Subject: Neptune Wharf – 12/00210/OUT Report No: Public item 10 Meeting Date: 26 November 2013 Report to: Planning Decisions Committee Report of: Allison De Marco
FOR DECISION
1. SUMMARY 1.1. On balance, Officers consider that the proposed development would make a significant contribution towards the convergence objectives by virtue of the provision of 0.44ha of land for a school site and as such is considered to accord with the strategic policy regeneration aims of LP Policy 2.13.
1.2. The offer of 0.44ha site at a peppercorn rate on a 99 year lease in order to comply with the requirements of the FIAAP is of significant social benefit and would accord with AAP Policy FI4.6 (Education) in addressing the pressing need for primary school places and the policy requirements of LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP07(2). London Plan policy 3.18 (Education facilities), confirms that the Mayor will strongly support the provision of new schools.
1.3. LB Tower Hamlets in their First Round response noted that ‘An independent review, commissioned by the Council has shown that a 3FE primary school on three floors could be provided in the 0.44 hectare site identified’. LB Tower Hamlets Officers further confirmed that ‘Officers are fully committed to delivering a primary school through the planning process as part of this development’. The school site, together with the whole application site lies within the LB Tower Hamlets AQMA declared in 2000 and covers the entire Borough.
1.4. The proposed floorspace of 1,729sqm (Use Class B1) is considered to support LB Tower Hamlets Policy SP06 FIAAP Policy FI4.3 and Policy FI4.3 by proposing a significant employment generating opportunity. The proposed floorspace and new job creation potential is considered to accord with NPPF guidance that development should contribute to building a strong economy.
1.5. The subject application would provide up to 522 new residential units (422 dwellings sought for approval within the detailed element of the application and up to 100 dwellings sought for approval within Phase 3) which would be approximately 18% of the borough’s annual target. In their first round response the GLA concluded that in respect of the proposed housing uses proposed on site that the principle of residential was strongly supported in strategic planning terms.
1.6. The Affordable Housing offer is currently being negotiated. An offer has been made that the entirely of Block A would be offered as Affordable Housing. The tenure split is still being negotiated but is offered at between 70:30 affordable rent (at LBTH pod levels). /intermediate tenures a 100% affordable rent (at LBTH pod
1/73
levels). This is based on nil grant. Officers also seek to secure a viability review mechanism. In addition to the above, the scheme includes provision for the school site and in-kind contributions. It is recognised that provision of a serviced site for a new school has subsequently impacted upon the overall value that could be generated by a scheme on this site, which is reflected in a lower affordable housing offer than may otherwise have been the case.
1.7. Within Phases 1 and 2, the Amended October 2013 scheme has increased the level of family housing to 17.77% across all tenures compared with the May proposal for 15% within the same phases. Given that the land allocated to the school site reduces developable land, leaving approximately 1.95ha of developable land for residential and commercial development, and the challenging environmental conditions assessed within this report it is considered that the Applicant has reasonably maximised the proportion of family housing that can reasonably accommodated within the site.
1.8. The Quality Review Panel supports the revised planning application for approval. ‘A scheme of appropriate scale and massing, mix of uses, and architectural expression is now proposed, promising successful development of the site’.
1.9. In their third round response English Heritage responded stating that while it was of the view that 4-6 storey guidelines established by the Area Action Plan was a more desirable scale of development for the area, English Heritage are of the view that, taking into consideration the public realm and open space improvements proposed for the Hertford Union Canal, the revised scheme could complement the industrial characteristics of Fish Island, and support the regeneration objectives of the Area Action Plan. This includes meeting concerns regarding the setting of the proposed Whitepost Lane Conservation Area. They also confirmed that the reduction in height of the western tower (Block Q) alleviates English Heritage’s concerns regarding the settings impacts on Victoria Park, top lock, lock cottage and Parnell Road Bridge. Following the reduction in scale English Heritage would expect that any impacts may be mitigated through high quality design.
1.10. As assessed Officers consider that the development would have an acceptable impact on the setting of the Fish Island Conservation Area, the proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area. The most significant impact is considered to be that which results from the proposed height of Block Q which has an impact on Victoria Park Conservation Area.
1.11. The QRP have supported Officer’s intention to require architectural competitions as the basis for the design of the residential tall building adjacent to the A12. Contingent on securing scope for reduced parameters and an architectural competition for the design of Block Q Officers consider that there is scope for this block to support good design principles preserving the character and quality of an area and conserving and enhance the historic environment by making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Officers have also sought to secure an architectural competition for the detailed design of Block A.
1.12. The development is predicted to result in a significant net increase in the number of jobs on site, which within the constraints of other policy priorities is considered to be of significant merit and support the overall mix of uses on this current industrial site. 1.13. Officers consider that on balance, the scheme represents sustainable development and accordingly recommend the application for approval, subject to the necessary referrals and to the satisfactory completion (under authority
2/73
delegated to the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions) of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. RECOMMENDATION The Committee is invited to resolve that:
They are minded to APPROVE the application for the reasons given in the report and grant planning permission subject to:
i. Referring the Application to the Mayor of London and any direction of the Mayor of London; ii. The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in this report; and iii. The conditions and informatives set out in this report.
They CONFIRM that their decision has taken into consideration the environmental information submitted in relation to the application as required by Regulation 3(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and AGREE that following the issue of the decision a statement be placed on the Statutory Register confirming the details as required by Regulation 24(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011 including that the main reasons and considerations on which the Committee’s decision was based were those set out in the Planning Officer’s report to Planning Decisions Committee;
They AGREE TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY to the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions to:
i. Consider any direction from the Mayor of London and to make any consequential or necessary changes to the recommended conditions and/or informatives and/or recommended section 106 heads of terms as set out in this report;
ii. Finalise the recommended conditions and informatives(including relevant definitions and annexes) as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce, the final planning obligations to be contained in the section 106 legal agreement) as the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions considers reasonably necessary;
iii. Finalise the recommended legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in this report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in this report (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions considers reasonably necessary; and
iv. Complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.
3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Financial contributions made by the applicant pursuant to the s106 agreement must only be used for the purposes set out in the agreement and in accordance with its terms.
4. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
3/73
If Members agree the recommendation a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will be required to be completed before the grant of planning permission. The recommended draft heads of terms of the s.106 legal agreement are set out in this report.
CONTEXT PLAN
4/73
© Crown copyright and database rights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100050265
Location: 'Neptune Wharf' Site Comprising Land Bounded: To The North By Hertford Union Canal; To The East By Roach Road, Roach Point Footbridge, Omega Wharf; To The South By Wyke Road, Remus Road, Monier Road; And To The West By Wansbeck Road
London Borough: Tower Hamlets
Proposal: 'Outline planning application for comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site known as 'Neptune Wharf', as set out in the Development Specification (October 2013), in up to 4 phases / zones containing up to 18 buildings to provide for a mix of land uses: Phases/Zones 1 and 2 comprising: Application for outline permission (all matters reserved) for 1 No. Building (Block A); and Application for outline permission (landscaping reserved) for 13 No. Buildings (Blocks B-N) including: Residential floorspace (Use Class C3) comprising 422 dwellings (37,440sqm GIA); Non-residential floorspace (Use Classes A, B and D) comprising 3,348sqm GIA;
Phases/Zones 3 and 4 Application for outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except access) to provide 4 Buildings (Blocks O, P, Q and R) including development comprising: Residential floorspace (Use Class C3) providing up to 7,691sqm GIA or up to 100 dwellings; Non-residential floorspace (Use Classes A, B and D1) providing up to 6,255sqm to include: Local retail, service, and food and drink uses (Use Classes A1-A4); Business premises (Use Classes B1); and 3 Form Entry Primary School (Use Class D1).
All Phases: Associated external play areas; Provision of new site access points for pedestrians and vehicles with new internal access routes/streets and means of access and circulation; and other supporting infrastructure and engineering works.
Applicant: Neptune Group
5. SITE & SURROUNDINGS The application site is referred to as ‘Neptune Wharf’ and is located within the LB Tower Hamlets. The site is roughly ‘L’ shaped and has an approximate site area (net of highway land) of 2.38ha site. The site area of each phase is set out as follows:
Location Site Area Phase 1 East 0.8382 ha Phase 2 Central 0.8178 ha Phase 3 West 0.2982 ha Phase 4 West 0.4340 ha Total 2.3882 ha
Fish Island itself has been split into four areas (Fish Island North, Fish Island East, Fish Island Mid and Fish Island South) for planning purposes within local planning policy.
The Site is located within Fish Island Mid, the northern extent of which is formed by the Hertford Union Canal, the River Lea to the east, the Greenway (a key walking and cycling route in the area) to the south and the A12 East Cross Route to the west.
The Site is currently inaccessible to the public and there is no access to the southern side of the Hertford Union Canal.
5.1. Existing Structures – The most significant structure currently accommodated on site is a single large industrial depot (referred to as the ‘Main Depot’).
5/73
This large industrial structure is a post-war building with an approximately footprint of 7,919sqm. The building has a frontage which extends approximately 123m onto the Hertford Union Canal and onto Wyke Road and a frontage towards Omega Works which extends approximately 65m.
The building is a large portal frame warehouse with a double ridged roof with main access doors on the eastern and western elevations. The structure has a height of approximately 14 m (ridge height) which extends over a significant portion of the site. The frontage height of the building onto the Hertford Union Canal and onto Wyke Road is approximately 10m. The building was formerly occupied by a timber sawmill.
A smaller brick office building is located at the junction of Wyke Road and Smeed Road with a total internal area of 762sqm. The building comprises a 3 storey office building abutting the main depot entrance. The building includes reception areas, open plan and cellular offices and associated amenities. Another small amenity block building exists at the western end of the site off Remus Road and has a total internal area of 368sqm.
The Site is bordered to the north by a blue steel fence which runs directly along the edge of the Hertford Union Canal. This boundary includes some self-seeded vegetation. On the south side along Wyke Road, most of the boundary is formed by the tall 10m high brick wall of the Main Depot building which extends across the Site.
To the west the Site is bounded by a palisade steel security fence which is adjacent to Wansbeck Road but set at a lower level. To the east, the Site is also bounded by a security fence adjacent to Roach Road.
5.2. Hertford Union Canal - The application site is bounded to the north by the Hertford Union Canal with a canal setting of approximately 270m in length. Sites directly to the north and south of the Hertford Union Canal suffered heavy bomb damage in the Second World War and are therefore not characterised by the extant finer grained historic fabric which typify the southern areas of Fish Island Mid (Fish Island Conservation Area) and northern areas of Fish Island North (proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area).
Post war redevelopment in these areas, which include the two largest opportunity sites within the adopted FIAAP, McGraths and Neptune Wharf, saw the majority of the building fabric on each site cleared and these sites were re-developed as predominantly industrial.
Two modern developments have been constructed within the last 10 years fronting onto Hertford Union Canal, Omega Works and Schwartz Wharf.
The Hertford Union Canal River is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. The Hertford Union Canal is designated by Tower Hamlets Council as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. The canal is also part of the Green Chain through Tower Hamlets, linking the Regent’s Canal and the Lee Corridor.
The northern extent of the Hertford Union Canal is occupied by the McGrath’s Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) which occupies a site with a similar frontage onto the canal and slightly larger site area of 2.86ha. The site is also identified as an Opportunity Site within the FIAAP where mixed use development including employment uses, galleries; residential, affordable housing, community uses and small scale retail and a new local park of approximately 1.2 ha to serve the wider area.
6/73
The MRF is located to the north of the Site beyond the Hertford Union Canal approximately 30 m north of the Site. Operations at this facility include the recycling and processing of waste and the storage of aggregates and other dusty materials.
5.3. Roach Road – The application site is bounded to the east by Roach Road. The site boundary to the east extends approximately 80m. The Application site’s western boundary line is located approximately 12m from the primary western frontage of Omega Works.
Omega Works is the nearest new-build development to the site and comprises 245 live/work units (with planning permission sought for numerous units to be converted to residential) and approximately 3,000m² (32,000sqft) commercial floorspace with phased completions since 2004. The gated development provides riverside apartments overlooking the Olympic Park.
Along its eastern elevation Omega Works is generally six storeys (20m) in height, stepping down to 4 storeys (11m) in part and extending up to nine storeys (30m) in others (ranging 11m-30m in height). At its northern extent Omega Works extends westwards towards the application site with blank flank wall aligned with the application site’s boundary.
5.4. Wyke Road – The application site is bounded to the south by Wyke Road. The site’s boundary along Wyke Road extends approximately 210m. At its western extent the application site shares a boundary with the site’s only adjoining property, 35 Monier Road. This common boundary has a length of approximately 40m.
Existing development to the south of Wyke Road comprises employment uses including warehousing, storage and distribution land uses (B1, B2 and B8).
The carriageway width of Wyke Road is approximately 7m from kerb to kerb. The existing footway adjoining the application site has a width of c.4.5m on the northern side of the road with the southern footway having a width of c.3m.
5.5. Remus and Monier Roads – The application boundary turns south along a Remus Road for approximately 48m towards Remus’ approach with Monier Road. The site’s boundary continues westwards along Monier Road for approximately 60m to its junction with Wansbeck Road. Monier Road is lines with mature London Plane trees and runs straight from Wansbeck Road towards the Lee Navigation and the QEOP pedestrian and cycle Bridge H14 western approach (bridge to be opened in 2014).
5.6. Wansbeck Road – The application site is bounded to the west by Wansbeck Road. The site’s boundary along Wansbeck Road extends approximately 130m. Wansbeck Road is the only area surrounding the site where there is a significant topography change, with Wansbeck Road rising up from the south to an elevated level in order to bridge over the Hertford Union Canal to provide the only existing vehicular link between Fish Island North and Mid.
Two bus existing bus stops front onto the site on Wansbeck Road. Two bus routes pass along Wansbeck Road, the 276 (Stoke Newington to Newham General Hospital) and 488 (Bromley by Bow – Dalston). Walking distance from the western end of the site towards Hackney Wick Overground Station is approximately 6-10 minutes from the application site boundary.
The junction of Wansbeck Road and Monier Road, off Wick Lane, is the key vehicular entry point into Fish Island Mid and one of only three existing vehicular links from west
7/73 of the A12 into Fish Island. Wick Lane links the site to Victoria Park and Old Ford Road to the west and the Greenway to the south.
To the west of the A12 a row of residential properties are located on Cadogan Terrace fronting onto Victoria Park, which is designated as a Conservation Area and Grade II* Historic Parkand Garden and is also on English Heritage’s National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens and is registered Grade ll*.
The existing topography at the Site slopes upwards to the west of the Site from approximately +6.7mAOD up to +8.7mAOD at the western extent of the site at Wansbeck Road. A retaining wall runs along the eastern boundary of Wansbeck Road as the Road is elevated approximately 3m above site level in this location.
5.7. Site Accessibility and Existing and Consented Schemes – In respect of vehicular access, the site is currently mostly unoccupied and consequently generates few trips. It is situated within the Fish Island Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), but this is not currently a confirmed permanent scheme.
Public transport access is currently rated at ‘very poor’ as measured by Transport for London’s PTAL accessibility measure (much of the site is rated 1b). This is a consequence of a lack of bus routes very close to the site and the closest rail access at Hackney Wick station being relatively remote (with a circuitous route via the towpath or a route alongside the A12) and with only moderate frequency. The Applicant’s audit of the local pedestrian environment (Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) Audit) scores it overall with ‘low grades’. There is currently no cycle parking provided on-site and a shortage of cycle parking within the area.
A new east-west pedestrian and cycle bridge link is being completed between the QEOP and Fish Island Mid (Bridge H14) which is due to open in 2014 and will connect with Monier Road, which partially borders the subject site to the south. Parameters for a replacement highway bridge were approved as part of the Legacy Communities Scheme (LCS) outline planning application which would alter the character of Monier Road as it becomes a new east-west highway link from Fish Island to the Olympic Park during Legacy.
The immediately adjacent local highway network is generally relatively lightly trafficked but the more strategic access routes, notably the A12, are heavily congested. The Olympics Post Games Transformation works are providing new pedestrian and cycle links to the QEOP from Monier Road and the approved LCS scheme, when built out, will replace this bridge with a new vehicular route and add a further pedestrian and cycle link to the QEOP.
There is potential that bus routes will be adapted to use the new LCS Monier Road highway bridge and this would increase public transport accessibility. However, the LCS road network changes are unlikely to occur until around 2021.
Design proposals for a £8.5m upgrade to Hackney Wick station (aimed for completion by 2016) are currently being advanced by the LLDC’s Regeneration and Communities team.
5.8. Surrounding Area The adopted Fish Island Area Action Plan (FIAAP) identifies that Fish Island currently has a very small residential population with residential development largely restricted to a limited number of live/work developments. Approximately 600 people are currently estimated to live within the FIAAP boundary. The FIAAP identifies that this is ‘very low for an area so close to central London and contrasts with nearly 9000 people living
8/73
within 5 just minutes walk of Fish Island. The existing residential population is also relatively young with 40% of the area’s population aged between 25-49 years old’.
Although industrial activity characterises a large proportion of Fish Island today, there is wide variation in the age, character and scale of buildings which accommodate these uses which ranges from 2-4 storey brick warehouses and factories dating from the 19th century to more recent post-war buildings of up to 6-9 storeys. Clusters of studios have developed in the area south of Monier Road and close to Hackney wick station with approximately 600 artists’ studios clustered in Fish Island. By virtue of its location, which at its closest boundary is located 20m east of significant highway infrastructure in the form of the A12 East Cross Route and the McGraths site to the north across the Hertford Union Canal, the application site currently experiences a number of hostile environmental factors.
5.9. Separation Distances – Phases 3 and 4 are the most proximate to the A12 East Cross Route. Directly to the east of the A12 exists a landscaped verge of varying width of between 4 - 25m and then Wansbeck Road further east. Wansbeck Road has a width of 12m (back of footway to back of footway) located between the western boundary of the application site and the A12. The alignment of Wansbeck Road is roughly parallel with that of the A12 along its northern extent along Phase 3 and at Phase 4 turns south-south-east. Back of footway along the site’s western boundary is separated from the A12 by a distance of between 15m at its northern extent and then up to 33m at its southern extent.
