction Management Plan/ Construction Logistics Plan to ensure they are implemented.

Play Areas and External Amenity Space

8.84 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan, policy SP02 of the Core Strategy, policy HSG16 of the UDP and policy HSG7 of IPG and promote the good design and the provision of amenity spaces within developments. Furthermore, policy 3.6 of the London Plan, policy SP02 of the Core Strategy, policy O9 of the UDP and policy HSG7 of the IPG require the provision of appropriate child play space within residential developments.

8.85 Outdoor amenity space is provided in a number of forms within the development. An ar ea of communal amenity space is provided on the first floor podium level and on the roof of the north and south blocks. In addition 51 of the 52 units have private amenity space.

8.86 Private amenity space is expected to be provided at a rate of 5sqm f or 1 bedroom flats with an additional 1sqm for each additional occupant. This is set out in the Mayor’s housing design guide and within policy DM4.

8.87 Based on the above policy a total of 343sqm of private amenity space should be provided for the pr ivate amenity. This application proposes around 503sqm, which is well in excess of the policy requirements.

Outdoor space – communal.

8.88 For all developments of 10 units or more, 50sqm of communal amenity space (plus an extra 1sqm for every additional 1 unit thereafter) should be provided. For a scheme of 52 units the minimum communal amenity space required would be 92sqm. The total communal amenity space proposed is 308sqm. This is significantly above the minimum requirements in policy terms.

8.89 The provision of communal amenity space is subdivided into three areas, a roof top provision of around 100 sqm, a provision of around 60sqm close to the tower at ground floor level and the remaining in a communal courtyard area.

8.90 Details of the landscaping for the proposed amenity areas is recommended to be secured by condition.

8.91 The roof top amenity spaces would receive good levels of sunlight. The ground floor communal area is likely to be shaded by the 9 storey building to the south, however given the site constraints and the over provision of amenity space this is considered acceptable.

Child play space

Page 51

8.92 In addition to general amenity space, for developments which create more than 10 child bed spaces, 10sqm of child play space should be provided per child. In this case a total of 210sqm should be available for children’s play space.

8.93 The application has limited area at ground floor for child play space, which is also double counted as amenity space, equating to around 60 sqm. This is centrally located and well overlooked by the development. G iven the over provision of communal amenity space and private amenity space, this provision is considered acceptable on balance. Further details will be conditioned as part of the recommended Landscape condition.

Highways

Parking

8.94 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 6a which is ‘very good’.

8.95 There are parking policies to be found in the London Plan, the Interim Planning Guidance and the Managing Development DPD, these are as follows: • London Plan 2011 the standards are 1 – 1.5 spaces per 3 bed flats and less than one space per 1-2 bed flats. • Interim Planning Guidance standards are up to 0.5 spaces per unit. • The Managing Development DPD has a requirement of zero parking provision for 0-2 bedroom units and 0.1 for three bedroom units or more.

8.96 Both the highways team and Transport for London support the car free approach. The proposed three disabled parking spaces in the arches are considered to be acceptable.

8.97 Within the legal agreement a clause is included to ensure that no occupants are able to apply for on-street parking permits (subject to the operation of the Council’s permit transfer scheme) , therefore not adding to the parking pressure in the locality.

Cycle parking

8.98 A total of 52 cycle parking spaces are proposed within each block and another 52 spaces are proposed in the arches with a total of 104 spaces. This is in excess of the requir ement of one space per unit.

Servicing

8.99 Policies 6.1, 6.11 and 6.14 of the London Plan, policies SP08 and SP09 of the Core Strategy, policies T16 and T26 of the UDP and policy DM22 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) see k to minimise the impacts on the highway network and promote efficient and sustainable arrangements for deliveries and servicing.

8.100 Full details of a service management plan will be secured via the imposition of a condition.

Waste storage and collection 8.101 Policy 5.17 of the London Plan, policy SP05 of the Core Strategy, policy DEV56 of the UDP and policy DEV15 of the IPG require developments to make suitable waste and recycling

Page 52 provision within the development.

8.102 Four separate storage areas are proposed for refuse and recycling. The Council’s Waste Management team have reviewed the waste storage provision and consider that it will be acceptable for the level of estimated waste and recycling that would be generated by the development.

8.103 To ensure that the waste storage areas are retained it is recommended a condition of consent is imposed if permission for the development is granted. With such a condition imposed ensuring that the waste storage facilities are retained for th e lifetime of the development, it is considered that appropriate provisions for waste and recycling facilities are provided within the development in accordance with policy 5.17 of the London Plan, policy SP05 of the Core Strategy, policy DEV56 of the UDP and policy DEV15 of the IPG.

8.104 Overall, the proposed development will not have an unduly detrimental impact upon the safety and free flow traffic, and is i n line with policies T16 and T19 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policy DM20 and DM22 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP08 and SP09 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) which seek to ensure developments minimise parking and promote sustainable transport options.

Energy and Sustainability

8.105 Policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.7 of the London Plan, policy SP11 of the Core Strategy and policy DM29 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) require development to incorporate energy efficient design and utilise low carbon and renewable energy technology in order to minimise the carbon emissions associated with the development.

8.106 The applicant has employed an energy strategy approach in accordance with the GLA energy hierarchy. To achieve the required 35% the applicant proposes to use Photovoltaic Panels and a CHP. The total carbon emission savings for this development would be 35% on the baseline figures.

8.107 The applicant has also confirmed that they are working towards securing code for sustaina ble homes level 4. Final certificates confirming this will be conditioned.

8.108 Overall the proposed Energy Strategy is in accordance with policy SP11 of the Core Strategy and the energy hierarchy within the London Plan (2011) policies 5.2 and 5.7, an d policy DM29 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), which seek to reduce carbon emissions from developments by using sustainable construction techniques and renewable energy measures.

Environmental Health

Contaminated Land

8.109 The site has been subject to former industrial uses and as such there is the potential that the land may contain contaminants and remediation work may be required before development can commence on the site. A condition has been recommended by Environmental Health to deal with this issue.

Page 53

Planning Obligations

8.110 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, brings into law policy tests for planning obligations which can only constitute a reason for granting plann ing permission where they meet the following tests:

(a) The obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) The obligation is directly related to the development; and (c) The obligation is fairly and reasonably related i n scale and kind to the development.

8.111 The Council’s Saved Policy DEV4 of the adopted UDP and Policy SP13 of the adopted Core Strategy say that the Council will seek to enter into planning obligations with developers where appropriate and where necessary for a development to proceed.

8.112 The amounts have been negotiated in line with the planning obligations SPD and heads of terms are as follows:

Employment and skills training 8.113 A financial contribution of £9,149 has be en secured towards improving access for Tower Hamlets residents to employment through enhancement of skills and training and enterprise. This figure includes a total for the construction and the end user phase of the development.

Libraries and Ideas Stores 8.114 A contribution of £13,356 has been secured towards improvements to Idea Stores and Libraries. The proposed development will increase demand on these services and there is a need to development these facilities further to align with population growth.

Leisure and community facilities 8.115 A contribution of £41,092 has been secured towards Leisure and/or Community Facilities. The proposed development will increase demand on leisure and community facilities and our emerging leisure centre strategy identifies the need to develop further leisure opportunities to align with population growth.

Education 8.116 The Council’s Education department have requested contribution towards education within the Borough. A contribution of £170,851 towards education school places has been secured.

Health 8.117 Financial contribution of £69,099 which would contribute towards the development of health and wellbeing centres has been secured.

Sustainable Transport 8.118 A financial contribution of £1,590 towards the provision of a sustainable transport network within the Borough has been secured.

Public Open Space 8.121 A financial contribution of £85,058 towards the provision of improvements to public open space in the Borough has been secured.

Page 54

Bus Stop Improvements 8.122 A financial contribution of £26,000 towards the provision of improvements to bus stops in the vicinity of the site has been secured.

Monitoring fee 8.123 A monitoring fee of £8,324 which is 2% of the total figure as been secured.

Affordable Housing 8.124 A 36% provision of affor dable housing should be secured which consists of a mix of intermediate, social rented and affordable rent units in accordance with the housing section of the report.

Car Free 8.125 The development would also be secured as car free, with the exception of the three disabled car parking spaces.

Employment and Enterprise 8.126 In respect of the development 20 percent of the non-technical jobs created through the construc tion and end user phase should be advertised exclusively to local residents through the job brokerage service and the Developer should seek to award 20% of the total value of contracts procured for goods and services during the construction phase to firms located within the borough.

Retention of access to the Hydraulic Tower 8.127 The applicant has agreed to retain public access to the hydraulic tower as per existing arrangements between the applicant and GLIAS.

Other Planning Issues

Biodiversity 8.128 In line with policy SP04(3) The Council is required to protect and enhance the biodiversity value within development proposals. The applicant is proposing two brown roofs to increase the Biodiversity value of the site.

8.129 Subject to the implementation of the brown roofs, it is considered that the proposed development would enhance the Biodiversity of the site. As such, the proposal would accord with policy SP04 of the adopted Core Strategy (2012)

Cill 8.130 This development is liable for a charge under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations (2010), as amended. This charge has been calculated based on the new floor space being created (4292sqm new floor space) as detailed in the submitted CIL Additional form.

8.131 The CIL contribution based on the above is £150,246 . This charge is payable upon commencement of the chargeable development and is in respect of the London Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Greater London Authority and Transport for Londo n are responsible for setting the London Mayoral CIL charge and the London Borough of Tower

Page 55 Hamlets is responsible for collecting money on their behalf.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account . Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.

Page 56

Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Agenda Item 7

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 10 th October 2012 Unrestricted 7

Report of: Title: Planning Applications for Decision Corporate Director Development and Renewal Ref No: See reports attached for each item Originating Officer: Owen Whalley Ward(s): See reports attached for each item

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In this part of the agenda are reports on planning applications for determination by the Committee. Although the reports are ordered by application number, the Chair may reorder the agenda on the night. If you wish to be present for a particular application you need to be at the meeting from the beginning.

1.2 The following information and advice applies to all those reports.

2. FURTHER INFORMATION

2.1 Members are informed that all letters of representation and petitions received in relation to the items on this part of the agenda are available for inspection at the meeting.

2.2 Members are informed that any further letters of representation, petitions or other matters received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.

3. ADVICE OF ASSISTANT CHIEF EXECUTIVE (LEGAL SERVICES)

3.1 The relevant policy framework against which the Committee is required to consider planning applications comprises the Development Plan and other material policy documents. The Development Plan is:

• the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan (UDP)1998 as saved September 2007 • the London Plan 2011 • the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2025 adopted September 2010

3.2 Other material policy documents include the Council's Community Plan, “Core Strategy LDF” (Submission Version) Interim Planning Guidance (adopted by Cabinet in October 2007 for Development Control purposes), Managing Development DPD – Submission Version 2012, Planning Guidance Notes and government planning policy set out in Planning Policy Guidance & Planning Policy Statements and the National Planning Policy Statement.

3.3 Decisions must be taken in accordance with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the Committee to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application, local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and any other material

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORTS UNDER ITEM 7

Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register: Name and telephone no. of holder: Application, plans, adopted UDP, Interim Eileen McGrath (020) 7364 5321 Planning Guidance and London Plan Page 63 considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Committee to make its determination in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations support a different decision being taken.

3.4 Under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects listed buildings or their settings, the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses.

3.5 Under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a conservation area, the local planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

3.6 Whilst the adopted UDP 1998 (as saved) is the statutory Development Plan for the borough (along with the Core Strategy and London Plan), it will be replaced by a more up to date set of plan documents which will make up the Local Development Framework. As the replacement plan documents progress towards adoption, they will gain increasing status as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

3.7 The reports take account not only of the policies in the statutory UDP 1998 and Core Strategy but also the emerging Local Development Framework documents and their more up-to-date evidence base, which reflect more closely current Council and London-wide policy and guidance.

3.8 Members should note that the Managing Development DPD has reached the same stage in its development as the 2007 Interim Planning Guidance. With the Managing Development DPD being the more recent document and having regard to the London Plan 2011, it could be considered to be more relevant and to carry more weight than the 2007 Interim Planning Guidance documents.

3.9 The Equality Act 2010 provides that in exercising its functions (which includes the functions exercised by the Council as Local Planning Authority), that the Council as a public authority shall amongst other duties have due regard to the need to-

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited under the Act;

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

3.10 The protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The Equality Act acknowledges that compliance with the duties set out may involve treating some persons more favourably than others, but that this does not permit conduct that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act.

3.11 In accordance with Article 31 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010, Members are invited to agree the recommendations set out in the reports, which have been made on the basis of the analysis of the scheme set out in each report. This analysis has been undertaken on the balance of the policies and any other material considerations set out in the individual reports.

Page 64 4. PUBLIC SPEAKING

4.1 The Council’s constitution allows for public speaking on these items in accordance with the rules set out in the constitution and the Committee’s procedures. These are set out at Agenda Item 5.

5. RECOMMENDATION

5.1 The Committee to take any decisions recommended in the attached reports.

Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 66 Agenda Item 7.1

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item Number: Development 10 October 2012 Unrestricted

Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/12/01133

Case Officer: Ward: Whitechapel Mary O'Shaughnessy

1. APPLICATION DETAILS

Location: 153-157 Commercial Road, London, E1 2DA Existing Use: Office (Use Class B1)

Drawing Nos/Documents: Drawings: 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/01 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/02 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/13 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/14 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/15 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/16 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/17 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/18 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/19 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/20 REVP01, 6APFS005/WAPPING/A.01A/21 REVP01, (PL) 001 REVB, (PL) 002 REVB, (PL) 003 REVB, (PL) 004 REVB, (PL) 005 REVB, (PL) 006 REVB, (PL) 007 REVB, (PL) 008 REVB, (PL) 009 REVB, (PL) 010 REVC, (PL) 011 REVC, (PL) 012 REVD, (PL) 013 REVA, GC.66147.002 REVA and GC.66147.001 REVA. Documents: Design and Access Statement, Wapping High School Free School Programme, May 2012, prepared by Jacobs. Wapping High School Design & Impact Statement, September 2012, prepared by ECE Architecture. Planning Statement, prepared by ECE Planning. Wapping Free School, Commercial Road, Transport Statement, June 2012, prepared by WSP. Wapping Free School, Commercial Road, Transport Statement Addendum, August 2012, prepared by WSP. Wapping Free School, Commercial Road Outline Travel Plan, June 2012, prepared by WSP.

Page 67 Energy and Renewables Statement, 19 th July 2012 Rev A, prepared by BSD. BREEAM Education 2008 Assessment, 3 rd September 2012, prepared by ECE Architecture. Daylight and Sunlight Report, 5 th July 2012, prepared by EB7. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, June 2012, prepared by SES. Noise Impact Assessment, Rev B, July 2012, prepared by Max Fordham. Landscape Strategy Report, September 2012, prepared by Wilmott Dixon Construction Ltd. Biodiversity statement, July 2012, prepared by AMA Alexi Marmot Associates.

Applicant: The Wapping and Shadwell Trust Ownership: Asset Co. Properties Historic Building: No Conservation Area: Adjacent to Myrdle Street Conservation Area

2.0 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 Officers have considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council’s approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 (saved policies); associated Supplementar y Planning Guidance, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets adopted Core Strategy (2010), Managing Development DPD (Submission Version 2012) as well as the London Plan (2011) and the relevant Government Planning Policy Guidance including the National Planning Policy Framework and has found that:

2.2 The proposed loss of office floor space (Use Class B1) is considered acceptable given its loss has been justified in accordance with strategic policy SP06 of the Core Strategy (2010), saved policy EMP3 of the Uni tary Development Plan (1998) and DM16 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012).

2.3 The change of use to a secondary school (Use Class D1) is considered acceptable given there is a need for a secondary school in this accessible locat ion and this accords with policy 6.13 of the London Plan, strategic policy SP07 of the Core Strategy (2010) and DM19 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012). Furthermore, the proposal accords with the National Planning Policy Framew ork and Planning policy statement – planning for schools development.

2.4 With regard to impact on the safety and capacity of the surrounding highway network, subject to management of impacts through the suitable use of conditions and financial contributions , the proposed school would not have an adverse impact on the highway network which accords with strategic policies SP07 and SP09 of the Core Strategy (2010) and saved policy T16 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) which seek to manage the impact of new development on the borough highway network.

2.5 The proposal includes minor alterations at ground floor level which are acceptable interventions in keeping with the design and appearance of the host building and accord with strategic policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010), saved policy DEV1 of the Unitary

Page 68 Development Plan (1998) and policy DM24 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012). These policies seek to ensure appropriate design within the borough.

2.6 It is not conside red that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing residents which accords with strategic policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010), saved policy DEV2 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DM25 of the Managi ng Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012). These policies seek to protect the amenity of residents of the borough.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

3.2 The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:

Financial contributions § A contribution of £5,000 towards highway safety measures. § A contribution of £1,500 towards implementing and monitoring a School Travel Plan. § Any other planning obligation( s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

Total Contribution financial contributions £6,500

3.3 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.

3.4 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the following conditions and informatives in relation to the following matters:

3.5 Conditions: § Time Limit for implementation 3 years § Compliance with plans § Construction Management Plan / Construction Logistics Plan § School Management Plan § Cycle parking details § Travel Plan § Scheme of Highway Works (S278 agreement) § Delivery and Servicing Plan § Full details of Materials § Energy § BREAAM ‘Very Good’ § Full details of any plan t including specification, background noise surveys and drawings

3.6 Informatives § Section 278 would be required § Consultation with School Travel Plan Officer

3.7 That if, within three months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not be en completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

4.0 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS

Page 69

Proposal and Background

4.1 The proposal is for the change of use of an office block to a secondary school (Use Class D1). As part of the assessment of the application officers were concerned that the level of information provided was not sufficient in order to assess if the proposed school met the relevant standards to ensure a suitable educational environment for future students. The drawings as submitted did not include details of provision of outdoor space or assembly space. In discussions with the applicant, it was resolved that amended drawings should be provided in order to present the proposals for the change of use in its entirety. This includes proposals to erect a double height space at roof level for use as a hall and create outdoor roof terrace.

4.2 The secondary school would be for children aged 11 – 16 and would have capacity for 406 students and 55 teachers and staff.

4.3 The School would be managed by The Wapping and Shadwell Secondary Education Trust and funded through the ‘Free Schools Programme’ by the Department for Education. The school would be known as Wapping High School and would predominantly serve children from the target zone of Wapping (E1W), Shadwell (E1) and Limehouse (E14).

Site and Surroundings

4.4 The application site is a six storey office block located at the corner of Commercial Road and New Road. Nelson Street runs to the rear of the site.

4.5 The site is neither listed nor located within a conservation area. However, there are a number of designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the site including the Myrdle Street Conservation Area which includes the area of New Road to the north and west of the site and listed buildings further north of the site on New Road.

4.6 Commercial Road is busy road with a mix of commercial uses which creates active ground floor frontages. There is also some residential at the upper levels. The section of Neslon Street adjacent to the school is mostly residential in nature; however, there are some commercial uses at ground floor level to the east of the junction with Turner Street. New Road includes a mix of residential and commercial uses along its length.

4.7 Commercial Road is a designated Red Route and Transport for London (TfL) are the responsible highway authority. New Road and Nelson Street are part of the borough highway network.

Planning History

4.8 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:

Application Site:

4.9 1980’s There are several consents on the statutory register relating to the extension of the building and its change of use to offices.

4.10 PA/00/01754 The LPA granted planning permission on 10 January 2001 for the “Refurbishment including replacement of entrance doors and glazed side panels, removal of entrance step and replacement with patterned metal plate ramp, recladding of existing canopy and installation of new signage.”

Page 70 4.11 PA/08/01847 The LPA granted planning permission on the 23 October 2010 for the “Change of Use of 455sq m from Use Class B1 (offices) to Use Class D1 (community healthcare facility) together with alterations to the rear ground floor elevation comprising of the removal of existing roller shutters and replacement with new glazed entrance.“

5.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK

5.1 For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Determination” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:

5.2 Government Planning Policy Guidance/Statements

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Policy Statement – planning for schools development (August 2011)

5.3 Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (London Plan) Proposals: City Fringe Opportunity Area Policies: Policy No. Title 3.18 Education Facilities 4.1 Developing London’s economy 4.2 Offices 5.1 Climate change mitigation 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 5.3 Sustainable design and construction 5.4 Retrofitting 6.1 Strategic approach 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity 6.7 Better streets and surface transport 6.9 Cycling 6.10 Walking 6.12 Road network capacity 6.13 Parking 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities 7.2 An inclusive environment 7.3 Designing out crime 7.4 Local character 7.5 Public realm 7.6 Architecture 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology

5.4 Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2025 (CS) Spatial Policy No. Title Policies: SP01 Refocusing on our town centres SP03 Creating healthy and liveable neighbourhoods SP05 Dealing with waste SP06 Delivering successful employment hubs SP07 Improving education and skills SP08 Making connected places SP09 Creating attractive and safe streets and spaces SP10 Creating distinct and durable places SP11 Working towards a zero-carbon borough SP12 Delivering placemaking – Shadwell Area SP13 Delivery and implementation

Page 71

5.5 Unitary Development Plan 1998 (as saved September 2007) (UDP) Policies: Policy No. Title DEV1 Design Requirements DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV55 Development and Waste Disposal DEV56 Waste Recycling EMP1 Encouraging New Employment Uses EMP3 Surplus Office Floorspace T7 The Road Hierarchy T16 Traffic Priorities for New Development T18 Pedestrians and the Road Network T19 Priorities for Pedestrian Initiatives T21 Pedestrian Needs in New Development EDU1 Allocation of Sites

5.6 Managing Development Development Plan Document (submission version May 2012) (MD DPD) Proposals: City Fringe Activity Area Clear Zone

Development Policy No. Title Management Policies: DM1 Development within the town centre hierarchy DM14 Managing waste DM15 Local job creation and investment DM17 Delivering schools and early learning DM20 Supporting a sustainable transport network DM22 Parking DM23 Streets and public realm DM24 Place-sensitive design DM25 Amenity DM27 Heritage and the historic environment DM29 Achieving a zero-carbon borough and addressing climate change

5.7 Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control 2007 (IPG) Proposals City Fringe Area Action Plan

Policies Policy No. Title DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character and Design DEV3 Accessibility and Inclusive Design DEV4 Safety and Security DEV15 Waste and Recyclables Storage DEV16 Walking and Cycling Routes and Facilities DEV17 Transport Assessments DEV18 Travel Plans DEV19 Parking for Motor Vehicles EE2 Redevelopment/Change of Use of Employment Sites CON1 Listed Buildings CON2 Conservation Areas

5.8 City Fringe Area Action Plan – Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of

Page 72 Development Control 2007 (CF AAP) Sub Area: Whitechapel

Policies: Policy No. Title CFR1 City Fringe spatial strategy CFR2 Transport and movement CFR4 Education Provision

5.9 Supplementary Planning Guidance/ Other Relevant Documents LBTH Planning Obligations SPD (2012)

5.10 Community Plan The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application: A great place to live A Prosperous Community A Safe and Supportive Community A Healthy Community

6.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

6.1 The views of the Directorate of Development & Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.

6.2 The following were consulted regarding the application:

Transport for London (TfL) 6.3 With regards to the above mentioned site, TfL offers the following comments and recommendations:

6.4 The application site would be situated on A13 Commercial Road, which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).

6.5 TfL is satisfied with the Transport Statement and the assessment exercises undertaken.

6.6 As such, TfL is satisfied with the provision of one disabled parking space and the level of servicing. However, they have raised concerns about the level of cycle parking provision.

6.7 The management of the impacts of the new school on the surrounding highway network by staggering of school start and finish times is welcome and the submission of a Management Strategy to ensure the safety of pupils should be controlled via condition.

6.8 The following would be required to be secured via condition § Delivery & Servicing Plan. § School Travel Plan § Construction Management Plan (CMP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP)

6.9 It is noted that the footway and carriageway on the A13 Commercial Road must not be blocked during the construction and maintenance of the proposal.

6.10 Subject to the above, the proposal as it stands would not result in an unacceptable impact to the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).

6.11 [Officer Comment: These matters are fully dealt with at paragraphs 8.25 - 8.53 of this report.]

Page 73

LBTH Highways 6.12 Highways, have no objection on balance, and recognise that the succ ess of the scheme will depend on the rigour with which the School Travel Plan is implemented and reviewed. Whilst this land use could in principle slightly increase peak time vehicular trips compared to the current land use, a School Travel Plan produced i n liaison with expert help will successfully mitigate and reduce the potential for car-borne trips to the school. Secondary schools in any case attract relatively few such trips compared with primary schools. Road safety will be safeguarded through a packa ge of traffic signage measures, to be funded through s278/106. The School Travel Plan Coordinator would assist with the plan production; implementation and review despite this being a Free School and as such monitoring costs of £1500 should be secured via a S106 agreement. Furthermore, it is recommend that a contribution towards highway safety of £5000 which would include three ‘school’ signs and a guard rail opposite the New Road Entrance should be secured to mitigate the impact of the development.

6.13 Finally the following conditions should be secured: § The cycle storage (final design) should be retained and maintained as cycle storage only and not for any other purpose; the 'future-proofed' areas indicated for cycle storage should not be fitted out with permanent fixtures such as would prevent or hinder the future installation of cycle storage. § The applicant should supply a coach/mini-bus parking, pick-up and set-down strategy, including a plan showing the school in relation to the locality where these actions are to take place and the route taken by pupils to them. § The developer shall contact the School Travel Plan Advisor to draw up a draft initial School Travel Plan two months prior to the school opening, which shall be reviewed using feedback from pupils/parents 6 months after first occupation. § S278 agreement to be secured. § Construction Management Plan § Servicing Management Plan § School Management Plan

6.14 [Officer Comment: These matters are fully dealt with at paragraphs 8.25 - 8.53 and 8.82 – 8.89 of this report.]

LBTH Environmental Health – Noise and Vibration 6.15 Environmental Health is unable to support this application; the applicant does not make any reference to how the School would comply with the requirements of BB93. BB93 was als o not designed for Schools in such noisy locations and subject to poorer air quality than other existing areas on less major roads. Teaching should be undertaken in quieter areas and this is taken into account in the building regulations BB93, BS8233 and t he guidance issued by the World Health Organization. This particular area is highly trafficked and the School teaching areas would suffer detrimentally from vehicle noise and vibration from the Commercial Road, which has a high proportion of HGV Lorries. T he site also has no external play areas and any that did exist would be again subject to high noise levels, the building is only suitable for commercial or office based activities.

6.16 [Officer Comment: These matters are fully dealt with at paragraphs 8.54 – 8.65 of this report.]

LBTH Education 6.17 The Children, Schools and Families Directorate have advised that there is a steeply rising need for additional school places in Tower Hamlets. The population is rising due to both rising birth rate and new residential developments. In the period 2012 to 2022 it is projected that the total school roll of 5 -16 year olds in Tower Hamlets will increase by 38%,

Page 74 from 34,172 to 47,069. This equates to a need for 12,897 additional school places. The Childre n, Schools and Families Directorate is planning to meet this demand within the maintained school sector. The Directorate has raised concerns about the fact the proposed building does not comply with Building Bulletin 98.

6.18 [Officer Comment: These matters are fully dealt with at paragraphs 8.10 – 8.24 and 8.72 – 8.74 of this report.]

7.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATION

7.1 A total of 78 neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the application and i nvited to comment. The application has also been publicised on site. The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application to date are as follows:

No of individual 11 Objecting: 3 Supporting: 8 responses: No of petitions received: 1 in objection with 107 signatures

7.2 The following local groups/societies made representations:

• The Varden and Nelson Street Residents Association submitted a letter of objection and organised a petition which contained 107 signatures. • They sent a further objection during the second consultation period confirming that their objection still stood.

7.3 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the deter mination of the application, and they are addressed in the next section of this report:

§ Concern about intention of Community involvement and use of community facilities. § There is no evidence that there is need for a new secondary school and what impact will the school have on existing secondary schools. [Officer Comment: Please refer to paragraphs 8.10 - 8.24 of this report where these matters are fully addressed.]

§ The proposal will result in unsafe conditions on the road and will impede traf fic movement resulting in parking and traffic congestion and disruption to residents. § There is already a girl’s secondary school in the area; another school will worsen the existing impacts on the highway network. § The pavement along New Road is too n arrow and is already busy. The impact of the school would cause further congestion. § Adjacent schools, having students congregating on the pavement during breaks which affects pedestrian movement. § There is already parking stress in the area and staff an d parents may legitimately be able to use residents parking bays surrounding the site and worsen the existing situation. § Impact of students congregating on the pavement for fire drills or in the case of an emergency. [Officer Comment: Please refer to paragraphs 8.25 – 8.53 of this report where these matters are fully addressed. The applicant has advised that the fire drill assembly point would be on Commercial Road which is similar to the existing building.]

§ The increased noise pollution will impact on residential amenity. § The hours (07:45 – 20:30) are long for an educational establishment and would

Page 75 mean more amenity impacts over a longer period of time. § Impact on privacy from overlooking to the residents of Nelson Street. [Officer Comment: Please refer to paragraphs 8.61 – 8.65 of this report where these matters are fully addressed.]

§ The human rights of adjoining residents are engaged under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the first protocol, the right to enjoyment of property. A grant of planning permission may infringe these rights. [Officer Comment: Please refer to paragraphs 8.90 – 8.98 of this report where these matters are fully addressed.]

§ Concern about principle of Free Schools an d lack of information about governance of the school. [Officer Comment: This is an application for the change of use of a building to an educational use (Use Class D1) and the type of school being provided and how it is funded and managed is not part of the assessment in planning terms. It is noted that the proposal is for a Free School funded directly by central government as opposed to an LBTH run secondary school. It is noted that support and funding for the Free School movement is administrated by t he Department for Education and opinions about the impact of the Free School movement on existing educational provision do not form part of the planning assessment of this change of use.

§ Lack of consultation with local residents about a new secondary school in the area. [Officer Comment: Whilst early consultation with local residents is recommended this is not a requirement. As part of the planning application consultation as set out at paragraph 7.1 has been carried out in accordance with statutory r equirements and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.]

§ Eight letters expressing support of the change of use to a Free School have been received. They support the proposal because of the need for a secondary school, it is considered bringi ng this vacant building back into use would benefit the community and they consider this to be a suitable location for a secondary school.

8.0 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:

§ Land Use § Highways § Amenity § Design § Energy and Sustainability § Planning Contributions § Human Rights

Land Use

8.2 The site currently provides 4060 square metres of vacant office floor space (Use Class B1) arranged over seven floor s (including basement). The main pedestrian access is from Commercial Road and there is a servicing bay to the rear which is accessed from Nelson Street.

Loss of Office Floor Space: 8.3 The application site is located within the City Fringe Activity A rea as designated by the Core Strategy 2010 (CS) and the boundary of the City Fringe Activity Area is defined by the

Page 76 Managing Development – DPD (submission version May 2012) (MD-DPD). It is noted that the office floor space is not located within a preferred office location nor a local office location where there are specific policies to protect office floor space.

8.4 Strategic policy SP06 of the CS, saved policy EMP3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 (UDP) and DM16 of the MD-DPD require robus t supporting information to justify the loss of office floor space, which should include the following:- § length of time the office floor space has been vacant, § details of marketing carried out including comparables and rent details, § assessment of office provision in the area including details of vacancy, and; § justification as to why the buildings are no longer suitable for continued employment use.

8.5 On the 23 October 2010 (LBTH Ref.:PA/08/01847) the LPA granted planning permission for the change of use of the majority of the building from office (Use Class B1) to a community health care facility (Use Class D1). At the time the loss of office floor space was assessed and given the building had been vacant and actively marketed it was considered that the loss of office floor space was justified.

8.6 The change of use to a community health care facility was never implemented and the permission has now expired. However, the building has remained vacant. From records it would appear the building has been v acant since 2006 and since that time has been marketed by a range of agents. Evidence of this has been provided in the form of a letter from Strettons dated 1 May 2012 setting out the marketing they carried out since August 2011. As such, it is evident tha t the building has been vacant for nearly six years and has been actively marketed during that time at reasonable rates.

8.7 A detailed assessment of office provision in the area including details of the level of vacancy was not carried out in this inst ance. However, given the length of time this space has been vacant it is clearly evident there is not a demand for this particular office space.

8.8 The building is currently unfurnished, and supporting information in the form of the Strettons letter dated 1 May 2012, has been provided by the Council to show that substantial money would be required to bring this building up to the standard of office accommodation expected by today’s market.

8.9 In conclusion, taking account the length of time the offi ce floor space has been vacant (since 2006) and the marketing evidence provided officers are satisfied that supporting information has been provided to justify the loss of office floor space in this instance and that the loss of office floor space would accord with policy.

Principle of School: 8.10 The proposal is for the change of use to a secondary school (Use Class D1) and this section of the report will focus on the land use implications of the proposed educational use.

8.11 The NPPF states that:

“The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to m eeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should: § give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; § and work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted .”

Page 77

8.12 Furthermore, Policy Statement – planning for schools development clearly states that:

“ There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state-funded schools, as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework. ”

8.13 State-funded schools are defined by the policy statement and include ‘Free Schools’.

8.14 Policy 3.18 of the London Plan supports proposals which enhance education and skills provision including change of use to educational purposes. It continues to state that:

“Proposals for new schools should be given positive consideration and should only be refused where there are demonstrable negative local impacts which substantially outweigh the desirability of establishing a new school and which cannot be addressed through the appropriate use of planning conditions or obligations. ”

8.15 The policy also supports proposals which maximise the extended or multiple use of educational facilities for community or recreational use. Finally the policy encourages co- location of services between schools to maximise land use.

8.16 Part 2, of strategic policy SP07 of the CS, seeks to increase the provision of both primary and secondary education facilities to meet an increasing population. Part 3, of the policy sets out the criteria for the assessment of new secondary schools and states that:

“Secondary schools should be located in highly accessible locations, to be integrated into the secondary and main movement routes, as they generate trips from a wider catchment area.”

8.17 Part 3 of the policy supports co-location and clustering of services as well as the encouragement of the use of schools after hours.

8.18 DM18 of the MD - DPD sets out criteria for the assessment of new schools and states that they should be located where:-

i. a site has been identified for this use or a need for this use has been demonstrated; ii. the design and layout accords with relevant standards; iii. for existing schools, there is no net loss of school play space; and iv. the location of schools ou tside of site allocations ensure accessibility and an appropriate location within their catchments.

8.19 The proposal is for the creation of new secondary school (Use Class D1) which is not located on an allocated site. Policy advises that the location of new schools will be guided by the criteria listed above. This provides a positive approach to the development of state funded schools including ‘free schools’, ensuring they are located where they can be easily accessed and that they provide a high quality teaching environment.

8.20 Given the site is not allocated for education use, consideration is given to the need for a new secondary school. The Children, Schools and Families Directorate have advised that there is a steeply rising need for additional school places in Tower Hamlets. The population is rising due to both rising birth rate and new residential developments. In the period 2012 to 2022 it is projected that the total school roll of 5 -16 year olds in Tower Hamlets will increase by 38%, from 34,172 to 47,069. This equates to a need for 12,897 additional school places. As such, t he proposal accords with part (i) of the policy given there is a need for additional secondary school places within the borough . Furthermore, it is

Page 78 noted that the need for a secondary school within this area has also been assessed by the Department for Education as part of the application for funding for a ‘Free School’. In conclusion the proposed secondary school would have a capacity of 406 students which would contribute to the delivery of secondary school places in accordance with policy.

8.21 With regard to part (ii) design and layout this is discussed at paragraphs 8.66 - 8.74 of this report. Part (iii) does not apply in this instance given the proposal doe s not involve the loss of school play space.

8.22 As discussed within the highway’s section of this report the site is in a highly accessible location with accords with part (iv) of the policy. Furthermore, it is considered that the site is suitably loc ated within the context of the catchment area for the proposed school which includes Wapping, Shadwell and Limehouse.

8.23 To conclude, in land use terms, the principle of an educational use accords with policy given there is a need for a new secondary school and it meets the other tests of the policy. Furthermore, it accords with national policy which encourages educational uses.

8.24 The applicant has made reference to their intention to allow local community groups use the school outside of school hours. The principle of shared facilities and co-location is promoted by policy and the sharing of school facilities would be acceptable.

Highways and Access

8.25 Policy SP07 of the CS states that secondary schools should be located in highly accessib le locations and integrated into secondary and main movement routes. Also relevant is policy SP09 and policy T16 of the UDP which seek to ensure that new development has no adverse impacts upon the safety and capacity of the road network.

8.26 The subje ct site is positioned on the corner of the A13 Commercial Road and New Road. To the rear of the building runs Nelson Street. The area has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 6a which indicates ‘excellent’ level of accessibility. The nearest tu be stations are Whitechapel, Aldgate East and Shadwell which can be reached within a ten minute walk. The nearest bus stops are located on Commercial Road on the northern (going eastbound) and southern (going westbound) side of the road approximately 50 me tres from the proposed school entrance. These bus stops are served by the following bus services 115, 135, 15, N15 and N550. Additional bus stops are located on New Road and are served by the D3 route which serves Wapping, Shadwell and Limehouse.

8.27 The proposal is for the creation of a new secondary school with a maximum capacity of 406 students including 55 teachers and staff.

8.28 The main student entrance to the school would be from Commercial Road with a secondary entrance located along New Roa d (near to the junction with Commercial Road). The ground floor layout includes large lobbies to prevent congregating on the footway adjacent.

8.29 Servicing, disabled parking, cycle parking and refuse would all be provided off Nelson Street where there is an existing servicing bay. However, students would not be able to access the building from Nelson Street.

8.30 The main concern for officers has been the assessment of the impact of locating a secondary in this location on the capacity and safety o f the surrounding highway network for all users. Local residents have similar concerns. At pre-application stage officers clearly set out the information officers required to assess the impact of the proposed school. This information has been provided in the form of a detailed Transport Statement prepared by

Page 79 WSP. This has been assessed by TfL and the borough highway officer and both are satisfied with the way in which the assessment has been carried out. In accordance with the NPPF guidance which gives gre at weight to educational development officers have sought to mitigate any impacts through the use of conditions.

8.31 The School has a target admissions zone giving priority to families living in Wapping, Shadwell and Limehouse. This is defined by the s chool as an area south of Cable Street and Royal Mint Street, West of Butcher Row, North of the River Thames and East of Mansell Street. This means the majority of the school catchment would be from the southern side of Commercial Road.

8.32 Whilst, it i s noted the school would have a capacity of 406 students and 55 staff, this would not be reached until 2016. However, the Transport Statement has carried out an assessment based on the maximum capacity of the school.

8.33 In order to provide a forecast of trips for the proposed school, this was modelled against the current secondary school travel mode data obtained from LBTH School Travel Plan Data. The predicted pupil trips are outlined in table 1 below.

Table 1: Predicted Pupil Trips

Bicycle Bus Car Car- Other Rail School Walk Total share Bus 5 (1%) 123 27 (7%) 3 (1%) 4 (1%) 17 (4%) 4 (1%) 223 406 (30%) (55%) (100%)

8.34 This data indicates that the majority of pupils would travel to school by sustainable means of transport; walking or ta king the bus. A further analysis has been undertaken of the catchment area for the school in order to assess the feasibility of these travel modes. The vast majority of prospective pupils would live within close proximity of the proposed school. Approxima tely 77% would live within a 2km radius of the site which is considered to be a walkable distance. This means the walk mode share could be higher than the 55% average of LBTH secondary schools.

8.35 It is not proposed to provide any staff car parking on site. The only car parking provided is a disabled car parking space. This is considered acceptable and the lack of provision of on- site car parking facilities for teachers would further encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport.

Impact of vehicle trips / Pupil Drop off and Peak Times: 8.36 The proposed secondary school based on these results would be forecast to generate 28 vehicular trips in the peak hours and this represents a worst case scenario. In order to mitigate against the vehicular trips it is proposed to have three separate drop-off times for different year groups, 07:30 – 08:00, 08:00 – 08:30 and 08:30 – 9:00. This would potentially reduce vehicular trips to 9 per half hour period. This would be secured via condition.

8.37 It i s noted that residents are concerned that parents would be able to park adjacent to the school given they may live within the same parking zone which would worsen parking stress. However, the staggering of drop-offs and pick-ups over a 90 minute period wou ld limit any potential adverse impacts.

Pedestrian Impacts: 8.38 Residents have also raised concerns about impacts of the proposed school on pedestrian movement given the footpaths in the area are perceived to be congested. This concern relates to the perceived congestion caused by the increased footfall associated with the

Page 80 school and concern about students congregating on the footway before, during and after school. The school is forecast to generate 228 walk trips during the peak hours. Given, the priority admission zone is to the south of the site it is considered most students would access the site heading north along Cannon Street Road and accessing the site from Commercial Road. Students travelling by bus could take the D3 which would mean they would use the New Road bus stop and could access the site from New Road or Commercial Road.

8.39 Directly outside the proposed entrance of the school from Commercial Road the footpath measures approximately 4.8 metres in width including an area of tacti le paving (0.8 metres). Along New Road, the width of the pavement outside the secondary entrance is approximately 2.4 metres.

8.40 Given, it is anticipated that the majority of students would walk to school consideration has been given to managing the im pacts on the local pedestrian network. Firstly, the ground floor has been designed to include two entrances to the school (one along New Road and one along Commercial Road). This would mean students would not be accessing the school from Nelson Street. Thi s was recommended by officers given the narrow pavement width along Nelson Street and its more residential character. Full details of the management of the two entrances would be sought via condition and would form part of the School Management Plan.

8.41 Secondly, the ground floor layout has been carefully considered in order to ensure there is sufficient circulation space internally to cater for students arriving and departing from the school. This includes two lobbies directly inside the entrances. Th is would assist with alleviating any issues with students queuing on the pavement to access the school during the morning and means staff can manage students leaving during the afternoon.

8.42 Thirdly, start and finish times for the school would be stag gered in order to limit impacts. As such this would reduce the number of students arriving and departing the school at the same time to about one year group.

8.43 Officers consider that residents concerns with regard to students congregating within the vicinity of the school would be further managed by the school management who have advised teachers would patrol at peak times encouraging students to access the school immediately.

8.44 A total of 20 accidents have been recorded within the vicinity of t he site over the past three years. Of these 20 accidents, three occurred at the junction of Commercial Road and Cannon Street and one occurred at the junction of Commercial Road and New Road. All of these accidents occurred because of pedestrian or diver e rror. The submitted Transport Statement concludes that there is no specific pattern of accidents which would indicate an issue with the local highway.

6.45 Through mitigation and the imposition of conditions the impact on the pedestrian network would be minimised.

Cycle Parking: 8.46 With regard to the level of cycle parking it is noted that the school generates a requirement for 44 cycle parking spaces in order to accord with policy. Currently an area accessed from Nelson Street has been secured. T his area has the potential to provide 9 cycle parking stands if Sheffield Stands (this would equate to 18 spaces). If two tier josta cycle stand system were to be used the same space could accommodate more cycle parking spaces.

8.47 LBTH preferred cycle parking stand is a Sheffield Stand and officers would not normally

Page 81 support a josta cycle stand system. However, taking account of the constrained nature of the site officers are looking at different types of stands and may consider a space saving hybrid that looks to potentially satisfy desired security, stability, minimum effort, non-lifting designs.

8.48 As such, the final design of the cycle parking stands would be secured via condition. It is noted that the borough highway officer also wishes to safe guard space for future provision. However, if officers were to secure space at basement level it would also be necessary to install a lift which is not a feasible option. Another alternative would be to convert teaching space in the future should there be demand. However, given the constrained nature of the site the loss of teaching space to provide cycle parking would not be a solution. As such, officers consider that the area of cycle parking as proposed would be safeguarded and through the discharge of c ondition a stand which maximises provision of cycle parking whilst also being usable would be secured.

Coach and Mini-bus Parking: 8.49 Given the constrained nature of the site there is no potential for on-site coach or mini bus parking. The submitted Transport Statement outlines the intended travel modes to other sites which for the most part rely on walking and the use of public transport. Groups of fewer than 25 students travelling to local facilities (less than 20 minutes walk) will walk. If the site is further away these groups will mostly use public transport or occasionally a mini- bus. There are numerous short-stay spaces on Commercial Road that would accommodate a mini-bus. The requirement for coach parking would be infrequent (normally about th ree times per year) and the school would ensure that the pick-up would be an appropriate location within the wider local vicinity. There is a car park at Royal Mint Street (15 minutes walk from the proposed school) which offers coach parking facilities at a daily rate. Full details of the coach / mini-bus parking, set-down and pick-up strategy would be managed via condition as requested by officers.

School Travel Plan: 8.50 The purpose of a School Travel Plan is to encourage sustainable means of tran sport for staff, students and visitors. The Council has a School Travel Plan Coordinator who assists schools develop School Travel Plans which are reviewed regularly. As part of this application the school has submitted an Outline School Travel Plan settin g out the commitment to encouraging sustainable mode of transport and the development of this into a formal School Travel Plan and its regular review would be secured via condition. Furthermore, a sum of £1500 would be secured via S106 for implementation a nd monitoring of the School Travel Plan by the Council’s School Travel Plan Coordinator . It is noted that the School Travel Plan would play an integral role in mitigating any adverse impacts of the development on the surrounding highway network by encourag ing sustainable modes of transport.

Servicing: 8.51 Servicing of the site would be from Nelson Street which is the same as the existing situation. A servicing bay has been retained which would be required given the school intends to provide on-site ca tering. The applicant has committed to developing a Service and Management Plan in accordance with the London Freight Plan and TfL’s best practice guidance. The school does not anticipate it would generate a significant level of servicing demands. The full details of this would be contained within a delivery and servicing management plan secured via condition. This would need to set out details of when and how servicing would occur. The condition would also seek to ensure all servicing is off- street.

8.52 The conditions requested by TfL and LBTH Highways would be attached as requested.

Page 82 8.53 In conclusion, it is evident that careful consideration of the impact of the school on the surrounding highway network has been carried out. In order to ensure that the proposed school would not have an impact on capacity and safety of the surrounding highway network, measures such as staggering start and finish time, allocating drop-off times, and encouraging sustainable transport options would need to be carefully m anaged. However, officers consider through the use of conditions and securing financial contributions that this impact can be managed. As such, whilst there were concerns about the suitability of this site for a school, in line with policy officers have so ught to manage impacts through the use of conditions and as such the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with policy.

Amenity

8.54 Strategic policy SP10 of the CS, saved policy DEV2 of the UDP and policy DM24 of the MD-DPD seek to protect the amenity of residents of the borough.

Overlooking and loss of privacy: 8.55 Local residents have raised concerns about the impact of overlooking and loss of privacy should the bu ilding be used as school. There are residential properties to the west on the opposite side of New Road with a separation distance of approximately 15 metres. There are also residential properties to the north on the opposite side of Nelson Street with a separation distance of approximately 12.4 metres. It is noted that this is an existing building which in the past was in use as an office. The proposal also includes alterations at sixth floor level which includes removing the existing structures and erect ing a double height volume along the northern edge with an outdoor terrace along the southern edge. It is not considered that the use of the building as a school have a worse impact than the existing situation with regard to overlooking and loss of privac y. With regard to the new extension it would be used as a hall and includes a large glazed area along New Road. Given, the separation distance and the difference in height between the three storey residential dwellings on the opposite side of New Road it i s not considered there would be an adverse impact on amenity.

Daylight and Sunlight: 8.56 The application has been accompanied by a daylight and sunlight report to assess the impact of the proposed extensions at roof level on the surrounding residential prope rties. Properties along New Road and Nelson Street were assessed.

8.57 Guidance relating to daylight and sunlight is contained in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) handbook ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight - A Guide to Good Practice - Second Edition’ (2011).

8.58 In respect of daylight, there are three methods of calculating the level of daylight received known as Vertical Sky Component (VSC), No Sky Line (NSL) and Average Daylight Factor (ADF). BRE guidance sets out that the first test appl ied should be VSC and if this fails consideration of the NSL test may also be taken into account.

8.59 BRE guidance in relation to VSC requires an assessment of the amount of daylight striking the face of a window. The VSC should be at least 27%, or should no t be reduced by more than 20% of the former value, to ensure sufficient light is still reaching windows. The NSL calculation takes into account the distribution of daylight within the room, and again, figures should not exhibit a reduction beyond 20% of the former value.

8.60 A daylight and sunlight report has been provided as part of the application documents. Properties within the vicinity of the site were tested and the analysis confirmed that in respect of VSC the following properties accord with BRE guidance:

Page 83 §§§ 11-17 New Road §§§ 1 Nelson Street §§§ 3-17 Nelson Street §§§ 18 Nelson street As such, the impact in respect of daylight and sunlight is considered acceptable.

Noise, Vibration and Fumes: 8.61 With regard to noise impacts, bringing the buildi ng back into use would result in increased noise from the new users. It is also noted that the school includes a roof terrace. The hours of operation of the school would be from 07:45 – 22:00 . It is noted that there is an intention to allow community group s to use the school facilities for meetings after school hours which is why the hours of operation would be until 22:00. It is not considered that these hours of operation are unreasonable given the busy urban location. The main entrance is from Commercial Road which is a busy road with high levels of noise from vehicular traffic. The roof terrace is located along the New Road and Commercial Road elevations which heavily trafficked. It is not considered that the comings and goings of students during the day and into the evening nor the use of the roof terrace would result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance. With regard to noise during construction this is managed by environmental health legislation.

8.62 The proposed school would have a kitchen w ithin the basement which would serve hot and cold food and would require the installation of plant and flue. The building has existing plant which would be upgraded. In order to ensure that any new plant would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of r esidents it is proposed to manage the installation of plant via condition.

8.63 As such, it is not considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residents which accords with policy.

Proposed Use: 8.64 The Environmental Health Department has raised objections to the proposed school given the location of the building in an area with high levels of noise and vibration from traffic and poor air quality. The Environmental Health Department is concerned t hat the development would not comply with Building Bulletin 93: Acoustic Design of Schools: A Design Guide (BB93) which was issued by the Department for Education.

8.65 BB93 specifies targets for indoor ambient noise levels in teaching and study spaces and the applicant has advised that they would achieve the Alternative Performance Standard. As with many schools across the borough the building would need to rely on mechanical ventilation given it would not be possible to have opening windows. This is as per the existing situation. Furthermore, the DfE are satisfied that the school accords with the relevant standards for free schools.

Design and layout:

8.66 Strategic policy SP10 of the CS and DM23 and DM24 of the MD-DPD, seek to ensure that buildings and neighbourhoods promote good design principles to create buildings, spaces and places that are high-quality, sustainable, accessible, attractive, durable and well- integrated with their surrounds. Saved UDP polic ies DEV1 and DEV2 seek to ensure that all new developments are sensitive to the character of their surroundings in terms of design, bulk, scale and use of materials.

8.67 The existing building is six storeys with plant above. The proposal includes the remova l of the existing sixth floor level and plant above and erection of a modern double height extension which would provide a hall for the school. The remainder of the roof would

Page 84 include a roof terrace, covered walkway and plant.

8.68 The proposed extension woul d be clad in standing seam metal panelling system. Interest will be added along the west elevation which is glazed.

8.69 In terms of height, the proposed double height extension is only marginally higher than the existing plant. The proposed design of the ext ension would be appropriate for an educational use and indicates the change of use of the building. The new plant area would be screened. The external roof terrace would also be screened with fencing and covered. The proposed full height flue would be loca ted on the northern elevation which wraps behind 159 Commercial Road and would be clad in materials to match the existing building.

8.70 In conclusion, the design, bulk scale and massing of the proposed extension is considered acceptable. This is a corner bui lding and an additional storey would be acceptable addition and in keeping with the surrounding area. The proposed materials would be controlled via condition in order to ensure a high design quality.

8.71 The proposal only includes minor alterations to the external faces of the building. These works include the installation of a new fire exit door along Commercial Road and the alteration of the rear servicing area to create access for refuse, cycle, parking and servicing. The proposed alterations are co nsidered acceptable given they are in keeping with the host building and the character of the area. The proposals would not affect the setting of the nearby listed buildings nor the character and appearance of the Myrdle Street Conservation Area. It is not ed that a separate application for advertising consent would be required for the proposed signage. The applicant would be advised of this.

8.72 The Wapping High School intends to teach the curriculum through open spaces and flexible learning styles, sim ilar to the Swedish Schools Model. This has influenced the design and layout of the school, which includes open plan flexible learning zones and smaller class room areas.

8.73 The Department of Education has advised that the school has undergone a pre-opening inspection by Ofsted, which concluded that the school was likely to meet the standards.The Department for Education has confirmed that it doe s not require Free Schools to adhere to Building Bulleting 98 requirements as they are Independent Schools a nd governed by the Independent Schools Standards and Regulations. Furthermore,

8.74 With regard to policy DM18 (d) part (ii) which requires schools to comply with the relevant standards the Department of Education has confirmed that the proposed school would comply with the Independent School Standards.

Energy and Sustainability

8.75 Climate change policies are set out in Chapter 5 of the London Plan, strategic policy SP11 of the Core Strategy and policy DM29 of the MD DPD. These collectively req uire developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation and adaptation to climate change and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions.

8.76 The London Plan sets out the Mayor of London’s energy hierarchy which is to:

• Use Less Energy (Be Lean); • Supply Energy Efficiently (Be Clean); and • Use Renewable Energy (Be Green).

8.77 The London Plan 2011 includes the target to achieve a minimum 25% reduction in CO2

Page 85 emissions above the Building Regulations 2010 through the cumulative steps of the Ene rgy Hierarchy (Policy 5.2).

8.78 Policy SO3 of the CS seeks to incorporate the principle of sustainable development, including limiting carbon emissions from development, delivering decentralised energy and renewable energy technologies and minimising th e use of natural resources. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP11 requires all new developments to provide a 20% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through on-site renewable energy generation.

8.79 Policy DM29 of the MD-DPD req uires sustainable design assessment tools to be used to ensure the development has maximised use of climate change mitigation measures. At present the current interpretation of this policy is to require all residential developments to achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 rating and all non-residential schemes to achieve a BREEAM Excellent rating.

8.80 The applicant has submitted an Energy and Renewables Strategy (dated July 2012) detailing that carbon emission reduction would form an integral par t of the proposal to convert the existing office building to a school. The submitted Strategy, advises that y adopting best practice including the London Plan energy hierarchy significant carbon reduction has been achieved through sustainable technologies. Sufficient detail of how this would be achieved was not provided as part of this application, and this matter would be controlled via condition.

8.81 The applicant intends to achieve BREAM ‘Very Good’ whereas policy would seek the achievement of an ‘ Excellent’ rating. Due to the constrained nature of the site in terms of footprint, location and access achieving BREAAM ‘Excellent’ may be technically and financially unviable according to the applicant. A condition to secure a minimum of BREAAM ‘Very Good’ would be required via condition.

Planning Contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy

8.82 Regulation 122 of CIL Regulations 2010 brings into law policy tests for planning obligations which can only constitute a reason for granting planning permission where they meet the following tests:

§ Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; § Directly related to the development; and § Are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

8.83 This is further supported by policy SP13 of the CS and saved policy DEV4 of the UDP which seek to negotiate planning obligations through their deliverance in kind or through financial contributions to mitigate the impacts of a development.

8.84 The general purpose of S106 con tributions is to ensure that development is appropriately mitigated in terms of impacts on existing social infrastructure such as health, community facilities and open space and that appropriate infrastructure to facilitate the development.

8.85 The Council’s S upplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations was adopted in January 2012 , and sets out the criteria for assessing the need for financial contributions. The proposal is for an educational use and as such does not trigger the need for financ ial contributions.

8.86 However, as part of the assessment of the application the borough highway officer has advised that in order to mitigate the impacts of the development on the surrounding

Page 86 highway network a contribution towards highway safety meas ures would be required along with a contribution towards monitoring the School Travel Plan.

8.87 The proposed heads of terms are: § A contribution of £5,000 towards highway safety measures. § A contribution of £1,500 towards implementing and monitoring a School Travel Plan.

8.88 Officers consider that that the contributions being secured are appropriate, relevant to the development being considered and in accordance with the relevant statutory tests.

8.89 The proposed development is not liable for CIL.

Human Rights

8.90 Planning decisions can have Human Rights Act 1998 implications and in terms of relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, the following are particularly highlighted to Members:-

8.91 Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 p rohibits authorities (including the Council as local planning authority) from acting in a way which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. "Convention" here means the European Convention on Human Rights, certain parts of which were i ncorporated into English law under the Human Rights Act 1998. Various Convention rights are likely to be relevant, including:-

8.92 § Entitlement to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law in the determination of a person's civil and political rights (Convention Article 6). This includes property rights and can include opportunities to be heard in the consultation process; § Rights to respect for private and family life and home. Such rights may be restricted if the infringement is legitimate and fair and proportionate in the public interest (Convention Article 8); and § Peaceful enjoyment of possessions (including property). This does not impair the right to enforce such laws as the State deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (First Protocol, Article 1). The European Court has recognised that "regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole".

8.93 This report has outlined the consultation that has been undertaken on the planning application and the opportunities for people to make representations to the Council as local planning authority.

8.94 Mem bers need to satisfy themselves that the measures which are proposed to be taken to minimise, inter alia, the adverse effects of increased traffic generation on the highway and any noise associated with the use are acceptable and that any potential interfe rence with Article 8 rights would be legitimate and justified.

8.95 Both public and private interests are to be taken into account in the exercise of the Council's planning authority's powers and duties. Any interference with a Convention right must be necessary and proportionate.

8.96 Members must, therefore, carefully consider the balance to be struck between individual rights and the wider public interest.

8.97 As set out above, it is necessary, having regard to the Human Rights Act 1998, to take i nto

Page 87 account any interference with private property rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and ensure that the interference is proportionate and in the public interest.

8.98 In this context, the balance to be struck between individual rights and the wider public interest has been carefully considered. Officers consider that any interference with Convention rights is justified. Officers have also taken into account the mitigation measures governed by planning conditions to be entered into.

10.0 Conclusion

10.1 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.

Page 88 Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 90 Agenda Item 7.2

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 10 th October 2012 Unrestricted

Report of: Title: Planning Application for Decision Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/12/01019 Case Officer: Mandip Dhillon Ward(s): Bromley by Bow

1. APPLICATION DETAILS

Location: Bow Cross Phase 11, Bow Cross Estate, Rainhill Way, London

Existing Use: Vacant brownfield site adjoining DLR line

Proposal: Construction of 18 residential units comprising of 7 x 1 bed, 7 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed properties arranged over 2, 3 and 4 storey blocks. (affordable housing)

Drawing No’s: Drawings: AA0286/2.1/001 Rev A AA0286/2.1/002 Rev B AA0286/2.1/003 Rev B AA0286/2.1/004 AA0286/2.1/005 AA0286/2.1/901 AA0286/2.3/021 Rev D AA0286/2.3/022 Rev B AA0286/2.3/023 Rev B AA0286/2.3/024 Rev B AA0286/2.3/025 Rev B AA0286/2.3/026 Rev B AA0286/2.3/027 AA0286/2.3/028 Rev A AA0286/2.3/035 Rev Q DFC1188TPP

Supporting Reports: Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated 7th December 2011 Highways Statement dated March 2012 Phase 11 Noise and Vibration Report dated 17th April 2012 ref 067730/ph 11/B Planning and Affordable Housing Statement dated 25th April 2012 Sustainability and Renewable Energy Statement dated 15th February 2012 Design and Access Statement dated April 2012 Daylight Sunlight Assessment dated 5th May 2012

Applicant: Swan Housing Group

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT

Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder:

Application, plans, adopted UDP. draft Eileen McGrath LDF and London Plan 020 7364 5321 Page 91 Owner: Swan Housing Group and Poplar HARCA

Historic Building: N/A

Conservation Area: N/A

2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council's approved planning policies contained in the Core Strategy 2010, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Develo pment Plan, the Council's Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), Interim Planning (2007), adopted supplementary planning guidance and documents, the London Plan 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework and has found that:

• The proposal is in line with the Mayor of London and Council’s policy, as well as Government guidance which seek to maximise the development potential of sites. As such, the development complies with policy 3.4 of the London Plan (2011), policy SP02 of the Core Strateg y (2010) and policy DM3 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012) which seek to ensure the use of land is appropriately optimised.

• The proposal provides an acceptable level of affordable housing and mix of units. As such, the proposal is i n line with policies 3.8, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 of the London Plan 2011, saved policy HSG7 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policy DM3 of Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP02 of the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing choices.

• The proposed development is acceptable in terms of scale, bulk, design , use of materials and appearance. As such, the scheme is in line with policies 7.1 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011, Policy SP10 of the a dopted Core Strategy (2010), policies DM24 and DM26 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and saved policy DEV1 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, which seek to ensure buildings are of a high quality design and suitably located.

• The scheme provides acceptable space standards and layout. As such, the scheme is in line with policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, DM4 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission ve rsion 2012), and policy SP02 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010 and policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2011 which seek to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.

• The proposed amount of amenity space is acceptable and in line with policy DM4 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP02 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010), which seek to improve amenity and liveability for residents.

• The proposal would not give rise to any unduly de trimental impacts in terms of privacy, overlooking, sunlight and daylight, and noise upon the surrounding residents. Also, the scheme proposes appropriate mitigation measures to ensure a satisfactory level of residential amenity for the future occupiers. A s such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant criteria of saved policy DEV2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP10 of the of the Core Strategy De velopment Plan Document 2010 which seek to protect residential amenity. Page 92

• Transport matters, including parking and access are acceptable and in line with policies T16 and T19 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policy DM20 and DM22 of the Ma naging Development DPD (Submission version 2012), and policy SP08 and SP09 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) which seek to ensure developments minimise parking and promote sustainable transport options.

• The development, through the provision of a CHP would result in a satisfactory reduction in carbon emissions and also seeks to secure the code for sustainable homes level 4 which is in accordance with policy SP11 of the Core Strategy and the energy hierarchy within the London Plan (201 1) policies 5.2 and 5.7, and policy DM29 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), which seek to reduce carbon emissions from developments by using sustainable construction techniques and renewable energy measures.

• Contributions have been secured towards the provision of affordable housing; education improvements; and access to employment for local people in line with Regulation 122 of Community Infrastructure Levy 2010; saved policy DEV4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998 ; and policy SP02 and SP13 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, which seek to secure contributions toward infrastructure and services required to facilitate proposed development.

3. RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

A. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:

a) 100% affordable housing (18 residential units) b) £72,564 towards Education c) Car and permit free agreement (except for blue badge holders) d) Travel Plan e) Employment and Enterprise initiatives f) Any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

3.2 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negot iate the legal agreement indicated above.