The MRF is located to the north of the Site beyond the Hertford Union Canal approximately 30 m north of the Site.
6. APPLICATION PROPOSAL The description of the scheme below is the scheme as amended and resubmitted in October 2013. This is the scheme under consideration.
The application seeks outline approval, with differing matters reserved for future determination. Landscaping is reserved across all phases and appearance, layout and scale are reserved for Block A and Phases 3 and 4.
In summary, the following are sought for approval within each phase:
Phase 1 o Outline - landscaping (within parameters) and Block A (appearance, layout and scale within Parameters) o Detailed - Blocks B to F (means of access, appearance, layout and scale submitted for approval)
Phase 2 o Outline - landscaping (within parameters) o Detailed -Blocks G to M (means of access, appearance, layout and scale submitted for approval)
Phase 3 o Outline - all matters (within parameters) o Phase 4 Outline - all matters (within parameters)
The site has been subdivided into four zones or phases. Overall the development is proposed to comprise up to 18 buildings as follows:
Phase 1 contains 6 blocks (Blocks A-F); Phase 2 contains 8 blocks (Blocks G-N);
9/73
Phase 3 contains 3 blocks (Blocks O, P and Q); Phase 4, contains 1 block which is proposed as the School Block (Block R).
6.1. Heights are proposed to range as follows: 3 no. blocks propose a maximum height of five storeys; 5 no. blocks propose a maximum height of six storeys; 5 no. blocks propose a maximum frontage height of six storeys, with recessed seventh storey; 4 no. blocks propose a maximum height of seven storeys; and 1 no. block has been agreed to be reduced by condition such that its parameters would allow a minimum height of eight storeys up to a maximum of eleven storeys. A small two storey attached block is also proposed accommodating employment floor space. Negotiations are on-going to secure this as potential accommodate affordable workspace within Neptune Yard.
6.2. Masterplan and Overview The application site has a canal setting approximately 270m in length. Canal fronting Blocks are arranged in three groups of buildings. In total this equates to building frontages lining 192m (71%) of the site’s canal frontage.
6.3. Phase 1 / Neptune Yard Group - The first group (Blocks D, E and F) will have a proposed overall frontage width of 62m and are proposed to be setback from the canal edge by 10-11m at Ground Level and 7.5-9.5m from First Floor and above.
Canal width (bank to bank) at this point is approximately 18m. Established building lines/property boundaries for the McGraths site at this point along the northern bank of the Canal are setback approximately 7m from the northern canal edge.
Proposed frontage heights onto the canal are proposed at:
Block D – Frontage and overall maximum height of 19-21.8m; Block E – Frontage height of 20.35m. Block E includes a 7th storey which is setback from the Block’s frontage (as viewed from the Hertford Union Canal) such that the maximum height of Block E is 22.35m; Block F – Frontage and overall height of 23.1m.
The Neptune Yard Group includes a further three Blocks proposed to front onto Wyke Road; Blocks B and C. Proposed frontage heights onto Wyke Road are proposed to be:
Block B – Frontage and overall height of 23m; Block C – Frontage and overall height of 18.2m.
Block A – Is an independent block located within the proposed ‘Lofthouse Square’ and is proposed to have a maximum parameter height 21.6m. Phase 1 proposes a total of 191 units (526 habitable rooms). The proposed density of Phase 1 is up to 227.87 unit/ha or 627.54 hr/ha. Proposed residential mix is set out below.
1B1P 2B3P 2B4P 3B4P 3B5P 4B7P HR UNITS A 4 4 4 0 4 0 48 16 B 36 0 6 0 0 0 90 42 C 5 0 5 5 10 5 115 30 D 14 0 26 0 0 0 106 40 E 11 0 7 5 0 0 63 23 F 16 0 24 0 0 0 104 40 86 4 72 10 14 5 526 191
10/73
45.03 39.79 15.18
Proposed commercial mix is set out below.
Class Class A B A 300 0 B 318 0 C 0 147 D 0 539 E 219 0 F 262 0 1099 686
1785
The first and second group of buildings are proposed to have a separation distance of 15m.
6.4. Phase 2 / Rippoth Yard Group – The second group (Blocks K, L and G) are proposed to have an overall frontage width of 60m and would be setback from the canal edge by between 16-17m. It is noted the an area of land, outside the Applicants control, extends northwards from the Application site increasing the separation distance between Blocks K-G and the canal edge. Canal width (bank to bank) at this point is narrowed due to the lock and is reduced to approximately 5m. Established buildings lines/property boundaries for the McGraths site at this point along the northern bank of the Canal are setback approximately 14m from the northern canal edge.
Frontage heights onto the canal are proposed at:
Block K – Frontage height of 18.7m. The maximum height of Block K is 21.85m as this block includes a 7th storey setback from the Block’s building line; Block L – Frontage height of 20.15m. The maximum height of Block K is 22.15m as this block includes a 7th storey setback from the Block’s building line; Block G – Frontage and overall height of 22m.
Phase 2 proposes a total of 231 units (664 habitable rooms). The proposed density of Phase 2 is up to 282.47 unit/ha or 811.93 hr/ha.
Proposed residential mix is set out below.
1B1P 2B3P 2B4P 3B4P 3B5P 4B7P HR UNITS G 6 9 21 0 0 0 102 36 H 5 5 0 5 5 0 65 20 I 0 0 0 0 6 6 60 12 J 16 0 12 0 5 0 88 33 K 9 0 23 3 0 0 99 35 L 11 0 7 5 0 0 63 23 M 30 0 6 6 0 0 102 42 N 10 10 5 0 5 0 85 30
11/73
87 24 74 19 21 6 664 231
37.66 42.42 19.91
Proposed commercial and community use mix is set out below.
Class Class Class A B D1 G 0 372 0 H 0 262 0 I 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 K 0 0 345 L 0 0 264 M 0 168 0 N 0 0 152 802 761
1551
The second and third group of buildings are proposed to have a separation distance of 21m.
6.5. Phase 2/3 - Wansbeck Yard Group – The third group (Blocks M, O and P) are proposed to have an overall frontage width of 70m and would be setback from the canal edge by between 5-8.5m. The layout of Blocks O and P is reserved for future approval but both have Maximum Building Line setbacks 5-8.5m from the canal edge.
It is noted that levels are proposed to rise at this point to meet with Wansbeck Road. Maximum heights onto the canal are proposed at:
Block O – 19.25m AGL (+30.30mAOD); Block P– 19.25m AGL (+30.30mAOD); Block Q – 36.95m AGL (+48.00mAOD) . Phase 3 proposes up to 100 units (up to 233 habitable rooms). The proposed density of Phase 3 is up to 335.35unit/ha or 781.35hr/ha.
Proposed residential mix in Phases 3 is set out below.
1B1P 2B3P 2B4P 3B4P 3B5P 4B7P HR UNITS O 19 1 2 5 0 0 67 27 P 13 6 4 0 0 0 56 23 Q 40 10 0 0 0 0 110 50 72 17 6 5 0 0 223 100 72 23 5 Proposed commercial and community use mix is set out below.
Class Class Class A B D1 O 0 109 0
12/73
P 0 132 0 Q 176 0 0 176 241 0 417 The proposed Masterplan, including layout of Blocks and proposed heights, has in part been informed by the Applicants consideration of how built form can be used to positively create an improved microclimate which would result in open spaces, for the proposed school and residential elements, being predicted to experience significantly improved noise conditions as a result of the development.
6.6. Commercial Strategy and Non-Residential Uses The scheme proposes four main types of commercial /community space. The Applicant has submitted a Commercial Strategy in which they explain that land uses proposed, both in terms of quantum and location have been influenced by the existing patterns of use in the area, whilst also providing new space to accommodate the wider range of uses that are necessary to diversify and strengthen the local economy and attract complementary new investment into Fish Island.
The non-residential uses proposed are summarised as:
Studios – Flexible B1 space designed to accommodate a growing creative community and attract new business and investment to the area. B Class creative studio spaces are concentrated along Rippoth Road, with the units fronting both onto the street and, in the case of Block D, back into Neptune Yard. Further studios are located at the base of Blocks M, O and P. The studios are positioned in locations where they are considered to take advantage of passing footfall, in turn helping to animate the streetscape and connecting routes. Workshops – More flexible workspace to suit different patterns of working including relationship between internal area and overspill space at the front of the unit. The workshop spaces are proposed within Neptune Yard and are designed primarily to accommodate more traditional production workspace, where a ‘shopfront’ presence is not necessarily a requirement. Community Floorspace – D class uses are proposed within the western part of the site. The scheme includes a 3FE primary school as part of Phase 4. Through the planning consultation process, the ground floor use of Blocks K and L has shifted from Class A to community use. The units are positioned to generate activity around Lockside Place. Class A uses including leisure space in the form of café/bar and restaurants, taking advantage of key locations across the site, and local retail units that will provide support to the area’s growing communities.
6.7. Open Space The Application is supported by an Amenity and Open Space Report which was amended and resubmitted in October 2013. The scheme has sought to deliver a high quantum of open space, both communal and public, in order to support the scale and density of proposed development and in order to create a ‘structure of public open spaces and public routes’ through the site. The full extent of the Site’s canal frontage is proposed to be opened up for public access and will form part of the overall public realm strategy brought forward by the development.
The typology of open spaces proposed includes public open space, semi-private yard space, private garden space, outdoor school space, green roof, shared roof amenity space, private roof amenity space, brown roof and school amenity roof space. Areas of each are set out below:
13/73
Phases 1 Phases 3 Total & 2 & 4
Public Open Space 6,735 1,300 8,035
Semi-private yard 780 516 1,296 space
Private garden space 312 0 312 – Ground level
Outdoor school n/a 1,529 1,529 space Green roof 3,500 451 - 689 up to 4,189 Shared roof amenity 1,504 211 1,715 space
Private roof amenity 324 211-274 up to 598 space Brown Roof 204 300-412 up to 616
School amenity roof 1,100- 0 up to 1,888 space 1,888
A brief description is provided below of the key open spaces proposed as part of the Amended October scheme. Lofthouse Square – Is the primary public open space proposed for the scheme. It is located within the northern corner of the site and is bound by Blocks A, B and F. The Square is described by the Applicant as a new canalside space, forming a key focal point for activity and movement both within the site and also the wider urban area. The square is the proposed location of a play space and is sought for approval as a ‘predominately hard landscaped space incorporating areas of specimen planning and soft landscaping. Yards – Three ‘Yards’ are proposed with one located in each of Phases 1, 2 and 3. These form the internal semi-private space to the courtyard block arrangements and comprise Neptune Yard, Rippoth Yard and Wansbeck Yard. Neptune Yard is proposed to be commercial in use and character, with Class A and B uses within Blocks B, D, E and F.
Neptune Yard has been included as part of the scheme’s calculation of Public Open Space and is located at the eastern end of the site, and is intended to be an active working yard with small scale commercial units fronting into the space. Neptune Yard is intended to be a working yard with a flexible use. The Applicant explains that during the day it is intended to be fully accessible to the public with movement through the yard actively encouraged. The Yard is also intended to accommodate vehicular access during controlled hours.
In the Amended October scheme two additional ‘yards’, Rippoth Yard (Blocks G, H, I, K and L) and Wansbeck Yard (Blocks M, N, O, P and Q) have been amended to provide a more residential focus and both provide children’s play space.
Smeed Gardens – Is proposed to be located within Phase 2 and is proposed as a linear space connecting Wyke Road with the Hertford Union Canal frontage and is proposed to comprise a mix of hard and soft landscaping with play facilities and provide more of a residential community focused function.
14/73
Lockside Place – Is proposed to be located within Phase 2 and is proposed to consist of a public space located at the locks on the Hertford Union Canal on the on the north-western boundary of the Site.
Rippoth Street – Is proposed to provide an active commercial street fronted principally by small B1 uses. A residential concierge for the Estate management team is proposed to be provided within the ground floor of block C.
6.8. Parking and Servicing A total of 138 car parking spaces to serve the 422 units in Phase 1 and 2 is proposed (ratio of 0.32) and a further 53 car parking spaces are proposed for the 100 units in phase 3 and 4 (ratio of 0.53).
Within Phases 1 and 2, 13 no. car parking spaces are proposed to be allocated as accessible spaces. 2 no. blue badge parking spaces are proposed at Ground Level along Rippoth Road for residential visitor use. A loading bay for commercial use is proposed to the south of the proposed Blue Badge spaces along Rippoth Road. 2 no. additional car club spaces are also proposed at this location. Residential parking is proposed at basement level beneath Phases 1 and 2 which is proposed to be accessed via a two-way ramp with an entry located at the north-western corner of Block C.
Within Phases 3 and 4, 6 no. car parking spaces are proposed to be allocated as accessible spaces. 2 no. blue badge parking spaces are proposed within the school site. Residential parking is proposed within a basement/undercroft car parking area proposed to be located underneath the northern sections of Phase 3.
Phases 1/2 Phases 3/4 Total Residential 123 47 170 Residential - Accessible 13 6 19 Residential Total 136 53 189 Visitor (Residential) - Accessible 2 2 Commercial - Accessible 1 1 School - Accessible 2 2 Total 139 55 194 * 2 no. car club spaces are proposed in addition to the above
6.9. Proposed Levels Ground levels are proposed to be higher in the west of the Site. Ground levels across the detailed element i.e. Phases 1 and 2 would primarily range between 6.8 m AOD and + 7.2 m AOD (deviation of + 500 mm subject to detailed design and ground conditions), as well as in Phase 4. Levels in the Hertford Union Canal side area would range between +7.4 m AOD to + 8.0 m AOD. The highest levels would be provided in the west of the Site around Block Q and would range between + 11.05 m AOD to + 12.0 m AOD (+/- 500 mm deviation).
6.10. Summary of Changes Following submission of the planning application in 2012, building heights were reduced across the scheme and drawing resubmitted in May and then again in October 2013. The most significant reductions were seen at Block A, B, F, J and N of circa 5-6m. LLDC Officers had generally sought reductions in locations where reduced height might mitigate original impacts on the canal, street height: width relationships and microclimate. The density of the scheme has been reduced with 112 units removed from the scheme since May 2013.
15/73
Heights across all blocks which front onto the Hertford Union Canal (Blocks D, E, F, G, K, L, M, O and P) have reduced when assessed against the December’12 and May’13 versions of the scheme. Maximum heights now proposed across these blocks are 3m- 12.8m lower than those proposed in May’13. For ease of reference a summary assessment is annexed to this report setting out the height of all blocks as currently proposed and relative AOD levels. Column A shows current heights proposed (AOD). Column B is the height difference comparing the current scheme against the original submission in December’12 and Column C is the height difference comparing the current scheme against the May’13 version. Green shows a reduction in height, red an increase. Columns E and F show real height i.e. height above ground level. Column E is against relative FFL, Column F is above a constant datum of canal level.
Block Q, visible in views 3 and 4 of the Replacement ES from Victoria Park has been reduced in height by 10m. Block A and Q are to be subject to a design competition which is supported by the LLDC’s QRP.
6.11. Supporting Documents: The following documents have been submitted for approval and as supporting documents:
For Approval - Development Specification (11.10.2013) received by the Local Planning Authority 14th October 2013; Design Code (11.10.2013) received by the Local Planning Authority 14th October 2013; Amended Plans received by the Local Planning Authority 14th October 2013.
6.12. Environmental Statement The Proposed Development has been assessed as falling within Schedule 2, paragraph 10(b) of the EIA Regulations as an “urban development project” which, owing to its nature, scale and location, has the potential to give rise to significant effects on the environment.
An Environmental Statement (ES) has therefore been submitted to accompany the Neptune Wharf planning application. The ES considers all phases of the proposed development and is supported by a number of technical reports and documents.
6.13. Scoping Opinion - London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) – Where an Environmental Statement is required, the applicant can, under the terms of the Regulations, request a scoping opinion from the determining authority to agree the scope of matters to be addressed during the EIA. As noted in the planning history section of this report the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) was the determining authority for this site up to 30th September 2012. A formal scoping request, dated 13 January 2012, was submitted to the LTGDC by the Applicant and accompanied by a “Scoping Report” setting out the proposed scope of the EIA. A Formal EIA Scoping Opinion was issued by the LTGDC (as determining authority at the time) on 20 February 2012.
6.14. Regulation 22 Request – The Applicant was advised by letter on 12 December 2012 of the initial review of the PPDT’s Environmental Consultants and a formal request for further information under Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations was made by letter on 05 February 2013. Further advice and comments were provided by the PPDT’s Environmental Consultants in March 2013 setting out the PPDT’s expectation in respect of a revised/replacement ES, which also incorporated ES consultation comments received by English Heritage and LB Tower Hamlets, in respect of air quality, noise and vibration and waste.
On 10 May 2013 following a period of discussion and review of draft documentation the applicant submitted the further information requested in relation to the Environmental
16/73
Statement, along with a separate package of scheme amendments which were assessed under the EIA Regulations as required and recorded in the addendum documents. Following further review and consultation, officers were not able to conclude that the further information submitted was sufficient to make the Environmental Statement complete.
6.15. Consideration of the Environmental Statement – On 14 October 2013 following a further period of discussion and review of draft documentation the applicant submitted further information requested in relation to the Environmental Statement, along with a separate package of scheme amendments which were assessed under the EIA Regulations as required and recorded in the addendum documents.
The PPDT’s Environmental Consultants have reviewed the ES and found that the document is sound following receipt of further information following earlier Regulation 22 requests. Principal EIA issues are considered in the assessment section below.
7. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1. In 2006, planning applications were submitted/resolved to be granted to use the Site as a bus depot and as a centre for the pre-fabrication of building components. Neither operation commenced in full, although ‘Team’ has occupied the Site in part between 2006 and 2011. British Oxygen Company (BOC) Gases Ltd. currently occupies the western area of the Site adjacent to the A12 as a distribution centre for bottled gas. The lawful use of the Site is identified as Class B8 use. In more recent years, emerging strategies have identified the area to be appropriate for the promotion of a more positive regeneration and land-use framework, with a significant rationalisation of industrial land allowing for residential and mixed-use development to be brought forward.
7.2. The London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) was the determining authority for this site up to 30th September 2012. A formal scoping request, dated 13 January 2012, was submitted to the LTGDC by the Applicant and accompanied by a “Scoping Report” setting out the proposed scope of the EIA. Although it was noted at the time that the development proposals were still being refined through an on-going pre-application process, the description of development set out within the Scoping Report was as follows: The site was described as having a total area of approximately 3.3 hectares (33,000m²) and it is noted that the formal scoping request and Scoping Report both included an additional site outside of the Neptune Wharf planning application boundary but now included within a separate Planning Application currently under consideration by the LLDC PPDT, Monier Road (ref: 13/00204/FUM). It is noted that the Scoping Report originally scoped for a maximum of 750 units across both sites and that the current proposals for Neptune Wharf and Monier Road together propose up to 593 dwellings in total.
7.3. The LTGDC consulted with the LB Tower Hamlets in assessing the Scoping Opinion and other statutory and non-statutory consultees during the course of the EIA Scoping Process including the, English Heritage, Environmental Agency (EA), Natural England, Greater London Authority (GLA), Thames Water and British Waterways (now the Canals and Rivers Trust).
7.4. A Formal EIA Scoping Opinion was issued by the LTGDC (as determining authority at the time) on 20 February 2012.
7.5. The Formal EIA Scoping Opinion considered the topics proposed to be covered by the applicant and provided the detailed comments made by LB Tower Hamlet’s EIA and Planning teams on the scoping within the various topic areas. The
17/73
Scoping Opinion also provided a summary of consultee responses and LB Tower Hamlet’s commentary on their responses. The Scoping Opinion noted that ‘together these make up LB Tower Hamlet’s consultation response’.
7.6. Officers from the Olympic Delivery Authority Planning Decisions Team (ODA PDT) became involved in pre-application discussions on the scheme in June 2012. In addition to identifying a number of issues where the pre-application scheme appeared not to be aligned with the adopted and evolving Development Plan for the site ODA PDT Officers also reviewed the Applicant’s Scoping Report and LTGDC Scoping Opinion and provided comments in August and September of 2012. ODA PDT Officers did not request that any additional topics be covered by the ES, but requested further details, assessment on the identified topics and specifically asked for clarification on which projects had been included as part of the assessment of cumulative effects and queried the extent to which the Legacy Communities Scheme had been included.
8. POLICIES & GUIDANCE
8.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The policies in the NPPF are material considerations in the determination of applications. The NPPF recommends that as of April 2013, due weight should be given to relevant local plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The principle of sustainable development permeates the Framework. The Framework makes clear that local authorities should be positive and proactive in encouraging sustainable growth and addressing barriers to investment.
The following NPPF policies are relevant to this planning application: 1. ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’ Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. 4. ‘Promoting sustainable transport’ Development proposals will not be supported where they would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the capacity or environment of the Highway network. The incorporation of appropriate cycle and car parking standards as set out in the London Plan. 6. ‘Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes’ Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. 7. ‘Requiring good design’ Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. 8. ‘Promoting healthy communities’ Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. 11. ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.
8.2. London Plan (July 2011) The London Plan is the strategic development strategy for Greater London. The following London Plan policies (as summarised) are relevant:
Policy 2.4 – The 2012 Games and their legacy -The Mayor will work with partners to develop and implement a viable and sustainable legacy for the Olympic and Paralympic
18/73
Games to deliver fundamental economic, social and environmental change within east London.
Policy 2.13 – Opportunity areas and intensification areas -For identified opportunity and intensification areas the Mayor will encourage partnerships for preparing and implementing opportunity area planning frameworks to realize the growth potential of those areas in Annex 1 and in any Opportunity Area Planning Framework.
Policy 2.17 – Strategic Industrial Locations
Policy 2.18 – Green infrastructure: the network of open and green spaces -The Mayor will work with all relevant strategic partners to promote, expand and manage the extent and quality of, and access to, London’s network of green infrastructure. Enhancements to London’s green infrastructure should be sought from development where a proposal falls within a regional or metropolitan park deficiency area.
Policy 3.3 – Increasing housing supply - The Mayor recognises the pressing need for more homes in London in order to promote opportunity and provide a real choice for all Londoners in ways that meet their needs at a price they can afford.
Policy 3.4 – Optimising housing potential - Taking into account local context and character, the design principles in London Plan Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development proposals should optimise housing outputs for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2 (Sustainable Residential Quality Density Matrix). Development proposals that compromise this policy should be resisted.
Policy 3.5 – Quality and design of housing developments -Housing development should be of the highest quality internally and externally. The design of all new housing development should enhance the quality of local places, taking into account physical context, local character, density, tenure and land use mix, and relationship with and provision of public communal and open spaces, taking particular account of the needs of children and older people.
Policy 3.6 – Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities -The Mayor and appropriate organisations should ensure that all children and young people have safe access to good quality, well-designed, secure and stimulating play and informal recreation, incorporating greenery and trees whenever possible.
Policy 3.7 – Large residential developments - Proposals for large residential developments including complementary non-residential uses are encouraged in areas of high public transport accessibility.
Policy 3.8 – Housing Choice -Londoners should have a genuine choice of homes that they can afford and which meet their requirements for different sizes and types of dwellings in the highest quality environments.
Policy 3.9 – Mixed and balanced communities -Communities mixed and balanced by tenure and household income should be promoted across London through small and large scale developments.
Policy 3.12 – Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes - The maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought when negotiating individual private residential and mixed use schemes. This should take account of the individual circumstances of the site including development viability and public subsidy, the implications of phased development, including provisions for re- appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation, and other scheme requirements.
19/73
Policy 3.13 – Affordable housing thresholds- Boroughs should normally require affordable housing on sites with capacity to provide 10 or more homes applying the density guidance in Policy 3.4/Table 3.2. Boroughs are encouraged to seek a lower threshold through the LDF where this can be justified.
Policy 3.16 – Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure- Development proposals that provide high quality social infrastructure will be supported in the light of local and strategic needs assessments. Proposals that result in the loss of social infrastructure in areas of defined need without realistic proposals for reprovision will be resisted. Facilities should be accessible to all sections of the community and be located within easy reach by walking, cycling and public transport. Multiple use of premises should be encouraged.
Policy 3.18 – Education facilities- The Mayor will support provision of early years, primary and secondary school and further and higher education facilities adequate to meet the demands of a growing and changing population and enable greater educational choice, particularly in parts of London with poor educational performance.
The Mayor strongly supports the establishment of new schools and steps to enable local people and communities to do this. Proposals which enhance education and skills provision will be supported.
Proposals for new schools should be given positive consideration and only be refused where there are demonstrable negative local impacts that outweigh the desirability of establishing a new school. Development proposals which maximise the extended or multiple use of education facilities for community or recreational use should be encouraged.
Policy 4.1 – Developing London’s economy -The Mayor will work with partners to promote and enable the continued development of a strong, sustainable and increasingly diverse economy across all parts of London, ensuring availability of sufficient and suitable work spaces, supporting infrastructure and sustainable environments.
Policy 4.2 – Offices - support the management and mixed use development and redevelopment of office provision to improve London’s competitiveness and to address the wider objectives of this Plan, including enhancing its varied attractions for businesses of different types and sizes including small and medium sized enterprises
Policy 4.3 – Mixed Use Development and Offices - elsewhere in London, mixed use development and redevelopment should support consolidation and enhancements to the quality of the remaining office stock in the types of strategically specified locations identified in paragraph 4.12.
Policy 4.4 – Managing industrial land and premises - The Mayor will work with boroughs and other partners to: adopt a rigorous approach to industrial land management to ensure a sufficient stock of land and premises to meet the future needs of different types of industrial and related uses in different parts of London, including good quality affordable space.
Policy 5.2 – Minimising carbon emissions - Development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions
Policy 5.6 – Decentralised energy in development proposals -Development proposals should evaluate the feasibility of combined heat and power (CHP) systems, and where appropriate examine the opportunities to extend the system beyond the site. Major development proposals should select energy systems in accordance with the following
20/73 hierarchy: (1) connecting to existing heating or cooling networks; (2) site-wide CHP network; (3) Commercial heating and cooling.
Policy 5.7 – Renewable Energy -The Mayor seeks to increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources. Within the energy hierarchy, major development proposals should provide a reduction in expected carbon dioxide emissions through the use of on-site renewable energy generation, where feasible.
Policy 5.10 – Urban greening - Promotes and supports urban greening such as new planting in the public realm and multi-functional green infrastructure to contribute to the adaptation to and reduction of the effects of climate change.
Policy 5.11 – Green roofs and development site environs - Major development proposals should be designed to include roof, wall and site planting, especially green roofs and walls where feasible.
Policy 5.21 – Contaminated land - The Mayor supports the remediation of contaminated sites and will work with strategic partners to bring contaminated land to beneficial use. Appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that development on previously contaminated land does not activate or spread contamination.
Policy 6.1 – Transport: Strategic approach - The Mayor will work with all relevant partners to encourage the closer integration of transport and development
Policy 6.2 – Providing public transport capacity and safeguarding land for transport -Seeks to improve the integration, reliability, quality, accessibility, frequency, attractiveness, and environmental performance of the public transport system.
Policy 6.3 – Assessing effects of development on transport capacity and safeguarding land for transport - Development proposals should ensure that impacts on the transport network are fully assessed.
Policy 6.4 – Enhancing London’s transport connectivity - The Mayor will work with strategic partners to improve the public transport system in London, including cross- London and orbital rail links to support future development and regeneration priority areas, and increase public transport capacity.
Policy 6.5 – Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure - Contributions will be sought towards the implementation of Crossrail from developments likely to add to, or create, congestion on London’s rail network that Crossrail is intended to mitigate.
Policy 6.7 – Better Streets and Surface Transport - The Mayor will work with TfL and boroughs to implement Londonwide improvements to the quality of bus, bus transit and tram services.
Policy 6.9 – Cycling - The Mayor will seek to increase the modal share for cycling to five per cent by 2026
Policy 6.10 – Walking - Development proposals should ensure high quality pedestrian environments and emphasise the quality of the pedestrian and street space. Development proposals should ensure high quality pedestrian environments and emphasise the quality of the pedestrian and street space.
6.11 – Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion
21/73
Policy 6.12 – Road network capacity -The Mayor supports the need for limited improvements to London’s road network.
Policy 6.13 – Parking -The Mayor wishes to see a balance being struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use.
Policy 7.1 – Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities -(A) People should have a good quality environment in an active and supportive local community with the best possible access to services, infrastructure and public transport to wider London. Neighbourhoods should provide a character that is easy to understand and relate to.
Policy 7.2 – An inclusive environment -The Mayor will require all new development in London to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. Development should demonstrate that they meet the principles of inclusive design.
Policy 7.4 – Local character -Development should have regard to the form, function and structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings. It should improve an area’s visual or physical connection with natural features. It should build on positive elements that can contribute to establishing an enhanced character.
Policy 7.5 – Public realm - London’s public spaces should be secure, accessible, easy to understand and maintain, and incorporate the highest quality landscaping, planting, furniture and surfaces.
Policy 7.6 – Architecture - Architecture should make a positive contribution to a coherent public realm, streetscape and wider cityscape. It should incorporate the highest quality materials and design appropriate to its context.
Policy 7.7 – Location and design of tall buildings - Applications for tall or large buildings should include an urban design analysis that demonstrates the proposal is part of a strategy that will meet the criteria below. This is particularly important if the site is not identified as a location for tall or large buildings in the borough’s LDF.
Policy 7.8 – Heritage assets and archaeology -Seeks identification of London’s heritage and archaeological assets. Development proposals should (C) identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate; (D) Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail; (E) New development should make provision for the protection of archaeological resources, landscapes and significant memorials.
Policy 7.9 – Heritage-Led Regeneration -The significance of heritage assets should be assessed when development is proposed and schemes designed so that the heritage significance is recognised both in their own right and as catalysts for regeneration. Wherever possible heritage assets (including buildings at risk) should be repaired, restored and put to a suitable and viable use that is consistent with their conservation and the establishment and maintenance of sustainable communities and economic vitality.
Policy 7.14 – Improving air quality - Seeks to ensure that spatial, climate change, transport and design policies of the plan support implementation of his Air Quality and Transport strategies to achieve reductions in pollutant emissions and minimise public exposure to pollution.
22/73
Policy 7.15 – Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes -Development proposals should seek to reduce noise by (a) minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of development proposals.
Policy 7.18 – Protecting local open space and addressing local deficiency -The Mayor supports the creation of new open space in London to ensure satisfactory levels of local provision to address areas of deficiency.
8.3. Supplementary Planning Guidance Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation (September 2012) Housing
8.4. Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan The Mayor has published revised early minor alterations to the London Plan. These are aimed at ensuring that the London Plan is fully consistent with the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, published March 2012).
8.5. Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance, July 2012 The Mayor of London published his Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance in July 2012 setting out a strategic vision, development principles and broad guidance on predominant land use for an area that includes the Olympic Park and the Legacy Communities Scheme application proposals.
Local Planning Policy
8.6. London Borough of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SO2 - Maximising the benefits of Olympic Legacy - Tower Hamlets will maximise the benefits and opportunities offered by the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and its legacy through: working closely with the appropriate authorities to ensuring a collaborative approach to the planning and implementation of the Olympic Legacy; regenerating Fish Island; delivering High Street 2012; assisting ion the creation of the Lea River Park to link the Olympic Legacy Area and Lea Valley Regional Park with the Thames; significant investment in Victoria Park; taking full advantage of people visiting the borough to stimulate the local economy; supporting communities participation in activities , sports and opportunities linked to the Olympics and Olympic Legacy; stimulating economic regeneration through the creation of new local employment, enterprise and business opportunities.
Policy SO3 - Achieving wider sustainability - Seeks to achieve environmental, social and economic development simultaneously. Where tradeoffs between competing objectives are unavoidable, this will be realised by: planning for healthy environments that recognise the important health related benefits of well designed neighbourhoods, high quality housing, access to employment, access to open space and to shops and services; mitigating and adapting the built environment to climate change; minimising the use of natural resources; protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment; improving air, land and water quality; ensuring the capacity of existing and new infrastructure is adequate.
Policy SO5 - Refocusing on our town centres -To promote mixed use at the edge of town centres and along main streets.
Policy SO6 - Refocusing on our town centres -To promote areas outside of town centres for primarily residential and supporting uses that do not need the higher levels of accessibility of town centres.
23/73
Policy SO7 - Urban living for everyone -Deliver housing growth to meet general and specialized demand in line with London Plan housing targets.
Policy SO8- Urban living for everyone -Ensure housing contributes to the creation of socially balanced and inclusive communities by offering housing choice reflecting the Council's priorities for affordable and family homes.
Policy SO9 - Urban living for everyone - Ensure that all housing in Tower Hamlets is high quality, well designed, energy efficient, sustainable and durable.
Policy SP02 - Urban living for everyone - Seeks to deliver new homes in line with the targets set out in the London Plan. (a) focusing new housing in the eastern part of the borough including Fish Island;
Policy SO11 - Creating healthy and liveable neighbourhoods - To ensure the timely provision of social infrastructure to support housing and employment growth.
Policy SP03 - Creating healthy and liveable neighbourhoods - Support opportunities for healthy and active lifestyles through: providing high quality walking and cycling routes; providing access to leisure and recreation; seeking to reduce over-concentration of uses that detract from ability to adopt healthy lifestyles; promoting local food growing and urban agriculture.
Policy SO12 –Creating a green and blue grid -To create a high quality well connected and sustainable natural environment of green and blue spaces that are rich in biodiversity and promote active and healthy lifestyles.
Policy SO16 – Delivering successful employment hubs - To support the growth of existing and future businesses in accessible and appropriate locations.
Policy SP06 – Delivering successful employment hubs - seek to maximise and deliver investment and job creation in the borough, by: Ensure a managed approach to industrial land through: (d) working with the GLA and partners to coordinate managed release of strategic industrial land in Fish Island North and Fish Island Mid, only once the Fish Island Area Action Plan is in place to deliver the wider regeneration; (e) work with partners to deliver a phased, managed, coordinated release of 20- 50 ha of industrial land over the lifetime of the plan.
Policy SP07 – Improving education and skills - Increase both primary and secondary education facilities to meet an increasing population by: (a) identifying three areas of search for a new secondary school in Fish Island, Mile End and Bromley by Bow; (c) using the Sites & Placemaking DPD to identify the most suitable sites; (d) using the Pupil Place Planning process and the Population Growth and Change Model to identify the future needs for additional school places; (e) developing a network of Children Centres that combine childcare and nursery education, alongside family support and health and well- being services .
Policy SO19 – Making Connected Places - Deliver an accessible, efficient, high quality, sustainable and integrated network to reach destinations within and outside the borough.
Policy SP08 – Making Connected Places - Improve public transport in, and accessibility to, identified growth areas, achieved by (a) supporting growth in the east of the borough by providing improved bus connections, bridges, pedestrians and cycling routes, including Hackney Wick/Fish Island, Bromley-by-Bow; (b) Supporting growth on the Isle of Dogs; (
24/73
Policy SO20 – Creating attractive and safe streets and spaces - Deliver safe, attractive, accessible and well designed network of streets and spaces that make it easy and enjoyable for people to move around on foot and bicycle.
Policy SO21 – Creating attractive and safe streets and spaces - Create streets, spaces and places which provide social interaction and inclusion, and where people value, enjoy and feel safe and comfortable.