3.3 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following matters:

Conditions:

1. Three Year time limit for full planning permission. 2. Development in accordance with plans. 3. Noise and vibration assessment on the proposed building structure (transmission through the piles and foundations) to determine the level of vibration and ground borne noise likely within this development from the railway tunnels. (DLR). 4. Contaminated land – details to be submitted for approval. 5. Development to be built in accordance with DLRLs guidance. 6. Prior agreement of construction plan required with DLR bef ore any works can commence on site. 7. Full details of Energy Strategy to be submitted and approved. 8. Crossrail Safeguarding details to be submitted for approval. Page 93 9. Detail of measures to meet Code for Sustainable Homes. 10. Construction Environmental Management Plan. 11. Construction Hours (8am – 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am – 1pm Saturday only). 12. Scheme of highways works. 13. Development to comply with lifetime homes standards. 14. Provision of refuse and recycling facilities in accordance with drawing. 15. Provision of cycle spaces in accordance with drawing. 16. The development shall comply with the requirement of ‘Secured by Design’. 17. Provision of a cycle land and associated signage. 18.Any other conditions(s) considered nece ssary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

Informatives

1. This development is to be read in conjunction with the s106 agreement. 2. Developer to enter into a s278 agreement for works to the public highway. 3. Developer to contact Council’s Building Control service. 4. Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

3.4 That, if within 3 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Co rporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS

Proposal

4.1 An outline planning application (PA/03/01683) for the Crossways Estate regeneration was granted consent on the 5 th August 2005. The permission involved refurbishment and modification of existing housing stock as well as the construction of new residential blocks. This included the redevelopment of the application site, known as ‘Phase 11’. The outline planning p ermission granted for the wider estate and Phase 11 has now lapsed and the applicants have therefore submitted this full planning application for the development of the final phase at the Crossways Estate, Phase 11.

4.2 The subject application is for the northern part of the wider Crossways estate. The site lies to the east of the DLR line which runs through the Crossways Estate. Rainhill Way also runs through the application site.

4.3 This application proposes the construction of 18 reside ntial units abutting the railway lines, with Rainhill Way lying to the east/front of the proposed units. Phase 11 will also facilitate the re-instatement of the north south vehicular access link along Rainhill Way which has been severed. The application proposes landscaping in the far eastern part of the application site, which lies on the opposite side of Rainhill Way, alongside the provision of 3 allocated parking bays for Phase 11, providing on-site disabled parking.

4.4 The proposal seeks to provide 100% affordable housing, with all units provided as wheelchair adaptable/accessible . This is being provided by the applicants in order to accord with the requirements of the original planning permission (PA/03/01683) which sought wheelchair adaptable units within the wider Crossways Estate. To date, only 9 units have been delivered and these proposals will seek to meet the shortfall in provision which was previously agreed. Details of Wheelchair housing delivery are set out below for information purposes:

Page 94 Planning Description of Development Decision Decision Comments Reference Date PA/05/01263 Submission of details pursuant Approved 27/9/05 9/Nine to condition 8a, 8b, 8c and 8d wheelchair (accessibility, sunlight/daylight, units Eco-Homes, Lifetime Homes) of proposed outline planning permission and dated 5th August 2005, approved reference PA/03/01683. within First Phase new build. PA/08/02186 Submission of details pursuant Approved 10/02/09 Sites 4a to conditions 4 (tree plan), 7 and 4b- (parking layout), 8a (access phase 10. statement), 8b (daylight/sunlight assessment), 8d (lifetime homes Report and wheelchair housing indicated provision report), 9 the delivery (landscaping), 14 (strategic of 33 sustainability report), 16 (air wheelchair quality) and 20 (environmental housing mgt plan) of planning permission units dated 5th August 2005, (overall), 24 reference PA/03/1683. to be delivered in Phase 11.

PA/09/00297 Submission of details pursuant Approved 21/5/09 Phase 7- to condition 7 (parking layout), Site 3c. condition 8a (access statement), condition 8c ( Eco-Homes No Report), condition 8d (lifetime wheelchair homes and wheelchair housing housing provision), condition 11 (sound provision (to insulation and vibration be delivered isolation), condition 14 (strategic in Phase sustainability), condition 16 (air 11). quality) and conditions 17, 18, 19 and 20 (construction traffic, parking, air pollution and environmental management plan) of planning permission dated 5th August 2005, reference PA/03/1683.

PA/10/02591 Submission of details pursuant Approved 18/04/11 The report to discharge of conditions 3 (I, II, submitted III, IV – Site contaminations and again states Remediation, Phase 6), 8A that (Access, Phase 3 & 6), 8B wheelchair (Sunlight and Daylight, Phase 3 housing is & 6), 8C (Ecohomes, Phase 6), being 8D (Lifetime Homes/Wheelchair provided in Housing, Phase 3 and 6), 14 other (Sustainability, Phase 6), 16 (Air phases of Quality, Phase 6, Phase 7) 17 the (Construction traffic, Phase 6), developmen Page 95 18 (Construction Parking, Phase t, namely 6, Phase 7), 19 (Construction Phase 11. Air Pollution, Phase 6), 20 (Environmental Management, Phase 6), 21 (Crossrail Tunnel Vibration Effects, Phase 6) of application dated 05/08/05, ref: PA/03/1683.

Site and Surroundings

4.5 The application site comprises a portion of land within the Crossways Estate. This application site has an area of 0.22Ha. This site forms the northern portion of the wider Crossways Regeneration Scheme approved under planning permission PA/03/01683.

4.6 The site is located on Rainhill Way within 40 metres (to the north) of Bow Road. The site is a previous railway cutting, which is being redeveloped as part of the Crossways Estate regeneration. The current application represents the last site to be regenerated on the estate, apart from the refurbishment of the third of the existing tower blocks.

4.7 An existing DLR line is located to the west of the site. The DLR line runs through the Crossways Estate. Immediately to the south of the wider Crossways estate is a railway viaduct which accommodates both London Underground and C2C services.

4.8 Located on the opposite side of Campbell Road, which lies to the west of the application site, is a mixture of development inc luding residential and commercial uses as well as the Cherry Trees School. Bow Church DLR Station is located immediately to the north of the site and Devons Road DLR Station is located to the south. Bow Road Underground Station (Hammersmith & City and Dis trict lines) is located approximately 300 metres to the north west. There is a bus stop located on Campbell Road adjacent to the site. Increased pedestrian connectivity between the Crossways estate and the Bow Church DLR has been secured though a new pedes trian link from Rainhill Way to the DLR Platform. This new link directly adjoins the northern boundary of the application site.

Planning History

4.9 Outline Planning Ref. No. PA/03/01683 was granted permission on the 5 th August 2005. The application was for demolition of 1-43 Holyhead Close as well as refurbishment, including cladding, of three tower blocks, and sub-division of larger flats therein to increase the number of units from 276 to 296 units. Also, new development of 363 units of housing for sale and for rent, in blocks up to 6 storeys high, on land within the estate including designated housing amenity land. The proposal included a new access road and a new community centre, with associated parking and landscaping.

4.10 Application Ref. No PA/06/1852 for erection of buildings up to six storeys to provide 232 flats was approved by the Development Committee on 10 January 2007.

4.11 Application Ref. No. PA/06/02095 for the refurbishment and extension of ground and first floors of Priestman Po int to provide a new community centre was approved 11 January 2007.

4.12 Application Ref. No. PA/04/01131 for construction of buildings ranging from three to six storeys to provide 104 dwellings at the southern portion of the Crossways Estate was withdrawn 27 January 2007.

4.13 Application Ref. No. PA/06/2316 for the erection of 2 No. containers to house temporary

Page 96 boilers to serve Hackworth Point was withdrawn on 02 February 2007.

4.14 On 24 September 2007, the Planning Inspectorate dismissed 2 x plan ning applications (PA/06/886 & PA/06/1865) as well as an enforcement appeal for development of Site 11 Crossways Estate (Co-joined appeals Refs. Nos. APP/E5900/A/07/2041336, APP/E5900/A07/2042697/NWF, APP/E5900/C/07/2042018).

4.15 On 18 th February 2008, the Planning Inspectorate dismissed application PA/07/898 for development of Site 11 (Appeal Ref. No. APP/E5900/A/07/2055314/NWF).

4.16 PA/08/00112- Phase 5 amendments to proposed tenure within Blocks A and B. Approved 24 th July 2008.

4.17 Application Ref. No. PA/11/00353, Application under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act for a minor material amendment to planning permission PA/06/01852 (dated 27th June 2008) by way of varying condition 19 as proposed under PA/11/00319 (non-material amendment to PA/06/01852).The minor material amendment seeks to amend the tenure mix of blocks C & D in phase 5 by swapping 66 one and two-bedroom flats from private to affordable. Application granted consent 30th March 2011.

5. POLICY FRAMEWORK

5.1 For de tails of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Determination” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:

5.2 Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2025 (adopted September 2010)

Strategic SO7 Urban living for everyone Objectives SO8 Urban living for everyone SO9 Urban living for everyone SO10 Creating Healthy and Liveable Neighbourhoods SO12 Creating a Green and Blue Grid O013 Creating a Green and Blue Grid SO14 Dealing with waste SO19 Making Connected Places SO20 Creating Attractive and Safe Streets and Spaces SO21 Creating Attractive and Safe Streets and Spaces SO22 Creating Distinct and Durable Places SO23 Creating Distinct and Durable Places SO24 Working Towards a Zero Carbon borough SO25 Delivering Placemaking

5.3 Unitary Development Plan 1998 (as saved September 2007)

Policies DEV1 Design requirements Page 97 DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV4 Planning Obligations DEV12 Provision of Landscaping in Development DEV50 Noise DEV51 Soil tests DEV55 Development and Waste Disposal DEV56 Waste recycling HSG7 Dwelling mix and type HSG13 Internal Space Standards HGS16 Housing amenity space T10 Priorities for Strategic Management T16 Traffic priorities for new development T18 Pedestrians and the Road Network T21 Pedestrians Needs in New Development

5.4 Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control (October 2007)

Proposals: Draft Crossrail boundary

Policies: DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character and Design DEV3 Accessibility and Inclusive Design DEV4 Safety and Security DEV5 Sustainable Design DEV6 Energy Efficiency DEV10 Disturbance from Noise Pollution DEV11 Air Pollution and Air Quality DEV12 Management of Demolition and Construction DEV13 Landscaping and Tree Preservation DEV15 Waste and Recyclables Storage DEV17 Transport Assessments DEV18 Travel Plans DEV19 Parking for Motor Vehicles DEV20 Capacity of Utility Infrastructure DEV22 Contaminated Land HSG1 Determining Housing Density HSG2 Housing Mix HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG5 Estate Regeneration Schemes HSG7 Housing Amenity Space HSG9 Accessible and Adaptable Homes HSG10 Calculating Provision of Affordable Housing

5.5 Managing development DPD (Submission Version 2012)

Policies DM3 Delivering Homes DM4 Housing standards and amenity space DM10 Delivering Open Space DM11 Living buildings and biodiversity DM13 Sustainable Drainage DM14 Managing Waste DM20 Supporting a sustainable transport network DM22 Parking DM23 Streets and public realm DM24 Place-sensitive design DM25 Amenity Page 98 DM26 Building Heights DM29 Achieving a zero carbon borough and addressing climate change DM30 Contaminated Land

5.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

Planning Obligations SPD 2012

5.7 The Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, The London Plan 2011

Policies: 3.3 Increasing housing supply 3.5 Quality and design of housing design 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities 3.8 Housing choice 3.10 Definition of affordable housing 3.11 Affordable housing targets 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds 5.1 Climate change mitigation 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 5.3 Sustainable design and construction 5.5 Decentralised energy networks 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals 5.7 Renewable energy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs 5.13 Sustainable drainage 5.17 Waste capacity 5.21 Contaminated land 6.9 Cycling 6.11 Walking 6.13 Parking 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities 7.2 An inclusive environment 7.4 Local character 7.5 Public realm 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 8.2 Planning obligations

5.8 Government Planning Policy NPPF National Planning Policy Framework 2012

5.9 Community Plan The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application: A better place for living safely A better place for living well A better place for creating and sharing prosperity

6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE

6.1 The views of officers within the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below. The f ollowing were consulted regarding the application:

Page 99 6.2 LBTH Environmental Health- Noise and Vibration Given the proximity of the application site to the adjoining DLR line, Environmental Health have concerns with the current proposal. Details of noise mitigation measures for future residents are required, including vibration isolation of the building, acoustic glazing and adequate acoustic ventilation, this should be secured by condition.

(Officer Comment: Whilst concerns have been raised with regard to the potential noise for future residents, these matters can be dealt with by way of a condition in order to ensure the future development is habitable for residents.)

6.3 LBTH Environmental Health- Contaminated Land The site and surrounding area have been subjected to former industrial uses which have the potential to contaminate land. It is requested that a condition is imposed to secure site investigations to identify pollutants and an appropriate remediation strategy is secured.

(Officer Comment: The requested condition will be attached to any consent issued at the site.)

6.4 LBTH Biodiversity No comments received to date.

6.5 LBTH Aboricultural Officer No comments received to date

6.6 LBTH Corporate Access Officer Concer ns have been raised with regard to the size and accessibility/lift installation within each unit.

(Officer Comment: Officers have worked with the applicants to seek to ensure all units are adaptable and of a good quality. The layout of many units has now been revised and are considered to be acceptable.)

6.7 LBTH Energy Efficiency The current application proposes a 39.6% reduction in CO2 emissions which complies with policy. Further details are however required of the proposals to ensure they are able to deliver the forecast reductions.

(Officer Comment: A condition will be imposed to ensure full details are provided to secure the implementation of the energy strategy submitted.)

6.8 Crime Prevention Officer Some of the ground floor balconies/railings mak e it easy to climb and intrude into this development. The design includes undercrofts and recesses which are not a secure by design principle.

(Officer Comment: The ground floor layout provides a buffer zone between the development site and the public fo otpath through the provision of private amenity space. These spaces are proposed to be secured by open railings to provide an open and permeable environment for residents and passers by. Whilst it may be considered that the balconies and railings are likel y to generate a nuisance, the design has sought to integrate the proposed development into the existing estate, rather than barrier it off. The scheme does not provide full undercrofts, although there are canopies over entrances into the communal blocks an d recesses in the design of the block to articulate this linear block. It is considered on balance that the design is acceptable and does not present undue concern with regard to nuisance or ASB at the Crossways estate.)

Page 100 6.9 LBTH Housing Following much negotiation, all units are now adaptable, wheelchair accessible units for future residents. Housing welcome and support the provision these units.

All housing is proposed to be delivered as affordable housing, at social rented tenure , which is supported by the Council.

The type and mix of accommodation is reflective of the need for adaptable/wheelchair accessible accommodation in the borough and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

6.10 LBTH Highways No objection in principle. A car and permit free agreement should be secured at the site. Cycle parking provision on site meets policy requirements and is acceptable. Principle of re- instating Rainhill Way as a one-way route is acceptable. Highways would welcome additional cycle connectivity within the new highway link on Rainhill Way.

(Officer comment: The application will be secured as car and permit free. Details of cycle accessibility on Rainhill Way will be secured by condition.)

6.11 LBTH Education No comments received.

(Officer Comment: The proposed development will generate 5 primary school places and 3 secondary school places which necessitates a contribution of £141,191. The applicants have submitted a viability toolkit alongside this application . Full details of the viability of the sc heme and planning obligations secured are set out within Material Planning Considerations.)

6.12 LBTH Employment and Enterprise The proposed development should secure planning obligations in accordance with the adopted SPD 2012. These necessitate financial and non-financial planning obligations at the site. The financial obligations are in the region of £3,820 for construction phase employment opportunities.

(Officer comment: The applicants have submitted a viability toolkit alongside this application . Full details of the viability of the scheme and planning obligations secured are set out within Material Planning Considerations.)

6.13 LBTH Communities, Localities and Culture The proposed development should secure planning obligations in accordance wit h the adopted SPD 2012. The financial obligations sought are £22,307.06 for community facilities and £582.15 towards sustainable transport and £31,142.70 towards public realm improvements.

(Officer comment: The applicants have submitted a viability tool kit alongside this application. Full details of the viability of the scheme and planning obligations secured are set out within Material Planning Considerations.)

6.14 Docklands Light Rail (DLR) No objection in principle. It is requested that a condition is imposed to ensure the development is built in accordance with DLRL’s guidance. A condition has been requested to ensure the applicant seeks DLRL’s approval for works around the railway before works commence and to ensure adequate protection of the DLR supporting infrastructure, use of tower cranes, site management plans etc. DLR have also requested £20,000 towards the cost of installing realtime travel information screens at the Bow Church station.

(Officer comment: The requested conditions will be im posed on any consent issued at the Page 101 site. In light of the improvements delivered via an additional pedestrian route from Rainhill Way to Bow Church Station, it is considered that the financial request for a realtime travel information screen is unjustified and does not meet the requirements of the CIL regulations 2010.)

6.15 LBTH Waste No objections raised to the proposed refuse and recycling arrangements.

6.16 Thames Water The Authority recommends standard informatives for waste and water management

6.17 Crossrail The site is within the limits of land subject to consultation under the safeguarding direction. As such, it is requested that an appropriate condition is imposed if the Council are minded to grant planning permission.

(Officer comment: The requested condition will be added to any consent issued at the site.)

7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION

7.1 A total of 78 neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the application and invited to comm ent. The application has also been publicised in East End Life and on site. The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:

7.2 No. of individual responses: 3 Against: 2 In Support: 0 Comment: 1 Petition: Objection 1 (46 signatures) Support 0

7.3 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in the next section of this report:

Land Use • Overdevelopment of the Site (overpopulation) • Loss of green and open spaces • Pressure on local amenities • This area could/should be used as open space for the Crossways Estate • Inadequate provision of child play space

Transport • Access for vehicles during construction period • Is Rainhill Way going to be a through route? Will this lead to rat-running?

Design • Proposed height could obscure views and light

8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:

1. Principle of the Land Use and Density 2. Housing 3. Design 4. Amenity 5. Transportation 7. Others and Planning Obligations Page 102 8. Localism Act

Principle of the Land Use and Density

Land Use

8.3 Core Strategy 2010 (Core Strategy) policy SP02 sets Tower Hamlets a target to deliver 43,275 new homes (2,885 a year) from 2010 to 2025. An important mechanism for the achievement of this target is reflected in London Plan 2011 (London Plan) policies 3.3 and 3.4 which seek to maximise the development of sites and thereby the provision of family housing to ensure targets are achieved.

8.4 The principle of the scheme was previously established in the outline application for the entire Crossways estate regeneration (PA/03/1683). The site does not have an allocation in the Unitary Development Plan nor the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012). Taking this into account, and given the surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, it is considered that this development would be an acceptable use of previously developed land and would be in accordance with the above planning policies.

8.5 Concerns have been raised by local residents with regard to loss of open space and the potential use of the application site as an area of open space to serve the Crossways Estate. The existing site is an area of brownfield land and not public open space , the development does not therefore result in the loss of open space at the site. The Council are required to assess the application before them which seeks to provide housing at this site, a principle which was established under the original outline consent.

Density

8.6 The London Plan density matrix within policy 3.4 suggests that densities within urban sites with good transport links should be within the range of 450-700 habitable rooms per hectare. This is reinforced by policy HSG1 of the Interim Planning Guidance and policy SP02 (2) of the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to correspond housing density to public transport accessibility and proximity town centres.

8.7 Policy HSG1 of the IPG specifies that the highest development densities, consistent with other Plan policies, wi ll be sought throughout the Borough. The supporting text states that, when considering density, the Council deems it necessary to assess each proposal according to the nature and location of the site, the character of the area, the quality of the environm ent and type of housing proposed. Consideration is also given to standard of accommodation for prospective occupiers, microclimate, impact on neighbours and associated amenity standards.

8.8 The proposed density of the application site is around 500 h abitable rooms per hectare. This density calculation has not taken into account the site area of the landscaping works and re- instatement of the road. This density level falls comfortably within the recommended guidelines.

8.9 Furthermore, as discusse d further below, it is not considered that the proposed scheme gives rise to any of the symptoms of overdevelopment. As such, the density is considered acceptable given that the proposal poses no significant adverse impacts and meets the recommended guidelines.

Page 103 Housing

8.10 The application proposes 18 residential (Use Class C3) units at the application site. The following table (Table 1) sets out the proposed housing mix when split into market, social rent, affordable rented, shared-ownership tenures for all 18 proposed residential units:-

Table 1 Market Afford Social Shared Sale able Rent Ownership

Rent Studios 0 0 0 0 1 Bedroom unit 0 0 7 0 2 Bedroom unit 0 0 7 0 3 bedroom unit 0 0 4 0 4 Bedroom unit 0 0 0 0 5 Bedroom unit 0 0 0 0 Total Units 0 0 18 0

Total Affordable 0 0 100% 0 Units Habitable Rooms 0 0 51 0

8.11 Policies 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan (2011) define Affordable Housing and seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing taking into account site spec ific circumstances and the need to have regard to financial viability assessments, public subsidy and potential for phased re-appraisals.

8.12 Policy SP02 of LBTH’s Core Strategy (2010) seeks to maximise all opportunities for affordable housing on each s ite, in order to achieve a 50% affordable housing target across the Borough, with a minimum of 35% affordable housing provision being sought.

8.13 London Plan policy 3.11 states that there should be mix of tenures within the affordable housing units w ith 60% social rent (social rented and affordable rented) and 40% shared ownership. The Council’s own CS policy SP02 requires a split of 70% social rent and 30% shared ownership given the housing needs identified within the Borough.

8.14 The developme nt proposal does not achieve the CS objectives under policy SP02 for a tenure split of 70:30 or the London Plan policies. However on balance, the provision of 100% affordable housing at this site is supported and is therefore acceptable. In addition, the d evelopment seeks to provide 100% social rented accommodation which is also welcomed and supported.

8.15 Social rented housing is defined as: Rented housing owned and managed by local authorities and registered social landlords, for which guideline targe t rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also include rented housing owned or managed by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency as a condition of grant.

8.16 Given the application proposes 100% affordable housing, with the 4 fam ily sized units at social rent, on balance the proposed development provides an acceptable development which is supported by the Councils Housing Team. Page 104

Dwelling mix

8.17 In total 4 family sized units are provided which is equivalent to approximately 31% of all the accommodation proposed (measured by habitable rooms). Policy SP02 requires 30% of all developments as 3 bedroom units or l arger, but within the social rented sector 45% should be for families.

8.18 In this case, 31% of the units within the social rented tenure would be family sized. Whilst this level of provision of family sized accommodation is not policy compliant, it is considered that given the delivery of 100% affordable housing at the site and the spatial constraints of the site with noise sensitive facades, the provision of family sized affordable housing has been maximised within the development.

8.19 It is c onsidered that there is a suitable mix of units within the scheme and it would provide for a wide range of occupants, and on balance it is considered to meet the Borough’s identified need for family accommodation. The over-provision of affordable housing in lieu of a policy compliant mix of tenure and dwelling sizes is considered acceptable.

Wheelchair housing

8.20 The London Plan requires that 10% of all housing developments are suitable for wheelchair users. In this case all of the residential units proposed, 18 units in total, are proposed to be wheelchair accessible.

8.21 This is being provided by the applicants in order to accord with the requirements of the original planning permission (PA/03/01683). The original outline planning permiss ion (PA/03/01683 ) did not require 10% wheelchair units, but permissions were granted for later phases ( e.g. PA/09/00297) which allowed zero wheelchair provision on those phases, but submitted statements which indicated that a total of 33 wheelchair units would be provided across the estate as a whole.

To date, only 9 units have been delivered within the Crossways Estate regeneration and these proposals will seek to meet the shortfall in provision which was previously agreed. The units to be delivered in the proposed development will provide a total across the estate of 27 units. The original plans for this development site showing a larger number of units had to be adapted due to land title errors.

8.22 Whilst the provision of 27 units overall is a shortfall in the overall delivery of adaptable units, the Council is supportive of the delivery of these adaptable units within the Crossways Estate and accepts that the Phase 11 site has been unable to deliver the quantum of housing originally anticipated under the outline consent. Intensification of this site is likely to lead to other concerns with this development, namely amenity and design concerns. The proposals are therefore considered on balance to be acceptable and in accordance with the requirements of IPG policy HSG9 and Core Strategy policy SP02.

Design

8.23 Good design is central to the objectives of national, regional and local plann ing policy. Policy 3.5 of the London Plan provides guidance on the quality and design of housing developments and specifies a number criterion aimed at achieving good design. These criterion are reflected in saved policies DEV1, DEV2 and DEV3 of the UDP; strategic objectives and policies SO20, SO21, SO22, SO23 and SP10 of the CS, policies DM23 and DM34 of the emerging MD DPD and IPG policies DEV1 and DEV2.

8.24 These policies require new development to be sensitive to the character of the surroundi ng area in terms of design, bulk, scale and the use of materials. They also require Page 105 development to be sensitive to the capabilities of the site.

8.25 Furthermore, policy DEV2 of the IPG, supported by policy SP10 of the CS and DM24 of the MD DPD (submiss ion version January 2012) also seeks to ensure new development creates buildings and spaces that are of high quality in design and construction, are sustainable, accessible, attractive, safe and well integrated with their surroundings.

8.26 The applicati on is not a ‘tall building’ within the definition set by the London Mayor as it is not higher than 30m above ground level, nor does it significantly exceed the height of neighbouring properties.

8.27 No demolition works are proposed as a result of the c urrent proposals, all works are proposed to take place on existing areas of hardstanding.

Proposed Development

8.28 The application proposes a development which is arranged over 2, 3 and 4 storeys across a linear site. The design principle follow th e general design proposal of the wider Crossways Estate regeneration to ensure the proposal site is integrated into the overall site-wide development. The development massing is 4 storeys where it abuts the existing development at Site 4B, which is 3 store ys in height. From this element, the heights step down to 3 storeys and 2 storey dwelling houses where the site meets the proposed pedestrian access point which links Rainhill Way to the Bow Church DLR. Given the topography of the proposed vehicular route of Rainhill Way and the adjoining building heights in the area, the proposed development is considered to be of a scale which reflects and is in-keeping with the local environs.

8.29 The design rationale is a simple, buff brick building which seeks to r eflect the colour and texture of the Phase 5 development located adjacent to the application site. The design detailing is seeking to provide large windows within the front elevation, set back behind the front gardens or balconies of the residential proper ties, providing natural surveillance to all of the surrounding streets and maximum levels of illumination to the proposed residential dwellings.

8.30 The design, scale and bulk of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with saved policies DEV1, DEV2 and DEV3 of the UDP; policies SO20, SO21, SO22, SO23 and SP10 of the CS, policies DM23 and DM34 of the MD DPD (submission version 2012) and IPG policies DEV1 and DEV2.

8.31 Given the location of the proposed development site, there would be limited views of the proposed development from the Tomlins Grove conservation area and the Grade II listed buildings located on Campbell Road. The proposals do not therefore impact upo n the character or views of these heritage assets.

Proposed Landscaping Works and Public Realm Enhancements

8.32 Saved UDP Policy DEV1, policy SP09 of the CS, policy DM23 of the emerging MD DPD and IPG policy DEV4, require development to consider the safety and security of users. Regards should also be given to the principles of Secure by Design. However, these matters must also be balanced against requirements to promote site permeability and inclusive design.

8.33 The planning application proposes new landscaping opposite the residential units, within the Crossways Estate. As part of these works pedestrian routes will be enhanced, lighting improved, provision of new tree planting, and re-instatement of the north-south vehicular route within the estate.

Page 106 8.34 These works would serve to improve the appearance of the Crossways Estate and provide enhanced landscaping and walking routes for local residents.

8.35 As such it is considered that the layout of the proposals alongside the wider landscaping works would improve the appearance, permeabil ity and accessibility of the application site. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the requirements of saved UPD policy DEV1, CS policy SP09 and IPG policy DEV4.

Amenity

Internal Space Standards

8.36 London Plan policy 3.5 seeks q uality in new housing provision. London Plan policy 3.5, MD DPD policy DM4 and saved UDP policy HSG13 requires new development to make adequate provision of internal residential space.

8.37 The submitted drawings and details of the unit layouts show that the units are in-line with the requirements of the space standards set out in policy 3.5, table 3.3, of the London Plan 2011 and policy DM4 of the MD DPD.

Daylight

8.38 Policies DEV2 of the UDP, DM25 of the MD DPD and SP10 of the CS seek to ensure that adjoining buildings and occupiers are not adversely affected by a material deterioration in their daylighting and sunlighting conditions. Policy DEV1 of the IPG states that development should not result in a material deterioration of s unlight and daylighting conditions for surrounding occupants. These policies also seek to ensure the amenity of future occupants. The applicant has submitted a detailed Daylight and Sunlight Report produced by PRP Environmental which considers the impacts upon existing and future occupiers.

8.39 The submitted study assesses the impact of the development on existing properties surrounding the proposed residential development site. The study concludes that no windows fail to meet the BRE recommendations, and as such the development will not result in a loss of Daylight to neighbouring residential properties.

8.40 Supplementary information was provided to the Council of the light-levels within the proposed development for the future residents. It is considered from the information submitted that the daylight and sunlight availability would be within accep table margins for future residents.

Sunlight

8.41 Sunlight is assessed through the calculation of annual probable sunlight hours (APSH). This method of assessment considers the amount of sun available in the summer and winter for each window within 90 degrees of due south (i.e. those windows which receive sunlight).

8.42 The results of the study show annual and winter sunlight levels, to some properties at Rainhill Way are likely to experience losses of sunlight. The losses impact upon the block opposite the application site, 26-42 Rainhill Way. All windows experiencing a loss as a result of the daylight and sunlight assessment are recess ed windows and windows under existing balconies at this block. The existing design of 26-42 Rainhill Way and the massing of the building are likely to be a partial cause of the failures experienced at the site. These pre-existing conditions have created re sults showing a minor negative impact on the daylight and sunlight of these units as a result of the proposed development. L ess than 20% of the windows within the affected block (26-42 Rainhill Way) would experience a Page 107 minor loss of sunlight, given that this is an existing situation at the site, is a minor negative impact, and given the urban context of the application site, on balance the proposals are not considered so significant as to warrant refusal of the planning application.

Conclusions

8.43 The submitted study shows that the development would not have a substantial adverse impact on neighbours and future residential occupiers in terms of loss of daylight and loss of sunlight. The proposal is acceptable and complies with UDP policy DEV2, CS p olicy SP10, DM25 of the MD DPD (submission version January 2012) and IPG policy DEV1.

Privacy

8.44 Saved UDP Policy DEV 2 and policy DM25 of the MD DPD (submission version 2012) requires that new development should be designed to ensure that there is sufficient privacy for neighbouring residents. The policies state that a distance of 18m between opposing habitable rooms reduces inter-visibility to a degree acceptable to most people.

8.45 The proposed development achieves a separation distance of 14 metres between the proposed development and the residential property at 24 and 42 Rainhill Way, due to the staggered frontage of the existing Poplar HARCA properties, this separation distance increases to 25 metres where the proposed development lies o pposite 14 and 32 Rainhill Way. From the rear of the proposed development, the proposals achieve a separation distance of some 40 metres to the existing properties at Campbell Road.

8.46 In the majority of cases, as described above, it is not considered the existing residents will experience a loss of privacy as the development achieves a separation distance of over 18 metres. At the northern end of Rainhill Way , where the separation distance only achieves 14 metres, the development proposals seek to provide 2-storey single family dwellinghouses. Whilst a degree of overlooking may be possible, on balance it is considered that a separation distance of 14 metres in a built up urban location is acceptable and does not outweigh the overall benefits of the sch eme in providing the much needed family affordable housing loss .

8.47 The proposal therefore accords with saved policy DEV2 of the UDP, policy SP10 of the CS, policy DM25 of the MD DPD (submission version January 2012) and policy DEV1 of the IPG which seek to protect the amenity of future residents.

Residential Amenity Space

8.48 Saved UDP policy HSG 16 requires that new development should make adequate provision for amenity space, IPG Policy HSG7 and MD DPD policy DM4 sets minimum space standards for the provision of private, communal and child play space in new developments. London Plan Policy 3.6 on the provision of child play space is also relevant.

8.49 The application proposes private amenity space in the form of ground floor gardens an d balconies for all properties. The application meets policy requirements for the delivery of adequate private amenity spaces to serve this development.

8.50 Details of the required communal amenity and child play space are set out within the table below. The scheme is required to provide 306 square metres of communal and child play space under IPG policy HSG7, MD DPD policy DM4 and under London Plan policy 3.6 requirements:

Page 108

Policy Requirement Communal Open Space 58 sq.m

Child Play Space 80 sq.m

Total 138 sq.m

8.51 The proposed landscaping enhancements located to the south of the Mallard Point building will provide 362 square metres of combined communal amenity space and child play space. These calculations have specifical ly excluded the footpath areas, ramps and any communal walkways. The proposals therefore provide quality communal and child play space through the development proposals and will also form an integral part of the landscaping and play space requirements for the wider Crossways Estate. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with the requirements of IPG policy HSG7 and MD DPD policy DM4.

Noise/Disturbance

8.52 Saved Policy DEV50 of the UDP, policy DM25 of the emerging MD DPD and policy SP10 of the CS states that the Council will consider the level of noise from a development as a material consideration. This policy is particularly relevant to construction noise during the development phase. To ensure compliance with this policy, conditions wou ld be placed on any permission restricting construction works to standard hours.

8.53 Concerns have been raised by the Councils Environmental Health team that the proposed units are likely to be detrimentally impacted upon by the adjoining DLR line. It is therefore suggested that Crossrail, in cooperation with the developers acoustic consultant, should undertake a full noise and vibration assessment on the proposed building structure (transmission through the piles and foundations) to determine the level of vibration and groundborne noise likely within this development from the railway tunnels. Appropriate mitigation should also be incorporated as part of an appropriate condition at the site. Subject to the imposition o this condition, the proposal is co nsidered to accord with planning policies which seek to protect the amenity of future residential occupiers.

Transportation

8.54 London Plan polices 6.1, 6.3, 6.9, 6.10, 6.13 IPG policies DEV16, DEV17, DEV18 and DEV19, emerging MD DPD policies DM20 a nd DM22 and CS policy SP09 in broad terms seek to promote more sustainable modes of transport by reducing car-parking and improving public transport.

8.55 Local Plan policies seek to require that consideration is given to the traffic impact of operation al requirements of a proposed use and also seek to ensure priority is given to the safety and convenience of pedestrians.

8.56 The proposed application seeks to reinstate the north south route along Rainhill Way which is supported by the Council’s Highways department. This route will be re-instated as a one-way route to prevent rat running through the estate, which has been raised as a concern by local residents. Highways also support this one-way vehicular route as rat- running was identified as a concern in the previous layout. Due to the topography of the site, the new north south route will have varying levels, set at a lower level where it adjoins the two storey houses and a higher level adjoining the 4 storey flatted developments.

Page 109 Vehicle Parking

8.57 The proposed development seeks to provide 3 disabled car parking bays for future occupants of this residential development. The remainder of the development is proposed to be secured as car and permit free (subject to the operation of the Council’ s permit transfer scheme for family sized social rented units) . The provision of disabled spaces alongside a car and permit free agreement at the site is supported and considered to accord with planning policy. Whilst the Council operates a Permit Transfer Scheme, officers consider that there is sufficient on-street parking to accommodate the small number of units in the proposal that would benefit from the Permit Transfer Scheme.

Cycle Parking

8.58 The application proposes 32 cycle parking spaces for the development site . For the single family houses, dedicated cycle stands are provided within the front gardens of each property and a separate storage areas provide facilities for the remainder of the flats . The provision meets the standards for residen tial developments and visitor parking specified in IPG policy standards. The level of provision accords with London Plan policy 6.9 and IPG policy DEV16 and is acceptable.

Others

Air Quality

8.59 Policy DEV11 of the IPG requires the potential imp act of a development on air quality to be considered, with IPG policy DEV12 also requiring that air and dust management is considered during demolition and construction work.

8.60 It is likely that the proposal could have some adverse impacts in terms of the generation of dust emissions during the demolition and construction phases. It is considered that this matter can be controlled via an appropriate construction.

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

8.61 London Plan energy policies aim to reduce carbon emissions by requiring the incorporation of energy efficient design and renewable energy technologies. Policy 5.2 and 5.7 state that new developments should achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 40%. IPG policies DEV5 and DEV6 and CS policy SP11 have similar aims to London Plan policy.

8.62 The application is accompanied with an Energy Statement which details that the development would provide a CHP and the residential units would be completed to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.

8.63 The measures outlined are considered to accord with planning policies and are considered to be acceptable. The renewable and energy efficiency measures would be secured by condition.

Site Contamination

8.64 In accordance with the requ irements of, saved UDP policy DEV51 and IPG policy DEV22 the environmental health officers have identified that the application site is likely to be contaminated. A condition will be imposed to secure further intrusive investigations and any necessary mitigation for the site.

Other impacts on local infrastructure

Page 110 8.65 Policy DEV4 of the adopted UDP, policy SP13 of the CS and Policy IMP1 of the IPG say that the Council will seek to enter into planning obligations with developers where appropriate and where necessary for a development to proceed.

The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 state that any s106 planning obligations must be:

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

The general purpose of s106 contributions is to ensure that development is appropriately mitigated in terms of impacts on existing social infrastructure such as education, community facilities, health care and open space and that appropriate infrastructure to facilitate the development i.e. public realm improvements, are secured.

8.66 The Council’s draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Planning Obligations was adopted in January 2012; this SPD provides the Council’s guidance on the policy concerning planning obligations set out in policy SP13 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Based on the Planning Obligations SPD, the planning obligations required to mitigate the proposed development would be approximately £218,142.70 . This has been applied as follows through the SPD.

The proposed heads of terms are:

Financial Contributions

a) Community Facilities £22,307.06 b) Education £141,191 c) Sustainable Transport £582.15 d) Employment £3,280 e) Public Realm £31,142.70

Non-financial Contributions

a) 100% affordable housing units (comprising 18 social rent units) b) Car and permit free agreement c) Travel Plan d) Commitment to utilise employment initiatives

8.67 The planning application proposes the delivery of additional landscaping works within the Crossways Estate. In addition, the application proposes the delivery of 100 % social rented accommodation. All of these factors have had an impact upon the viability of the scheme and the subsequent delivery of Planning Obligations.

8.68 This application is supported by a viability toolkit which demonstrated that there was limited provision to provide all of the S106 contributions that are required to mitigate the impacts of this development proposal . The viability appraisal has established that it is not viable for the proposal to deliver the planning obligations which are required to mitigate against the impact of the proposed development. The applicants have however offered a planning contribution of £72,564 towards mitigation.

8.69 Whilst the Borough’s key priorities are affordable housing, employment, and education, it is considered that the limited S106 package should be focused on one key priority that the Council has a statutory obligation to meet. :

Page 111 Financial Contributions

a) £72,564 towards Education

Non-financial Contributions

a) 100% affordable housing units (comprising 18 social rent units) b) Car and permit free agreement c) Travel Plan d) Commitment to utilise employment initiatives (reasonable endeavours to secure 40%)

For the reasons identified above it is considered that the package of contributions being secured is appropriate, relevant to the development being considered and in accordance with the relevant statutory tests.

Localism Act (amendment to S70(2) of the TCPA 1990)

8.70 Section 70(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) entitles the local planning authority (and on appeal by the Secretary of State) to grant planning permission on applicatio n to it. From 15th January 2012, Parliament has enacted an amended section 70(2) as follows:

8.71 In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to:

a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; b) Any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application; and c) Any other material consideration.

8.72 Section 70(4) defines “local finance consideration” as:

a) A grant or other financial assistance that has been, or wi ll or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown; or b) Sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy.

8.73 In this context “grants” might include the ne w homes bonus and payment of the community infrastructure levy.

8.74 These issues now need to be treated as material planning considerations when determining planning applications or planning appeals.

8.75 Regarding Community Infrastructure Levy consid erations, following the publication of the London Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy, Members are reminded that the London Mayoral CIL is now operational, as of 1 April 2012. The Mayoral CIL applicable to a scheme of this size is £57,575 which is based on the gross internal area of the proposed development. The scheme is proposed to provide 100% affordable housing and will therefore qualify for social housing relief.

8.76 The New Homes Bonus was introduced by the Coalition Government during 2010 as an incentive to local authorities to encourage housing development. The initiative provides unring-fenced finance to support local infrastructure development. The New Homes Bonus is based on actual council tax data which is ratified by the CLG, with addition al information from empty homes and additional social housing included as part of the final calculation. It is calculated as a proportion of the Council tax that each unit would generate over a rolling six year period.

8.77 Using the DCLG’s New Homes Bo nus Calculator, and assuming that the scheme is Page 112 implemented/occupied without any variations or amendments, this development is likely to generate approximately £23,029 within the first year and a total of £138,176 over a rolling six year period. There is n o policy or legislative requirement to discount the new homes bonus against the s.106 contributions, and therefore this initiative does not affect the financial viability of the scheme.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 All other relevant policies and consideratio ns have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.

Page 113

Page 114 Agenda Item 7.3

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 10 th October 2012 Unrestricted

Report of: Title: Planning Application for Decision Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/12/00605 Case Officer: Monju Ali Ward(s): Whitechapel

1. APPLICATION DETAILS

Location: 83 New Road, London, E1 1HH Existing Use: Use Class A1 retail Proposal: Change of use from (A1) retail to mixed use coffee shop and restaurant (A1/A3) with no primary hot food cooking facilities, no associated extract flue system and seating area limited to ground floor only; including retention of No.4 AC units and alteration s to shop front including new access door.

Drawing No: A4 OS location plan – scale 1:1250 NR.PL.30 - existing / proposed elevations and sections NR.PL.31 - existing / proposed floor plans 2010-43/C1 - roof plan 2010-43/C2 - rear elevation

Supporting Design and Access Statement Documents: Acoustical Analysis, prepared by Commercial Kitchen Direct Ltd, dated 12 th October 2010 Fujitsu air conditioning unit specifications

Applicant: Mr Anwar Sajjad Owners: Mr Gurmail Singh & Mr JasvirKaur Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: Myrdle Street Conservation Area

2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council’s approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Adopted Core Strategy (2010), the Unitary Development Plan, the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007), the Managing Development DPD (sub mission version 2012), associated supplementary planning guidance, theLondon Plan and Government Planning Policy Guidance and has found that:

1. The proposed mixed use coffee shop and restaurant use (A1/A3) would be acceptable in this location as it will no t result in a significant loss of the existing A1 use. The proposal therefore accords with the requirements of saved Policy S5 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), Policy SP01 of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policy DM2 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version 2012) which together seek to resist the loss of retail units , ensuring a sufficient local retail provision and promote mixed use proposals outside town centres.

2. Subject to condition, the change of use to a mixed use coffee shop and restaurant use

Page 115 (A1/A3) would not result in unacceptable levels of disturbance to neighbouring residents associated with the over-concentration of A3 and other late night uses .Considering the restriction on hot food cooking on the premises, the limitation on seating to ground floor only and the restriction on opening hours, t he proposal accords with the requirements of Policy SP01, and SP03 of the adopted Core Strategy and Policy RT5 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007), and DM1 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version 2012) which together seek to ensure that proposals for Class A3uses do not result in an over concentration of such uses,cause undue disturbance to neighbouring residentsnot do not detract from the ability to adopt healthy lifestyles.

3. Subject to condition, the proposed use, including plant equipment would not give rise to any adverse impacts to adjoining residential amenity by way of noise nuisance, vibration or odour in accordance with Policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010), saved Policies DEV2, DEV50 and S7 of the Unit ary Development Plan (1998), Policies DEV1 and DEV10 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) and policy DM25 of the Development Management DPD (Submission Version 2012).

4. On balance, the proposed design alterations including the retention of the air conditioning units and shop front alterations are acceptable in terms of design, scale, choice of materials and visual appearance and are not considered to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the host building and Myrdle Street Conservation Area in accordance with sav ed policies DEV1, DEV9 and DEV27 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy CON2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007), policy DM24 of the Development Management DPD ( submission version 2012) and policy SP10 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2010), which together seek to ensure high quality design and materials for new developments with regard taken on buildings located within conservation area settings

3. RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

3.2 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following matters:

3.3 Conditions

3.4 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Se ction 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3.5 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Schedule to this planning permission.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.6 3) The use allowed by this permission shall not take place other than between the hours of:

• 07:00am to 21:00pm, Monday – Sunday

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of ad jacent residents and the area generally and to accord with policy SP10(4) and policy DEV2 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development

Page 116 Plan 1998 and Policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version 2012)

3.7 4) The premises shall only be used as mixed use coffee shop and restaurant(A1/A3) with the area for seating and counter sales maintained as shown in drawing no. NR.PL.31.

Reason: To ensure the proposal contributes to a mixture of uses in the area and that it does not lead to an over-concentration of any one particular use in accordance with the requirements of Core Strategy policy SP02.

3.8 5) The use hereby approved shall no t include primary cooking or preparation of hot food on the premises.

Reason: To prevent smells and odour from cooking fumes having an adverse impact on the residents of properties in the vicinity of the site in accordance with the requirements of saved policy S7 of the 1998 UDP, and to accord with Policy SP03(1d) of the adopted Core Strategy (2010) which seeks to reduce the over-concentration of any use type where this detracts from the ability to adopt healthy lifestyles and safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally in accordance with the requirements of Policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010), saved Policy DEV2 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies DEV1 and DEV10 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007). 3.9 6) The AC units hereby approved and any associated equipment shall be designed to a level of 10db below the lowest measured background noise (LA90, 15 minutes) as measured one metre from the nearest affected window of the nearest affected residentia l property. The assessment of the background noise shall be made in the absence of all operating plant that services the premises that is the subject of this planning application. In addition the plant shall not create an audible tonal noise nor cause pe rceptible vibration to be transmitted through the structure of the building.

Reason: To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties from noise or vibration disturbance in accordance with the requirements of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy 2010 policy SP03(2) and SP10(4a). 3.10 7) Within 3 months of the date of this permission; details of the provision of refuse and recycling storage facilities to serve the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The storage facilities shall be implemented as approved within 4 m onths of the date of the permission.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the storage of refuse in accordance with the requirements of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy policy SP05(1). 3.11 8) Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Corpo rate Director of Development & Renewal.

Informative: None.

4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS

Proposal

4.1 The application seeks permission for the change of use from (A1) retail to mixed use coffee shop and restaurant (A1/A3), with no primary hot food cooking facilities, no associated extract flue system and seating area limited to ground floor only; including retention of No.4

Page 117 AC units and alterations to shop front including new access door.

Site and Surroundings

4.2 The application site comprises the ground floor and basement of a three-storey terraced building, which is bounded by the adjoining terraced building at no.85 New Road to the north, the public highway at New Road to the east, the adjoining terraced building at no.81 New Road to the south, and the rear of the residential buildings at nos.25-26 Romford Street to the west. The application site lies within the Myrdle Street Conservation Area and the site and immediate surroundings include no Statutory Listed Buildings.

4.3 The established use of the building is A1 retail, with the premises currently occupied as a coffee shop serving primarily hot and cold drinks, sandwiches and heated food. There is no kitchen but a small servery area to the front of the ground floor. In addition, there is capacity for 34 seats to the rear of the ground floor. The basement le vel is used as ancillary storage and a small staff room with W/C and washroom provision. The upper floors of the building are occupied in residential use.

4.4 The front of the building has a modern aluminium and glazed shopfront with internally illuminated fascia and projecting sign. The rear elevation has a small single storey extension with flat roof. There are four air conditioning units mounted to the flat r oof which service the ground and basement levels. The surrounding area has a mix use character with both commercial and residential uses in close proximity along the length of New Road, however properties to the rear of the site along Romford Street are pr edominantly residential.

Planning History

4.5 PA/01/00254 On 14th May 2001 planning permission was granted for the erection of a rear extension at ground floor level plus self-containment of flat unit above.

4.6 PA/10/01878 On 23rd October 2010 planning permission was refused for the change of use ground floor and basement from Class A1 retail / wholesale to Class A3 restaurant with ancillary hot food takeaway. The reasons for refusal related primarily to the impacts of over concentration of A3 uses; lack of extract information and lack of waste information.

4.7 PA/11/00036 On 9th March 2011 planning permission was refused for the retention of a new shopfront due to modern design and impact on the conservation area. 4.8 PA/11/00091 On 9th March 2011 Advertisement consent was refused for the erection of a fascia sign and 4.9 a projecting sign (new faces)due to modern design and impact on the conservation area

PA/12/01907 An Advertisement consent application has been received in conjunction with this full 4.10 planning application. The application status is currently pending.

4.11 Enforcement

ENF/10/00590 On 24 th November 2011 enforcement investigations commenced for building works starting prior to PA/10/01878 having been granted and noise complaints.

Page 118

The ground floor commercial unit being used as a Coffee Shop even though change of use application was refused for it.

5. POLICY FRAMEWORK

5.1 For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Determination” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:

5.2 Adopted Core Strategy (September 2010) Policies: SP01 - Refocusing on Town Centres SP03 - Creating Healthy and Liveable Neighbourhoods SP10 - Creating Distinct and Durable Places

5.3 Unitary Development Plan (as saved policies 1998) Policies: DEV1 - General Design and Environmental Requirements DEV2 - General Design and Environmental Requirements DEV9 - Control of Minor Works Within the Borough DEV27 - Conservation Areas DEV50 - Noise S5 - Other Shopping Parades and Isolated Shops S7 - Special Uses

5.4 Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control (2007) Policies: DEV1 - Amenity DEV2 - Character and Design DEV10 - Disturbance from Noise Pollution DEV15 - Waste and Recyclables Storage DEV16 - Walking and Cycling Routes and Facilities DEV17 - Transport Assessments CON2 - Conservation Areas RT5 - Evening and Night-time Uses Planning Standard 3: Parking

5.5 Managing Development Plan Document (May 2012) Policies: DM1 - Development within Town Centre Hierarchy DM2 - Local shops DM15 - Local job creation and investment DM24 - Place Sensitive Design DM25 - Amenity

5.6 Community Plan The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application: A better place for living well

6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE

6.1 The views of officers within the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.

The following were consulted regarding the application:

Page 119

6.2 London Borough of Tower Hamlets - Development Design and Conservation

No objections raised based on the principle of change of use or modest shop front alterations.

6.3 London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Transport & Highways

This relatively small restaurant benefits from a lengthy loading bay outside its frontage, and therefore I do not raise any objections on servicing impacts, nor do I consider it is likely to draw large numbers of car-borne patrons from a wide area as a destination restaurant.

6.4 London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Cleansing Officer

The applicant has shown no storage for waste and recycling. They need to provide details showing where the bin is kept, how large the bin is and where the storage area is in relation to the road (so we can assess if the crews can move the container to the collection point)

6.5 London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Environmental Health (Food Safety)

Standard food safety recommendations in line with Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 made by EHO in relation to food preparation, internal layout, adequate facilities, storage areas. Detailed recommendations on case file.

6.6 London Borough of Tower Hamlets - Environmental Health (Noise and Vibration)

Construction/refurbishment must comply with the Council’s Code of Construction Practice. Noisy works only permitted Mon-Fri 0800-1800 and Sat 0800-1300, not at all Sundays and Bank Hols.

Any mechanical/electrical noise associated with the completed building (for example, fans on the air conditioning units) needs to not exceed L90-10dB (i.e. be at least 10dB below background levels) – a Noise Report presenting details of measurements and ca lculations to be provided to EHEP for approval.

Kitchen extract system to comply with DEFRA’s Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems (January 2005).

Officer Comment: suitable conditions have been recommended in relation to noise and the proposal does not include any kitchen extract system. In relation to construction hours, no demolition or construction is proposed. The application comprises a change of use.

7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION

7.1 A total of 39 neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the application. A site notice was also displayed and the application was advertised in East End Life.

7.2 The total number of representations re ceived from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:

No of individual responses: 10 Objecting: 10 Supporting: 0 Duplicated: 1 No of petitions received: 1 with 65 signatories

Page 120

7.3 The following issues were raised in objection that are addressed in the next section of this report:

• The proposal will result in increased levels of air, smelland environmental pollution. 7.4 Officer comment: The proposal does not include any new plant or extraction equipment, in addition there will be no primary hot food cooking on site.

• 7.5 The proposal will result in increased noise disturbance to neighbours Officer comment: The hours of operation and use of the air conditioning units to the rear elevation will be controlled via condition and the proposed hours of operation( 07:00am to 21:00pm) is considered to be suitable to the location, without causing significant noise nuisance to residential properties.

7.6 • There is already an over-concentration of A3 restaurants in the area, creating further competition to existing A3 uses along New Road. Officer comment:Competition is not a material planning consideration; however, as discussed in the mat erial planning considerations of this report, the mixed use nature (A1/A3) of the proposal, small footprint of the site, limited seating, and restriction on any cooking on site, limits the impact of the proposal .

7.7 • The proposal will adversely impact upon on-street parking provision. Officer comment: The Councils Highways department have been consulted on the application who have raised no objections. It is also noted the site has a high PTAL with accessible public transport modes, it is not considered the proposal would have a significant impact upon the highways.

8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:

1. Land Use Principle land use of the site in conjunction with the surrounding area.

2. Design Design merits and visual impact on the property and surrounding area.

3. Residential and Visual Amenity Impact on the amenity of occupying residents and the visual impact to the surrounding area.

8.2 Land Use

8.1 Policy Considerations Consideration has been given to a number of policies which guide development involving the loss of A1 retail uses in certain locations. Saved Policy S5 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) seeks the rete ntion of Class A1 retail uses outside district centres or local parades, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that any vacant A1 site has been actively marketed at values prevailing in the area for retail use, o r that there is adequate provision in the locality for essential shops to meet local needs, or that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the amenity of residents.

Page 121

8.2 Policy SP01 (2) of the Core Strategy (2010) seeks to ensure the scale and type of u ses within town centres are consistent with the town centre hierarchy and SP02 (Part 5) promotes areas outside and at the edge of town centres as places which support and assist in the creation of sustainable communities. Part (a) of Policy SP02(5) promot es mixed use development at the edge of town centres.

8.3 Policy DM2 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version 2012) seeks to ensure the existing level of local shop provision is maintained and complements the town centre network. In summary, thi s Policy also goes on to explain how the loss of A1 will only be supported where there is a shop within 300m walking distance, the shop has been vacant for more than 12months, and there is no viable prospect of retail use.

8.4 Policy RT5 of the Interim Plann ing Guidance (2007) requires proposals that would contribute to the evening and night-time economy to be considered in light of the proximity of residential accommodation and surrounding uses, the cumulative impact and level of disturbance associated with A3, A4 and A5 uses, the nature of the activity, including the impact of the proposed hours of operation, and the mitigating measures for any likely pollution, including ventilation equipment and refuse disposal (including customer litter).

8.5 Consideration has also been given to Policy SP03 of the Core Strategy which supports healthy and active lifestyles, through seeking to reduce the over concentration of any use type that distracts from the ability to adopt healthy lifestyles.

8.6 Loss of A1 Retail Unit The proposal would result in the loss of a pure A1 retail unit however the mixed use nature of the proposal (A1/A3) means that the unit would still comprise an element of A1 floor space at ground floor level. The site is not vacant and no evidence has been su bmitted to demonstrate that the premise has been marketed for retail use at values prevailing in the area. In addition, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there is adequate provision in the locality for essential shops to meet local needs. H owever, assessment of the site by the case officer shows the property to be located just outside of the Whitechapel Town Centre, which has a high provision of A1 uses including the Whitechapel Market providing essential shops and services. In addressing P olicy DM2, the nearest A1 unit to the subject site is within 25-75m considering other A1 units along New Road and the edge of the Whitechapel District Centre which is 72m away. As such the proposal complies with the policy DM2 which seeks to prevent the lo ss of A1 uses where there are no alternative local shops within 300m walking distances of the site.

8.7 On balance, despite the lack of evidence to demonstrate market or vacancy issues, the combined mix use nature of the proposed coffee shop and restaurant i s considered acceptable inland use terms given the fact an element of A1 will be retained. In any instance, there is satisfactory provision of alternative A1 shops within walking distance to the site. Matters relating to residential amenity are discussed in later sections of this report.

8.8 In conclusion, it is considered that the loss of a pure A1 retail unitis acceptable in light of the proposed mix and in accordance with the requirements of saved Policy S5 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) , SP01 of the Core Strategy and DM2 of the Managing Development DPD (2012) which seek to resist the loss of retail units in the Borough.

8.9 Proposed Mixed Class A1/A3 Restaurant Use In terms of the appropriateness of the proposed use, (Mix Use Class A1/A3 coffee shop and restaurant), consideration has been given to the type of use proposed, its internal layout, including seating provision, type of food preparation and scale of cooking , hours of operation and any issues relating to over-concentration of similar uses.

Page 122

8.10 The application drawings specifies that there will be seating capacity for 34 seats solely on the ground floor and there will be no seating within the basement level (giv en the fact there is no means of escape). The proposed restaurant use will affect the ground floor only as the basement will remain unchanged as ancillary storage space with W/C and wash facilities only.

8.11 The proposal does not propose any hot food cooking on site and therefore if this can be secured via condition, it is considered that the use should not have the same impact as regular A3 type uses, therefore limiting the impact of the use.

8.12 Consideration has also been given to the fact that the proposed change of use affects a small proportion of floor space at ground floor level. Furthermore, the proposed use is to operate from 07:00 Hours to 21:00 Hours, Monday to Sunday and on Bank Holidays and this is considered to limit any nuisances associated with late night uses.

8.13 In order to assess the impact of the proposal on the issue of over concentration the case officer undertook a survey of the evening and night-time economy uses (specifically Class A3 restaurant and Class A5 hot food takeaway uses) within the surrounding area. The survey shows that there are 27 Class A3 and A5 uses within a distance of approximately 300 metres from application site.

The majority of A3 and A5 uses are found within the Whitechapel Town Centre, with 5 of the 8.14 A3 uses along the length of New Road itself, outside the town centre. Taking into account the results of the survey, together with the objections raised by local residents which note concerns regarding the existing over concentration of restaurants in the area consideratio n has been given to implications of a further A3 type use.

However, the proposal is for a mixed use A1/A3 and considering there will be no primary hot 8.15 food cooking on site, no late night opening beyond 9pm and also the fact that seating is limited to the ground floor only, the proposal is considered acceptable. Given these restrictions and conditions officer believe that there will be minimal cumulative impact on levels of disturbance associated with these uses.

On balance, the proposal is therefore acce ptable in line with the requirements of Policies 8.16 SP01, SP03 and SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policy RT5 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007), and DM2 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) which together seek to prevent the over-concentration of evening and night- time economy uses where they would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

Design

8.17 Policy Considerations Policy SP10 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010), Policy DM24 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012), saved Policy DEV1 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy DEV2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) seek to ensur e that development incorporates good design principles and takes into account and respects the local character and setting of the development site and its surroundings in terms of scale, height, bulk, design details, materials and external finishes. Saved Policy DEV9 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) seeks to resist proposed alterations which would adversely affect the elevation of any building or the visual integrity of the street.

8.18 Saved Policy DEV27 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) seeks to en sure that applications for minor alterations are considered with regard to the effect that such alterations will have on the host building, street and wider Conservation Area. Policy CON2

Page 123 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) states that development prop osals will be approved in Conservation Areas only where they will preserve or enhance the distinctive character and appearance of the conservation area, in terms of scale, form, height, materials, architectural detail and design, and preserve open spaces, views and vistas. Policy DM24 of the Development Management DPD (submission version 2012) seeks to ensure developments are place sensitive taking in consideration the local context. Polic y 4B.12 of the London Plan (2011) seeks to protect and enhance London ’s historic assets, including Conservation Areas, based on an understanding of their special character.

8.19 Proposed Design The proposal includes the retention of No.4 AC units mounted to the flat roof top of the rear single storey extension. The AC units se rvice the ground and basement level and are visible from the rear residential windows from No.25 & 26 Fieldgate Mansions. The proposal also includes the retention of minor alterations to the shop front which includes the installation of matching transform to divide and break up the full glazed frontage with the installation of a new aluminium and glazed entrance door and a new separate timber framed access door leading to the residential flats above.

8.20 The four AC units are grey in colour and of standard siz e and specification. The outlook from the rear residential properties is to the flank elevation of No.83 New Road and its single storey extension. The four AC units which areare lined up in pairs are largely out of sight and have no significant or detrimental visual impact.

8.21 The alterations to the shop front are considered to be minor and will help enhance the appearance of the frontage moving away from the existing full glazed and modern appearance with a more traditional style, which is considered approp riate for the Myrdle Street conservation area.

8.22 The proposed AC units and shop front alterations are acceptable in terms of design, scale, choice of materials and visual appearance . The proposal would result in a development that is acceptable to the host building and Myrdle Street Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of the s aved policies DEV1, DEV9 and DEV27 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy CON2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007), policy DM24 of the Developme nt Management DPD (submission version 2012) and policy SP10 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2010), which seek to ensure high quality design and materials for new developments with regard given to b uildings located within conservation area settings.

Amenity

8.23 Saved Policy DEV2 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), Policy DEV1 of the IPG (2007) , policy DM25 of the Development Management DPD (submission version 2012) and Policy SP10(4) of the adopted Core Strategy (2010) require development proposals to protect the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants, as we ll as protect the amenity of the surrounding public realm. Saved Policy S7 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) as states that proposals for restaurants will be considered in light of the amenity of nearby residents and whether adequate measures for vent ilation are provided on-site.

8.24 Saved Policy DEV50 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) states that the Council will consider the level of noise generated from developments as a material planning consideration and that the developer will be expected to include information relating to n oise generated by the proposal in their application. Policy DEV10 of the IPG (2007) requires attenuation measures to be incorporated into development likely to generate unacceptable levels of noise and/or vibration, and that development will only be suppor ted where it can be

Page 124 demonstrated that noise levels generated from the development will be in accordance with Planning Standard 1: Noise of the IPG (2007).

8.25 In terms of visual amenity, the upper floors of the property comprise of residential flats with two rear windows, in addition the property backs on to a residential terrace along Fieldgate Mansions. Whilst this has been taken into account, it is considered that the existing outlook is poor, which faces a brick wall, the single storey rear extension and is restricted by the footprint of the building and rear court yard. Furthermore, given the location and small footprint of the AC units within the context of the existing outlook, it is not considered that there would be any unacceptable or detrimental vis ual impacts to any neighbouring dwellings, therefore the proposal meets the aims of policy listed above.

8.26 Hours of operation The applicant has requested the following hours of operation for the proposed A1/A3 mix use unit :

• 07:00am to 21:00pm hours (Monday to Sundays and Bank Holidays)

These hours are considered acceptable in the area as there will be no significant or detrimental impact on occupiers of nearby residential properties considering the limit after 9pm.

Impacts from Noise, Vibration and Odour 8.27 The proposal includes does not include any kitchen extraction system or ducting as there will be no primary cooking on site. Instead food will be heated and served to customers in a café style fashion. The nearest no ise sensitive facade is located 1.5 metres from the rear facing room windows, which comprise of a kitchen of the flat situated directly above the application site.

8.28 The application was accompanied by two documents: a Noise Assessment Report, prepared by CK Direct dated 12 th October 2010 and the AC unit specifications from Fujitsu Compact Cassette, which assessed the noise and vibration impact resulting from the proposed AC units. The details were assessed by the Councils Environmental Health Team (EHEP), w ho have requested that any mechanical/electrical noise associated with the proposal (for example, fans on the air conditioning units) needs to not exceed L90-10dB (i.e. be at least 10dB below background levels), and further that a Noise Report presenting d etails of measurements and calculations be provided to EHEP for approval to safeguard and ensure there will be no adverse amenity issues arising from the proposal.