Policy SP09 – Creating attractive and safe streets and spaces - Implement a street hierarchy that puts pedestrians first and promotes street, both as links for movement and places in their own right, to ensure a strategic, accessible and safe street network across the borough: (a) seeks to ensure that main streets primary function of distributing traffic is maintained and protected; (b) protecting and enhancing secondary streets that function as important distribution routes for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, as well as places to gather and provide key links between town centres ( c) protecting and enhancing the place and social gathering function that local residential streets provide.
Policy SO22 – Creating distinct and durable places -Protect, celebrate and improve access to our historical and heritage assets by placing these at the heart of reinventing the hamlets to enhance local distinctiveness, character and townscape views.
Policy SO23 – Creating distinct and durable places - Promote a borough of well designed, high quality, sustainable and robust buildings that enrich the local environment and contribute towards quality of life.
Policy S011 – Working towards a zero-carbon borough -Sets out a requirement to implement a borough wide carbon reduction target of 60% below the 1990 levels by 2025 and ensure that all new developments are built to be zero carbon (in accordance with Government guidance for residential development to be zero carbon by 2016 and non- residential development to be zero-carbon by 2019).
The places of Local Area Partnerships 5 and 6: Victoria Park, Fish Island, Bow, Mile End, Bromley-by-Bow, Bow Common - Annex: Delivery Placemaking Chapter 9 - LAP 5 & 6: Fish Island - The LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy seeks to promote a mix of uses including new residential, workshops, creative and cultural industries, studios, light- industry and enterprise space and notes that the qualities that characterise the conservation area - medium-rise, mixed-use buildings, with an industrial aesthetic - will set the foundation for new developments.
8.7. London Borough of Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document (April 2013) As paragraph 1.2 of Tower Hamlet’s Core Strategy makes clear, the broad policies and priorities of the core strategy are intended to be supplemented by more detailed policies in a Sites and Place Making DPD (now called the Managing Development Document (MDD)). Tower Hamlets adopted the MDD in April 2013, after LLDC acquired its plan making functions. As a result, while the MDD is part of the statutory local plan for Tower Hamlets’ area, it does not form part of the Statutory Local Plan within LLDC’s area. Nonetheless, given the role allotted to the MDD by the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy, it is a material consideration when applying core strategy policies within the LLDC area. As a material planning consideration, the weight to be given to the MDD is a matter for LLDC’s planning committee acting reasonably. The following policies are relevant:
The following summarised policies are afforded some weight in the consideration of this planning application:
DM3 – Delivery homes - Development will be required to maximise affordable housing in accordance with the Council’s tenure split (70% Social/Affordable Rent and 30%
25/73
Intermediate) as set out in the Core Strategy. Affordable housing should be built to the same standards and should share the same level of amenities as private housing. 3. Development should maximise the delivery of affordable housing on-site.
DM18 – Delivering schools and early learning - The Council will deliver a network of schools and Children’s Centres by: b. safeguarding the potential for schools in accordance with site allocations;d. supporting the development of schools or Children’s Centres or extensions to existing schools or Children’s Centres where: i. a site has been identified for this use or a need for this use has been demonstrated; ii. the design and layout take into account the relevant guidance; iv. the location of schools outside of site allocations ensure accessibility and an appropriate location within their catchments.
DM26 – Building Heights - Building heights will be considered in accordance with the town centre hierarchy (as illustrated in Figure 9) and the criteria stated in part 2. Proposals for tall buildings will be required to satisfy the criteria listed below: Be of a height and scale that is proportionate to its location within the town centre hierarchy and sensitive to the context of its surroundings; Achieve high architectural quality and innovation in the design of the building, including a demonstrated consideration of its scale, form, massing, footprint, proportion and silhouette, facing materials, relationship to other buildings and structures, the street network, public and private open spaces, watercourses and water bodies, or other townscape elements; Provide a positive contribution to the skyline, when perceived from all angles during both the day and night, assisting to consolidate clusters within the skyline; Not adversely impact on heritage assets or strategic and local views, including their settings and backdrops; Present a human scale of development at the street level; Where residential uses are proposed, include high quality and useable private and communal amenity space and ensure an innovative approach to the provision of open space; Not adversely impact on the microclimate of the surrounding area, including the proposal site and public spaces; Not adversely impact on biodiversity or open spaces, including watercourses and waterbodies and their hydrology, as well as their settings and views to and from them; Provide positive social and economic benefits and contribute to socially balanced and inclusive communities.
8.8. London Borough of Tower Hamlets Fish Island Area Action Plan (September 2012) The following summarised policies from the adopted Fish Island Area Action Plan are relevant:
Policy FI1.0 Sustainable development - When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.
Policy FI3.3 Priority Actions to Improve Connections over the waterways – (Implementation) 1. A new all modes bridge over the Lea Navigation linking Monier Road to Fish Island East; 2. A new pedestrian and cycle bridge connecting the corner of Roach Road and Beachy Road to Fish Island East; 3. Improved connectivity over the Hertford Union Canal between Fish Island North and Fish Island Mid.; 4. Re-opening and upgrading the all modes bridge at White Post Lane; 5. Environmental improvements to Wansbeck Road (including an upgrade of the bridge over the Hertford Union canal).
Policy FI3.5 Priority Actions to Improve Internal Connectivity in Fish Island – Development sites located between White Post Lane and Wyke Road should provide new and/or improved pedestrian and cycle routes to increase permeability between the hub at Hackney Wick and Fish Island Mid.
26/73
Policy FI4.3 Managing the redevelopment of former industrial land - Proposals for redevelopment of existing industrial sites outside of the SIL and LIL, for mixed use including residential will be considered favourably if they meet the following criteria. This will be applied flexibly depending on the individual site, subject to other policies in the AAP: The proposals would maintain or increase employment density - i.e. more jobs would be created) when compared with the existing or last permitted use of the site; The proposals would retain and/or refurbish heritage assets including buildings within Fish Island Conservation Area and buildings of townscape merit; The proposal would provide improved connections and/or enhanced public realm that would help to deliver the AAP vision; A relocation strategy for existing businesses affected by the redevelopment has been provided; The development would provide or contribute to the social and community facilities required to support new housing development; Proposals for mixed use development that include housing would not result in any significant conflict between employment and residential uses (including those on adjacent sites); Proposals would include flexible work space for small and medium enterprises and/or creative industries.
Policy FI4.4 – providing enhanced or new accommodation suited to the needs of the CCI and SME sectors - 1 The re-use, refurbishment and conversion of older industrial buildings within Fish Island Conservation Area, proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area and proposed locally Listed Buildings, for flexible and managed workspaces, suitable for small businesses and creative industries will be encouraged. 2 New development opportunities should provide employment floorspace suitable for CCIs and SMEs in accordance with the guidance set out in appendix 3 of the AAP.
Policy FI 4.5 – providing for a range of housing unit types and sizes – 1. Development proposals including 10 or more new homes must provide a minimum of 35% affordable housing as set out in Tower Hamlets Core Stratregy and the draft Managing Development DPD. 2. Affordable housing should be split between intermediate (30%) and social rent (70%). Affordable rented accommodation (as defined in National Planning Policy Framework) will only be acceptable where social rented accommodation would render the proposals unviable as set out in the Managing Development DPD. 3. Housing should provide for a range of house types and sizes in accordance with guidance set out on Tower Hamlets Core Strategy, draft Managing Development DPD, and the Mayor of London’s Housing SPG.
Policy FI6.2 Fish Island Mid – 1. Development in Fish Island Mid should respect and enhance the unique street layout, urban form and fine grain character to provide opportunities to enhance the experience of the historic built environment. 2. Re-use and adaptation of historic factory and warehouse buildings, including sympathetic alterations or additions will be encouraged where it preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, taking account of the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines. 3. Redevelopment of larger sites should bring forward opportunities for new walking and cycling routes and public open space to increase permeability and open up views to the waterways and across to the Olympic Park. 4. Within Fish Island Mid and particularly within the immediate setting of the conservation area, building heights of 4-6 storeys will be appropriate. Development proposals above 6 storeys will be subject to detailed assessment within the Managing Development DPD and national guidance.
Policy FI6.5 Open Space Provision – The main opportunities for new public open space will be: 3. opportunities for public open space as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of larger sites
Policy FI6.5 Open Space Provision –New development should adhere to design principles appropriate to the waterside setting and encourage activity and interaction
8.9. Further Guidance Documents
27/73
Further relevant guidance documents are:
Building Bulletin 93 (BB93): ‘Acoustic Design of Schools’ Building Bulletin 9326 aims to: Provide a regulatory framework for the acoustic design of schools in support of the Building Regulations; Give supporting advice and recommendations for planning and design of schools; and Provide a comprehensive guide for Architects, Acousticians, Building Control Officers, Building Services Engineers, Users, Clients and others involved in the design of new school buildings.
Building Bulletin 99 (BB99): 'Briefing framework for primary school projects' represents the current applicable best practice standard for informing the detailed design and construction of new schools.
Building Bulletin 101 (BB101): ‘Ventilation of School Buildings’ gives guidance on providing ventilation and avoiding overheating in school buildings in line with the 2006 editions of Approved Documents (AD) F and L of the Building Regulations.
Department for Communities and Local Government: Policy Statement – Planning for Schools Development (August 2011) On 15 August 2011 the Department for Communities and Local Government Chief Planning Officer issued a Policy Statement on Planning for Schools Development. It states that the policy statement is designed to facilitate the delivery of and expansion of state funded schools through the planning system in response to the Government’s strong commitment to improving state education. The Policy statement states that the planning system should operate in a positive manner when dealing with proposals for the creation, expansion and alteration of state funded schools and that the following principles should apply:
There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state funded schools; Local authorities should give full and thorough consideration to the importance of enabling the development of state-funded schools in their planning decisions; Local authorities should make full use of their planning powers to support state funded schools applications; Local authorities should only impose conditions that clearly and demonstrably meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95; Local authorities should ensure that the process for submitting and determining state funded schools’ applications is as streamlined as possible; A refusal of any application for a state-funded school, or the imposition of conditions, will have to be clearly justified by the local planning authority; Where a local planning authority refuses planning permission for a state- funded school, the Secretary of State will consider carefully whether to recover for his own determination appeals against a refusal of planning permission.
Guidance on Tall Buildings (July 2007) published by CABE/English Heritage This document offers advice on good practice in relation to tall buildings in the planning process with the recommendation that it should be used to evaluate planning applications for tall buildings. It sets out criteria for evaluating tall building proposals as; Relationship to context Effect on the historic context Effect on world heritage sites Relationship to transport infrastructure Architectural quality of the building
28/73
Sustainable design and construction Credibility of the design Contribution to public spaces and facilities Effect on the local environment Contribution made to the permeability of a site Provision of a well-designed environment
9. CONSULTATION The application was advertised in East End Life and by site notices in both the first and second round consultations. In the third round consultation 702 letters were sent to surrounding properties. The third round consultation deadline for letters and press notices had not concluded at the time of writing this report. Any further representations received will be reported by way of Update Report.
The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application as submitted and amended were as follows.
First Round – November 2012 Objecting: 6 Supporting: 2 Comment: 1 No of petitions received: None
Second Round – May 2013 Objecting: 23 Supporting: 1 Comment: 0 No of petitions received: None
Third Round – October 2013 Objecting: 4 Supporting: 1 Comment: 0 No of petitions received: None
October 2013 Amended Scheme The amended scheme has been the subject of full re-consultation including: notification to 702 neighbouring properties, publication in East End Life and in Hackney Today and site notices placed on the site, written notification to all those who commented in first and second round consultation, scheme, site notices were displayed on the site and statutory notices were placed in East End Life and in Hackney Today. At the time of writing this report, 4 no. objection letters had been received. Any additional comments that are received will be set out in an update report.
The following issues were raised in representations received by the LPA from November 2012-November 2013 that are material to the determination of the application and are addressed in detail within the Assessment Section of this report:
Height, Scale and Character The proposed buildings are too tall and out of character with the area and its industrial heritage and heritage led proposals of the FIAAP. The proposed development exceeds the 4-6 storey guidelines laid out in the Fish Island AAP and would have a detrimental impact on the Hertford Union Canal; The developer should work to lessen the scale of the plans; The proposed Canal Frontage formed by Blocks F, E, D, G, L and K would benefit from a reduction to 7 storeys throughout; The designer’s reference to the existing development at Omega Works as 9 storeys (to justify the scale of the proposed development) is misleading. The predominant height of Omega Works is 7 storeys.
29/73
Officer Response: PPDT Officers agree that heights proposed within both the December and May versions of the scheme were excessive. PPDT Officers wrote to the Applicant in July 2013 to advise them that the scheme submitted for approval was not one that could be recommended for approval. Height, scale and impact on the character of the area are considered in detail below.
The Quality Review Panel, in reviewing the Amended Scheme commented that it now supports the revised planning application for approval. ‘A scheme of appropriate scale and massing, mix of uses, and architectural expression is now proposed, promising successful development of the site’.
Density The proposed scheme is too dense and represented overdevelopment; Officer Response: PPDT Officers wrote to the Applicant in July 2013 to advise them that the scheme submitted for approval was not one that could be recommended for approval. Density is considered in detail below.
Affordable Housing The proposed Affordable Housing offer is not in conformity with the Tower Hamlets LDF, the Fish Island AAP or the London Plan. Officer Response: Officers concede that the proposed affordable housing offer is significantly below the LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP02(3) minimum target of 35%. The policy priority given to securing a school site in this location, which has informed ‘Opportunity Site 3’ wording at p.99 of the FIAAP which states that ‘Safeguarding land for a future primary school (c. 0.5Ha). This takes first priority over all other non-transport infrastructure requirements apart from the CIL but including affordable housing, in relation to the redevelopment of this site, to ensure that it is economically viable and that a new primary school is provided in a sustainable location to help meet education needs arising across Fish Island’ is considered to justify the proposed affordable housing offer and that the proposed offer reasonably represents the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing which could be sought, having regard to the specific circumstances of individual sites in line with London Plan Policy 3.12(f). Further detailed consideration is set out below.
Family Housing The proposed Family Housing offer is not in conformity with the Tower Hamlets LDF and the Fish Island AAP. Officer Response: Family housing is considered in detail below.
Affordable Workspace and Size of Retail Units Provision should be made for affordable workspace The size of proposed retail units and impact on the area’s creative industries Officer Response: A condition is recommended to ensure that retail units support local need only. The Applicant has made an offer for affordable workspace within the scheme and this is the subject of negotiation.
School The primary school is welcomed as Fish Island seems very disconnected from good schools. There is high volume of HGV traffic between A12 and Eastway making this potentially a hazardous place for children to be crossing some form of traffic calming / pedestrian crossing would be required. The size of proposed external areas at the school is below national standards
30/73
Officer Response: There are no crossing points on the A12 in proximity to the site to access the site from the west. Access is under the A12 through a wide vehicular, pedestrian and cycle crossing which was recently upgraded in connection with Greenway improvements in the area. Officers are negotiating a contribution towards connectivity and pedestrian improvements.
Public Access to the waterfront and investment in the area The proposed development provides public access along the full length of the development where it borders the Hertford Union Canal, the buildings being set back a generous amount. This is very important and should not be compromised. The design has left a public square in front of the East section facing the canal, as a gathering space. The above two points are very welcome, as they will allow for use of the canal to engage with people on the land and will create opportunities for developing use of the canal in the future. The investment in the area is welcomed. There are some positive elements to the project, including workspace, the canal- side frontage and the investment in the local community. Officer Response: PPDT Officers agree that continuous public access to the waterfront is a positive element of the scheme.
Access to the Site The canal towpath between Fish Island North and Mid is overcrowded and the scheme does not address this Concerns in respect of securing public access through the scheme Officer Response: Officers are negotiating a contribution towards connectivity and pedestrian improvements and have recommended a condition to secure access through the site.
Amenity The proposed development will impact on the amenity of existing development Officer Response: A detailed assessment of the proposed development’s amenity impacts is set out below.
The following responses have been received from statutory and non-statutory consultees:
Quality Review Panel (Third Round Response) – Is annexed in full to this report.
Greater London Authority (First and Second Round Consultation Response) - The Deputy Mayor considers that the application does not comply with the London Plan but possible remedies were set out which could address these deficiencies. Comments were provided in respect of The loss of the previous employment use of this site is supported in strategic planning terms. The principle of new housing, a new school and additional employment uses is strongly supported in strategic planning terms, but the additional matters set out in this report should be urgently addressed. A no-school option would be contrary to local and strategic planning policy and should not be granted planning permission unless it were clearly linked to the delivery of a similarly sized school on a suitable alternative site. The applicant should clarify what proportion of the proposed B1 floorspace would be "affordable", the means by which this would be permanently secured, confirm that all such space would be designed to accommodate the full range of "B" uses,
31/73
and set out how it will help local people access the new job opportunities these spaces would create. The applicant should prepare and submit a retail impact assessment of its proposals and confirm how any such space would be focused on local needs The urban design, open space character of the Lofthouse should be reconsidered The quantum and quality of the children's play space should be revisited once the level of affordable housing has been clarified and necessary adjustments to the scheme agreed. The broad design approach of the school is supported. The inclusive design issues set out above need to be fully resolved. The proposed housing mix is acceptable from a strategic planning perspective. The omission of affordable housing is a major strategic concern and the applicant should prepare and submit a detailed viability study that considers costs and affordable housing funding options and agreement reached on the maximum reasonable amount and type of affordable housing each option might provide. The approach to sustainability is welcomed and considered satisfactory from a strategic planning perspective. The approach to energy is supported and welcomed in strategic planning terms, though some further information is required as set out above. The information, clarifications and amendments in respect of the transport matters should be resolved. Officer response – The Amended scheme has reduced the amount of retail floorpsace proposed and the configuration of the scheme has been significantly amended to respond to comments on land uses, housing mix and design. The percentage of family housing has been increased and the Affordable Housing offer also increased since November 2012. Conditions and s106 obligations are recommended in respect of affordable workspace, transport and sustainability. Detailed consideration of the GLA’s comments is set out within the assessment section of the report.