8.29 A condition will be attached to ensure the noise generated by the plant does not exceed 10dBA below any background noise at any time.

8.30 Subject to conditions, the proposal meets the aims of policy SP10(4) of the Adopted Core Strategy 2010, saved policies DEV2 and DEV50 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and DEV1 of the Interim Planning Gui dance (2007). These policies seek to ensure and safeguard residential amenities from unacceptable levels of noise nuisance.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.

Page 125

Page 126 Agenda Item 7.4

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item Number: Development 10 October 2012 Unrestricted Committee Report of: Title: Town Planning and Conservation Area Consent Director of Development and Renewal Applications

Ref: PA/12/00090 and PA/12/00091 Case Officer: Graham Harrington Ward: Spitalfields and Banglatown

1 Application Details

Location Land within former Truman’s Brewery Site, on corner of Spital Street and Buxton Street.

Existing Use: Former brewery – storage buildings (B8), electricity substations, coffee grinding/packaging business and surface level car parking in yard area.

Proposal: PA/12/00090 – application for Full Planning Permission Demolition of the existing store building, substation, workshops and boundary wall to Buxton Street and Spital Street up to Cooperage Building and erection of a 3 storey high data centre with basement accommodation (Use Class B8) and new substation, including provision of Use Class B1 enterprise / D1 training floor space, provision of rooftop satellite dishes, roof mounted mechanical plant, security fencing, cycle parking and provision of car parking spaces and associated works.

PA/12/00091 – application for Conservation Area Consent Demolition of the existing store building, substation, wokshops and the boundary wall to Buxton Street and Spital Street to the Cooperage Building

Drawing Nos. PL11-010-001 Site Location Plan PL11-010-002 Rev D Proposed Site Plan PL-010-003 Rev A Proposed Basement Level Plan PL11-010-004 Rev D Proposed Ground Floor Plan PL11-010-005 Rev B Proposed First Floor Plan PL11-010-006 Rev B Proposed Second Floor Plan PL11-010-007 Rev A Proposed Plant Deck Plan PL11-010-008 Rev B Proposed Roof Level PL11-010-009 Rev B Proposed Sections A-A and B-B PL11-010-010 Rev C Proposed Elevations PL11-010-011 Rev B Street Scenes Existing and Proposed Buxton Street and Brick Lane PL11-010-012 Rev B Street Scenes Existing and Proposed Woodseer and Spital Street PL11-010-013 Proposed Demolition Plan

Page 127 PL11-010-014 Existing Site Sections PL11-010-015 Proposed Photomontage View Locations PL-010-016 Rev A Existing Public Footpath Discrimination PL-010-018 Proposed Brick Panel Details – Buxton Street Elevation Photomontage Views 3, 6, 7 and 8

Materials - Brick = Ibstock Funton Second Hard (ref 4050) laid in Flemish bond with flush jointed mortar - Window/curtain walling sample (RAL 8019, Dark Bronze) - Acoustic louvre sample (RAL 8019, Dark Bronze)

Documents - Acoustic Assessment - Acoustic Assessment – Addendum to Report - Energy Strategy Report - Planning and Impact Statement - BREEAM Pre-assessment Report - Sustainability Report - Design and Access Statement - Transport Statement - Green Travel Plan - Television and Radio Reception Survey and Development Impact Assessment - Site Investigation Report - Tree Survey Report - Ecological Scoping Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report - Design Appraisal - Significance Assessment - Character Appraisal - Archaeological Desk Based Assessment - Heritage Statement - Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment - Statement of Public Consultation - Note on proposed Interixon Training and Enterprise Centre

Applicant: Interixon Carrier Hotel Limited (91-95 Brick lane)

Ownership: Zeloof LLP (91 Brick Lane)

Page 128 Historic Buildings: Within the development: • Former barrel-washing shed • Courtyard (cobbles and stone paving slabs)

Adjacent/close to the site: • Cooperage Building, Spital Street • 37 Buxton Street • Former All Saints Vicarage 35 Buxton Street (Listed Grade II) • Brickhouse building, Brick lane (Listed Grade II) • Engineer’s House, Brick Lane (Listed Grade II) • Vat House, Brick Lane (Listed Grade II)

Conservation Area: Whole site within Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area.

2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council's approved planning policies contained in the Core Strategy 2010 , the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan, the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (October 2007) , the Council's Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), the London Plan 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework and has found that:

2.2 The scheme will facilitate the future economic role of the area through the expansion of utility infrastructure , the provision of a Training and Enterprise Centre, the relocation of an existing business and the provision of an active frontage along Buxton Street. The scheme therefore accords w ith policy 4.11 of the London Plan 2011, saved policies EMP1 and EMP3 of the Councils Unitary Development Plan (1998), policies SP01, SP06 and SP07 of the Core Strategy 2010 and policy DM15 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012), which seek to develop appropriate sites for employment/infrastructure use within the borough , maintain a vibrant mix of uses in the Tower Hamlets Activity Area and promote local enterprise and training.

2.3 The proposed demolition would not harm the character or appearance of Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area or the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings and the design of the proposed replacement building is of sufficiently high quality to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Area . The proposal therefore accords with the requirements of policy 7.8 of the London Plan 2011, policy SP10 of the Core Strategy 2010 , saved policy DEV28 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) , which seek to ensure high quality development that preserves and enhances the character of conservation areas and does not harm the setting and special architectural or historic interest of surrounding L isted Buildings.

2.4 The scale, bulk and design of the proposed development respond satisfactorily to the context of the existing site and surrounding buildings and sits comfortably within the local streetscape. As such, the scheme is in line with policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011, saved policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Councils Unitary Development Plan 1998 , policy SP10 of the Core Strategy 2010 and policies DM24 and DM26 of the Managing Development

Page 129 DPD (submission version 2012), which seek to ensure buildings are of a high quality design and suitably located.

2.5 Subject to conditions requiring the submission of further external material samples, t he proposed development is considered to preserve and enhance the appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area and the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings through the provision of a n appropriately located building of acceptable scale and massing and architectural design . The proposal therefore accords with the requirements of policy 7.8 of the London Plan 2011, policy SP10 of the Core Strategy 2010 and policies DM23, DM24 and DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012), which seek to ensure high quality development that preserves and enhances the character of conservation areas without harming the setting of or architectural or historic interest of surrounding listed buildings.

2.6 The proposal would not give rise to any unduly detrimental impacts in terms of sunlight, daylight or over shadowing, and subject to appropriate conditions, noise upon the occupiers of existing nearby residential properties . As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant criteria of saved policy DEV2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy SP10 of the of the Core Strategy 2010 and policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), which seek to protect residential amenity

2.7 Transport matters, including pedestrian movement, parking, access and servicing, are acceptable and in line with the requirements of London Plan policies 6.9, 6.11 and 6.13, policies SP08 and SP09 of the Core Strategy 2010 T16 and T19 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policies DM20 and DM22 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), which seek to ensure that developments encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport and manage car parking provision to promote sustainable transport options.

2.8 Subject to a planning obligation requiring a heat recovery system to be provided to transfer recovered heat to an agreed point at the site boundary, the development, thorough a series of methods would result in a satisfactory reduction in carbon emissions in accordance with the energy hierarchy within London Plan policies 5.2 and 5.7, policy SP11 of the Co re Strategy and policy DM29 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012), which seek to reduce carbon emissions from developments by using sustainable construction techniques and renewable energy measures.

2.9 Planning obligations have secured the provision and management of an on-site Training and Enterprise Centre and financial contributions towards the enhancement of Buxton Street (between Code Street and Spital Street), other public realm enhancements, training, sustainable transport initiatives, community facilities and public open space in line with Regulation 122 of Community Infrastructure Levy 2010; saved policy DEV4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998; and policy SP02 and SP13 of the Core Strategy 2010, which seek to secure contributions toward infrastructure and services required to facilitate proposed development.

3. RECOMMENDATION

Page 130 3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and Conservation Area Consent subject to:

3.2 The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:

3.3 Financial contributions

a) £27,092 towards employment initiatives for the construction phase. b) £31,744 towards employment training initiatives for the operational phase. c) £150,000 towards shared surface treatment of Buxton Street d) £21,840 towards public realm improvements on Spital Street frontage f) £3,315 towards sustainable transport initiatives g) £4,840 towards Idea stores and Library facilities. h) £29,489 towards public open space j) £5,366 for the 2% monitoring fee. Total Contribution financial contributions £273,686

3.4 Non-financial contributions and obligations

a) Delivery of a Training and Enterprise Centre in accordance with the principles set out in t he submitted Note on Proposed Interixon Training and Enterprise Centre dated 27 September 2012 and summarised in paras. 8.9 and 8.10 of this report and the implementation of a Training and Enterprise Centre Management Plan (to be approved in writing by the Council prior to first occupation of the data centre). b) Access to employment initiatives for construction through 20% of non-technical total construction jobs to be advertised through the Council’s job brokerage service. c) A target of 20% of total valu e of contracts which procure goods and services are to be to be achieved using firms located within the borough. d) Relocation strategy for existing business to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before commencement of development e) Public right of way over the private pavement area along the Buxton Street frontage f) Heat recovery system to be provided to transfer recovered heat to an agreed point at the site boundary for future connection by others to a district heating network (An ap proved Future Waste Heat Utilisation Plan to be implemented prior to first occupation of the data centre) g) Achievement of a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rated building (including submission of certificates to demonstrate achievement) h) Any other planning obligati on(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

3.5 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.

3.6 That if, within three months of the date of this committee meeting the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal has delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

3.7 Conditions – Planning Permission

That the Corporate Director Development & Ren ewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following matters:

Page 131

1. Three Year time limit for full planning permission 2. In accordance with approved plans, external materials and submitted documents. 3. Restriction of use of the Business Enterprise Space to B1 and/or an education training centre and for no other purposes (including any other use within Class D1 of the Use Classes Order). 4. No development shall take place until samples and full particulars of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority : i. Surfacing materials and drainage and lighting details of the pavement area adjacent to Buxton Street; ii. External brick and coping details of the walls along Buxton Street and Spital Street; iii. External weathered stone coping; iv. External materials of the roof flues; v. Green walls as shown on drawing PL11-101-010 Rev C; and vi. Rainwater harvesting system 5. Implementation of an approved archaeological investigation 6. Implementation of an approved programme of archaeological recording of standing buildings 7. No occupation until provision of approved car parking (incorporating Electric Vehicle Charging Points and a space wide enough to serve as a parking space for a wheelchair ) and retention thereafter. 8. No occupation until provision of approved cycle parking and retention thereafter. 9. (i) The new plant hereby approved and any associated equipment shall be designed to a level of 10db below the lowest measured background noise (LA90, 15 minutes) as measured one metre from the nearest affected window of the nearest affected residential property (ii) Before the approved data centre is first brought into use detailed results of a noise survey measurin g the operation of the plant working at full capacity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA (ii) The plant shall not create an audible tonal noise nor cause perceptible vibration to be transmitted through the structure of the building. 10. The approved plant screen shall be erected before the plant is brought into use and retained thereafter. 11. No commencement until a Contaminated Land Scheme (including Controlled Waters) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA 12. Construction Management Plan

3.8 Informatives – Planning Permission

1. This decision notice is to be read in conjunction with the associated s106 agreement 2. Developer to enter into a s278 agreement for works to Buxton Street 3. Developer to contact Council’s Building Control service. 4. Developer to contact Crossrail prior to commencement of development. 5. The drainage for the permitted Buxton Street pavement area should be designed and implemented to ensure that surface water does not drain on to the adjacent public highway 6. The trees on the site should be felled outside of the bird breeding season (March to August). If this is not possible for any reason, an inspection by a qualified ecologist should be completed at least 48 hours before works are due to commence. If during such an inspection a nest considered to be in use is discovered, works must be delayed until the young have fledged. 7. Any other informatives (s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

Page 132 3.9 Conditions – Conservation Area Consent That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the conservation area consent to secure the following matters:

1. No demolition until contract is let for permitted replacement building 2. Demolition to take place within 3 years 3. Prior to demolition a Material Reclamation Plan shall be submitted to and approved by LPA and an approved Plan implemented. 4. Cooperage Building. Following the demolition of the ‘Existing Building’ on Spital Street and before the permitted building is first occupied, the exposed northern boundary to the Cooperage Building and existing chimneys stack shall be made good in accordance with a schedule of remedial works that have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

Informative – Conservation Area Consent

1.This decision notice is to be read in conjunction with planning permission PA/12/00090

4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS

Background

4.1 The applicant is one of Europe’s leading providers of data centres and managed ITC services and has its UK Office Headquarters in Block Z of Truman’s Brewery. It has an operational data centre in the undercroft of Block Z and in Block B. It is also currently constructing an additional data centre in Block D. However, demand for services continues to grow and the proposed data centre would be the applicant’s fourth in the area.

4.2 Data centres house servers which facilitate data transact ions for major financial companies in the City and City-fringe areas. The physical proximity of such centres to these companies is important as this enables faster electronic transactions to be made

4.3 Data centres require a lot of electrical power. The applicant has entered into a contract with UK Power Networks to improve power supplies. The proposed sub-station would provide up to 24MVA of power and replace both the redundant sub-station that fronts Buxton Street and the temporary sub-station situated in the existing yard.

4.4 This planning application was submitted in January 2012. Following discussion with officers, the elevational design of the proposed building was completely revised in August 2012 . These revisions were advertised and consulted upon and no further comments have been received.

Proposal

4.5 The application seeks permission for a data centre including a new electricity sub-station and 235sqm of office (Class B1) enterprise training space (Class D1) along the Buxton Street frontage. The building would be approximately 65m long, as viewed from Buxton Street and approximately 30m along the Spital Street frontage. Due to its L-shaped foot print the depth of the building along the western side would be approximately 49m. The building would include a 5m deep basement, with the main bulk of the building raising to approximately 18.5m above ground level, although the proposed photovoltaic panels would rise to approximately 19m, the

Page 133 satellite dishes on the southern elevation (overlooking the courtyard) to about 19.5m and seven slim flues would rise to about 21.5m.

4.6 The building would provide a total of 10,410sqm Gross Internal Area (GIA) and be set out as follows: • Basement - data halls (housing banks of servers), electrical plant room, diesel storage tanks, grey water storage and pumping area • Ground floor – security and reception area on the corner of Buxton Street and Spital Street, office/training space, with access from Buxton Street, sub-station, generators ,electrical and mechanical plant rooms and a recycling and waste store. • First floor – ‘break-out’ meeting space overlooking the corner of Buxton Street and Spital Street, data halls, electrical and mechanical plant areas and gas bottle storage The plant deckis would accommodate four floors of accommodation and a plant deck. • Second Floor – ‘break-out’ meeting space overlooking the corner of Buxton Street and Spital Street, data halls, office • Plant deck – generator radiators and air cooling equipment set behind an acoustic attenuated lover screen with an open grate deck/walkway above. Three satellite dishes would be located on south side of building overlooking the yard and photovoltaic panels would sit on top of the deck/walkway

4.7 Data centres use a lot of energy (discussed in detail in section 8 of this report) and the applicant needs to ensure continuity of power supply for commercial reasons. The proposed generators are part of ensuring this continuity. If electricity supply fails, batteries would automatically kick in for 15-30 minutes to provide power and the generators would then come on line to provide power until electricity supply from the national grid is restored. Consequently, other than testing, the generators would not be in use as a matter of course and would constitute emergency back-up.

4.8 The main pedestrian access would be from Buxton Street. Vehicular access would be via the existing vehicle access on Spital Street and the existing yard. A 2.5m high security fence would be erected along the western and southern boundaries, incorporating a secondary pedestrian access in the southern boundary (from the yard). A covered cycle parking area would be located within the southern boundary next to this entrance and two electric vehicle charging car parking spaces (one wide enough to serve as a parking space for a wheelchair user), and a waste collection area would be located in the existing yard area, outside of the perimeter fence but within the application site.

4.9 The existing wall along Buxton Street and on the Buxton Street/Spital Street corner would be demolished and the building set back between 2 and 2.4 from this line; enabling a pavement to be provided along this part of Buxton Street, where at present only a narrow 1 to 1.4m wide pavement exists for only part of the length of the site. A short section of new wall at the western end of the Buxton Street frontage (approximately 5m high) would link the set-back building with the existing wall to the west. The building would step back from Buxton Street, with the ground and first floors rising up sheer, before being set back about 2.1m at second floor and a further 2.1m at plant level.

4.10 The existing wall along Spital Street would be demolished and a new 3.6m high wall would be built at the back edge of pavement between the existing Cooperage building and the corner with Spital Street. The building would step back from Spital Street in a similar way as it would from Buxton Street, with the ground and first floors rising up sheer, before being set back about

Page 134 2.1m at second floor and a further 2.1m at plant level.

4.11 The Buxton Street, Spital Street and western elevations would be built in brick, with dark bronze metal framed windows, doors, rainwater goods, louver plant screen and roof cladding and chrome finish flues. The new walls would use reclaimed bricks from the existing walls. The southern (courtyard) elevation would be similar, but include two large (7.8m x 10.8m) green walls.

Site and Surroundings

4.12 The site is located at the junction of Spital Street and Buxton Street in the north eastern corner of the Truman’s Brewery site, opposite Allen Gardens open space. It measures approximately 0.36 hectares. The site is within the Tower Hamlets Activity Area and is within close proximity of Brick Lane which is identified as a District Centre in the Core Strategy. The brewery complex itself is home to a number of Small / Medium enterprises. The site is generally represented by creative industries, media industries and leisure uses, including cafes/restaurants and clubs.

4.13 The site is located within the Brick Lane / Fournier Street conservation area and the buildings which make up the Brewery site form an important part of the conservation area. The majority of buildings within the conservation area are relatively low rise, on a domestic scale, however the buildings in the brewery are much taller with an industrial character. A brew house was established on the site in the mid seventeen century and a number of the remaining buildings which formed the brewery are listed. The Directors House on the west side of Brick Lane is Listed Grade II* and 95 Brick Lane (the Brewmaster’s House), also on the west side of Brick Lane is Listed Grade II. On the east side of Brick Lane and between about 18 and 25m away from the site is the Black Eagle Brewery, Nos. 114-12, 125 and 148 Brick Lane (Vat House) and (Listed Grade II) and 150 Brick Lane(Engineer’s House). No. 35 Buxton Street is another Listed (Listed Grade II) building to note and the Cooperage building immediately the south of the site along Spital Street is also of some architectural and historic interest (although not listed).

4.14 The existing wall along Buxton Street is between 5 and 6 metres high. Within this sits a redundant electricity sub-station and immediately behind it sits a small garden and a single- storey brick workshop. A large modern industrial building occupies the majority of the site, with the rest comprising a temporary electricity sub-station, an open yard area, surfaced in a mix ture of cobbles and tarmac. The brick workshop is currently occupied by a coffee grinding/packaging business and the industrial building is currently used for storage. The yard is currently used for car parking.

4.15 To the north of the site is Allen Gardens open space. To the east, across Spital Street is Stuttle House, a seven storey block of flats. Further to the east is McGlashon House, a five to seven- storey block of flats and to the south on the corner of Spital Street and Woodseer Street is a relatively new block of flats. To the north and west of the site on the corner of Code Street is Daniel Gilbert House which provide temporary accommodation for single homeless people.

4.16 The following map shows the location of the application site in relation to three heritage assets and other buildings.

Planning History

Page 135 4.17 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:

PA/10/01940 Refused in November 2010 for the following 6 reasons (summary only): (Planning) 1. The proposed bulk, height, footprint and elevational treatment is of poor design quality which does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, fails to respect the local context and townscape and does not relate satisfactorily to Buxton Street, Spital Street or Allen Gardens. 2. The inactive nature of the use and position of the building inside the high boundary walls would fail to contribute to the vibrant mix of uses expected in the THAA and would also fail to provide a mix of uses at the edge of the Brick Lane district centre detrimental to the future development of the Brewery site 3. Insufficient information has been provided to assess the daylight/sunlight impact on homes in Shuttle House. 4. Insufficient information has been provided in relation to energy efficient design, minimising carbon emissions and on-site renewable energy 5. Inadequate acoustic attenuation is likely to result in an unacceptable level of noise disturbance 6. Lack of financial contributions towards public realm enhancements, local training, employment and enterprise initiatives in the area

PA/10/01958 Refused in November 2010 for the following reason (summary): (CAC) 1. In the absence of an approved planning permission for the re-development of the site, the demolition of the buildings would leave an undeveloped site which would represent a blight on the character and appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area

PA/11/01814 Temporary planning permission granted in September 2011 for a temporary (Planning) sub-station and LV switch room (up to end February 2013)

PA/11/01877 Planning permission granted in October 2011 for the erection of a permanent (Planning) substation and LV switch room. (N.B. The approved substation would be integrated into the proposed datacentre building).

PA/11/01878 CAC granted in October 2011 for demolition of existing buildings in (CAC) connection with the erection of a permanent substation and LV switch room

5. POLICY FRAMEWORK

5.1 Fo r details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Determination” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:

5.2 Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2025 (adopted September 2010) Policies SO5 Mixed use at the edge of Town centres SP01 Town Centre activity SO15 Support City Fringe SO16 Support growth of businesses SP06 Industrial land SO20 Safe streets

Page 136 SP09 Streets SO22 Protect heritage assets SO23 High quality new buildings SP10 Heritage assets and design SO24 Zero carbon SP11 Low carbon energy SO25 Delivering placemaking SP12 Securing well designed places SP13 Planning obligations

5.3 Unitary Development Plan 1998 (as saved September 2007) Policies DEV1 Design requirements DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV4 Planning Obligations DEV15 Trees DEV50 Noise DEV51 Contaminated land EMP1 Encouraging new employment uses EMP4 Expansion of existing firms EMP10 Development elsewhere in the borough

5.4 Managing development DPD (Submission Version 2012) Policies DM1 Development within the town centre hierarchy DM11 Living buildings and biodiversity DM13 Sustainable drainage DM14 Managing waste DM15 Local job creation and investment DM20 Supporting a sustainable transport network DM22 Parking DM23 Streets and public realm DM24 Place-sensitive design DM25 Amenity DM27 Heritage and the historic environment DM29 Achieving a zero carbon borough and addressing climate change

5.5 London Plan 2011 (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London)

2.13 Opportunity areas and intensification areas 4.1 Developing London’s economy 4.10 New and emerging economic sectors 4.11 Encouraging a connected economy 4.12 Improving opportunities for all 5.1 Climate change mitigation 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 5.3 Sustainable design and construction 5.5 Decentralised energy networks 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals 5.7 Renewable energy 5.10 Urban Greening 5.13 Sustainable drainage

Page 137 5.17 Waste capacity 5.21 Contaminated land 6.9 Cycling 6.11 Walking 6.13 Parking 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities 7.2 An inclusive environment 7.4 Local character 7.5 Public realm 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature 7.21 Trees and Woodland 8.2 Planning obligations

5.6 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted Jan 2012)

5.7 National Planning Policy Framework

6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE

6.1 The views of the Directorate of Development & Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.

6.2 The following were consulted regarding the application:

Environmental Health - Contaminated Land 6.3 No comments received

Environmental Health- Noise & Vibration 6.4 The following residential facades will experience its impact; i) Stuttle House; ii) New residential building on Woodseer Street and iii) Buxton Street/Code Street. Although the assessment in the report meets BS4142 - L90- 10 dB(A), because the data is based on prediction and assumptions this application will require a condition for post completion testing so as to satisfy EH that there will be no noise nuisance impact on local residents, No objections to permission being granted provided that post completion testing condition which has to be discharged at a later date with EH consultation.

(Officer comment: It is recommended that such a condition be imposed on any consent)

Communities, Localities & Culture Strategy 6.5 The increase in population as a result of the proposed development will increase the demand on the borough’s open spaces, sports and leisure facilities and on the borough’s Idea stores, libraries and archive facilities. The increase in population will also have an impact on sustainable travel within the borough. Financial contributions should be secured in line with the Planning Obligations SPD.

(Officer comment: The financial contributions recommended to be secured to mitigate impacts and secure policy objectives take account of the Planning Obligations SPD, the particular proposals and discussions with the applicant).

Page 138

Transportation & Highways 6.6 * Rear servicing arrangements and provision of electric charging points are welcome. * Provision should be made for a disabled driver to park * The proposed level of cycle parking is acceptable * Ramp and bollards need to be provided on private land off the public highway * Seek a financial contribution of £150,000 towards the costs of implementing a ‘shared surface’ treatment for this stretch of Buxton Street * A Construction Management Plan should be secured by condition * A condition should ensure that private forecourt areas should be drained within the site and not into public highway

(Officer comment: The proposed shared surface treatment of this stretch of Buxton Street and financial contributions towards its delivery is discussed in further detail in this report . The proposed development has been amended since these comments were received and a previously proposed pedestrian ramp and bollards along Buxton Stree t have been omitted. It is recommended that conditions and informatives be included in any approval securing a Construction Management Plan and ensuring that the proposed private forecourt area is adequately drained).

Crossrail Limited (16-08-12) 6.7 The site is outside the limits of land subject to consultation under the Safeguarding Direction. No comment on the proposals.

English Heritage (29-02-12) 6.8 In response to the application as originally submitted , English Heritage made the following comments: • Verified views should be provided; • Clarification should be provided in relation to an apparent discrepancy between the drawings submitted for this application and those that were submitted in relation to the refused application; • The proposed loss of the boundary wall would be unfortunate. It is recommend that conditions be attached to ensure that, where re-built, this is done as accurately as possible; • There is a need for a comprehensive appraisal of the entire brewery site and that change of scale p roposed could limit the potential for future sensitively scaled development to take place and that further data centres have the potential to inflict significant harm; and • Recommend that the application is determined in accordance with local policy.

(Officer comment: The photomontages of views provided in support of the application are considered acceptable. The discrepancy between the buildings is irrelevant; the drawings submitted as part of this application accurately reflect the existing situation. A planning condition is recommended in relation to the proposed re-building of the walls. The applicant has submitted a number of supporting documents that seek to appraise the likely impact on the Brewery as a whole and these are considered sufficient to be able to assess the application).

English Heritage Archaeology (14-03-12) 6.9 The site is situated in an area where archaeological remains may be anticipated – as evidenced by recent finds in the nearby area of Roman remains, burials and vaulted cellar s dating from the 18 th century. Conditions are recommended to secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological mitigation and the implementation of a programme of archaeological recording

Page 139 of the standing historic buildings that would be demolished.

(Officer comment: It is recommended that any permission is subject to two separate conditions, along the lines of those recommended by English Heritage).

Environment Agency 6.10 No comments received

6.11 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (15-02-12) The application appears not to give cause for concerns regarding fire authority access or water supplies.

Thames Water 6.12 No comments received

Transport for London (27-02-12) 6.13 No adverse impact on the operation of TfL & RN and therefore no objection. The p articular nature of the use and low level of employees makes the proposed 10 spaces acceptable (although no visitor spaces are proposed) although the number of spaces should be monitored and more spaces added if the number of staff increases. Although the submitted Travel Plan does not pass the ATTrBuTE assessment, a revised Travel Plan is not required.

(Officer comment: These comments are addressed under the Transport, Highways and Parking heading below).

City of London Corporation (09-08-12) 6.14 The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the City – no observations.

The Spitalfields Trust 6.15 No comments received.

7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION

7.1 Objections . A total of 190 neighbouring properties within t he area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the application and the substantive amendments received in August and invited to comment. The application has also been advertised in East End Life and on site.

7.2 The Council has received three written objections to the proposed development from local residents at 4 Stuttle House, 37 Buxton Street and 35 Woodseer Street. These raise the following issues:

7.3 Principle of use • Data centres are normally located in industrial areas away from residential areas. The potential time savings in financial transactions do not justify locating a data centre here; if such a facility is needed, it should be located elsewhere. • The proposed ‘business and enterprise space’ is ambiguous and is likely to be unused • The proposed uses would result in a wasted opportunity to secure a more appropriate use next to Allen Gardens • The existing yard is regularly used for social and cultural events (e.g. car boot sales, Puma

Page 140 Yard’ during the Olympics) which contribute to making Brick Lane the vibrant and eclectic place it is today. A data centre would be inert and it would represent a grave loss for the local community.

(Officer comment: The acceptability of the proposed use is discussed in detail within this report.)

7.4 Noise • Noise would affect people’s sleep and general life in a quiet residential street. The existing data centre on Block D emits a buzzing noise. • Local residents already suffer noise from the cooling system for the supermarket on the corner of Woodseer Street and Spital Street. The proposal would make things worse and be extremely prejudicial to the lives of local people and property values.

(Officer comment: The application is supported by a Noise Assessment which demonstrates that with the proposed noise attenuation measures in place, the proposals would have an acceptable impact in terms of noise. This is discussed further within this report. A condition is recommended to require the testing of plant and the adequacy of the attenuation b efore the proposed data centre is first brought in to use).

7.5 Daylight/ Sunlight/overshadowing • Loss of daylight to ground floor flat in Stuttle House and overshadowing of Allen Gardens.

(Officer comment: The application is supported by a Daylight/Su nlight report which demonstrates that the proposal would have an acceptable impact in terms of daylight/sunlight and overshadowing. This is discussed further within this report.)

7.6 Scale and Design • The proposed building is too large • The design looks like the building should be located on an industrial park and is not appropriate for this conservation area. • The loss of the existing wall would also harm the character of the area.

(Officer comment: The proposed elevational treatment of the building ha s been completely revised following the receipt of this comment. Design and heritage issues are discussed further within this report.)

7.7 Safety and anti-social behaviou r • Anti-social behaviour is a big problem on Allen Gardens. The proposed use would not increase natural surveillance from increased footfall or prevent anti-social behaviour.

(Officer comment: The Buxton Street frontage and impact on Allen Gardens is discussed in detail within this report.)

7.8 Fire risk and diesel fumes • Concern at how the proposed generators would be ventilated and that diesel fumes would be released into the air • Concern about fire risk and explosion and the ability of fire vehicles to quickly reach the proposed building • Concern at how diesel would be delivered and the ability of fuel tankers to navigate

Page 141 surrounding narrow streets

(Officer comment: These issues are discussed in this report).

7.9 Car parking • A large part of the site is used as car parking space, which is used extensively at the weekend by the food sellers and traders of Brick Lane. Where would these people park? • If no suitable alternative is found this could damage the market and change the atmosphere of the neighbourhood.

(Officer comment: The proposed loss of parking and courtyard space is discus sed within this report).

7.10 Construction impact • Concern that construction (particularly excavation of basement and support structures) could have an adverse impact on surrounding buildings.

(Officer comment: This is not considered to be a material planning consideration).

7.11 Support . The Council has received seven standard letters of support for the proposals from residents of the borough (2 at Meath Crescent E2, 1 at Cyprus Street E2, 1 at Ada Place E2 and 3 unknown). The raise the following issues: • Interixon is an important business and major employer that plays an essential role in the local economy; • It is vital that the Council allows such companies to invest in essential infrastructure; • Interixon supports countless companies and institutions operate throughout London and is a key part of the digital backbone that delivers online services I use every day (such as retail and banking, education, entertainment and social media); • The proposed data centre would employ 83 jobs during construction and 30 jobs long-term; • Interixon supports local charities like Futuresity aimed at engaging young people in Tower Hamlets by providing them with training and work experience.

7.12 A letter of support has been received from John Biggs (GLA assembly member for City and East London), citing the importance of supporting companies like Interixon to invest in essential infrastructure, the benefits the proposed investment would bring to the East London economy and residents (including jobs) and the importance of bein g able to locate data centres on the City fringe, close to clients in the financial and technology sectors.

7.13 A letter of support has been received from London and Partners (the official promotional organisation for London) citing similar reasons as those outlined by John Biggs.

7.14 LBTH Conservation and Design Advisory Group (13-02-12) Given the sensitivity and prominence of the setting, the Panel consider that the proposed design is not of an adequate quality to preserve or enhance the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area. A greater quality of architectural thinking is required to reconcile the proposed use with such an important and demanding site. 1. The scheme borrows from the architectural language of a residential terrace, which fails to relate to the site’s past use, proposed use, and immediate context. The residential proportions of the architecture sit uncomfortably with the greater mass and scale of the building, particularly on the north and east elevations, resulting in awkward undefined

Page 142 areas of façade at the upper levels. There are a number of examples of successful larger light industrial historic buildings within the Conservation Area that could have provided useful references for the proposed design. 2. In particular the Conservation Area includes examples of large areas of brickwork that have been carefully articulated using piers, insets, or lintels to give relief to large facades. The Panel were disappointed that the proposed elevation treatment demonstrated none of the delicacy and proportion of surrounding buildings. 3. Though the Panel welcomes the removal of the port-hole windows, the north elevation remains unsatisfactory in design terms and we are concerned that the ‘green wall’ will not thrive on a north-aspect elevation. The applicant has not yet consulted with a specialist green wall consultant to demonstrate that this façade treatment is a workable solution. The Panel would strongly recommend doing so prior to determination. 4. The Panel would recommend that effort be made to find an end-user for the social enterprise unit, otherwise there seems a real risk that the unit will remain empty and not improve the street as is suggested in the application. 5. Samples of the external facing materials including the brick, coping, mesh, and ‘film’ treatment of windows should be submitted prior to determination to demonstrate that the material palette is appropriate for this Conservation Area context. 6. The Panel is unclear about the proposed use of the ‘main entrance’ at the corner of Sp ital Street and Buxton Street in relation to rear service doors, and would like this to be clarified. It would be more desirable to increase the amount of activity, entrances and uses fronting Buxton Street. 7. The north elevation also represents a missed opportunity to widen and strengthen the pavement of Buxton Street, and further encourage footfall. The Panel would encourage the realignment of the building to achieve an acceptable pavement width. 8. Whilst we recognise that the stair core fronting Buxton Stree t performs a role in breaking up the massing of a long elevation, the Panel feels this effect could be achieved by other means that have a less obtrusive impact on the long straight view down Buxton Street identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal.

(Officer comment: Points 1-3 - The proposed elevational treatment of the building has been completely revised in the light of these comments and those from officers. Point 4 - The use of the proposed Business and Enterprise’ space is discussed in detail below. Point 5 - Samples of materials (and more detailed elevational sections) have been submitted for approval at this stage. Point 6 - The proposed main entrance has been moved from the corner to along Buxton Street. Point 7 - The proposal has been revised so that it would deliver a clearer pavement area along the south side of Buxton Street. Point 8 - The previously proposed stair core has been relocated so at to reduce its prominence.)

8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:

1. Principle of the proposed Land Uses 2. Loss of built fabric and trees in the Fournier Street and Brick Lane Conservation Area 3. Scale, design, appearance and impact on heritage assets 4. Buxton Street frontage and relationship with Allen Gardens 5. Transport, Highways and Parking 6. Impact on Amenity 7. Energy and environmental sustainability

Page 143 8. Planning obligations

Principle of the proposed land uses

Data Centre and Sub-station 8.2 The NPPF (para. 42) states that advanced, high quality communications infrastructure is essential for sustainable economic growth and that the development of high speed broadband technology and other communications networks play a vital role in enhancing the provision of local community facilities and services.

8.3 London Plan Policy 4.11 (Encouraging a connected economy) calls on authorities to “facilitate the provision and delivery of the information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure a modern and developing economy needs, particularly to ensure: adequate and suitable network connectivity across London (including well designed and located street-based apparatus); data centre capability; suitable electrical power supplies and security and resilience; and affordable, competitive broadband access meeting the needs of enterprises and individuals.”

8.4 Core Strategy Strategic Objective 1 supports the growth of thriving and accessible global economic centres of Canary Wharf and the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) which benefit the regional and local economies. The site is within the Tower Hamlets Activity Area (THAA) (a transitional area between the City Fringe and the rest of the borough). Core Strategy policy SP01 seeks to ensure that these transitional areas are complementary, yet different, to the distinct designations of the CAZ by promoting a vibrant mix of uses that are economically competitive and based on the adopted town centre spatial strategy which is also set out in Strategic Objective 1.

8.5 Officers acknowledges that data centres are an important use which complement the functions of the City and the nearby CAZ and that they are required to be located within close proximity of financial institutions in order to transfer data without delay. They can be seen as part of utility infrastructure that supports businesses etc. It is considered, therefore, that data centres in the THAA, together with electricity sub-stations that provide power to them, are acceptable in principle. However, whilst Policy SP01 states the uses within the THAA should be complementary to the City functions, they should also include a vibrant mix of uses. The need for provision of mix of uses is also recognised in the Core Strategy Vision for Trumans Brewery.

8.6 The site is currently surrounded by high walls and has little pedestrian footfall. The area lacks natural surveillance and, partly as a result of this, Allen Gardens is often significantly under used. The previous application for a data centre on this site (PA/10/01940) was refused permission partly on the grounds of the inactive nature of the use and position of the building inside the high boundary walls and the failure to contribute to the vibrant mix of uses expected in the THAA and edge of the Brick Lane District Centre.

8.7 The proposals, as revised, address these issues and the relevant reason for refusal by: • Demolishing the existing high wall along Buxton Street; • Setting the building back from the current line of the wall to create a useable pavement along the whole length of the site • Locating a building immediately next to a newly created pavement area and incorporating windows in this location at all levels of the building; • Locating the main pedestrian access on Buxton Street;

Page 144 • Incorporating the security and reception area on the ground floor corner of Buxton Street and Spital Street and locating breakout/meeting rooms and balconies in this location on the first and second floors; and • Incorporating a ‘business enterprise space’ at the ground floor (this use is discussed in more detail below).

Training and Enterprise Centre 8.8 Strategic Objective 15 of the Core Strategy is to support the thriving and accessible global economic centre of the City Fringe which benefits the regional and lo cal economies and Strategic Objective 17 is to improve education, skills and training. Core Strategy Policy SP07 seeks, amongst other things, to support developments that promote local enterprise and the employment and skills training of local residents.

8.9 The proposed business enterprise space (B1/D1) (235sqm) would be located along the ground floor of the Buxton Street frontage. The applicant has submitted a note setting out the intended use of this space as a Training and Enterprise Centre. The Centre would comprise: • A managed workspace flexibly arranged with hot desks and with full connectivity for new ICT start-up companies; • A locally managed and ICT supported venue for the delivery of business support services to new start-ups; and • Venue also to provide ICT skills training for local people aiming to achieve NQF level 3 and 4 qualifications for careers in the local ICT industry.

8.10 The applicant would (in summary): • Appoint a local agent to manage the marketing and day-to-day management of the Centre(such as Tech Hub, a local university or the Council); • Provide professional information, advice and guidance to start-up firms as part of a structured programme of business seminars and mentoring; • Work in partnership with public sector agencies to assist trainees by promoting opportunities for jobs, apprenticeships and internships amongst its suppliers, customers and wider IT community; • Cover the costs of fittings and overheads for a period of 3 years and make a financial contribution towards the revenue costs of managing the centre (estimated to be £100,000 per annum); • Make the centre available rent free to an appointed managing agent for 5 years, with the expectation that the Centre becomes self-sustaining after this period; and • Develop with the appointed managing agent a business plan for the future use of the Centre.

8.11 The proposed Centre has the potential to deliver real benefits to help small start-up businesses to grow and to help local people learn skills and training that would help them access employment. Such a use would also help activate the Buxton Street frontage. There is a risk that such a Centre would not become self-sustaining and fall out of use. However, officers consider that it represents a credible use of the Buxton Street fr ontage that should be pursued. It is recommended that, should permission be granted, a planning obligation secures the delivery and management of the proposed Business Enterprise Space in accordance with the above principles and that these principles are developed into a Future Business Enterprise Space Strategy that is approved by the Council prior to first occupation of the data centre and/or the Centre.

Page 145 8.12 The application seeks permission for Business (B1) and/or enterprise training space (D1). In addition to non-residential education and training centres, the D1 use class also includes crèches, nurseries, day centres, places of worship and church halls. These uses would not necessarily contribute to the mixture of uses required by policy in this location. it is therefore recommended that a planning condition be attached to any permission which restricts the use of the proposed space to B1 and/or an education training centre, so that the acceptability of any other uses can be assessed.

Displacement of existing businesses/uses 8.13 Policy DM15 of the submission version of the Development Management DPD makes clear that development which is likely to displace an existing business must find suitable replacement accommodation within the borough unl ess it can be shown that the needs of the business are better met elsewhere.

8.14 The majority of the existing buildings on the site are vacant or used for ‘dead storage’ by the freeholder and landlord of the Brewery (Zeloof LLP). The proposal would disp lace one permanent business; a small coffee grinding and distribution company that is currently based in the former barrel-washing shed (accessed from the yard). The applicant states that Zeloof intends to re-locate this business within the wider Brewery complex and it is recommended that a relocation strategy for this business is secured by way of a planning obligation.

8.15 A local resident has raised concern about the displacement of existing car parking and the impact this could have on the area. The yard is currently used as a commercial car park. However, this is an unauthorised use and, in accordance with the Council’s sustainable transport policies ( Core Strategy policy SP09 and policy DM20 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD) is not a use that it would want to see retained. The re are a number of authorised public car parks in the area, there are alternative areas on the wider Brewery site for market traders to use and the immediately surrounding streets are subject to parking controls . In this context, the loss of unauthorised parking space is to be welcomed and should not damage the viability of Brick Lane market or result in parking stress in local streets.

8.16 The same local resident has raised concern about the loss o f space that is currently used for temporary social and cultural events. The yard is currently used, on occasion, for car boot sales and one-off events (such as ‘Puma Yard’ during the London Olympics). As outlined above, Policy SP01 in the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that the THAA complement the City and includes a vibrant mix of uses . However, some Yard area would remain and there are other open areas in the wider Brewery site that could, subject to any necessary planning approvals, continue to accommoda te temporary and one-off events.

Loss of built fabric and trees in the Fournier Street and Brick Lane Conservation Area

Loss of buildings, walls and courtyard

8.17 Policy SP10 in the Core Strategy seeks to protect and enhance heritage assets. Saved UDP policy DEV28 sets out criteria for the acceptability of demolition in conservation areas and policy DM27 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD sets out similar criteria - making clear that proposals for the demolition of a such assets will only be considered under exceptional circumstances where the public benefit of demolition outweighs the case for retention against the following criteria: a. the significance of the asset, architecturally, historically and contextually; b. the condition of the asset and estimated costs of its repair and maintenance in relation to its

Page 146 significance and demolition, and to the value derived from its continued use; c. the adequacy of efforts made to retain the asset in use; and d. the merits of any alternative proposal for the site.

8.18 The proposals would result in the loss of the former barrel-washing shed and electricity sub- station (which form part of the high brick wall that runs along this part of Buxton Street), a utilitarian two-storey flat-roofed brick workshop building dating from the 1950’s or 60’s on the Spital Street frontage and a an industrial ‘shed’ probably dating from the 1970’s. They would also result in the loss of a large part of the existing yard, which is surfaced in a mixt ure of cobbles, tarmac and stone paving slabs. The proposed demolition of the workshop building on Spital Street would also expose the northern wall of the existing Cooperage Building, which abuts the site to the south.

8.19 The former barrel-washing she d and northern wall is the oldest surviving structure on the site and probably dates from the mid-19 th century. It is a substantial structure of brown brick built right up to the frontage of Buxton Street, leaving no or a very narrow footway. To the street , the building presents a rather forbidding boundary wall (5.5 to 6m high) incorporating three window openings. It includes a boundary marker which reads “Four feet six inches east is the boundary of St. M.B.G. WS Clark Church John Kelday Wardens 1815.” Th e structure also includes an electricity sub-station at the western (Brick Lane) end. On the yard side, the central part of what was once an open structure has been bricked-up with Fletton brick work and is currently occupied by a small coffee grinding/distribution company.

8.20 The barrel-washing shed and boundary wall is of some historical and architectural interest and the previously proposed scheme did propose retaining the wall. However, this resulted in an inactive frontage to Buxton Street, which was one reason why the previous application was refused. The scheme the subject of this application addresses this reason by proposing to demolish the existing walls and locating a building along the Buxton Street frontage. This enables an active frontage to be created along this stretch of Buxton Street and the creation of a 2m wide pavement area where none exists at present. The wider merits of the proposed replacement building are discussed further below, but it should be noted at this stage that the existing boundary marker would be incorporated in to the northern elevation of the proposed building, at the same location as existing.

8.21 The 1950’s/60’s workshop building and wall that front Spital Street are of very little historical or architectural interest . However, the demolition of the building would expose the northern wall of the existing Cooperage Building and chimney stack , which abuts the site to the south. Whilst not listed, the Cooperage Building (built between 1876 and 1896) makes a positi ve contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Given this, it is recommended that a condition be attached to any permission requiring the making good of the exposed brick wall of this building and stack.

8.22 The industrial ‘shed’ towards the centre of the site is unattractive and is considered to have a neutral/ negative effect on the character and appearance of the area and there is no objection to its loss. The courtyard space is of some historic significance as a reminder of a past phase of commercial activity in the area. Nevertheless, the focus of brewery activity at least from the 1830’s onwards was Brick Lane, with the Head Office and the main buildings that front it, and there are no known specific historic associations with particular events or individuals of note. However, it is recommended that a condition be attached to any permission requiring the reclamation of existing cobbles and stone paving slabs from the courtyard area for use on and

Page 147 off-site.

8.23 The buildings which make up the former Truman’s Brewery site form an important part of the Fournier Street and Brick Lane Conservation Area. The character of the Area as a whole is outlined in the Council’s Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines (November 2009) and the applicant has submitted a character appraisal for the Brewery complex. None of the buildings on site that would be demolished are identified in either of these documents as being particularly significant. Overall, taking account of the significance of the structures that would be lost and efforts to retain/incorporate them, the merits of the proposed development, discussed in detail below, are considered to outweigh any harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area caused by the proposed loss of built fabric. It should be noted that the reason for refusing the previous CAC application (PA/10/01958) related to the lack of an approved replacement scheme and the harm this would cause; not to the loss of the structures themselves. Furthermore, English Heritage has not raised objection to loss of these buildings.

Loss of Garden Area and Trees

8.24 Saved UDP Policy Dev15 states that existing mature trees should normally be retained where they are of townscape or environmental value. London Plan policy 7.21 also seeks to retain trees and the planting of replacement/new trees wherever possible.

8.25 The proposed building would result in the loss of three trees in the garden area on the corner of Buxton Street and Spital Street (two x Grey Poplars and 1 x Ash). The Tree Survey submitted in support of the application assess these trees as being in Category ‘C’ (trees with low quality and value, including visual amenity value). These trees are located behind a tall brick wall and make r elatively little positive contribution to the character or appearance of the area and their loss is considered acceptable in terms of visual amenity. Biodiversity issues relating to their proposed loss are addressed below. Three street trees along Spital S treet would not be affected by the proposals. The proposed large green wall areas on the south (courtyard) elevation would provide replacement greenery and there should be scope to plant additional street trees as part of the proposed enhancement scheme for Buxton Street. Both of these are discussed in more detail below.

Scale, design, appearance and impact on heritage assets

Scale, design and appearance

8.26 Policy SP10 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure buildings are of a high quality design. Policy DM24 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD calls for place-sensitive design and requires new development to be high quality takes account of and responds positively to its context and Policy DM26 seeks to ensure that taller b uildings respond positively to their context and address various criteria. London Plan policies 7.5 and 7.6 call for new development to respect local character and be of the highest architectural quality.

8.27 The scale and design of the proposed development has been the subject of significant discussion. The previously proposed scheme (PA/10/01940) was refused planning permission partly on the grounds that the proposed bulk, height, footprint and elevational treatment was of poor design quality which would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, failed to respect the local context and townscape and did not relate satisfactorily to Buxton Street, Spital Street or Allen Gardens. The scheme now before members has seen significant revisions since first submission. The current proposals have

Page 148 sought to address these reasons for refusal as follows:

• The proposed building has been set back approximately 2m from the Buxton Street frontage to allow for a pavement area to be created along the south side of the street and the introduction of an active frontage (discussed further below); • The proposed main entrance of the building has been moved from the Buxton Street/Spital Street corner to Buxton Street; • The overall height of proposed building has been reduced by approximately 2.7m (partly as a result of a basement level); • The previously proposed stair core has been relocated further away from Buston Street so as to reduce its impact; • The mass of the proposed building would step back further from Spital Street; and • The proposed elevational treatment of the building has been completely revised.

8.28 The proposed building would be approximately 65m long, as viewed from Buxton Street and approximately 30m along the Spital Street frontage. It would appear as a part three/part four storey brick building when viewed from these streets and Allen Gardens, with the Spital Street elevation being set behind a high brick wall. The building would have a two-storey lower section, a single storey upper section set back from the main facade line and a top storey set back still further (with this storey comprising a screen hiding rooftop plant). The main bulk of the building would rise to approximately 18.5m above ground level, although the proposed photovoltaic panels would rise to approximately 19m, the satellite dishes on the southern elevation (overlooking the courtyard) to about 19.5m and seven slim flues would rise to about 21.5m.

8.29 The proposed Buxton Street and Spital Street elevations are divided vertically into wide bays, with each bay separated by recessed columns containing rainwater pipes, and in each bay is a pair of sunken vertical panels with square heads. The panels would rise through two floors on the lower part of the front, with separate shorter panels on the upper part, within which are set the small-paned window openings these are required. The fenestration would not be regular because it reflects the internal functions of the proposed building and some of the panels would be completely ‘blind’. Nevertheless, the front as a whole would be given a unity by the appearance of the sunken panels, which would be a strong motif. Towards the eastern end of Buxton Street (near Spital Street) there would be the main entrance, set in a single wider panel which would continue up the full height of the building in a triple tier of straight-headed window openings. The proposed elevations clearly take their inspiration from 19 th and 20 th century industrial buildings, including examples from within the former brewery site.

8.30 The proposed western elevation would not face a public street, but would face the listed Brickhouse, Engineer’s House and Vat House on Brick Lane. The industrial aesthetic would be repeated here. The northern section would have four ‘blind’ sunken panels; whereas the larger southern section would have a row of seven tall square-headed openings with small-paned glazing rising up from first floor level upwards. The southern elevation would face the reduced courtyard space and would contain two large green wall panels and three satellite dishes at roof level.

8.31 The proposed siting and scale of the proposed building are considered acceptable from a design perspective. The proposed elevations are simple and straight forward and the quality of the proposed building would be heavily dependent on the quality of the detailing and materials. Given the importance of these details, officers have sought to ensure that external materials are, as much as reasonably possible, considered at this stage The predominant material would

Page 149 be brick, with dark bronze metal window surrounds and plant screen at roof level and samples of the these materials have been submitted for approval. In addition, 1:50 strip elevations /sections of the Buxton Street elevation have been submitted, showing the intended depth of window reveals and other recessed features. The proposed materials and building details are considered acceptable and, subject to a condition requiring further external material samples to be submitted and approved, should ensure that delivery of a building of acceptable quality. As such, the proposals are considered acceptable and accord with the policies referred to above.

Impact on setting of Listed Buildings

8.32 Core Strategy policy SP10 and policy DM27 of the submission version of the Development Management DPD requires development to protect and enhance the borough’s heritage assets (including Listed Buildings), their setting and their significance as key elements of developing the sense of place of the borough’s distinctive ‘Places’. Similar policy objectives are included in London Plan policy 7.8.

8.33 The proposed building would be sited approximately 29m to the east of the rear of the Grade II Listed Brickhouse building, approximately 20m to the east of the rear of the Grade II Listed Engineer’s House and approximately 17m north of the rear of the Grade II Listed Vat House. The proposed building would also sit across the street from the Grade II Listed former All Saint’s Vicarage at 35 Buxton Street. Other listed buildings sit further away on the west side of Brick lane. These include the Directors House (Grade II*) and the Brewmaster’s House at No. 95 Brick Lane (Grade II).

8.34 The relationship between the p roposed building and the listed buildings immediately to the west of it is considered acceptable , and whilst the proposed building would be seen in context with the rear of the Brickhouse and the Engineer’s House and Vat buildings, it is not considered tha t the setting of these buildings would not be harmed. Perhaps more importantly, t he proposed building would be seen in context with the existing Brickhouse building in views along Buxton Street and across Allen Gardens. However, it is not considered that t he proposed building would harm the setting of this building. Likewise, the proposed building would be seen in context with the former All Saint’s Vicarage building in views along Buxton Street and across Allen gardens, but again, it is not considered that the setting of this building would be harmed.

8.35 The narrow width of Brick Lane means that the proposed building would not be visible from the western footway of this street or from the courtyard to the main brewery building. Whilst it would be visibl e across the top of the Listed Brick House building from upper floors of buildings on the west side of Brick Lane , the planning system is primarily concerned with impacts on views from the public realm.

8.36 Subject to conditions requiring the submission of further external material samples, t he proposed development is considered to preserve the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings and their special architectural and historic interest. As such, the proposals accord with the policies referred to above.

Impact on character and appearance of the Conservation Area

8.37 Core Strategy policy SP10 and policy DM27 of the submission version of the Development Management DPD requires development to protect and enhance the borough’s heritage assets (including Conservation Areas), their setting and their significance as key elements of developing the sense of place of the borough’s distinctive ‘Places’. Similar policy objectives are

Page 150 included in London Plan policy 7.8.

8.38 The acceptability of the proposed loss of existing built fabric and trees are discussed in detail above. The proposed building would undoubtedly change the character and appearance of this part of the Area when viewed from Woodseer Street to the south, Allen Gardens to the north and Buxt on Street to the north and east. However, officers consider that, whilst the building would be relatively large and prominent, drawings and views submitted in support of the application demonstrate that the visual impact on the Area would be acceptable. S ubject to conditions requiring the submission of further external material samples and details relating to the external treatment of the proposed paved area along Buxton Street and the treatment of the exposed wall of the Cooperage building, the proposed replacement development is considered to preserve and enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposals accord with the policies referred to above.

Impact on archaeology

8.39 Core Strategy policy SP10 and policy DM27 of the submission version of the Development Management DPD makes clear that the Council wishes to safeguard archaeological heritage and require an archaeological evaluation report for proposed development that lies in or adjacent to Archaeological Priority Areas. Similar policy objectives are included in saved UDP policy DEV43 and London Plan policy 7.8.

8.40 Whilst the site is not in an Archaeological Priority Area, it is situated in an area where archaeological remains may be anticipated and the applicant has submitted an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment to support the application. The Assessment identifies a low potential for Prehistoric remains, but a moderate potential for Roman remains. In addition, historic map regression suggests a high potential of late 17 th century and possibly 18 th century housing, with the existing garden area in the north-east corner of the site holding the greatest potential. The finding of the Assessment is echoed by the comments from English Heritage, which refer to various nearby archaeological finds. English Heritage recommends that sub-surface archaeological investigation and a programme of archaeological recording of the standing buildings (to be demolished) are secured by planning condition. Officers agree and it is recommended that such conditions are attached to any planning approval.

Buxton Street frontage and impact on Allen Gardens

8.41 Policy SP01 in the Core Strategy states the uses within the THAA should be complementary to the City functions, they should also include a vibrant mix of uses. Policy DM23 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD calls, amongst other things, for development to be well- connected with the surrounding area and inclusive for everyone and to improve safety and security without compromising design. London Plan policy 6.10 supports measures that encourage walking and policy 7. 13 calls for development to minimise potential physical risks and include measures to design out crime and deter terrorism.

8.42 The proposed sitin g of the building approximately 2m back from the line of the existing wall would enable the creation of a pavement area along this section of Buxton Street, where at present only a narrow 1 to 1.4m pavement exists for only part of the site frontage. The te rms of proposed lease with the freeholder of the land means that applicant is unable to dedicate this land as public highway. The proposed pavement area would therefore remain as private land over which the public would have right of access and it is recom mended that this is secured by way of a planning obligation (which both the leaseholder and freeholder would need to be party to). The applicant is concerned about the security of the proposed building and would ideally

Page 151 like to see vehicle impact resistant bollards provided on the edge of the private pavement area . However, officers raised concerns over the appearance of such bollards and their potential to act as obstacles to the convenient and comfortable movement along the pavement/adjoining public footway. As a result, these have been omitted from the proposals. It is recommended that a planning obligation be used to secure public access and that the drainage, surfacing and lighting details of this area are reserved by condition Subject to such an obliga tion and condition, the proposed pavement area would improve pedestrian facilities in accordance with Policies DM23 and London Plan policy 6.10 and is to be welcomed.

8.43 The Council is developing an environmental enhancement scheme for the stretch of B uxton Street between Spital Street and Code Street. The emerging proposals include raising and narrowing the surface of the one-way westbound carriageway, incorporating a contra-flow cycle lane, resurfacing and paving, lighting and street furniture. It is recommended that a financial contribution of £150,000 (around 50% of the projected costs of the scheme) is secured from the applicant to help ensure the creation of a vibrant frontage area in accordance with Policies SP01 and DM23. The applicant’s concerns about security of the proposed building could be discussed further and addressed as an integral part of the detailed design of the enhancement scheme.

8.44 The incorporation of a Training and Enterprise Centre along the Buxton Street frontage would resu lt in approximately 71% (44m of the 62m) of this ground floor frontage being in active use. Whilst most of the windows on the first and second floors fronting Buxton Street and Spital Street would serve relatively inactive space (including data halls, corr idors and mechanical plant areas), some active use is proposed for the corner of the building and the windows serving inactive space would at least give the perception of overlooking. Officers consider that the revised proposals do enough to activate these frontages and are acceptable.

8.45 The setting back of the proposed building from Buxton Street and the reduction in overall height means that the proposed building would overshadow Allen Gardens less than the scheme that was refused planning permission (PA/10/0190). The Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment assesses the likely overshadowing of Allen Gardens on 21 March (the Spring Equinox) at hourly intervals between 08.00 and 17.00 (10 separate calculations). This shows that the proposed buil ding would result in some limited additional overshadowing of the southern edge of Allen Gardens. However, the area of the public open space that would be prevented from receiving direct sunlight for at least two hours on 21 March would be less than 5%. The level of overshadowing is therefore considered acceptable. The relevant BRE Guidelines allow up to 49% of a public space to be in permanent shadow on the 21 March before they consider there to be a significant impact.

Transport, Highways and Parking

Accessibility and trip generation

8.46 London Plan policies 6.9, 6.11 and 6.13 encourage cycling and walking and seek to manage the provision of car parking spaces. Core Strategy SP09 seeks to e nsure new development has no adverse impact on the safety and capacity of the road network and promotes schemes that minimise on-site and off-site car parking provision, particularly in areas with good access to public transport. Policy DM20 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD makes clear that development needs to be located appropriately, demonstrate that it is properly integrated with the transport network and has no unacceptable impacts on the capacity and safety of the network

Page 152 8.47 The site is well served by bus and rail connections and as a consequence has a PTAL of 6a (Excellent). Given likely trip generation and modal split assumptions based on a survey of staff working at existing data centres in the area and the proposed 2 car parking spaces , the submitted Transport Statement anticipates the number of trips to the data centre during peak periods (07.00 to 09.00 and 16.00 to 18.00) would be 64 arrivals and 57 departures, with only 2 car movements. The proposed Business Enterprise Space is not expected to add significantly to these peak period movements. This would represent a relatively low number of trips for such a well-connected part of the borough and officers do not anticipate any undue pressure on the surrounding streets. Given this and the comments by TfL, whilst a draft Green Travel Plan has been submitted in support of the application, it is not considered necessary to secure the implementation of a Plan in this case. However, it is recommended that appropriate financial contributions are secured towards sustainable transport initiatives.

Vehicular access and servicing

8.48 Vehicular access would be via the existing access on Spital Street and across the retained yard area to a loading entrance adjacent to the south side of the proposed building . The submitted Transport Statement estimates that day-to-day servicing requirements would be for approximately 10 trips in and out of a 7.5 tonne van and that a 10,000 litre tanker lorry would need to fill the proposed on-site fuel tanks with generator fuel around 3 times per year. There would also be occasional collection of commercial waste. Swept path analysis has been submitted that demonstrates that a large tanker (and refuse vehicle) could satisfactorily manoeuvre in the yard area and enter and leave the existing Spita l Street entrance in forward gear.

8.49 The proposed rear servicing arrangements are acceptable. A local resident has raised concern about the dangers posed by the storage of fuel and the ability of fire engines to reach the site. However, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has raised no objections to the proposals and officers consider that adequate access arrangements are proposed.

Car parking

8.50 London Plan Policy 6.13 (Parking) sets out maximum car parking standards, requires at least one ‘blue badge’ parking space for workplaces and seeks to ensure that 1 in 5 spaces provide an electrical charging point to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. Policy DM22 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD requires development to comply with specific car parking standards and to prioritise spaces for car clubs/pool cars and electric charging points.

8.51 The proposals provide for one ‘blue badge’ parking space for a disabled employee/visitor (which would be served by an electric charging point) and one further electric charging parking space, for use by employees of the proposed scheme and by occupiers of other buildings served by the retained yard area. This proposed provision is welcome.

Cycle parking

8.52 Policy DM22 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD requires development to comply with minimum cycle parking requirements (m inimum of 1 space per 120sqm B1 office and 1 space per 250sqm of space for B8).

8.53 The proposal incorpor ates the provision of 10 covered cycle parking spaces for employees and none for visitors. This is below the level required by the emerging standards. However, both Transport and

Page 153 Highways and TfL consider the proposed level to be acceptable, given the part icular use and low level of anticipated trips by bicycle (about 5 per day).

Construction

8.54 Policy DM 21 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD seeks to mitigate impacts during the construction phase of developments and it is recommended that a Construction Management Plan be secured by way of planning condition.

Impact on amenity

Daylight and Sunlight

8.55 Saved UDP policy DEV2, Core Strategy policy SP10 and policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012) seek to protect and where possible enhance residential amenity (including not allowing an unacceptable material deterioration of the sunlighting and daylighting conditions). A resident of a ground floor flat in Shuttle House, which is approximately 19m to the east of the proposed building, has raised concern at the loss of light that the building would cause. The previous proposal for the site (PA/10/0190) was refused permission partly on the grounds that insufficient information had been provided to fully assess the daylight/sunlight impact on homes in Shuttle House.

8.56 The submitted Daylight, Sunlight and Overhsadowing Assessment assesses the impact of the proposed building on the daylight received at homes on the ground and upper floors o f Daniel Gilbert House (around 14m to the north west), 35 Buxton Street (around 27 m to the north east) and Shuttle House and McGlashan House (about 19m and 42m to the west respectively). This found that all tested windows would receive at least 27% Vertica l Sky Component (VSC) in all but one case. The exception is the ground floor window at 35 Buxton Street, where the VSC would be 25.7%. However, the proposed level of daylight here would be more than 80% of its existing value, meaning that the reduction in daylight is unlikely to be noticeable. As such, all tested windows would meet the relevant BRE Guidelines.