LB Tower Hamlets (First Round Response is annexed to this report). In summary the following issues were raised by LB Tower Hamlets. Mix of uses: The Council supports the comprehensive redevelopment of this site in this strategic regeneration area, as set out in the Fish Island Area Action Plan (FI AAP). The proposed mix of uses included in the application is broadly in line with the aspirations of the FlAAP. The provision of additional commercial floorspace should not be at the expense of placemaking and the creation of a neighbourhood suitable for families to live. In particular, the Council welcomes the fact that the application includes provision for a three forms of entry (3FE) primary school within the development. Housing Mix and Tenure –The Council would not be in a position to support a proposal of this significance in Fish Island that does not include affordable housing and with a significant departure from the Council's planning policies relating to housing mix. If the LLDC is minded to grant planning permission the Council would urge the planning authority to robustly test the potential of the scheme to deliver affordable housing based on a review of development viability, and to target delivery within the family homes and at social or Tower Hamlets affordable rents. Quality of Housing - Notwithstanding concerns about the lack of affordable housing and the low provision of family homes, the design of housing appears to be good, with adequate balcony spaces to all units and only a limited number of single aspect units. Wheelchair Housing – Further details should be provided in respect of wheelchair housing. Employment Uses – The proposals retain a significant commercial element, with the majority of the ground floor of the development being within use class A1-5
32/73
or 81. Employment is managed in accordance with SP06 of the Core Strategy, which seeks to ensure job opportunities are provided and maintained. The FlAAP does not make any specific reference to subsidised employment space and therefore this should not be provided at the expense of affordable housing. The FlAPP refers to managed employment space which, for clarity, should not be considered to mean providing employment space below market levels. There is no policy basis for such an approach which will impact on the viability of the scheme. School: Following adoption of the AAP and the Inspector's Report is clear that delivery of a primary school should be a priority for development at Neptune Wharf. Viability – With respect to the impact of the school provision on overall development viability, the applicant will need to demonstrate the impact on other planning requirements as set out in adopted policies. Placemaking - The scheme's aspirations are well intended but could be informed more by the local context. Such a strategic site in Fish Island should deliver a number of priorities, such as new housing and infrastructure, but the overall design should be informed by the setting and local context. Officer response – The Amended scheme has reduced the amount of retail floorpsace proposed and the configuration of the scheme has been significantly amended to respond to comments on land uses, housing mix, landscape character, location and quality and the quality of design. The percentage of family housing has been increased and the Affordable Housing offer also increased since November 2012. Conditions and s106 obligations are recommended in respect of affordable workspace, transport and sustainability. Detailed consideration of LB Tower Hamlets' comments is set out within the assessment section of the report.
LB Hackney (First Round Response) – The provision of a 3 form entry primary school as part of the application is strongly supported and is considered to be required to be met by the demand for primary school places arising from this development. Existing Hackney schools will be unable to provide for any additional school places arising from this development. A financial contribution should be directed towards Hackney Wick station. A significant proportion of retail floor area is proposed and the LLDC should ensure that this does not conflict with or compete with the emerging Hackney Wick Hub. Officer response – The Amended scheme has reduced the amount of retail floor area proposed. The Amended Scheme has a reduced impact on public transport capacity and transport mitigation is sought through financial contributions towards local transport improvements.
English Heritage (Second Round Consultation Response) English Heritage expressed a view that building heights of 4 - 6 storeys would be a more appropriate scale for the building blocks fronting the Hertford Union canal to reinforce the character and appearance of the proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area (as identified in the draft Character Appraisal). Since making our previous comments, and having viewed the Environmental Statement (ES) (view 11) the building heights along the canal frontage do not appear to have been substantially altered as part of the current scheme under consideration. English Heritage remains of the view that the 7-9 stories proposed along the canal would harm the proposed Whitepost Lane Conservation Area by weakening its distinctive industrial character which is identified as being relatively low in scale ranging for single storey to five storey buildings (draft Whitepost Lane Conservation Area Appraisal paragraph 1.4.1), and by detracting from the openness of the Hertford Union canal towpath (paragraph 1.3.24). In doing so this
33/73
scale of development could set a harmful precedent and undermine the delivery of heritage-led regeneration, as set out in the Fish Island Area Action Plan. In addition the third and fourth phases of development, comprising up to 14 storeys create unattractive silhouettes within the setting of Victoria Park Registered Park and Garden and Conservation Area (ES View 3), and they provide an incongruous setting to the ensemble of heritage assets comprising the top lock, lock cottage and Parnell Road Bridge within views along the Hertford Union Canal (ES View 4). English Heritage question the assessment provided in the submitted Environmental Statement that the impacts of these elements are ‘minor adverse’. We consider that the scale of the development proposed cannot be adequately mitigated simply through high quality design.
(Third Round Consultation Response) Under the current proposals maximum storey height parameters have been reduced (from 9) to 7 storeys along the Hertford Union Canal, and at the south western tower, (from 14) to 11 storeys. While English Heritage are of the view the 4-6 storey guidelines established by the Area Action Plan as a more desirable scale of development for the area, English Heritage are of the view that, taking into consideration the public realm and open space improvements proposed for the Hertford Union Canal, the revised scheme could complement the industrial characteristics of Fish Island, and support the regeneration objectives of the Area Action Plan. This includes meeting concerns regarding the setting of the proposed Whitepost Lane Conservation Area. Similarly, the reduction in height of the western tower alleviates English Heritage’s concerns regarding the settings impacts on Victoria Park, top lock, lock cottage and Parnell Road Bridge. Following the reduction in scale English Heritage would expect that any impacts may be mitigated through high quality design.
Officer response – Following submission of the planning application in 2012, building heights were reduced across the scheme and drawing resubmitted in May and then again in October 2013. The most significant reductions were seen at Block A, B, F, J and N of circa 5-6m. Heights across all blocks which front onto the Hertford Union Canal (Blocks D, E, F, G, K, L, M, O and P) have reduced when assessed against the December’12 and May’13 versions of the scheme. Maximum heights now proposed across these blocks are 3m-12.8m lower than those proposed in May’13.
For ease of reference a summary assessment is annexed to this report setting out the height of all blocks as currently proposed and relative AOD levels. Column A shows current heights proposed (AOD). Column B is the height difference comparing the current scheme against the original submission in December’12 and Column C is the height difference comparing the current scheme against the May’13 version. Green shows a reduction in height, red an increase. Columns E and F show real height i.e. height above ground level. Column E is against relative FFL, Column F is above a constant datum of canal level.
Block Q, visible in views 3 and 4 of the Replacement ES from Victoria Park has been reduced in height by 10m. Block A and Q are to be subject to a design competition which is supported by the LLDC’s QRP.
A detailed assessment of height and impact is set out below.
Health Protection Agency - The applicant has considered the impact on public health at each stage of the development, including the health of residents in the newly constructed dwellings. The main areas of residual public health concern are: dust and particulates from the demolition and construction periods, noise from the demolition and
34/73
construction periods, and air pollution (in particular nitrogen dioxide) affecting new residents. The applicant proposes a number of mitigation measures, which they expect to reduce nuisance and health impact to acceptable levels. The HPA acknowledges that dust and noise nuisance will be on a temporary basis. Given the urban nature of the area and the current background environmental conditions, does not consider that there will be significant impact on public health from this proposed activity. This is providing that the applicant complies with relevant national and local regulatory requirements and codes of construction. The applicant should liaise with the local authority with regards contaminated land, local air quality and nuisance issues and complaints. Officer response – Air quality matters are considered further in the assessment section of this report.
LVRPA (Second Round Consultation Response) - The Authority recognises the improvements made in the revised scheme, particularly in terms of improved elevational treatment along the canal facing elevations, reductions in height of various buildings, most notably the significantly less oppressive Lofthouse Building, and the increase in vegetation along the canalside frontages. However, it is considered that the amendments made are relatively minor and a greater reduction in scale or variety in building height is desirable along the canal frontage, along with additional vegetation softening. If the scheme is approved, the following should be secured through planning condition or s106 agreement as appropriate, in order to mitigate the impacts caused to the Regional Park: 1. Funding for enhancements to the surfacing and landscaping of the section of towpath on the Hertford Union Canal that lies opposite the development site and falls within the Regional Park; this is justified due to the likely increased usage of the towpath from residents of and visitors to the new development. 2. Provision of the new publicly accessible areas of open space including those labelled “Lofthouse Square”, “Lockside Place” and “Smeed Gardens”, and a section of new canalside green open space, prior to the relevant Phase of development first being brought into use. This would effectively mitigate the negative impacts on visitor experience in terms of increased oppressive visual impact from the taller buildings and lack of vegetation to soften the impact when viewed from the opposite bank of the canal. 3. Delivery and maintenance of the green and brown roofs referred to in the “Roof Strategy” of the Design and Access Statement. Officer response – A detailed assessment of height, public open space, local pedestrian improvements and landscaping are set out within the assessment section of this report.
Natural England – Advise that a further survey to establish the presence of bats should be conducted prior to construction and that habitat clearance will take place outside of the bird- breeding season. Impacts on SSSIs – Natural England fully agrees with the conclusion of paragraph 12.116 which cites that due to the distance from the development proposal the SSSIs of Walthamstow Reservoir and Epping Forest are not likely to be adversely impacted by this development proposal. Green Infrastructure and potential for biodiversity enhancement - NE advise that a key opportunity exists to both enhance the environs of the Hereford Union Canal and to provide habitat networks and Green Infrastructure. This is an excellent opportunity to create multifunctional greenspace to benefit people and wildlife. Natural England advises that great gains can be made at a local level in considering the
35/73
Officer response – An assessment of public open space and landscaping is set out within the assessment section of this report. It is noted that landscape is not sought for approval in detail at this time but reserved for future consideration.
London Cycling Campaign (Objection) – There is likely to be high cycle usage to access the nearest convenient train/DLR, notably Hackney Wick and Stratford, and underground stations provided they have adequate cycle facilities. It is worth noting that there will be five cycling and walking bridges into Fish Island once works are fully complete. Against this encouraging background the London Cycling Campaign recognise that there are features in this application for encouraging cycling. Nevertheless they have some points of objection: Cycle modal share forecasts are too conservative. To be properly future proof against a likely high cycling demand the London Plan standards, which are mimima, should in general be exceeded for this development. The fact that residential cycle parking exceeds the London Plan minimum, and that such parking will be secure is welcome. However given the key canal side location and the prospect of this becoming a cycling destination the London Plan minimum for visitors of 1:40 units should be improved, and there should be good cycle parking available in the public realm. Further consideration should be given to bicycle parking, particularly in respect of family units. Any planning consent should include the imposition of section 106 obligations in order to ensure the improvement of cycle connectivity to the area, with contributions. We note that the site is subject to very heavy noise pollution from the A12 motorway grade road. The developers may wish to consider sound barriers to enhance their development Officer response – Cycle parking, details, travels plans and final details are recommended to be secured by condition. Officers agree that there is scope for additional cycle parking, in particular within the proposed public realm and seek to secure further details as part of any landscaping reserved matters submissions made. A financial contribution has been sought to be directed towards local pedestrian and cycle improvements.
Canal & River Trust – The Canal & River Trust is supportive of the principle of the redevelopment of this site, but has made a number of comments to make. The development should also support Legible London signage, to provide a consistent link to the provision in the area in general. With regard to the reference to upgrading the existing foot bridge (in its current location) CRT are not clear from the application details how this will be delivered, particularly as it does not fall within the red line boundary. CRT had understood that this was to be part of the redevelopment, and would in principle support it, though we would need to agree the scale and form. CRT would resist the introduction of any additional bridges, unless an appropriate justification was provided, as these can degrade the canal environment. Any improvements to the bridge must continue to include ramped access. Overshadowing - The proposed development lies to the south of the Hertford Union Canal, so consideration should be given to the impact on daylight and sunlight to the waterway, and the effect on amenity of the towpath and waterway for boaters and pedestrians, as well as to the flora and fauna of the waterspace. Moorings - Two mooring locations are indicated in the submitted plans and supporting documents. CRT would like to understand how the moorings would be managed, as this would probably be by the land owner, not the Canal & River Trust. CRT would like to confirm also that the proposed planning application includes permission for the residential moorings.
36/73
Further details should be secured in respect of lighting, landscaping, SWD, Risk Assessment and Method Statement and a feasibility study shall be carried out to assess the potential for moving freight by water An offsite financial contribution is requested
Officer response – Conditions have been recommended to secure further details as requested, including landscaping details. A financial contribution has been sought to be directed towards local pedestrian improvements which has the potential to be directed towards improvements along the northern tow path. Viability issues are considered and contributions have been sought in line with LB Tower Hamlets priorities.
Environment Agency – Recommend conditions on Contamination, Remediation strategy, unexpected contamination, No infiltration of SWD and Piling. Officer response – Conditions have been recommended.
Thames Water – Recommend conditions on surface water drainage and impact piling. Officer response – Conditions have been recommended.
NHS – Requested a financial contribution of 701,993. Officer response – Viability issues are considered and contributions have been sought in line with LB Tower Hamlets priorities.
The following consultees responded with no comments or no objection– High Speed 1, London City Airport and Metropolitan Police.
10. ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES The following topics are included as part of Officers’ consideration of the proposed development which are set out in the sections below;
10.1. Principle of Development – Regeneration and Convergence At a strategic level, the site is identified in the London Plan (2011) as falling within the Lower Lee Valley Opportunity Area (LP Policy 2.13) where development is required to support the strategic policy directions for the opportunity areas and seek to optimise residential and non-residential output and densities, providing necessary social and other infrastructure to sustain growth, and, where appropriate, contain a mix of uses.
The proposed development proposes to deliver up to 522 homes (422 dwellings sought for approval within Phases 1 and 2 and up to 100 dwellings sought for approval within Phase 3), a net uplift of approximately 240 new jobs and offer a 0.44ha (1.09 acre) school site to an education provider and as such is considered to comply with the strategic aims of LP Policies 2.13a)b)d).
In their Second Round update response the GLA stated that they supported ‘the loss of the previous employment use of this site’ in strategic planning terms and also supported the principle of new housing and a new school and additional employment uses. The GLA commented that in respect of the original scheme sought for approval, which included a ‘no school option’, would be contrary to local and strategic planning policy and should not be granted planning permission.
In their First Round LB Tower Hamlets also confirmed that the delivery of a primary school should be a priority for development at Neptune Wharf. Also referencing the ‘options’ originally submitted for approval, which included a mixed primary school and residential option LB Tower Hamlets stated their clear preference stating that ‘the Council's preferred option is for a stand-alone school and for the land to be transferred at an appropriate point in time, with the benefit of outline planning permission including approval of layout and scale’.
37/73
LP Policy 2.13(e) requires that development proposals ‘support wider regeneration (including in particular improvements to environmental quality) and integrate development proposals to the surrounding areas especially areas for regeneration’.
The proposed development would provide enhanced permeability through the site, both east-west and north-south, and provide a quantum of public open space/public realm which is considered to be satisfactory to meet the need generated by the development. Officers have assessed that the proposed open spaces would significantly enhance the site’s integration with surrounding development in comparison with the existing situation.
One of the overarching themes of the FIAAP is the aim of retaining and enhancing the areas distinctive character, whilst allowing for managed transformation to deliver about an estimated 3,000 new homes, 175,000m² of new or revitalised employment floorspace and around 3,500 new jobs.
Being identified as an ‘opportunity site’ or site of strategic importance (in realising the overall vision for the area) within the adopted Fish Island Area Action Plan (FIAAP), the successful comprehensive redevelopment of Neptune Wharf would make a significant contribution towards the convergence objectives and regeneration aims embedded in the key planning policies which seek to deliver fundamental economic, social and environmental change within east London and to close the deprivation gap between the Olympic Host Boroughs and the rest of London.
On balance, Officers consider that the proposed development would make a significant contribution towards the convergence objectives by virtue of the provision of 0.44ha of land for a school site and as such is considered to accord with the strategic policy regeneration aims of LP Policy 2.13.
10.2. Economic Benefit Relative to site area and proposed floorspace sought for approval for other land uses the proposed development includes a proportionally significant quantum of commercial floorspace. The Applicant’s aim has been to deliver a residential led mixed-use development supported by commercial, cultural creative and cultural industry (CCI), retail and leisure (food and drink) land uses, a crèche and a site for a Three Form Entry (3FE) Primary School.
Jobs – 50 FTE jobs are currently supported on site, but these businesses would need to vacate to allow for the construction of the Proposed Development and these jobs would be displaced from the Site. The proposed development would include a range of commercial floorspace, including retail and restaurant uses and would result in net employment uplift of up to 240 FTE in the completed development.
The Replacement Environmental Statement notes that retail floorspace can be important for local employment as it provides many opportunities that are suitable for people without high level qualifications and that such employment is therefore particularly likely to benefit local deprived areas, with a high proportion of BAME residents. In addition, research by the GLA found that retail jobs in London go disproportionately to a number of key equalities target groups, including young people, women, and BAME people.
LB Tower Hamlets FIAAP Policy FI4.3 (Managing the redevelopment of former Industrial Land) and FI4.4 (Protecting and enhancing CCIs and SMEs) seeks to manage the redevelopment of former industrial land such that it contributes towards the new employment opportunities and SMEs.
FIAAP Policy FI4.3 sets out seven criteria against which any proposals for redevelopment of existing industrial sites (outside SIL and LIL), for mixed use including residential are required to be considered. The policy notes that the criteria are to be applied flexibly
38/73 depending on the individual site, subject to other policies in the FIAAP. The policy requires that new development opportunities should provide employment floorspace suitable for CCIs and SMEs in accordance with the guidance set out at FIAAP Appendix 3.
As set out above in the description the proposed development includes Flexible B1 studio space designed to accommodate the growing creative community and attract new business and investment to the area and also includes more flexible workshop workspace. The workshop spaces are proposed within Neptune Yard and are designed primarily to accommodate more traditional production workspace, where a ‘shopfront’ presence is not necessarily a requirement
LB Tower Hamlets Policy SP06 seeks to ensure job opportunities are provided and maintained. CS Policy SP06(1) supports a range, mix and quality of employment uses and spaces with focus on small and medium enterprises (SMEs). LB Tower Hamlets FIAAP Policy FI4.3 (Managing the redevelopment of former Industrial Land) and FI4.4 (Protecting and enhancing CCIs and SMEs) seeks to manage the redevelopment of former industrial land such that it contributes towards the new employment opportunities and SMEs.