8.57 The Assessment also assesses the impact that the proposal would have on the sunlight received by homes on the ground and upper floors of Danie l Gilbert House and 35 Buxton Street, which sit to the north of the proposed building. The assessment of Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSHs) finds that all tested windows would continue to receive levels of sunlight that are above the minimum recommende d levels for both the full year and for winter time (when the sun is lower in the sky).

8.58 Given the above, officers consider that the proposal would not give rise to any unduly detrimental impacts in terms of daylight or sunlight. Overshadowing of Allen Gardens is addressed under the Buxton Street frontage and impact on Allen Gardens above.

Noise

8.59 Saved UDP policy DEV2, Core Strategy policy SP10 and policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012) seek to protect and where possible enhance residential amenity (including not allowing unacceptable levels of noise during construction or operation). London Plan policy 7.15 seeks to minimise potential adverse noise impacts arising from new development.

Page 154 8.60 The proposals inc orporate a large amount of plant located primarily at roof level, using most of the space available for 27 dry-air coolers for the proposed data halls and generators below. In addition, 7 generators would be located at ground floor on the western (Brick La ne) side of the building (although it expected that no more than 6 would operate at any one time). A chiller plant room would also be located at ground floor level on the east (Spital Street) side of the building, although this would not include any significant outlets to the outside.

8.61 To mitigate potential noise impacts, the proposed building incorporates a 1.5m high upstand at plant deck level and set back from this would be 4.1m high acoustic louvered screen , which would rise to the top of the dry-air coolers. The submitted Noise Assessment sets out the findings of a 24 hour noise survey on site and at Code Street and Spital Street. This indicated a minimum night-time noise level of 40dB LA90 between approximately 2 to 3A M. The Council require cumul ative plant noise to be 10dB below this noise level, therefore setting a noise limit of 30 dBA Leq. The Assessment predicts that, with the proposed acoustic screen and other proposed attenuation measures in place, noise levels would be 28.7 dBA at the flat s at Spital Street/Woodseer Street, 29.5 dBA at the flats on the 7 th floor of Stuttle House (the worst affected level) and 30.4 dBA at the homes on the 4 th floor of in Daniel Gilbert House (the worst affected level). The Acoustic Assessment Addendum Report confirms these predictions.

8.62 The Assessment predicts noise levels just below and, in the case of Daniel Gilbert House, just above the 30 dBA level normally required. Environmental Health officers accept that the predictions are reasonable, but recommend that should permission be granted, a planning condition ensures that there is post-completion testing of the noise impacts of the development before the plant is first brought into use. It is therefore recommended that a condition requires that before an approved data centre is first brought into use, detailed results of a noise survey measuring the operation of the plant working at full capacity are approved in writing by the Council. It is also recommended that a condition requires the installation and retention of the proposed acoustic screen. Subject to these conditions, the likely noise impacts of the proposed development are considered acceptable.

TV and radio reception 8.63 Policy DM26 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012) requires proposed tall buildings not to interfere, to an unacceptable degree, with telecommunication, television and radio transmission networks.

8.64 The planning application is supported by a report into a desktop study and field survey to assess pos sible effects and impacts from the proposed development on the reception of broadcast services. This concludes that the proposals are not expected to have an effect upon the reception of Digital Terrestrial TV (DTT), digital satellite TV services such as F reesat and Sky or on VHF (FM) radio and that, therefore, no mitigation is necessary. Officers accept the findings of this report

Air Quality 8.65 Saved UDP policy DEV2, Core Strategy policy SP10 and policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission version 2012) seek to protect and where possible enhance residential amenity (including not allowing unacceptable levels of odour or fumes). London Plan policy 7.14 calls for development to ensure that it does not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality in Air Quality Management Areas.

8.66 As discussed in section 4 of this report and below, data centres use a lot of energy and the applicant needs to ensure continuity of power supply for commercial reasons. The proposed

Page 155 generators are part of ensuring this continuity. If electricity supply fails, batteries would automatically kick in for 15-30 minutes to provide power and the generators would then come on line to provide power until electricity supply from the national grid is restored. Consequently, other than testing, the generators would not be in use as a matter of course and would constitute emergency back-up. They should not, therefore, give rise to any significant impacts with regards to air quality.

Energy and environmental sustainability

Energy

8.67 Policy DM29 in the submission version of the Managing Development DPD ‘includes the target to achieve a minimum 35% reduction in CO2 emissions above the Building Regulations 2010 through the cumulative steps of the Energy Hierarchy. It also requires sustainable design assessment tools to be used to ensure the development has maximised use of climate change mitigation measures. At present the current interpretation of this policy is to require all non- residential developments to achieve a BREEAM Excellent rating. Policy SP11 in the Core Strategy requires all new developments to provide a 20% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through on-site renewable energy generation where feasible. The London Plan contains a number of relevant policies, including policies 5.5 and 5.6 that encourage Decentralised Energy networks.

8.68 Data centres are characterised by high constant electrical demand throughout the year, resulting from the power needed to run the IT equipment and the associated electrical losses and cooling demands arising from these loads. The submitted Energy Strategy Report considers the scheme in terms of the energy hierarchy as follows:

• ‘Lean’ energy efficiency - Proposed features include high efficiency turbocor chillers, elevated chilled water temperatures (using warmer water than standard), load sharing of chillers, specific cooling methods and alternative hot and cold aisle data hall configuration. • ‘Clean’ energy – consideration was given to Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and Combined Cooling Heat and Power (CCHP), but both would actually result in additional carbon emissions for such a use. Instead, it is proposed to export waste heat so that a community heating system could be established for the Brewery site. This would be achieved by means of two heat exchangers connected to and extracting heat from the chilled water return. The grade of heat at 24 degrees Celsius would be superior to that available from any ground source heating scheme (which would only come out of the ground at 12 degrees) and could yield significant carbon savings in future development nearby; • ‘Green’ renewable energy – consideration was given to biomass, ground source heat pumps, photovoltaic panels (PVs), thermal solar collectors and wind turbines. PVs were found to maximise carbon savings and it is proposed to provide a PV array at roof level (on top of the plant lid) of approximately 134sqm. It is anticipated that the PVs would provide power for the 2 electrical vehicular charging points and rain water harvesting system.

8.69 Whilst the above measures would result in a total anticipated CO2 savings from the development of 47%, this is against industry standards rather than a building regulation baseline (as required by policy). Data centres are unique in their energy requirements and CO2 emissions and as such they need to be assessed in a different way. The key marker is the efficiency in use of the power consumed. This is calculated by comparing the amount of power

Page 156 entering a data centre by the power used to run the IT infrastructure within it. Power usage effectiveness (PUE) is expressed as a ratio, with overall efficiency improving as the quotient decreases toward 1. The proposed data centre would have an annual PUE of 1.3. This is considered to be acceptable and demonstrates high levels of efficiency within the design.

8.70 The submitted Energy Strategy sets out how the waste heat rejected from the IT processes could be utilised for a community waste heat scheme to serve the local area. Whilst the CO2 savings that this could deliver do not count specifically towards this development, the proposals have the potential to provide wider CO2 savings within the vicinity of the site. Given this, the CO2 savings proposed for this development are considered acceptable in this specific instance and it is recommended that the approval and implementation of a heat recovery system be secured by way of planning obligation; not allowing the data centre to become operational until a Waste Heat Utilisation Plan has been approved and install a Heat Recovery System up to an agreed boundary of the site to enable the Council to promote the availability of this heating source to future developments within the area.

BREEAM Rating

8.71 Policy DM29 in the submission version of the Managing Development DPD, with justifying text referring to BREAAM ‘Excellent’ for non-residential buildings. London Plan policy 5.3 has similar objectives.

8.72 The submitted BREEAM Pre-assessment demonstrates how the development would achieve a Excellent rating, when considering available and achieved credits in realtion to management, health and wellbeing, energy, transport, water, materials, waste, land use and ecology, pollution and innovation. This is welcome and it is recommended that the achievement of a BREEAM Excellent building is secured by way of a planning obligation, requiring BREEAM Certificates to be submitted to the Council to demonstrate that it has been delivered.

Biodiversity and Proposed Green wall

8.73 London Plan policy 5.10 (Urban greening) encourages the incorporation of green walls into proposed buildings. Policy DM11 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD requires developments to provide elements of ‘living buildings’. I t also states that existing elements of biodiversity value should be protected or replaced within the development and additional habitat provision made to increase biodiversity value.

8.74 The existing site contains a small garden with 3 trees which prov ides some habitat for common birds and other wildlife. The submitted Ecological Scoping Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report notes that this would have a very small negative impact on biodiversity and officers agree. However, it is recommended that an informative be included as part of any planning permission stating that these trees should be felled outside of the bird breeding season (March to August).

8.75 The proposals incorporate two separate but adjacent green walls on the southern (courtyard) elevation of the building, both measuring approximately 7.8m x 10.4m (about 162sqm in total). The proposed substantial areas of green wall could help to mitigate the small loss of existing habitat. To maximise biodiversity benefits, plants used in green walls should provide nectar for bees and other insects and/or berries or seeds for birds. There is a lack of detail of the green wall areas in the application and it is recommended that the details (including planting) are reserved by condition for subsequent approval.

Page 157

Water usage

8.76 London Plan policy 5.13 (sustainable drainage) encourages Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) that store rainwater for later use and policy 5.15 (Water use and supplies) promotes the use of rainwater harvesting. Policy DM13 of the submission version of the Development Management DPD makes clear that development will be required to show how it reduces the amount of water usage, runoff and discharge from the site, through the use of appropriate water reuse and SUDS techniques.

8.77 Achieving a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating would require the use of water efficient appliances. It is also proposed to incorporate a rainwater harvesting scheme to gather and store rainwater from the roof areas to be used the water the green wall areas. Provision has been made in the basement for a grey water storage and pumping area and it is expected that the system would be powered by the proposed PVs at roof level. However, there is a lack of detail and it is recommended that the details are reserved by condition for subsequent approval.

Contamination

8.78 Policy DM30 of the submission version of the Development Management DPD makes clear that where development is proposed on contaminated land or potentially contaminated land, a site investigation will be required and remediation proposals agreed to deal with any contamination before planning permission is granted.

8.79 The submitted Site Investigation Report concludes that in view of the proposed commercial (non-residential) use, contamination results indicate that the site can be considered uncontaminated with regard to human health. Having said this, it considers that excess material generated during site preparation works should be considered contaminated with regard to disposal. The report goes on to note that the elevated levels of metals and fuels encountered within the leachable soil and groundwater may present a risk to Controlled Waters and recommends borehole testing and further quantitative risk assessment. It is recommended that conditions are included as part of any planning approval to ensure that suitable further investigation is carried out prior to works commencing on the site.

Waste

8.80 Policy DM14 in the submission version of the Development Management DPD makes clear that development should demonstrate how it will provide appropriate storage facilities for residual waste and recycling.

8.81 The proposals incorporate waste and recycling area of approximately 6.5 x 4.5m (29sqm) to the rear of the proposed building, in the retained courtyard area, with suitable vehicular access. This is considered acceptable.

Planning Obligations

8.82 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, brings into law policy tests for planning obligations whic h can only constitute a reason for granting planning permission where they meet the following tests:

Page 158

8.83 The Council’s Saved Policy DEV4 of the adopted UDP and Policy SP13 of the adopted Core Strategy say that the Council will seek to enter into plannin g obligations with developers where appropriate and where necessary for a development to proceed.

8.84 The amounts have been negotiated taking account of the planning obligations SPD and heads of terms are set out below.

Non-financial Contributions and Obligations 8.85 Officers have negotiated the following non-financial contributions and obligations: a) Delivery of a Training and Enterprise Centre in accordance with the Note on Proposed Interixon Training and Enterprise Centre dated 26 September 2012 and summarised in this report and the implementation of a Training and Enterprise Centre Management Plan (to be approved in writing by the Council prior to first occupation of the data centre). b) Access to employment initiatives for construction through 20% of non-technical total construction jobs to be advertised through the Council’s job brokerage service. c) A target of 20% of total value of contracts which procure goods and services are to be to be achieved using firms located within the borough. d) R elocation strategy for existing business to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before commencement of development e) Public right of way over the private pavement area along the Buxton Street frontage f) Heat recovery system to be provi ded to transfer recovered heat to an agreed point at the site boundary for future connection by others to a district heating network (An approved Future Waste Heat Utilisation Plan to be implemented prior to first occupation of the data centre) g) Achievem ent of a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rated building (including submission of certificates to demonstrate achievement)

Employment and skills training 8.86 Core Strategy Policy SP07 seeks, amongst other things, to support developments that promote local enterpris e and the employment and skills training of local residents. The applicant has identified the following employment estimates: • 83 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) construction jobs during 12-18 months period; • 29 FTE full-time jobs across a range of skills and qualifications (technical and operational, sales and marketing and security); • An additional 11 FTE full-time jobs from the proposed Business Enterprise Space.

8.87 The Council’s Planning Obligations SPD includes employment densities for IT/Data centres and ‘business park’ light industrial space of 1 job per 47sqm (NIA/GIA). Using these employment densities suggests that up to 223 FTE full-time jobs could be created from the development. Based on this higher potential figure and the formula set out in the SPD , it is recommended that a financial contribution of £31,744 is secured to help train and develop unemployed residents in Tower Hamlets.

8.88 Based on the provisions of the Planning Obligations SPD, it is recommended that a financial contribution of £27,092 be secured to help support and provide training for local residents in

Page 159 accessing job opportunities during the construction phase.

8.89 In addition to the above and in accordance with CS Policy SP07 and the Planning Obligations SPD, it is recommended that planning obligations secure the use of best endeavours to ensure that 20% of the construction phase workforce are Tower Hamlets residents and that a target of 20% of goods and services procured during the construction phase are from businesses within the borough (noting that this may prove difficult to achieve for such a specialist building).

Libraries and Ideas Stores 8.90 In line with the Planning Obligations SPD, a contribution of £4,820 has been secured towards improvements to Idea Stores and L ibraries. The proposed development will increase demand on these services and there is a need to development these facilities further to align with population growth.

Sustainable Transport 8.91 In line with the Planning Obligations SPD, a financial contribution of £3,315 towards the provision of a sustainable transport network within the Borough has been secured.

8.92 Public Open Space In line with the Planning Obligations SPD, a financial contribution of £29,489 towards the provision of improvements to public open space in the Borough has been secured.

Leisure 8.93 Based on the provisions of the Planning Obligations SPD, the potential number of employees based on the adopted job/floorspace ratio for data centres (223 in total) would place additi onal burdens on leisure facilities and warrant a financial contribution of £82,000. The applicant considers that this is excessive and inappropriate given (a) the proposed use and the likely levels of employment (which it estimates to be 40); (b) the proposed overall package of non- financial and financial contributions outlined above and (c) the need to ensure that the proposals are financially viable.

8.94 Officers consider that the proposed overall package of non-financial and financial contributions outlined above would satisfactorily mitigate likely adverse impacts associated with the proposals and help to secure the Council’s policy objectives. Given this, the lack of financial contributions towards leisure facilities is considered acceptable in this case.

Monitoring fee 8.95 A monitoring fee of £5,366 which is 2% of the total figure as been secured.

Other Planning Issues 8.96 None.

Community Infrastructure Levy

8.97 This development is liable for a charge under the Community Infrastru cture Levy (CIL) Regulations (2010).

8.98 The proposed Training and Enterprise Centre would be accessible to the public and, taking account of the existing storage and workshop space that would be demolished; officers consider that the applicant is liable to pay £7,593 CIL.

Page 160

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Officers consider that the application has satisfactorily addressed all of the reasons why the previous larger building was refused planning permission and why the associated Conservation Area Consent application to demolish existing buildings was refused. Subject to the recommended planning obligations and conditions, officers consider that the proposal would meet policy objectives and satisfactorily mitigate any adverse impacts, as outlined in detail in Section 2 of this report.

9.2 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission and Conservation Area Consent should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision as set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.

Page 161

Page 162 Agenda Item 7.5

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 10 th October 2012 Unrestricted

Report of: Title: Planning Application for Decision Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/12/01868 Case Officer: Monju Ali Ward(s): Spitalfields&Banglatown

1. APPLICATION DETAILS

Location: First Floor, 100 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL Existing Use: Use Class A1 Proposal: Change of use from Travel Agency (Class A1 Use) to mini-cab office use (Sui-Generis).

Drawing No: LN91078 – A4 OS location plan – scale 1:1250 1 – existing / proposed floor plans 2 - existing front elevation 3 – block plan – scale 1:200

Supporting Design and Access Statement, dated 24 th May 2012 Documents: Impact Statement, dated 25 th May 2012 Land Use Survey, dated 1 st July 2012

Applicant: Mr RuzarChoudhury Owners: Mr AlaurRahman and Mrs Rajeda Begum Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: Fournier Street/Brick Lane Conservation Area

2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council’s approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Adopted Core Strategy (2010), the Unitary Development Plan, the C ouncil’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007), the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012), associated supplementary planning guidance, the London Plan and Government Planning Policy Guidance and has found that:

2.2 1. The proposed change of use from tra vel agency unit (Use Class A1) to a radio controlled mini cab office (Use Class Sui Generis) is considered acceptable on balance, given the location of the premises at first floor level within the Brick Lane District Centre. As such the loss of the existi ng A1 use at this level would not result in the loss of essential goods and services and the proposal accords with saved policy S2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DM1 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) a nd policy SP01 of the adopted Core Strategy (2012), which seek to promote the vitality and viability of the Borough’s town centres by protect A1 uses and supporting non retail uses which support the function of the town centre uses provided they don’t harm the prime shopping frontages.

2. It is considered that subject to condition, the introduction of a radio controlled mini- cab use in this location will not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of

Page 163 1 neighbouring residents in terms of noise and disturbanc e in accordance with saved policies DEV2 and S8 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy SP10 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2012) and DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) which seek to protect the amenity of residents of the borough and ensure specifically that mini-cab uses do not raise any significant impacts in terms of noise, nuisance & safety.

3. It is considered that subject to condition, the introduction of a radio controlled mini- cab use in this location will not h ave a detrimental impact upon the capacity and safety of the surrounding highway network in accordance with saved policies T16 and S8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and SP09 of the Core Strategy (2010). These policies seek to manage the imp act of new development on the highway networkand ensure specifically that mini-cab uses do not raise any significant impacts in terms of the free flow of traffic or pose a danger to road users.

3. RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

3.2 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following matters:

3.3 Conditions

3.4 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3.5 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Schedule to this planning permission.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.6 3) The use allowed by this permission shall not take place other than between the hours of:

• 07:00am to 04:00am, on any day

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjacent residents and the area generally and to accord with policy SP10(4) and policy S8 and DEV2 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1 998, and Policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version 2012)

3.7 4) The mini-cab office hereby approved shall be conducted using radio controlled cars only and no facilities are to be provided on site for drivers waiting for fares or between shifts nor shall the premises be used as a pick up point for customers at any time.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining residential premises and in the interest of highway safety and capacity in the vicinity of the site by reducing the potential for the use of the premises as a "pick-up" point for fares or a wai ting point for drivers between fares. This is in accordance with strategic policies SP09 and SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010), saved policies DEV2, S8 and T16 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012).

Page 164 2 3.8 5) No flashing lights shall be fixed to the external face of the building and no signage/advertising shall be displayed on the building or within windows of the building in association with the use hereby permitted.

Reason: T o safeguard the amenity of the adjoining residential premises and in the interest of highway safety and capacity in the vicinity of the site by reducing the potential for the use of the premises as a "pick-up" point for fares or a waiting point for drivers between fares. This is in accordance with strategic policies SP09 and SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010), saved policies DEV2, S8 and T16 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012).

3.9 6) Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal.

3.10 Informative: None.

4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS

Proposal

4.1 The application seeks permission for the Change of use from Travel Agency (Class A1 Use) to mini-cab office use (Sui-Generis) at first floor level.

4.2 Site and Surroundings

4.3 The application site comprises the first floor of a four-storey terraced building, which is bounded by the adjoining terraced building at no.102 Brick Lane to the north, the re ar of the residential building No.32 Princelet Street to the east, the adjoining terraced buildin g at no.98Brick Lane to the south and the public highway at Brick lane to the west. The application site lies within the Fournier Street / Brick Lane Conservation Area and the site lies in close proximity to the Brick Lane Mosque which is a grade I* listed building.

4.4 The established use of the building is A1 retail at ground floor level with its own shop front and entrance. The first floor level (subject to the application) comprises an A1 use Travel Agency and the second and third floors are in residential use (C3). The upper floors of the building are accessed via a separate entrance door and staircase off Brick Lane. Both the A1 use and C3 residential use have their own separate entrance doors located on each level.

4.5 The application site at first floor level comprises of 49sqm of floor space with three separate rooms set up as an office, store room and a small kitchen to the rear. There are two large sash windows facing onto Brick Lane and a single window to the rear. The first floor is currently occupied by the existing A1 Travel Agency use. Immediately outside of the site there is provision for 5 loading bays with 20 minutes waiting restrictions. The remainder of Brick Lane and surrounding streets are controlled by do uble yellow lines with residential parking bays and some pay and display bays. The surrounding area has a mix use character with both commercial and residential uses in close proximity along the length of Brick lane and surrounding streets.

4.6 Planning History

4.7 PA/82/00052 On 7th September 1983 planning permission was refused for the erection of a single storey rear extension for retail use.

4.8 PA/84/00057

Page 165 3 On 22 nd February 1985planning permission was refused for the change of use of ground and basement level to restaurant use and erection of a rear extension.

BG/95/00139 4.9 On 9th March 2011 planning permission was refused for the change of use to hot food shop and erection of a ground floor extension and extraction flue to the rear of the building.

4.10 PA/99/01006 On 8th February 2000 planning permission was granted for the retention of travel agency (Class A1) on the first floor.

4.11 PA/05/00132 On 4th January 2006 planning permission was granted for the conversion of loft on the forth floor to a bedroom and two skylights.

5. POLICY FRAMEWORK

5.1 For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Determination” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:

5.2 Adopted Core Strategy (September 2010) Policies: SP01 – Refocusing Town Centres SP08 – Making connected places SP09 – Creating attractive and safe streets SP10 – Creating distinct and durable places

5.3 Unitary Development Plan (as saved policies 1998) Policies: DEV2 - General Design and Environmental Requirements DEV27 - Conservation Areas DEV50 – Noise T16 – Traffic Priorities for New Development S2 – Changes of Use S8 - Considerations for Mini Cab Offices

5.4 Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control (2007) Policies: DEV1 - Amenity DEV10 - Disturbance from Noise Pollution DEV17 - Transport Assessments CON2 - Conservation Areas RT5 - Evening and Night-time Uses Planning Standard 3: Parking

5.5 Managing Development Plan Document (May 2012) Policies: DM1 - Development within Town Centre Hierarchy DM15 - Local job creation and investment DM23 – Streets and the public realm DM24 - Place Sensitive Design DM25 – Amenity

5.6 Community Plan The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application: A better place for living well

Page 166 4

6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE

6.1 The views of officers within the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.

The following were consulted regarding the application:

6.2 London Borough of Tower Hamlets - Development Design and Conservation

No objections raised based on the principle of change of use.

6.3 London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Transport & Highways

Officer pleased to see that the Impact statement outlines succinctly and accurately the kind of impact-limiting restrictions the applicant proposes to operate under. Highways would not object to this proposal as long as these are ad ded in some form of Condition. Would further require the inclusion of a condition prohibiting the advertising of the business on-site, i.e. no revolving light or phone number display.

6.4 London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Planning Policy

Principle of use: Core Strategy policy SP01 supports the hierarchy, scale and role of town centres and describes Tower Hamlets Activity Area as providing transitional areas that include a vibrant mix of uses that are economically competitive. The Managing Development DPD (submission version May 2012) policy DM1 supports mixed use schemes with active uses at ground floor level with residential or office space on upper floors within the Tower Hamlets Activity Area. DM1.7 supports development within a town centre where it do es not have an adverse impact upon the function of the centre. The policy also sets out criteria to assess town centre development including floor space requirements and servicing arrangements. Saved UDP (1998) policy S8 provides criteria to assess mini cab offices.

Recommendation: The change of use is acceptable in policy terms. The application should be considered in light of policies DM1.7 and S8.

6.5 London Borough of Tower Hamlets - Environmental Health (Noise and Vibration)

It would be hard to argue that there would be a loss of amenity considering the scale of street noise and ASB in the area. Having said that the reality is that agreeing to a 24 hour a day 7 days a week business operation would mean that noise will be inev itable, and will make an already noisy area noisier. Also note that with all the parking restrictions on Brick Lane, the cab drivers will be parking off street and in all occasions will walk their customers to their vehicle. The customers are normally in high or very high spirits after a alcohol induced night out. This inevitably leads to noise and thus a loss of amenity for the residents. If this application is to be approved then the hours need to be restricted. Suggest hours of operation 7am to 11pm.

7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION

Page 167 5 7.2 The total number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:

No of individual responses: 15 Objecting: 5 Supporting: 10 Duplicated: 0 No of petitions received: 1 with 37 signatories

7.3 The following issues were raised in objection that are addressed in the next section of this report:

• The proposal will result in increased noise and public disturbance to neighbours 7.4 Officer comment: The proposal is for a mini cab radio control office only with 2-3 operators on site. This is considered to be suitable to the location, without causing significant noise nuisance to residential properties. • There is already an existing mini cab office directly opposite the site, creating further 7.5 competition to existing mini cab uses along Brick Lane.

Officer comment: Competition is not a material planning consideration; however it is noted there is an existing mini cab office opposite the site. However this proposal is for an office space only for pre-booking, there will be no customers visiting the site nor will walk in customer be allowed. This will be controlled via a condition. 7.6 • The proposal will adversely impact upon on-street parking provision.

Officer comment: The Councils Highways department have been consulted on the

application who have raised no obj ections. This is a radio controlled cab office and there

would be no on-site parking of cars within the vicinity of the site. This will be managed via

condition.

8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:

1. Land Use Implications Principle land use of the site in conjunction with the surrounding area.

2. Highway Implications Consideration to the impacts on the highways network and parking

3. Amenity Implications Impact on the amenity of occupying residents and the visual impact to the surrounding area.

8.2 Land Use

8.1 This application proposes the change of use of the existing first floor A1 travel agency unit (49 square metres) to a radio controlled mini cab office (Use class Sui Generis) operating from 07:00am – 04:00am, seven days a week.

8.2 The objectives of saved policy S2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DM1 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) and policy SP01 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2012) are to promote the vitality and viability of the Borough’s town centres by protect A1 uses in District Centres and support non retail uses where they support the function of the town centre uses provided they don’t harm the prime shopping frontages.

8.3 The unit is located within the Brick Lane District Centre and lies on the fringe City Activity

Page 168 6 Area. The unit (No.100) also forms part of the Brick Lane Local Shopping Parade .It is considered the retail unit does not provideprime retail frontage due to its location off the street and at an upper level. The unit is however occupied by a retail use - a Travel Agency.

8.4 A land use survey identifying uses at first floor level was provided by the applicant ranging from No.35 – No.122 Brick lane. The survey identifies nine x A1 uses, two x A2 uses, fi ve x A3 uses, forty-four x C3 uses along this section. Brick Lane at ground floor level has a dominant A3 and A5 uses; however the District Centre and local shopping parade also has a relatively varied retail offer including essential goods such as grocery stores which serve the local community. As such, whilst the existing unit is not vacant, given the type of retail it currently provides (Travel Agents) officers do not consider the loss of this retail unit, particularly at first floor level would affect t he provision of essential retail services for local residents. Given, the varied retail provision of Brick Lane and the surrounding area, residents will have sufficient access to essential local shops and would not be affected by the change of use to this unit at upper level.

8.5 In conclusion the loss of a retail unit at first floor level in this instance is considered acceptable given the type of retail offer and limited impact it will have on the prime shopping frontage which is at ground floor level.

8.6 In terms of the principle of a radio controlled mini-cab office in land use terms, Policy S8 of the adopted UDP, sets out specific criteria for when such uses are considered acceptable. These relate primarily to the impact on residential amenity and traffic an d as such are considered in subsequent sections of this report.

Highway Implications

8.7 Saved policy S8 of the unitary Develo pment Plan (1998) amongst other things states mini cab offices should not have a detrimental effect on the free flow of traffic or public transportation or result in any increase in potential danger to other road users.

8.8 The proposal is for the use of the first floor A1 unit as a radio controlled mini cab office with no counter service allowing “pick ups” with no drivers coming to the premises at any time. This is required in order to manage the impact on the surrounding highway network which does not have any capacity for drivers waiting for “pick ups” in front of the premises or drivers parking adjacent to the site between jobs.

8.9 However, the issue for officers is how to ensure that this first floor unit is only used as an office base. By merit of the fac t that the unit is at first floor level with no visible shop front helps the proposal gives offices this level of comfort. However it is more difficult to ensure that ad hoc “pick ups” do not occur and that drivers do not wait within the vicinity of the s ite. As such a condition is recommended requiring radio controlled cars only and no facilities are to be provided on site for drivers waiting for fares or between shifts nor shall the premises be used as a pick up point for customers at any time.

8.10 The applicant has provided a layout of the unit showing the location of the office which does not inc lude a counter service which also gives officer a further level of comfort. Furthermore, the Councils highway officer has raised no objections subject to t he use subject to appropriate conditions. It is also noted that the existing 5 x loading bays with 20 minute restrictions should not be used by mini cab drivers as a waiting bay. This commitment has been confirmed by the applicant however these bays are outside the control of this application, and it would be for traffic wardens and enforcement to manage the use of these public bays and prevent mis-use.

8.11 Highways are satisfied with a condition limited the use to a ‘radio controlled office’ only with

Page 169 7 no "pick ups" occurring at the site and no drivers allowed to come to the site between shifts or between jobs. It is considered that this would limit the potential for an unauthorised use of the premises. Furthermore, another condition will be attached preven ting the use of signage, adverts of flashing lights which would denote the use of the unit as a mini cab office or indicate members of the public can enter the unit and order a taxi from the site.

8.12 As such, it is considered that subject to condition, the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon the capacity and safety of the surrounding highway network in accordance with saved policies T16 and S8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and SP09 of the Core Strategy (2010). These policies see k to manage the impact of new development on the highway network and ensure specifically that mini-cab uses do not raise any significant impacts in terms of the free flow of traffic or pose a danger to road users.

8.13 Amenity

8.14 Saved Policy DEV2 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), Policy DEV1 of the IPG (2007) , policy DM25 of the Development Management DPD (Submission Version 2012) and Policy SP10(4) of the adopted Core Strategy (201 0) require development proposals to protect the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants, as well as protect the amenity of the surrounding public realm. Saved Policy S8 of the UDP in particular also states that mini cab offices should not have a material detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residents.

8.15 Saved Policy DEV50 of the Unit ary Development Plan (1998) states that the Council will consider the level of noise generated from developments as a material planning consideration and that the developer will be expected to include information relating to noise generated by the proposal in their application. Policy DEV10 of the IPG (2007) requires attenuation measures to be incorporated into development likely to generate unacceptable levels of noise.

8.16 It is considered that, with appropriate conditions limiting the operation to that of a radio controlled mini-cab office with no cars visiting the site, no pick up from the site, no drivers waiting in the office and no advertising or flashing lights at the site, the introduction of a radio controlled mini cab office in this location, will no t result in an adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residential occupants.

8.17 With regard to the hours of operation it is considered that a 24 hour office would not be acceptable given there are residential uses directly above. As such, the hours of operation would be restricted to 7am to 4am on any day which will protect the amenity of existing residents.

8.18 In conclusion, it is considered subject to conditions the change of use accords with strategic policy SP02 of the Core Strategy (2012), saved po licies DEV2 and S8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1198) and DM25 of the Development Management DPD (2012), which seek to protect the amenity of the residents of the borough.