LLDC Officers previously queried the quantum, location and details of proposed commercial space for a number of factors including impact on residential amenity, conflict of ground level open space use, overall quantum and impact on viability, in light of other policy priorities including the school site and affordable housing. Comments were also made that any proposal seeking approval for over 2,500m² would require a Retail Impact Assessment.
10.3. Employment The proposed floorspace of 1,729sqm (Use Class B1) is considered to support LB Tower Hamlets Policy SP06 FIAAP Policy FI4.3 and Policy FI4.3 by proposing a significant employment generating opportunity. The proposed floorspace and new job creation potential is considered to accord with NPPF guidance that development should contribute to building a strong economy.
The submitted Commercial Strategy provides greater clarity in respect of the likely occupants and outline Estate Management Strategy, including an indication that the Applicant would be likely to be formally involved within the scheme’s Estate Management Company, provides comfort that the ongoing management and maintenance has been considered alongside the development of the physical proposals for commercial floorspace.
Further information in respect of how the Applicant may seek to find occupiers / operators by targeting operations such as the ‘hub’ models, currently operating in Islington, Westminster and Kings Cross, provides comfort in respect of the commercial floorspace proposed.
Overall, the quantum of employment floorspace (specifically Business Use Class) is considered to accord with London Plan Policy 4.1 (Developing London’s economy) and LB Tower Hamlets Policy SP06 and FI AAP, policy FI 4.3 and FI 4.4. Further details would be required by condition and s106 in respect of employment, skills and training and local labour commitments and estate management.
The GLA in their Second Round Update requested that further details of floor loadings, lifts and electric supply should be confirmed in order to ensure that floorspace is would be suitable for B1c as well as B1a and B1b uses. Officers consider that this can be addressed by way of condition.
Retail – The Amended Scheme seeks approval for up to 1,275sqm of retail across the site. Although the GLA in their Second Round Update Report no longer raise concerns in
39/73 respect of overall floorspace provision, being under the 2,500sqm threshold identified at para 26 of the NPPF as requiring an impact assessment) they have noted that the issue of retail floorspace is now perceived to be a local issue for the LLDC planning authority to assess and appropriately condition.
The proposed development is located outside any identified Town Centres, including the Hackney Wick Neighbourhood Centre, as defined by LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP01 (SO4, SO5, SO6). LB Tower Hamlets Policy SP01 seeks to direct activities towards their appropriate location within the town centre hierarchy.
In respect of the proposed commercial floorspace the LLDC’s QRP have commented that ‘Generous floor to ceiling heights are proposed at ground floor level, which could allow for adaptation for different uses over the life of the development and have noted that a more convincing strategy for the use of ground floor units has been developed since the previous review, with a mix of residential, workspace and commercial uses appropriately distributed.
Active uses are maximised at ground floor level, which would help animate the streets and spaces around the development’. In their second round response the QRP noted that it supported the mix of uses stating that ‘The mix of uses proposed at Neptune Wharf is a strength of the scheme, including commercial units and managed workspace as well as residential accommodation’.
The FIAAP (Policy FI5.5) identifies that Hackney Wick is the intended location within FIAAP for retail and employment activity, which will be focussed in the Hub. Although Officers acknowledge that this does not immediately preclude retail development outside Hackney Wick, it is clear that this should be to support local need only and not compete with town centre uses. Conditions are recommended to limit retail floor spaces so that this are only uses to support local ‘ancillary’ uses.
10.4. School Site The offer of 0.44ha site at a peppercorn rate on a 99 year lease in order to comply with the requirements of the FIAAP is of significant social benefit and would accord with AAP Policy FI4.6 (Education) and would assist in addressing the pressing need for primary school places and the policy requirements of LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP07(2).
London Plan policy 3.18 (Education facilities), confirms that the Mayor will strongly support the provision of new schools. The policy also encourages developments that would maximise the extended or multiple use of educational facilities for community or recreational use and London Plan Policy 3.18 (Education facilities) requires 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.
The National Planning Policy Framework confirms that the Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places are available to meet the needs of existing and new communities and that local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education and give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools.
The Replacement Environmental Statement identifies that there are only two primary schools within 1 km of the Site. Gainsborough Primary School, which has 9 surplus places and Old Ford Primary School, with 8 surplus places at present. Gainsborough Primary
40/73
School expanded by 1 Form of Entry (30 reception places) in September 2012, but this is not yet reflected in this school’s census.
Another two schools are identified as being ‘near’, but are located approximately 1.2- 1.3km from the site, to the east near Grove Road in Mile End: Chisenhale Primary School (LBTH) – With capacity for 315 students and 10 surplus spaces (3%); and Olga Primary School (LBTH) – With capacity for 210 students and 4 surplus spaces (2%).
LB Tower Hamlets in their First Round response noted that ‘An independent review, commissioned by the Council has shown that a 3FE primary school on three floors could be provided in the 0.44 hectare site identified, although the external areas would be lower than national standards, even allowing for play terraces at both first and second floor level. Officers are fully committed to delivering a primary school through the planning process as part of this development, but you will appreciate that a formal commitment of the Council as Local Education Authority to seek a provider and safeguard the capital and revenue funding streams to deliver the school will require a decision by the Council’s Cabinet. It is understood that land for a 3FE primary school has been offered by the applicant on the terms set out in Appendix 3. In order for the LEA to progress this matter expediently, it would be very helpful for the LLDC to broker further negotiations between the Council and the applicant. This will help determine timeframes for the Council taking up the ‘option’ on the identified land, and agreeing appropriate clauses within the Section 106 legal agreement to secure this’.
PPDT Officers have been provided with assurances that the independent review has been undertaken and are confident that LB Tower Hamlets are committed to delivering a primary school through the planning process as part of this development. LB Tower Hamlets have provided a response to the Applicants revised Heads of Terms and these would be the subject of further discussion and negotiation if the application were to proceed.
In respect of the proposed Primary School the LLDC’s QRP have commented that ‘The location of the primary school site next to the A12 means it will suffer from noise and pollution. If this is the only viable location for the school, great care will be needed in its design to mitigate the challenges of its site’.
‘Building Bulletin 99: Briefing framework for primary school projects' represents the current applicable best practice standard for informing the detailed design and construction of new schools. The document refers to a range of other applicable standards including environmental performance criteria, for acoustics, ventilation and daylight.
The relevant ventilation standards are set out in ‘Building Bulletin 101 (BB101): Ventilation of School Buildings’ which in turn notes that Part F of the Building Regulations applies to all buildings including schools. As noted above the application site, including the school site and the surrounding area are located within the LB Tower Hamlet’s Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), where by definition pollution levels of at least one pollutant have exceeded the Air Quality Standards.
The LB Tower Hamlets AQMA was declared in 2000 and covers the entire Borough. Building Bulletin 101 (BB101): Ventilation of School Buildings identifies a wide range of pollutants which are generated outdoors and are either known or suspected of adversely affecting human health and the environment. Of the seven main pollutants listed within BB101 the two primary pollutants affecting the proposed school site are Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and Particulate matter (PM10).
Dust and Particulate Matter (PM10) and Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Having reviewed the Environmental Statement the PPDT’s Environmental Consultants sought further dust
41/73 monitoring and assessment of Impacts from McGrath Material Recycling Facility (MRF) during consideration of the application.
The dust deposition monitoring indicated that dust deposition rates were well below the limit of 200 mg/m2/day. Additionally, the monitoring recorded a mean PM10 concentration over the three month period of 17.7μg/m3, which is considered to be ‘well below’ the annual mean objective. An average PM2.5 concentration of 7.1μg/m³ was recorded during the same period, which is also considered to be ‘well below’ the objective limit of 25μg/m³. The PPDT’s Environmental Consultants note that these are not directly comparable to the annual mean objectives, as the monitoring was not undertaken for a full year but considering the further information provided have stated that it is likely that the PM10 concentrations at the site would be below the objectives.
The Replacement Environmental Statement (April 2013) and Replacement Environmental Statement Addendum (October 2013) also includes local monitoring in respect of particulate matter. PM10 concentrations across the Site are anticipated to meet the annual mean objective at all locations. Short term PM10 concentrations are also expected to be below the objective for this pollutant at the Site.
NO2 – The Replacement Environmental Statement Addendum (October 2013) sets out that with the addition of traffic emissions along the road network adjacent to the Site, NO2 concentrations across the application site are expected to exceed the annual mean objective at all locations and that this is confirmed by concentrations recorded at roadside sites to the west of the A12 which all exceeded the annual mean objective over the last four years.
Noise - In terms of internal noise performance, Officers have taken into consideration that the Blocks which are proposed to be located in areas predicted to lie within Noise Exposure Category D are sought for approval in outline, with all matters reserved excepting access which allows a degree of flexibility in terms of the proposed detailed location and orientation of the most sensitive rooms and uses such as classrooms within the School Block and habitable rooms and window and balcony orientation within residential blocks. As set out above the majority of the site is predicted to experience noise levels which would fall within NEC categories C or D in a ‘no development’ 2031 scenario.
However, with the development in place, at the height and scale proposed, the ‘screening’ provided by the built form of the Amended Scheme would ensures that significant portions of the external areas of the Site, including the proposed MUGA, are predicted to be within the recommended WHO limit of 55 dB(A) during the daytime, under each phase of development.
The submitted Replacement Environmental Statement also identifies that with the development in place, the ‘screening’ provided by the built form of the Amended Scheme would also result in the ground level area to the east of the school building achieving compliance with the recommended external area upper limit of 60 dB(A), as set out in BB93.
Conclusion – Without development the site and wider area would continue to experience the conditions set out above, which are not unique to this site but affect the majority of Fish Island North and Mid due to the proximity of the A12. Although the proposed school site experiences harsh environmental conditions in respect of noise and NO2 concentrations, a number of these conditions affect the majority of the site and relocation of the school site is unlikely to result in a significant improvement.
Officers consider that the mitigation which results from the forma and scale of the proposed development uniquely allows the development to ‘shield’ the sites to the east
42/73 and would benefit to the scheme and wider area overall, particularly in respect of noise levels. Balanced against the requirements of London Plan policy 3.18 (Education facilities) which states that applications for new schools should only be refused where demonstrable negative local impacts would substantially outweigh the desirability of establishing a new school Officers consider that the selected site cannot be considered to experience conditions which would be significantly more adverse than those experienced for other areas within the site.
Officers also consider that the site benefits from a number of positive aspects which include its aspect, being open to the south and east, the ability to orientate classrooms eastwards towards courtyard play areas, the ability to deliver the school independently from all other Phases of the proposed development. The proposed site also benefits from three street frontages and would not be dependent on any other phase of the scheme coming forward in order to provide access to the site.
Officers have assessed the design principles which inform the proposed Masterplan in order to ensure that principles respond to the significant environmental challenges created by their proximity to the A12. The key design principle can be largely described as using the proposed built form of the development to provide natural screening/’sheltering’ for the majority of the site and specifically to key proposed external amenity areas, including the proposed MUGA.
Although the location and layout of rooms is reserved for future consideration Officers have assessed whether the Parameters and Design Code submitted for approval allow sufficient flexibility, in terms of potential envelope and floorspace, to ensure that future detailed design work can best address the constraints of the site. The Design Code submitted for approval and the Design and Access Statement set out that sensitive uses should be orientated eastwards.
The Application seeks approval for up to 5,838sqm of Use Class D1 floorspace for the 3 Form Entry Primary School. Minimum space standards set by BB99 indicate that the actual minimum space requirements of the school are likely to be approximately 60% less than the maximum floorspace sought for approval, at approximately 3,500sqm, which is supported by the Local Education Authority’s preliminary review of the proposed development.
Officers consider that the floorspace and parameters sought for approval allow sufficient flexibility for the least sensitive rooms and areas such as circulation, lift cores, stairwells, ancillary spaces such as WCs, storage and teaching rooms which would be entirely mechanically ventilated due to their function such as ICT and D&T / Food rooms, to be located along the most hostile western perimeter of the school site and shield more sensitive areas from the most hostile environmental factors experienced by the site.
Officers have also considered the Applicant’s approach against the LB Tower Hamlets’ Independent Feasibility Review and are satisfied that the Applicant’s approach is not inconsistent with that which might reasonably be adopted by an education provider. Officers have recommended a School Specification and a number of conditions to increase potential flexibility. Officers consider that the design principles are sound and this is supported by the conclusions of the submitted Replacement Environmental Statement.
As indicated above, parts of the site are predicted to lie within Noise Exposure Category D, for which development would normally be refused. A scheme for mitigation has been presented to indicate how the ‘Good’ internal noise levels in BS8233 can be achieved.
These levels can be ensured through Condition. As a result of the high background noise levels and air quality, the school will need to be mechanically ventilated. Furthermore, it
43/73 will need to planned to provide as much acoustic protection to the external play areas as possible.
10.5. Housing The subject application would provide up to 522 new residential units (422 dwellings sought for approval within the detailed element of the application and up to 100 dwellings sought for approval within Phase 3) which would be approximately 18% of the borough’s annual target.
The FIAAP indicates the potential for ‘about’ 3,000 net new dwellings across all of Fish Island (North, Mid, South and East) over the plan period (2010 - 2025). The number was revised by the Planning Inspector from a lower original figure varying from 2,400 to 2,800 to reflect the realistic potential of opportunity sites and other sites within Fish Island, including Neptune Wharf and additional potential capacity within Fish Island South. The FIAAP also suggests residential capacity of 1,250 units within Fish Island Mid.
As explained within the Policy section of this report the FIAAP has been recently adopted and is therefore considered to provide a sound projection for new housing consistent with NPPF core planning principle’s for encouraging the effective use of land.
One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is the need to encourage the effective use of land through the reuse of suitably located previously developed land and buildings. Section 6 (Para 49) of the NPPF states that ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites’. A wide choice of high quality homes which widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities should be delivered (NPPF Para 49).
The 544 proposed maximum new residential units proposed within Neptune Wharf would represent 17.4% of the ‘about’ 3,000 potential new dwellings which are likely to be deliverable in Fish Island over the plan period to 2025. The FIAAP also indicates suggested residential capacity of 1,250 units within Fish Island Mid, of which Neptune Wharf would represent 43%.
In their first round response the GLA concluded that in respect of the proposed housing uses proposed on site that the principle of residential was strongly supported in strategic planning terms. In their second round response the GLA did not make any further comments in respect of quantum or mix of housing in their Update Response, the GLA’s comments on Affordable Housing are set out below. In their first round response LB Tower Hamlets stated that that proposed residential provision would positively contribute towards the Borough’s housing targets as per Policy SP02 of the Core Strategy.
Within this context the redevelopment of this site for residential-led development of this magnitude would have a positive impact when considered in terms of delivering new homes to meet the pressing need for more homes in London to meet and exceed London Plan and LBTH targets.
The proposed development would be in accordance with LP Policy 3.3 in respect of the supply of housing and given the scale of the site provides a significant contribution towards the FIAAP’s residential capacity for within Fish Island Mid. Within this context the proposed scheme would make a contribution towards borough wide housing delivery targets and those of Fish Island in accordance with LBTH Policy SP02(1). The proposed development is assessed further against LBTH Policy SP02(2-6) below.
44/73
The proposals for residential development on this site, contingent on satisfying other policy tests associated with housing quality and design assessed within this report, are considered to be in accordance with strategic London Plan housing policies and would contribute towards borough and London-wide housing provision (Policy 3.3).
Affordable Housing The NPPF requires that plans should be deliverable and that the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. London Plan Policy 3.12 (Negotiating Affordable Housing on Individual Private Residential and Mixed Use Schemes) requires that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed use schemes, having regard to: f) the specific circumstances of individual sites. Negotiations on sites are required to take account of their individual circumstances including development viability.
London Plan Policy 3.11 (Affordable Housing Targets) requires that boroughs should set an overall target in LDFs for the amount of affordable housing provision. LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP02(3) sets an overall strategic target for affordable homes of 50% until 2025.
This is intended to be achieved by requiring 35%-50% affordable homes on sites providing 10 new residential units or more (subject to viability). LB Tower Hamlets and MDD Policy DM3(1) states that development will be required to maximise affordable housing in accordance with the Council’s tenure split (70% Social/Affordable Rent and 30% Intermediate) as set out in the Core Strategy, subject to viability. FIAAP Policy FI4.5(1) requires that proposals for new homes provide a minimum of 35% affordable housing. FIAAP Policy FI4.5(2) requires an affordable housing 70% Affordable Rent and 30% Intermediate split.
The November 2012 submission proposed 0% Affordable Housing across all phases (full and outline planning application). The Applicant submitted a Viability Appraisal to support the proposed provision of 0% on-site Affordable Housing which was independently reviewed on behalf of PPDT.
The Applicant’s original proposal included the provision of a 0.44 Ha (1.09 acre) serviced site for a 3FE school, with nil affordable housing and a series of in-kind contributions towards open space, business starter units and infrastructure works. The offer was based on the agreed understanding that the provision of a school site at this location reflects the wishes of LB Tower Hamlets in accordance with the Fish Island Area Action Plan (adopted September 2012).
In their First Round comments the GLA stated that the lack of Affordable Housing was of significant strategic concern and concluded that the proposed development did not comply with the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.12 (Negotiating affordable housing). In their July Update Report the GLA concluded that the increased Affordable Housing offer was noted and welcomed and the Mayor would expect the LLDC to show it had secured the maximum reasonable level at all phases of the development.
LB Tower Hamlets in their first round comments sated that ‘the Council would not be in a position to support a proposal of this significance in Fish Island that does not include affordable housing and with a significant departure from the Council’s planning policies relating to housing mix. If the LLDC is minded to grant planning permission the Council would urge the planning authority to robustly test the potential of the scheme to deliver affordable housing based on a review of development viability, and to target delivery within the family homes and at social or Tower Hamlets affordable rents’.
45/73
The Viability Appraisal of the Amended October scheme has been independently reviewed on behalf of the PPDT. In considering viability and what constitutes a competitive return to the landowner and the developer the PPDT’s consultants have set out that the NPPF is clear in its position that S.106 planning negotiations should be driven by the principle of ensuring a “competitive return to the landowner and developer”.
A “competitive return for the landowner” is established through agreeing upon a benchmark land value (BLV), reflecting a competitive return for the landowner, against which the proposed application scheme is assessed – if the residual land value of the proposed scheme exceeds the BLV, then the scheme is considered viable as a typical landowner will be expected to release its land for development at this value. The agreed BLV for this negotiation has reflected two commonly used approaches for viability exercises of this nature – reviewing comparable land transactions to help establish a view on Market Value, and applying an uplift to the subject site’s Existing Use Value (EUV). Both approaches are supported by policy guidance. The RICS guidance note “Viability in Planning” (2012) recognises that a “competitive return to a landowner” will reflect the Market Value for the site. When assessing Market Value reference should be made to comparable land transactions where available.
In this case the applicant provided evidence of a number of examples of available sites and completed land transactions, which informed a BLV of £2 million per acre, equivalent to £11.4 million. The evidence provided was independently reviewed and agreement was reached on this position. Secondly, the approach to calculating BLV based on Existing Use Value (EUV) is supported through policy guidance including a report produced by the Local Housing Delivery Group “Viability Testing Local Plans – Advice for planning practitioners” (2012), which recommends that applying a suitable uplift to the EUV represents a competitive return to the landowner.
In the original viability assessment report the applicant made reference to a “Red Book” valuation report prepared by Lambert Smith Hampton in January 2012, which valued the site at just over £9 million – applying a 20% uplift to this brought the calculated land value in line with the calculation of Market Value through the comparable land deals, which was considered a reasonable uplift to apply.
As the RICS guidance note points out however, simply applying an arbitrary uplift from EUV leaves the assessor open to the risk of either under-valuing or over-valuing a site, as this is not the way in which land values are agreed in practice. It is for this reason that it is considered sensible to also make reference to comparable land transactions.
The Affordable Housing offer is currently being negotiated. An offer has been made that the entirely of Block A would be offered as Affordable Housing. The tenure split is still being negotiated but is offered at between 70:30 affordable rent (at LBTH pod levels). /intermediate tenures a 100% affordable rent (at LBTH pod levels). This is based on nil grant. Officers also seek to secure a viability review mechanism.
In addition to the above, the scheme includes provision for the school site and in-kind contributions. It is recognised that provision of a serviced site for a new school has subsequently impacted upon the overall value that could be generated by a scheme on this site, which is reflected in a lower affordable housing offer than may otherwise have been the case.
Officers concede that the proposed affordable housing offer is significantly below the LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP02(3) minimum target of 35%. The policy priority given to securing a school site in this location, which has informed ‘Opportunity Site 3’ wording at p.99 of the FIAAP which states that ‘Safeguarding land for a future primary school (c. 0.5Ha). This takes first priority over all other non transport infrastructure requirements apart from the CIL but including affordable housing, in relation to the
46/73 redevelopment of this site, to ensure that it is economically viable and that a new primary school is provided in a sustainable location to help meet education needs arising across Fish Island’ is considered to justify the proposed affordable housing offer and that the proposed offer reasonably represents the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing which could be sought, having regard to the specific circumstances of individual sites in line with London Plan Policy 3.12(f).
The advice of the PPDT’s Viability Consultants is that they are satisfied that the affordable housing offer made by the applicants represents the maximum achievable based on the current viability position of the proposals, reflecting the agreement whereby a serviced school site is also provided by the applicants at nil cost. They have also advised that notwithstanding this point, it would be necessary to include a suitably robust review mechanism within S.106 Heads of Terms for this project, which will enable the LPA to benefit from a significant upturn in the viability position of the proposals which could result in additional resources being invested into affordable housing.
10.6. Housing Mix
Family Units – The Amended October 2013 scheme has proportionally increased the level of family housing proposed within Phases 1 and 2 in comparison to that previously proposed within the May 2013 scheme. Although both Phases 1 and 2 are sought for approval in outline, details have been submitted in respect of layout, appearance and scale, such that the quantum and provision of family housing can be considered to have a high degree of certainty and the amenity of each family unit can be assessed in detail.
Within Phases 1 and 2, the Amended October 2013 scheme has increased the level of family housing to 17.77% across all tenures compared with the May proposal for 15% within the same phases. This equates to 75 no. family units out of the 422 units proposed in Phases 1 and 2. Whereas the May 2013 scheme did not include any 4 bedroom units, the Amended October 2013 scheme has also introduced 11 no. 4b7p dwellings into the scheme. The proposed 11 no. 4b7p dwellings are all proposed as dual aspect 3 storey houses with front doors off Wyke Road and each includes its own 49.4sqm private amenity space (located within Blocks C and I). Within Phase 3 there has been a proportional reduction in family housing from 11.5% down to 5% within that phase. No family accommodation is proposed within the two mixed use Blocks (Blocks P and Q) which are located most proximate to the A12.
Given that the land allocated to the school site reduces developable land, leaving approximately 1.95ha of developable land for residential and commercial development, and the challenging environmental conditions assessed within this report it is considered that the Applicant has reasonably maximised the proportion of family housing that can reasonably accommodated within the site in order to ensure that the proposed family housing that is included within the scheme benefits from a good outlook, maximises private amenity space and is supported by adequate play space in accordance with LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP02(6)(e), London Plan Policy 3.6 and Policy DM4 of the MDD.
LB Tower Hamlets in their First Round comments highlighted that, after safeguarding the school site, the policy onus for the Neptune Wharf opportunity site is ‘affordable family housing’. FIAAP Policy FI4.5 also requires that housing should provide for a range of house types and sizes in accordance with guidance set out on Tower Hamlets Core Strategy, MDD and Mayor of London SPG.
‘Opportunity Site 3’ wording at p.99 of the FIAAP states that the site should include ‘including affordable family housing’ and page 54 of the FIAAP identifies a ‘high family housing’ typology for Fish Island Mid.
47/73
In their First Round comments the GLA stated that the proposed housing mix was acceptable from a strategic planning perspective. The GLA did not comment on housing mix in their Second Round update.
The site wide proposed family unit provision is approximately half the LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP02(5)(b) target of 30%. Officers consider that the quality of any further provision of family housing is likely to be compromised given the significant site constraints and that the viability review mechanism in discussion between Officers and the Applicant, to increase the affordable provision if sales values are higher than the assumptions in the Viability Report can be used to secure a payment-in-lieu to deliver additional affordable housing family housing which would be secured in order to maximise affordable housing. The use of a review mechanism was supported by LB Tower Hamlets in their First Round response.
Density Proposed density for each phase of the Amended November 2013 scheme is set out below. The calculations omit the site area identified for the school site (0.44ha) and assess the scheme net of highways and school land. The calculations are also based on the maximum number of units sought for approval in Phase 3 rather than the minimum.
Net Site Residential HR U/HA HR/HA Area Units Phase 1 0.8382 191 526 227.87 627.54 Phase 2 0.8178 231 664 282.47 811.93 Phase 3 0.2982 100 233 335.35 781.35 Total 1.9542 522 1423 267.12 728.18
When considered against the guidance of the FIAAP, which sets out at page 54 (supporting FIAAP Policy FI4.5) an appropriate density range within Fish Island Mid would be 120-300 u/ha, the Amended November 2013 scheme falls within the upper extent of the FIAAP’s density range but does not exceed the upper limit.
In reference to London Plan Policy 3.4 (Optimising Housing Potential) the character of the area is currently low density. The area could potentially be considered to be classified as having an ‘urban’ potential although it is not currently located within 800 metres walking distance of a District centre or along a main arterial route.
In their First Round comments the GLA noted that Table 3.2 of the London Plan (Sustainable Residential Quality matrix), suggests an optimum residential density of between 70 and 170 units per hectare for a site in this location - assuming an urban setting, a PTAL of 2 and the proposed unit mix and notes that the same density range would also apply should the site's PTAL be raised to 3. The proposed development exceeds the density guidance of London Plan Table 3.2 (Sustainable Residential Quality matrix).
The Mayor’s Housing SPG makes it clear that the density matrix should be used as a guide rather than an absolute rule, and other policy objectives such as dwelling mix, environmental and social infrastructure as well as local circumstances, should be taken into account of when considering residential density. Further LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP02(2) (supported by S07-S09 which denote Fish Island as a ‘Medium Growth’ area of 1500-2500 units) requires that new housing assists in the creation of sustainable places, by ensuring new developments optimise the use of land.
48/73
As set out in the detailed assessment of open, play and communal space within this report PPDT Officers are satisfied that the open space parameters sought for approval secure sufficient play and communal space to support the densities proposed on site.
On balance, although the average density of the scheme is beyond that suggested within the London Plan SRQ officers consider that, contingent on securing appropriate transport mitigation to support the proposed population on site and considering the overall benefit the proposed development would deliver, notably in respect of the school site and the comprehensive regeneration of a significant site in fish island that the densities are acceptable in this instance. It is noted that when assessed against the guidance of the FIAAP the proposed average density is within the range set out within the adopted FIAAP.
10.7. Residential Amenity Although Officers acknowledge the FIAAP’s policy emphasis placed on safeguarding an area of land for a school site, Officers consider that this should not be used as justification for development which is likely to result in a poor quality environment that would represent unsustainable development and have sought amendments since the application was originally submitted.
Outlook, Privacy and Sense of Enclosure - PPDT Officers sought amendments to the May 2013 scheme to address comments made in respect of overlooking, with some units within the May 2013 scheme typified by oblique separation distances (habitable rooms of different units) as low as 1m.
Phases 1 and 2 of the May 2013 scheme was assessed as exhibiting approximately 145 instances of overlooking with overlooking between flats at all of the four corners of Rippoth Yard and Neptune Yard being most problematic, the worst of which allowed oblique intervisibility between bedroom windows of separate flats at a distance of less than 1 metre. Officers concluded that this was considered to be a significant and high degree of failure, particularly pertinent in a context where the May 2013 version of the scheme also exhibited excessive density which would be required to be justified by good quality design.
The explanatory text to support LB Tower Hamlets DMM Policy DM25 explains that the degree of overlooking depends on the distance and the horizontal and vertical angles of view. However, a distance of approximately 18 metres between windows of habitable rooms reduces inter-visibility to a degree acceptable to most people but it is noted that this figure will be applied as a guideline depending upon the design and layout concerned.
The Mayor’s Housing SPG also references 18-21m separation distance guidance as a useful yardstick (between habitable room and habitable room as opposed to between balconies or terraces or between habitable rooms and balconies/terraces). The guidance however notes that adhering rigidly to these measures can limit the variety of urban spaces and housing types in the city, and can sometimes unnecessarily restrict density. Officers have assessed that the October 2013 scheme has significantly less incidents of intervisibility in comparison to the May 2013 scheme.
Intervisibilty issues between habitable rooms within flank walls of Blocks C, D, G, H, M and N have been addressed through a combination of offsetting window locations, changes to unit layouts and inclusion of a small number of windows with translucent glazing to 6 no. living rooms out of the 422 units proposed in Phases 1 and 2. Where translucent glazing is proposed to living rooms, this is only to rooms with a dual aspect and would be applied to secondary windows with the primary outlook of each living room remaining unaffected.
The previous issues in respect of oblique intervisibility between bedroom windows of separate flats has largely been addressed although 5 no. units out of the 422 units
49/73 proposed in Phases 1 and 2 still experience this condition. A further 6 no. units would experience this condition between habitable rooms within the same unit.
Officers consider that although a small number of units within Phases 1 and 2 still experience a degree of impact on privacy that overall the majority of units would experience acceptable levels of privacy and have an acceptable outlook.
Officers have sought to maximise separation distanced between Blocks in order to maximise compliance with the 18-21m separation distance yardstick for the majority of units. Separation distances this wide occur across Neptune (26m x 39m), Rippoth (27- 34m x 31m) and Wansbeck Yards (20m x 48m) and between the eastern frontage of Block A and western frontage of Omega Works (18m).
The degree of unacceptable privacy loss has been reduced in the Amended October scheme and would result in a good level of amenity for future residents in accordance with adopted London Plan Policy 3.5, LB Tower Hamlets DMM 25(a) and LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP02(6).
Aspect – Due to the site’s orientation and proposed Block layouts no dwellings within Phases 1 and 2 are orientated towards true north. Although layout within Phase 3 is not sought for approval, the proposed parameters sought for approval are also likely to reduce the likelihood of true north facing dwellings within this phase. Amendments to the May 2013 scheme have resulted in the inclusion of new dual aspect dwelling types with the introduction of dwellings located between blocks B and F and amendments to Blocks E and L.
Officers have assessed the overall orientation and aspect of each proposed dwelling within Phases 1 and 2 and concluded that out of the 422 dwellings proposed within Phases 1 and 2 that 168 no. dwellings (39.8%) can be counted would be dual aspect, with 7 no. of these dwellings being triple aspect.
Of the 168 no. dual aspect dwellings proposed 118 no. would have at least one façade which was orientated South-East or South-West and a further 27 no. would have one façade orientated East or West (within Blocks J, K, M and N fronting onto Smeed Gardens). Within Phases 1 and 2 a further 142 no. dwellings (33.6%) are proposed to be single aspect with façades orientated either South-East or South-West. 51 out of the total 75 proposed Family units are dual aspect. The internal floor areas proposed have been assessed and Officers have concluded that the proposals would be in line with the London Housing SPG guidance and policies
Although all Phases are sought for approval in Outline an indicative accommodation schedule has been submitted for all units proposed within Phases 1-3. As noted above landscaping and the detailed design of Block A are reserved within Phases 1-2 and all matters, excepting access are reserved within Phase 3. Phases 1 and 2 are detailed to
All 1 bedroom units are assessed as complying with the minimum balcony area standards. However, the indicative accommodation schedule shows that a number of 2 and 3 bedroom units are between 1-2sqm below the minimum requirements set out in the Housing SPG. Officers have reviewed floor areas for these apartments and note that they broadly exceed the minimum internal areas set in the Mayor’s Housing SPG. A condition is also recommended to secure minimum balcony sizes to secure increases where further details are required for submission.
Sunlight and Daylight – Core Strategy Policy SP10 and Policy DM25 of the Managing Development DPD seek to ensure adequate levels of light for new residential developments. Guidance relating to daylight and sunlight is contained in the Building
50/73
Research Establishment (BRE) handbook ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ (2011) has been used to assess the sunlight and daylight impacts.
Daylight – The PPDT’s Environmental Consultants have reviewed the daylight results within the Replacement Environmental Statement and concluded that the results of the Daylight levels within the Phases 1 and 2 of the Amended Scheme showed that 68% of the windows are above the criteria for VSC.
The remaining 32% of the windows were tested in terms of the ADF showing a satisfactory result of 97% that will achieve the minimum criteria for daylight. Only 33 rooms (2.9%) out of 1,139 have low levels of daylight. The PPDT’s Environmental Consultants have concluded that this minor percentage is acceptable for the density and scale of the project.
Sunlight – Approximately 61% of the living rooms within Phases 1 and 2 face within 90° of due south. The Replacement Environmental Statement assesses all living room windows which face 90° of due south across Phases 1 and 2 in line with BRE methodology. The PPDT’s Environmental Consultants have assessed that as a number of north facing living rooms have prevailing views over the canal that there is a degree of tolerance in the proportion of north facing living rooms.
248 rooms were tested firstly to establish which were affected by any obstructions within a 25 degree line and then against 25% of Annual Probable Sunlight Hours and 5% of Annual Probable Sunlight Hours.
154 (62%) of the 248 windows pass the 25 degree line and are not tested further; 29 (11.7%) out of 248 windows assessed would have at least 25% of annual probable sunlight hours (APSH) and 5% of APSH during the winter months; 51 (20.6%) out of 248 windows assessed would have an APSH greater than 25% and a winter APSH less than 5%, or have an APSH less than 25% and a winter APSH greater than 5%; and 14 (5.65%) out of the 248 windows have an APSH less than 25% and a winter APSH less than 5%.
Total Pass Fail Minor Moderate Adverse adverse 248 183 51(20.5%) 14 (5.6%) 100% 74% 26%
26% of the main living rooms are assessed using the above criteria as not having adequate levels of sunlight. Upon further examination this has been assessed to be primarily due to the provision of balconies which have other benefits to occupants as private amenity space. Officers consider that in part the failure is a result of the nature of the balconies, which are largely recessed rather than projecting. Officers consider that the benefit and increased usability of recessed balconies would balance some of the detrimental impacts of low ASPH and WSPH.
Within Phase 3 an assessment of notional windows has been undertaken which indicates a very high level of compliance with 99 (31%) of the 319 windows tested passing the 25 degree line and 206 (65%) out of 319 windows assessed having at least 25% of annual probable sunlight hours (APSH) and 5% of APSH during the winter months. However, this would be subject to detailed design.
The PPDT’s Environmental Consultants have concluded that the percentage of living rooms with low sunlight levels is almost a third of the detailed element of the application
51/73 and suggested that mitigation measures should be provided to ensure that more main (living) rooms have good sunlight levels.
However, Officers consider that it would be unlikely that conditions could secure significant improvements in the level of sunlight beyond those currently assessed as windows are generally proposed to be floor to ceiling and the results are largely a consequence of the recessed balconies as noted above. On balance, Officers consider that the benefit of useable balcony spaces and the satisfactory daylight results indicate that acceptable levels of amenity would be achieved across the majority of dwellings which have been tested.
Air Quality and Noise Issues are set out above under the school section of the report. The submitted Replacement Environmental Statement sets out a range of mitigation measures including the mechanical ventilation units.