8.19 Design

8.20 The proposal does not include any alterations to the building. A condition is also recommended to ensure there is no signage or advertisements associated with the proposed mini cab office, which will protect the character and appearance of this building and the conservation area.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

Page 170 8

9.1 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.

Page 171 9

Page 172 10 Agenda Item 7.6

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item Development 10 th October 2012 Unrestricted Number:

Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA12/01850

Case Officer: Elaine Bailey Ward: St Katherine’s & Wapping

1. APPLICATION DETAILS

Location: Capital Wharf, 50 Wapping High Street, London E1W

Existing Use: Residential block of apartments with boundary wall abutting Thames Path (it is the boundary wall that is subject to the application proposal).

Proposal: Erection of a painted steel hand rail along river boundary wall.

Drawing Nos: 691/101/ Rev A; Design Statement ref: 691/12.01 v3

Applicant: Capital Wharf Management Company Owner: Capital Wharf Management Company (freeholder) Historic Building: No Conservation Area: Wapping Pier Conservation Area

2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council's approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets adopted Core Strategy (2010), the Unitary Development Plan, the Council's Interim Planning Guidance (2007) , the Managing Development: Development DPD (submission version 2012) , associated supplementary planning guidance, the London Plan and National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and has found that:

2.2 The proposed handrail on the existing boundary wall is considered acceptable in terms of its location, scale, design and appearance and is not considered to have any significantly harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the Wapping Pier Conservation area or any views across the Thames. The proposal therefore complies with Saved Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP (1998), Policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DM12, DM23, DM24, and DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012).

3. RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions

Page 173 set out below .

3.2 1. Three year time period.

2. The proposed works to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3 Hand rail to be painted black.

4. BACKGROUND

4.1 This application is submitted by Capital Wharf Management Ltd – the freeholder and management company for this 8 storey block of 85 flats.

4.2 The applicant notes that the proposal is intended as a deterrent to youths mis-using the river wall, attracting anti-social behaviour, and potentially resulting in a safety risk in light of the low height of the wall and its proximity to the river edge.

5. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS

Proposal

5.1 The application proposed the installation of 300mm steel hand rail to the top of the existing boundary wall along the Thames.

Site and Surroundings

5.4 The boundary wall lies on the edge of the river and Thames pathway in front of a residential block of apartments, known as Capital Wharf, 50 Wapping High Street.

5.5 The wall varies in height from 900m to 1.1m.

5.6 Capital Wharf comprises an 8 storey residential block of 85 apartments.

5.7 The site falls within the Wapping Pier Conservation Area and adjoins 1-5 Pier Head House to the east which is a Grade II listed building.

5.8 The area in front of the riverside wall is owned by the applicant, however, the Thames Path is also a public right of way.

6. PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 No relevant planning history.

7. RELEVANT POLICIES

Government Planning Policy

7.1 National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (2011)

Page 174 7.2 Policy: 7.3 Designing Out Crime 7.4 Local Character 7.6 Architecture 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology 7.9 London View Management Framework 7.29 River Thames

Adopted Core Strategy (2010)

7.3 Policy: SP04 Blue and Green Grid SP09 Creating attractive and safe streets and spaces SP10 Creating distinct and durable places

Unitary Development Plan 1998 (as saved September 2007)

7.4 Policy DEV1 Design requirements DEV2 Environmental Requirements

Managing Development: Development Plan Document (submission version 2012)

7.6 Policy DM24 Place Sensitive Design DM23 Streets & Public Realm DM12 Water Spaces DM27 Heritage and the historic environment

8. CONSULTATION RESPONSE

8.1 The views of the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below . The following were consulted regarding the application:

8.2 Design & Conservation Confirmed no objection in design surgery and requested railing to be painted black due to location within a conservation area.

8.3 Transport & Highways No objection as this is not on public highway.

8.4 Environment Agency No concerns provided wall is sound in terms of existing coping or covering. Officer response : The applicant has confirmed that the riverside wall capping is sound as this formed part of the redevelopment of the site and has been constructed with a brickwork cladding to a concrete encased sheet piled wall.

8.5 British Waterways No comment received.

8.6 Port of London Authority The proposed railing does not appear to extend over Mean High Water and on that basis the PLA has no objection to the proposed development.

Page 175 9. LOCAL REPRESENTATION

9.1 A total of 149 neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the application and invited to comment. The application has also been publicised in East End Life and a site notice erected on 16/8/12.

9.2 It must be noted that the original consultation had an error on the consultation letter, referring to the site address as ‘Flat 44’, Capital Wharf. A re-consultation letter was sent to all those consulted originally (18 th September) originally to clarify site address as Capital Wharf and not ‘Flat 44’.

9.3 A total of 40 objections have been received at the time of writing this report. Copies of all letters are available on the file. In summary, the concerns raised in the objections are as follows:

• Works are unnecessary • Hand rail will block views across the Thames • Will encourage more anti-social behaviour • Cost of installation • Not wanted by residents of Capital Wharf • Reduce public amenity and enjoyment of the river • Block views to Tower Bridge

• Impacts on character of the development

• Unsightly proposal

Officer Comment: The a bove concerns are addressed in the material considerations 9.4 section of this report .

10. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

10.1 The main planning issues raised by the application include:

• The proposal in principle; • The design merits of the proposal and its impact on the conservation area; • Any amenity implications; • Any implications the proposal might have in terms of protected views;

Proposal in Principle

10.2 The application proposes the erection of a painted steel handrail to an existing boundary wall, abutting the Thames. Officers have no concerns rega rding the principle of the proposal. The works are minor in nature and raise no land use issues.

Design Issues & Impact on the Conservation Area

10.3 The proposed hand rail measures 300mm in height, and is designed in a simila r fashion to other railings within the Capital Wharf development and will sit on the edge of the existing 1m high wall.

10.4 The hand rail will sit on the full length of the wall to the Thames Path. Due to a variation in levels, the rail will reach an average of 1m height from ground level with a max of 1.4m.

Page 176

10.5 In terms of national policy - the NPPF promotes good design and requires Local Planning Authorities t o take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets a nd making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. In this instance, the Wapping Pier Conservation Area and the listed buildings at Pier Head House are considered the relevant heritage assets to be taken into consideration.

10.6 In terms of local planning policy - Saved policy DEV1 of the UDP (1998), policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DM24 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) together seek to ensure appropriate design , ensuring development is sensitive to and enhances local character.

10.7 In terms of conservation issues specifically, Policies DEV27 of the UDP, SP10 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) seek to protect and enhance heritage assets within the Borough. In this instance, this includes the Wapping Pier Conservation Area and any adjoining listed buildings.

10.8 In terms of assessment of the proposal against such policies, the proposed hand rail measuring 30cm above the existing boundary wall is not considered to have any significantly harmful impacts of the character of the immediate area or the character and appearance of the conservation area. The works proposed are minor in nature and in scale and the type of railing proposed is already evident in the immediate vicinity, such as the block of apartments at Capital Wharf itself and other railings along the Thames Path. The applicant’s willingness to accept a condition ensuring the hand rail is painted black is also considered to improve the appearance of the railing and protect the local character of the area and in particular the conservation area. Furthermore, officers have no concerns regarding the impact of the railing on the adjoining listed buildings towards the end of the path.

10.9 In light of the fact that the Thames Path is a public right of way, consideration has also been given to Policy DM23 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) which requires developments to improve and maintain the public realm, and improve safety and security without compromising good design and inclusive environments. The proposal will also accord with policy DM23 as the railing is considered to improve the safety and security for those using the area along the pathway within which the wall abuts. Due to the relatively minor scale of the railing and its sensitive design, the proposal is considered to improve the public realm.

10.11 To conclude, the proposed handrail is considered acceptable in terms of its location, scale, design and appearance and is not considered to have any significantly harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the Wapping Pier Conservation area. The proposal therefore complies with Saved Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP (1998), Policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DM12, DM23, DM24, and DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012).

Amenity Implications

10.12 Due to scale and the nature of the proposal (a hand rail), the proposal will not give rise to any adverse impacts to adjoining residential amenity in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight, loss of privacy, noise or nuisance and the development is Page 177 generally in accordance with saved policies DEV2 of the UDP (1998), Policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) which together seek to protect residential amenity.

10.13 Residents have raised concerns regarding the need and cost of the proposal, however such matters are not material planning considerations for officers.

Views

10.14 A number of the objections submitted by the public raise concerns regarding how the proposal will block their view across the river. Officers have considered this and do not believe that a railing of 30cm in height on top of an existing wall, will result in the blocking of views across the Thames or the enjoyment of any views along the river. The site does fall within the viewing corridor for Tower Bridge protected by Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (London View Management Framework) but as site photographs illustrate, the proposed hand rail of this scale, will not affect this.

10.15 It is also worth noting that the only view at ground level over the wall will be from those standing in the path, as the apartments in Capital Wharf are at raised level and benefit from full unobstructed views towards Tower Bridge and across the Thames.

11 Conclusions

11.0 All other relevant policies and consideration s have been taken into account. Planning permission and Conservation Area Consent should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision as set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report

Page 178

Page 179 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 180 Agenda Item 8

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 10 th October 2012 Unrestricted 8

Report of: Title: Other Planning Matters Corporate Director Development and Renewal Ref No: See reports attached for each item Originating Officer: Owen Whalley Ward(s): See reports attached for each item

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In this part of the agenda are reports on planning matters other than planning applications for determination by the Committee. The following information and advice applies to all those reports.

2. FURTHER INFORMATION

2.1 Members are informed that all letters of representation and petitions received in relation to the items on this part of the agenda are available for inspection at the meeting.

3. PUBLIC SPEAKING

3.1 The Council’s Constitution only provides for public speaking rights for those applications being reported to Committee in the “Planning Applications for Decision” part of the agenda. Therefore reports that deal with planning matters other than applications for determination by the Council do not automatically attract public speaking rights.

4. RECOMMENDATION

4.1 That the Committee take any decisions recommended in the attached reports.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORT S UNDER ITEM 8

Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register: Name and telephone no. of holder: See individual reports See individual reports Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 182 Agenda Item 8.1

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item Development 10 th October 2012 Unrestricted Number:

Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/12/02086

Case Officer: Shahara Ali- Ward: Bow West Hempstead

1. APPLICATION DETAILS

Location: Phoenix School, 49 Bow Road, London, E3 2AD

Existing Use: School

Proposal: Alterations in connection with erection of two structures (including canopy and greenhouse) and formation of a new external access into an existing teaching room.

Drawing Nos: GA 000001 Rev E, GA 000002 Rev G, GA 300100 Rev B, ELV 300130 Rev B, GA 300201 Rev B, GA 300202 Rev A, DET 321001 Rev B, 20627/1 Rev B, 4734-01A, 4734-03A, 4734-02C, 4734-04C, 4734-05D Design and Access Statement and Heritage Impact Assessment

Applicant: Bouygues UK on behalf of Pheonix School Owner: London Borough of Tower Hamlets Historic Building: Grade II* Listed. Conservation Area: No

2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council's approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets adopted Core Strategy (2010) Unitary Developme nt Plan, the Council's Interim Planning Guidance (2007) , the Managing Development: Development DPD (submission version 2012) , associated supplementary planning guidance, the London Plan and National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and has found that:

2.2 The proposed internal and external alterations are considered sympathetic in terms of design, scale and siting, as they relate satisfactorily to the listed school building. As such, the proposal would preserve the character, fabric and identity of the listed building and its heritage asset . This proposal therefore meets the requirements outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010), saved policy DEV37 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy CON1 of the Council's Interim Planning Guidance (2007) as well as policy DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012).

Page 183

RECOMMENDATION

3. That the Committee resolve to refer the application to the Government Office for Wes t Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions as set out below .

3.1 1. Three year time period.

2. The proposed works to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3 Materials and finishes to match adjoining work unless otherwise specified on submitted drawing.

4. BACKGROUND

4.1 This application for Listed Building Consent is required for internal and external alteration to the main entrance and three sections of the main circulation corridor to comply with Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requirements. The building is Grade II* Listed and is owned by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The terms of reference of the Development Committee requires that where the Council is applying for works to a Listed Building that it owns, the application must be brought before Members.

4.2 The Council cannot determine applications for Listed Building Consent for works to buildings that it owns. Regulation 13 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 requires that such applications are referred to the Secretary of State, together with any representations received following statutory publicity.

4.3 The purpose of this report is to allow Members to recommend to the Secretary of State that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent, were it empowered to do so itself.

5. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS

Proposal

5.1 Listed Building Consent for internal and external alteration at ground floor level to the main entrance and three sections of the main circulation corridor including: 1. Replacing the existing controlled entrance with a new glazed enclosure; 2. Replacing the external windows and doors to the main circulation corridor; 3. Installation of a ceiling to conceal services in the first corridor; and 4. Replacement of the existing timber handrail to the first and third corridors.

5.2 The proposed internal and external alterations are to be carried o ut in connection with the Building Schools for the Future redevelopment of the schoo l site which received planning permission on the 19 th January 2011 planning ref PA/10/02291.

5.3 The Council has received an accompanying planning application for all works proposed under para 5.1 , planning ref PA/12/02085. This application remains undetermined awaiting the outcome of this associated Listed Building Consent application.

Page 184 Site and Surroundings

5.4 Phoenix School is located at the northern end of Bow Road, adjacent to Bow Road Station. The site itself is fairly concealed by properties from Alfred Street to the east and Harley Grove to the west.

5.5 The school was constructed in 1952 and was listed in 1993. The listing relates to the main spine plan running north-south with a series of linked two storey pavilions to the east and west, forming open courtyards. A new extension was constructed in the late 1990’s which enclosed the courtyards.

5.6 The school consists of a concrete frame wit h stock brick infill and low pitched copper roofs, with large windows and painted metal frames. The western , southern and part of the eastern curtilage of the site forms the boundary of the Tredegar Square conservation area. The site itself is not located within the conservation area.

5.6 The site is bounded by Byas House a two storey residential building to the north accessed from Benworth Street , Electric House, Marina Court and no’s 15 to 29 Alfred Street to the east, no’s 8 to 15 Harley Grove to the west a nd 51 to 52 Lemon Tree House, Bow Road to the south.

6. PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 The site has an extensive planning history, with the earliest application in 1971. Of these applications the following are the most relevant.

6.2 Under planning refer ences BW/95/0001 and BW/95/0002 planning permission and listed building consent was granted on 05/04/1995 for the erection of single storey extension with covered walkway to provide classrooms and ancillary support facilities to school.

6.3 The implementation of the above extension enclosed the courtyards and forms the location of the current proposals.

6.4 PA/09/01999:- Planning permission granted on 27/11/2009 for replacement of existing roofed structure by the erection of a pavilion to provide new teaching space, play and storage areas, including library facilities within the School's courtyard.

PA/09/02000:- Listed Building Consent granted on 01/02/2010 for erection of a 6.5 pavilion detached from main school building to provide new teaching space, play and storage areas plus library facility.

PA/10/01962:- Planning Permission granted on 22/11/2010 for erection of three 6.6 structures (including canopy, greenhouse and conservatory) and formation of a new exter nal access into an existing teaching room. The proposed canopy and greenhouse are free standing structures detached from the Listed building, while the proposed conservatory and new external access will require minor alterations to the Listed granted fabric.

PA/10/02291:- Planning permission was granted on 19/01/2011 for erection of a new 6.7 school building up to five storeys in height (including a basement level) and associated works.

PA/10/01963:- Listed Building Consent granted on 11/03/2011 for alterations in 6.8 connection with erection of two structures (canopy and greenhouse) and formation of a new external access into existing teaching room. Page 185

PA/11/00400:- Listed Building Consent granted on 31/10/2011 for internal remodelling 6.9 and refurbishment of Grade II listed building, including removal of internal partitions. External works comprising of the installation of three air-conditioning units, an extract duct and two ventilation louvers.

Current Applications Under Consideration:-

PA/12/02085 Planning permission sought for internal and external alteration at ground floor level to the main entrance and three sections of the main circulation corridor including: 5. Replacing the existing controlled entrance with a new glazed enclosure 6. Replacing the external windows and doors to the main circulation corridor 7. Installation of a ceiling to conceal services in the first corridor Replacement of the existing timber handrail to the first and third corridors

7. RELEVANT POLICIES

Government Planning Policy

7.1 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) - Chapter 12 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’

London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (2011)

7.2 Policy: 6.13 Parking 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology

Adopted Core Strategy (2010)

7.3 Policies: SP07 Improving education and skills SP09 Creating attractive and safe streets and spaces SP10 Creating distinct and durable places

Unitary Development Plan (UDP 1998)(as saved September 2007)

7.4 Policy: DEV37 Alterations to listed buildings to preserve special architectural or historic interest of the building, repair original features and replace missing items, traditional materials

Interim Planning Guidance for the purposes of Development Control (IPG)(Oct 2007)

7.5 Policy: CON 1 Listed Buildings - criteria for consent DEV17 Transport Assessments DEV18 Travel Plans DEV19 Parking for Motor Vehicles

Managing Development: Development Plan Document (submission version 2012)

7.6 Policy: DM27 Heritage and the historic environment DM22 Parking

Page 186

8. CONSULTATION RESPONSE

8.1 The views of the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below . The following were consulted regarding the application:

8.2 English Heritage:- “We have been involved in pre-application discussions on site with regard to the present notification which relates to alterations to the main entrance and three sections of the main corridor. The submitted drawings reflect the conclusion of our discussions. We welcome the carefully considered glazing details and do not object to the overall proposals contained within the application.”

9. LOCAL REPRESENTATION

9.1 A total of 84 neighbouring pro perties within the area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the application and invited to comment. The application has also been publicised in East End Life and on site. The number of representations received from neighbours and l ocal groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:

No of individual responses: 0 Objecting: 0 Supporting: 0 Comment: - No of petitions received: Objection: 0 Support: 0

10.0 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

10.1 When determining listed building consent applications, Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires that special regard should be paid to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting, or any features of special interest.

10.2 The main issue for Members to consider is whether the proposed works are appropriate in this respect.

Land Use

10.3 The proposal will result in the loss of one car-parking space. Planning policy places a greater emphasis on encouraging sustainable forms of transport and minimising the provision of car-parking within areas well served by public transport. The site is located in an area with a PTAL of 5/6a (excellent). The site is in an area with good transport links and the loss of the car-parking space is acceptable in terms of Policy SP09 of the Core Strategy (2010) and policy DM22 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012). 10.4 The proposal is to upgrade existing educational floorspace and does not facilitate an intensification of use.

Impact of proposed alterations on the architectural quality of the Grade II* Listed School Building.

10.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) emphasise the importance of preserving heritage assets and requires any development likely to affect a heritage asset or its setting to be assessed in a holistic manner. The main factors to be taken into account are the significance of the asset and the wider social, cultural, Page 187 economic and environmental benefits arising from its preservation, extent of loss or damage as result of development and the public benefit likely to arise from proposed development. Any harm or loss to a heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification.

10.6 The Council’s Adopted Core Strategy strategic objective SO22 and policy SP10 aim to enhance and preserve borough’s heritage in order to enable creation of locally distinctive neighbourhoods.

10.7 Preservation of listed buildings is specifically supported by saved policy DEV37 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy CON1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) and policy DM27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) which require alterations to listed buildings to preserve the special architectural or historical interest of the building and to retain and repair any architectural features. Any adverse impact on the character, fabric or identity of the listed building is to be resisted.

10.8 The proposal seeks to alter a number of internal and external elements within the Grade II* listed building in connection with the Building Schools for the Future redevelopment of the site and in order to facilitate improved access points to comply with DDA requirements. In particular, the proposal is to: • Replace the existing controlled entrance with a new glazed enclosure and repositioning of the door; • Replace the external windows and doors to the main circulation corridor; • Installation of a ceiling to conceal services in the first corridor; and • Replacement of the existing timber handrail to the first and third corridors.

Replacing the existing controlled entrance with a new glazed enclosure and repositioning the door

10.09 The proposal is to replace the existing glazed entrance lobby and rooflight and the repositioning of the entrance door to comply with DDA access requirements.

10.10 The alteration will consist of the replacement of the external gl azing with Crittal steel framed single glazed windows to match the existing. The internal glazing enclosing the corridor heated space will be replaced with Crittal steel framed double glazed windows. The window profile will be polyester powder coated whit e to match the existing.

10.11 The entrance door is to be moved approximately 2 metres south to provide better access in compliance with DDA access requirements. The repositioning of the door will result in the removal of a car park space; this is considered acceptable as it creates a sufficient ‘buffer’ between the entrance point and manoeuvring vehicles in the car park.

10.12 It is considered that the proposed replacement of the glazed enclosure is appropriate as it replaces an unsympathetic glazed entrance with a simple and improved design.

Replacing the external windows and doors to the main circulation corridor

10.13 The proposal is to replace the external windows and doors with steel framed double glazed windows and Avanti steel powder coated white doors to match existing. . 10.14 It is considered that the changes are sympathetic to the architectural quality and fabric of the listed building and ensure viability of its use as an educational facility is Page 188 maintained.

Installation of a ceiling to conceal services in the first corridor

10.15 Corridor 1 contains existing heating and water supply pipes suspended on the ceiling, the pipes are exposed and unsightly. T he proposal is to cover the pipes with large metal panels in the centre of the corridor , forming a suspended ceiling in the corridor . The sides of the panels will have a thin edge to make them visually distinct from the enclosing structure.

10.16 The panels would be polyester powder coated white to match the existing ceiling and window frames.

10.17 These works are reversible and retain the historic elements of the listed building while improving the appearance of the corridor area in accordance with English Heritage advice.

Replacement of the existing timber handrail to the first and third corridors

1018 The existing handrail in corridor 1 and 3 is a deep timber board that spans from column to column. The proposal is to replace the handrail with a much smaller dark stained handrail in round profile mounted on a steel ‘stretcher’ and supported on steel brackets or central balusters.

10.19 It is considered that the proposed handrail will provide a more refined structure which is in keeping with the existing building. Furthermore, these works are reversible and retain the historic element s of the listed building while improving the appearance of the corridor area in accordance with English Heritage advice.

10.20 In conclusion, the proposed internal and external alterations are considered sympathetic in terms o f design, scale and siting, as they relate satisfactorily to the listed school building. As such, the proposal would preserve the character, fabric and identity of the listed building and its heritage assets . This proposal therefore meets the requirements outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010), saved policy DEV37 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy CON1 of the Council's Interim Planning Guidance (2007) as well as policy DM27 of t he Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012).

11 Conclusions

11.0 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account and the Secretary of State can be advised that this Council would have been minded to grant Liste d Building Consent for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.

Page 189

Page 190 Agenda Item 8.2

Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item Number: Development Unrestricted 10 October 2012

Report of: Title: Planning Appeals Director of Development and Renewal

Case Officer: Pete Smith

1. PURPOSE

1.1 This report provides details of town planning appeal outcomes and the range of planning considerations that are being taken into account by the Planning Inspectors, appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It also provides information of appeals recently received by the Council, including the methods by which the cases are likely to be determined by the Planning Inspectorate.

1.2 The report covers all planning appeals, irrespective of whether the related planning application was determined by Development Committee, Strategic Development Committee or by officers under delegated powers. It is also considered appropriate that Members are advised of any appeal outcomes following the service of enforcement notices.

1.3 A record of appeal outcomes will also be helpful when compiling future Annual Monitoring Reports.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That Committee notes the details and outcomes of the appeals as outlined below.

3. APPEAL DECISIONS

3.1 The following appeal decisions have been received by the Council during the reporting period.

Application No: PA/11/03710 Site: Land to the rear of Heckford House, Grundy Street E14 6AE. Proposed Development Erection of 2x2 storey, two bed residential units with associated landscaping along with minor alterations to two of the existing openings to Heckford House. Decision: APPEAL AGAINST NON- DETERMINATION Appeal Method: WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS Inspector’s Decision DISMISSED

Page 191

3.2 This proposed development followed on from a previous refusal of planning permission and subsequent appeal (Dismissed) in respect of extensions to Heckford House to provide additional residential. Instead of electing to extend the building, the appeal proposal was to propose a free standing residential building within the grounds of Heckford House, which comprises a currently overgrown garden (adjoining a playground which forms a network of public spaces within the post war housing estate). The main issue in the case was whether the proposed development would preserve of enhance the character of the Lansbury Conservation Area.

3.3 The Planning Inspector noted that the design of Heckford House was somewhat different from the more planned post war estate within which it is located. However, he and was concerned that whilst the proposed building would have appeared subservient to surrounding buildings (especially as it was proposed to be sunken into the ground) he did not feel that the building would have sat comfortably within the open space and between the surrounding buildings. He concluded that the development would have appeared cramped within the relatively small garden space and would have been at odds with the relatively uniformed layout and planned pattern of buildings surrounding it. He was not satisfied that the development would have preserved the character of the Lansbury Conservation Area.

3.4 The appeal was DISMISSED.

Application No: PA/11/02653 Site: 43 Thomas Road E14 7BE Site: Subdivision of the existing premises and change of use form restaurant and café to café and a hot food takeaway use (along with the installation of rear kitchen extract Decision: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION (delegated decision) Appeal Method: WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS Inspector’s Decision DISMISSED

3.5 This appeal relates to works that have already taken place along with the commencement of the hot food take-away use. The main issue in this case is the impact of the use of the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

3.6 The property is located on the corner of Thomas Road and Burgess Street and the immediate properties to the site are in residential use with modern industrial and warehouse uses opposite.

3.7 The Planning Inspector was concerned about the principle of the hot food take- away use, especially the evening operation of the use and the general expectation that residents should expect a reduction in activity into the evening he was concerned that the hot food take-away use causes unacceptable noise disturbance during the evening hours (unlike the former café uses which tended to close around 2pm every day). He concluded that the hot food take-away use was harmful to the amenities of neighbours. The matter has now been referred back to the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team, in order to commence enforcement proceedings.

Page 192 3.8 The appeal was DISMISSED.

Application No: PA/11/03488 Site: 548 Roman Road E3 5ES Development: Erection of a single storey rear extension and the installation of an air conditioning unit. Decision: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION (delegated decision) Appeal Method: WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS Inspector’s Decision DISMISSED

3.9 The main issues in this case were the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Roman Road Market Conservation Area and the effect of the development on the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers. This retrospective application sought to regularise a breach of planning control.

3.10 The single storey rear extension is sited I n the rear yard of the building which has a gated access off Ewart Place. The Inspector concluded that whilst the extension (which resembles a large timber shed) links well with the existing café, he was concerned that the extension appears as an incongruous addition and does not complement the design of the existing building. He concluded that the development failed to reflect the particular character and distinctiveness of the locality and failed to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

3.10 The Planning Inspector was less concerned about the impact of the café extension on the amenities of neighbours, bearing in mind that the development is located within a commercial centre. He felt that the extension could be appropriately insulated to limit noise break-out. However, he felt that the design of the extension was in conflict with development plan policies.

3.11 The appeal was DISMISSED and the case has now been referred back to Planning Enforcement to further progress planning enforcement proceedings.

4. NEW APPEALS

4.1 The following appeals have been lodged with the Secretary of State following a decision by the local planning authority:

Application No: PA/11/03312 Sites: Part of Unit cG-001, Block C, Trumans Brewery, 91 Brick Lane E1 Development Change of Use of part of unit form events space to restaurant with external seating area to the south and west. Council Decision REFUSE (Development Committee) Start Date 30 August 2012 Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.2 The Development Committee refused planning permission on grounds of the over-concentration of night-time uses in and around Brick Lane and the detrimental impact of further restaurant activity of the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers and the area in general.

Page 193 Application No: PA/12/00234 Sites: 5 Tarling Street, London E1 2PU Development Change of use of retail units to restaurant and take-away and the installation of a electrostatic extractor system. Council Decision APPEAL AGAINST NON DETERMINATION Start Date 18 September (appeal received) Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

Application No: PA/12/00460 Sites: 10 Heneage Street, E1 5LJ Development Retrospective application for display of shop sign comprising fascia and projecting box sign with frosted writing on shopfront glazing Council Decision REFUSAL OF ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT (delegated decision) Start Date 31 August 2012 Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.3 This application was refused on grounds of the detrimental impact of the signs on the visual amenities of the area and the character and appearance of the Brick Lane/Fournier Street Conservation Area.

Application No: PA/12/00696 Sites: 56 Hutchings Wharf, 1 Hutchings Street E14 8JY Development Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development in respect of an existing storage container for bicycles, sited in an existing car parking space. Council Decision REFUSAL (delegated decision) Start Date 31 August 2012 Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.3 The Certificate was not issued and the original planning permission for the development imposed conditions requiring the retention of car parking spaces as approved.

Application No: PA/12/01042 Sites: 31 Fairfield Road, London E3 2QA Development Erection of a first floor rear extension with replacement windows to front elevation (with uPVC windows). Council Decision REFUSAL (delegated decision) Start Date 14 September 2012 (appeal received) Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.4 This application was refused on grounds that the extension would be an over- bulky and incongruous addition to the locally lusted building with the proposed replacement windows failing to preserve the character and appearance of the Fairfield Road Conservation Area. Officers were also concerned about the impact of the extension in terms of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

Page 194 Application Number PA/12/01161 Sites: James Hammett House, Ravenscroft Street, London E2 Development Installation of 6 antennae and installation of roof top equipment cabinet and ancillary apparatus. Council Decision REFUSAL (delegated decision) Start Date 14 September 2012 (appeal received) Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.5 The planning permission was refused on grounds that the telecommunications apparatus would have been detrimental to the visual amenities of the building, the Dorset Estate and the Hackney Road Conservation Area.

Application Number PA/12/01208 Sites: 127 Leman Street, London E1 8EY Development Change of use form A2 use to restaurant with the installation of extract ducting to the rear Council Decision REFUSAL (delegated decision) Start Date 9 September 2012 (appeal received) Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.6 Officers were concerned in this case about the over-concentration of restaurants in the vicinity and the inadequacy of the proposed extract duct system, with lack of details to properly mitigate potential smell and noise nuisance to accommodate refuse storage and collection arrangements.

Application Number PA/12/01677 Sites: 78 Virginia Road E2 7NQ Development: Erection of a three storey extension to front of the existing dwelling house Council Decision REFUSAL (delegated decision) Start Date 12 September 2012 Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.7 Officers were concerned about the scale, mass and location of the proposed extension, failing to respect the predominant staggered front building line, thereby detracting from the visual characteristics of the building and the immediate locality.

Application Number PA/12/0778 Sites: 52 Cannon Street Road E1 0BH Development: Certificate of Lawful Development in respect of continued use of basement and ground floor as residential (form the previous retail use) in connection with the existing three storey dwelling Council Decision REFUSAL (delegated decision) Start Date 12 September 2012 Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.8 Officers did not consider there had been sufficient evidence submitted to prove, in terms of balance and probability that the ground and basement had been in continuous use for in excess of four years.

Page 195 Application Number ENF/12/00054 Sites: 80 Brick Lane, E1 Development: Unauthorised shop front Council Decision INSTIGATE ENFORCEMENT ACTION (delegated decision) Start Date 12 September 2012 Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.9 In this case, officers were concerned about the design and appearance of the shop front which fails to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and the host building.

Application Number PA/12/00023 Sites: Ability Place, 37 Millharbour E1 Development: Two storey extension at 13th floor level to provide seven duplex apartments (1 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) and replacement private amenity space at roof level (16th floor). Council Decision REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION (Development Committee Decision) Start Date 20 September (appeal received) Appeal Method WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

4.10 As Members will recall, this was refused planning permission on grounds of overdevelopment and the impact of the development on the provision of on- site amenity space.

Page 196