Child Play Space Estimated child yield in order to calculate the child space requirements of the scheme have been calculated using both a 10% Affordable Housing assumption and also a 35% Affordable Housing assumption in order to ensure that adequate play space can be implemented if further Affordable Housing is secured through application of the viability review mechanism recommended by Officers.
The Amended October Amenity and Open Space Report sets out estimated child yield as follows: In a 10% Affordable Housing scenario within Phases 1 and 2: 76 children are estimated, of which 34 would be under 5 years old and 24 would be between 5 to 11 years of age. Within Phase 3, based on a 10% Affordable Housing scenario a total of 8 children are estimated (5 would be under 5 years old, and 2 would be 5- 11). In a 35% Affordable Housing scenario within Phases 1 and 2: 128 children are estimated, of which 69 would be under 5 years old and 36 would be between 5 to 11 years of age. Within Phase 3, based on a 35% Affordable Housing scenario a total of 16 children are estimated (10 would be under 5 years old, and 3 would be 5-11).
In their Second Round Update report the GLA welcomed the approach of providing a 10% and 35% Affordable Housing scenario, which has been replicated again in the Amended October documents, and sought to have the quantum and quality of all such spaces secured through appropriate planning conditions and/or s106 clauses.
In their earlier comments PPDT Officers sought to ensure that the location of two of the largest play areas, within Rippoth Yard and Wansbeck Yard, do not suffer adverse microclimatic impacts in terms of overshadowing. The May scheme also included a number of uses which fronted onto these spaces at Ground Floor which were also likely to give rise to potential amenity conflicts.
Officers also noted that the play and communal spaces appeared to overlap and that provision should be provided such that play space and communal space were provided net of each other. Officers concluded that when the May scheme was assessed against the minimum requirement of 1120sqm (Based on a previous child yield of 112 children) that there was a shortfall of 315sqm of play space within the scheme.
The applicant’s Amended November scheme proposals are set out below.
Dedicated Playable Multifunctional Total Play Space Space
52/73
Phases 1 & 2 469 114 472 1,055 Phase 3 100 37 780 917 Total 569 151 1252 1,972 720
Using the LB Tower Hamlets MDD Policy DM3 and London Plan benchmark standard of 10sqm of dedicated play space per child the 10% Affordable Housing scenario would require a minimum of 760sqm of play space. Officers are satisfied that the previous play space deficiencies have been addressed in the Amended October scheme.
The quantum of dedicated and playable space is now aligned with a 10% Affordable Housing scenario, when taking a conservative approach which only considers dedicated and playable space areas. A small difference of 40sqm has been assessed which Officers consider can be addressed at detailed design stage and can also be provided for within the multifunctional spaces without compromising other open space provision in the form of public open space/public realm or communal open space and have accordingly recommended a condition to secure a compliant quantum.
Further, all under 5s play space is proposed to be located within dedicated play areas, with additional provision made for 5-11s in playable zones.
The Applicant has also included two areas of space which Officers have excluded from their conservative calculations. One of these spaces can reasonably be considered to provide allowance for additional play space in the case of Affordable Housing uplift and includes a 472sqm of ‘multifunctional zone’ proposed at the northern corner of the site within Lofthouse Square.
The second area includes 780sqm of school amenity space which is within Phase 4 included as part of the Applicant’s school land offer. Officers have recommended s106 obligation to seek reasonable endeavours that this space be used for community use out of school hours.
Officers have concluded that, when viewed in light of the quantum of proposed housing together with competing ‘open space’ typologies/uses (play, communal and public open space) that when assessed in terms of play space provision that the development is capable of providing the required quantum of play space within existing constraints and therefore complies with the requirements of LB Tower Hamlets Policy SP02(6)(e), MDD Policy DM4, Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play & Informal Recreation SPG and London Plan Policy 3.6. The quality of individual spaces, especially those that conflict with communal amenity and Ground Floor retail/business floorspace uses is of concern to officers.
Officers consider that the overall improvements which are exhibited in the Amended October scheme, including lower building heights, removal of some smaller blocks within courtyard spaces and reconsideration of play provision has significantly qualitatively improved the proposed play space provision.
The Applicant has explained that discussions with potential developers and RSL end users has informed the location of play spaces and it is evident that the proposed play spaces, particularly the dedicated play areas within Rippoth and Wansbeck Yards are now better integrated into the proposed development and are more effectively overlooked by residential units within the development in line with London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation’ (September 2012).
10.8. Communal Space As noted above the Application is supported by an Amenity and Open Space Report which was has been amended and resubmitted and sets out proposed communal space
53/73 provision. LB Tower Hamlets MDD Policy DM4 requires that all developments with 10 or more residential dwellings provide 50sqm for the first 10 units, plus a further 1sqm for every additional unit thereafter.
Phases 1 and 2 generate a requirement for 462sqm of communal space and Phase 3 generates a requirement for 140sqm of communal space.
Rippoth Yard and Wansbeck Yard alone incorporate approximately 1,296sqm of communal amenity space at ground level and comprise planted areas and seating designed to complement the play spaces in each yard and provide supervision and surveillance of proposed play spaces. A further 1,504sqm of communal space is proposed at rooftop terrace and proposed at Blocks C, H, J and N within Phases 1 and 2. Phases 3 allows for terraces to be provided at roof level to provide private or sheltered amenity within that phases.
10.9. Public Open Space The Applicant explains that the scheme has sought to deliver a ‘high quantum’ of open space, both communal and public, in order to support the scale and density of proposed development and in order to create a ‘structure of public open spaces and public routes’ through the site. The typology of open spaces proposed includes public open space, semi-private yard space, private garden space, outdoor school space, green roof, shared roof amenity space, private roof amenity space, brown roof and school amenity roof space.
Quantum of Open Space – The submitted Replacement ES calculates that the total development would contain a new population of approximately 890 new residents.
The LB Tower Hamlets Obligations SPD states that planning obligations relating to public open space will be sought for all major residential and commercial development and will seek on-site provision of publicly accessible open space for residential and commercial development.
The LB Tower Hamlets Planning Obligations SPD also notes that where provision is made on-site then a clause safeguarding the area’s ongoing use as open space and future maintenance to an appropriate standard will be required. The LB Tower Hamlets Open Space Strategy requires the creation wherever possible of publicly accessible open space by effective use of planning powers and obligations, especially in areas identified as deficient in open space.
The NPPF notes that open space planning policies should be based on robust and up‑to‑date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision.
The Tower Hamlets Open Space Strategy 2006 established a local minimum standard for open space provision of 1.2 hectares per 1,000 population (50% National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) benchmark of 2.4 hectares (6 acres) per 1000 people which is acknowledged as unachievable within inner London). Applying the Planning Obligations SPD formula of 12sqm Standard Open Space Provision per Resident multiplied by 890 would suggest a requirement of approximately 10,680sqm public open space to support the new residential population proposed.
8,035sqm of public open space is proposed across the Amended November scheme. As requested by Officers the Applicant has ensured that the calculation is net of all proposed communal amenity space, play space and the proposed service road areas. The calculation is also net of all land outside the Applicant’s control, including Canal and River Trust land at the lock and highways land, and also excludes the school site.
54/73
Given the clear priority of the school allocation on this site over all other LB Tower Hamlets priorities Officers consider it unreasonable to expect additional Public Open Space provision or a financial contribution. Although there is a shortfall between the requirement and proposed provision Officers consider that the provision of such a significant quantum of open space within the constraints of the scheme is of significant benefit to the scheme and the wider area. Fish Island North, Mid and South do not currently benefit from any significant publically accessible open spaces and is identified as an area of search for new open space. The proposed on-site open space provision is considered to avoid placing any increased pressure on existing open space such as Victoria Park and the QEOP.
Officers consider that the proposed open space provision would support the proposed population, residential and employee, and would accord with London Plan Policy 7.18 which supports the creation of new open space in London to ensure satisfactory levels of local provision to address areas of deficiency and LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policies SP02 and SP12 promote the good design of public spaces and the provision of green spaces.
10.10. Neighbouring Amenity Separation from Existing Adjoining Development – Officers have sought to ensure that the Amended Scheme’s separation distances from existing development to the east at Omega Works are sufficient to ensure that the amenity of existing residents is not compromised. As noted above the minimum distance between the proposed development and Omega Works is proposed to be 18m. This is the primary boundary where the proposed development has the potential to impact on existing residential development in respect of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing.
Officers have also assessed the potential future impact of the scheme on development which could come forward on sites to the south of the application site along Wyke Road in order to ensure that proposed setbacks of Blocks B, C, H, I and J are sufficiently generous to create a quality streetscape. As noted above the carriageway width of Wyke Road is approximately 7m from kerb to kerb.
The proposed development proposes to retain the existing 4.5m wide footway which would allow a minimum nominal building separation distance from future development to the south of 14.5m. If future development adopted a similar footway width to that proposed as part of the Amended November scheme this distance would increase to approximately 16-17m which is considered to be acceptable and would accord with London Plan Policy 3.5, LB Tower Hamlets DMM 25(a) and LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP02(6).
Off-Site: Daylight and Sunlight to Surrounding Residential Properties – The PPDT’s Environmental Consultants have concluded that the assessment within the Replacement Environmental Statement sets out that the impact on the levels of daylight and sunlight on the majority of the surrounding existing properties is negligible. Only 6 receptors show a minor adverse impact, which is considered acceptable for an urban area, such as Neptune Wharf site.
The Replacement Environmental Statement sets out daylight assessments carried out the residential properties located on Roach Road with the Amended November scheme in place. In total 135 off-site receptors were identified, and these are located along the western façade of the Omega Works residential development.
When tested against 25 Degree Line test and Vertical Sky Component the results show that: 128 out of the 135 existing windows assessed either pass the 25 degree line of have a VSC level above 27% which indicates that there would be no effect on the daylight levels of these properties. 1 out of the 135 existing windows achieve a reduction of less
55/73 than 20%; 6 out of the 135 existing windows assessed achieved a reduction of between 20% and 29.9% resulting in a minor adverse effect; none of the 135 existing windows assessed achieved a reduction of between 30% and 39.9% and none of the windows achieved a reduction of above 40%.
In respect of sunlight the Replacement Environmental Statement indicates that sunlight results show that there would be no effect of sunlight hours to existing windows. All 135 would receive at least 25% of annual probable sunlight hours and 5% of winter probable sunlight hours.
Three exiting amenity spaces were tested, including those within Omega Works and when compared with the baseline show that no areas would be permanently overshadowed as a result of the proposed development.
10.11. Design and Layout Masterplan and Design Development – The planning application has been reviewed by the LLDC Quality Review Panel (QRP) on three occasions, following the original submission in November 2012, prior to the May 2013 re-submission and finally in October 2013 following re-submission of the Amended Scheme assessed in this report.
The QRP did not support the scheme for planning approval at its First and Second reviews. The QRP’s First and Second round comments included significant concerns in respect of scale and massing, particularly in respect of the proposed impact on the Hertford Union Canal, with describing the proposed development along the Hertford Union Canal as a ‘8 to 9 storey ‘wall’ of development (which would) reduce the quality of the canal’s setting and environment, making it feel darker and more enclosed’.
In its Third Round response the Quality Review Panel has concluded that it now supports the revised planning application for approval. ‘A scheme of appropriate scale and massing, mix of uses, and architectural expression is now proposed, promising successful development of the site’. The QRP further noted that the original scale of development previously submitted for approval had been ‘wholly unacceptable’.
In considering the overall arrangement of the Masterplan and open spaces the QRP has commented that it supports the creation of several new public routes through the site, including access to the waterfront on the Hertford Union Canal and north south routes that could connect to a future bridge link across the Hertford Union Canal. The QRP has also supported the location and distribution of play facilities around the scheme.
Layout – The proposed layout of the Amended November scheme has been developed over a prolonged period of dialogue between the Applicant and the previous (LTGDC), the LLDC as current Local Planning Authority and the GLA. The pre-application process and design development process is set out in detail within the submitted replacement Environmental Statement and Design and Access Statement.
PPDT Officers have focused their layout comments during the consideration of the application around ensuring that the public realm ensures a sufficient quantum and high quality provision of open space and play space in order to support the proposed new population. Officers have sought to ensure that separation distances between blocks and the proportional relationships of each Block with surrounding proposed new ‘streets’ and ‘yards’ in order to ensure acceptable environmental conditions.
Upon receipt of the original submission PPDT Officers provided comments that they were ‘not convinced about the quality of ‘Yard’ spaces proposed as part of the scheme, including the excessive heights proposed in relation to their limited widths and also questioned if ‘the ‘Yards’ could be more generously proportioned.
56/73
PPDT Officer first round comments also sought to reduce the height, scale and footprint of Block A and ‘shift’ footprints of Blocks north-east in order to reduce a number of significant negative amenity and environmental impacts being experienced across open and residential spaces in the rest of the development in Phases 1, 2 and 3, with some separation distances of only 10m between frontage heights of approximately 30m. The QRP also noted that further work was needed to develop the design of Lofthouse Square, in particular to resolve its relationship with the bridge across the canal and the ground floor units in Omega Wharf.
In assessing the May 2013 resubmission, Officers concluded that the principle of the development in terms of its density, form, massing, location and layout of land uses had still not altered significantly to a point where it could be considered to support the quantum of residential units proposed, including play space to support the child yield that would result. The GLA in their Update Comments noted that ‘whilst the increase in the size of Lofthouse Square by the reduction in size of the former Block A is strongly supported, the proposed square still does not include a sizable green public space as suggested at Stage 1 and further discussions on this important aspect of the scheme are suggested’.
As set out in the detailed assessment of open, play and communal space within this report PPDT Officers are now satisfied that the proposed development proposed parameters which would secure that sufficient open space of good quality can be secured and refined further through the reserved matters approval stage. The parameters allow for sufficient play and communal space to support the density proposed on site and this is considered to support the densities proposed.
Scale and Massing The report assesses height both in terms of real height Above Ground Level (AGL) and storey height in order to allow an accurate assessment of the scheme. For reference the 6 storey elements of Omega Works are 20m AGL; seven storey elements (fronting the Hertford Union Canal) are 24m; and eight and nine storey Roach Road fronting elements are 26.5m and 30m AGL respectively.
Officers consider that the 20m AGL datum is a reasonable equivalent to the 6 storey datum set out in the FIAAP. The assessment also differentiates between frontage heights and maximum heights. This approach is consistent with that adopted in the assessment of the Legacy Communities Scheme and acknowledges that the frontage heights have the greatest impact when viewing a development from the ground plane and therefore on the perception of height.
Eight out of the total 18 Blocks proposed are 6 storeys or less (Blocks A, C, D, H, I, J, N and R). None of these blocks have heights in excess of 22m. A further three blocks, although comprising seven storey blocks, propose maximum AGL heights which are 2m below the seven storey equivalent at Omega Works (Blocks E, K and L). These Blocks have maximum heights of 22 - 22.35m AGL.
Block E has a frontage height of 20m, Block K has a frontage height of 19m AGL and Block L has a frontage height of 20m AGL. Although accommodating seven storeys all three blocks have maximum heights less than the seven storey equivalent at Omega Works and frontage heights which are equal to or less than the six storeys at Omega Works.
Blocks O and P have maximum heights of 23.4m AGL, with frontage heights again equivalent to six storeys. Blocks B, F, G and M are all at height equivalent to seven storeys, being between 23.4-24.56m AGL (Roach Road AGL). Block Q is the tallest element with a maximum height up to 11 storeys.
57/73
The Adopted FIAAP requires that within Fish Island Mid and particularly within the immediate setting of the conservation area, building heights of 4-6 storeys will be appropriate. Development proposals above 6 storeys will be subject to detailed assessment within the Managing Development DPD (MDD Policy DM26) and national guidance.
The Planning Inspector allowed, in his modifications to Fish Island North Policy FI6.1, for clarification that English Heritage/CABE guidance for tall buildings was considered appropriate guidance for the assessment of buildings over 6 storeys (within Fish Island North). The English Heritage/CABE guidance for tall buildings criteria are relevant for assessing buildings which are substantially taller than their neighbours and/or which significantly change the skyline.
As assessed above, Blocks B, F, G and M, O, P and Q have heights above the six storey datum. When key viewpoints are assessed and considered against the guidance for tall buildings theses Blocks, with the exception of Block Q, cannot be considered to be ‘substantially taller’ than development to the east and west of the application site.
Although the proposed development will alter the skyline, this is within the context of the existing Omega Works development referenced above and two significant towers (22 storeys in height) at Parnell Road which are both highly prominent in key long views, including those from Victoria Park.
As described above, the application site is adjoined to the east by a significant scaled existing residential complex (originally approved as live work units) which has a significant impact on the setting of the Hertford Union Canal and the wider Fish Island area. It is visible in long views as far as Stratford City and together with the recent 6-7 storey Schwartz Wharf development creates a cluster of larger scaled structures within the vicinity of the site. With the exception of Block Q, the proposed development is therefore considered to be of a height and scale that is proportionate to its the context.
The Amended October scheme has introduced significant articulation and modulation to the overall massing of the scheme, which is particularly evident when considering the appearance of the development along the Hertford Union Canal. Officers consider that the combination of reduced heights, including prevailing six storey frontage heights along the canal, varying seatbacks and increased facade articulation has significantly improved the previously dominant and over-bearing impact of the earlier scheme.
Heritage Assets - Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that in determining planning applications local planning authorities should take account of the positive contribution that the conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality. The FIAAP makes reference to heritage-led regeneration at paras 2.8, 4.24, 6.8 (ref Fish Island North).
Heritage-led is not considered to constitute the imposition of architectural styles or particular tastes (NPPF para 60), but should support good design principles requiring that it take up opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (NPPF para 60), and conserve and enhance the historic environment by ‘making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’ (NPPF para 131).
The wording of FIAAP Policy FI6.2 (Fish Island Mid) states that sites ‘within the immediate setting of the conservation area’ are particularly required to adhere to the 6 storey datum acknowledging the need to restrict height in areas of greatest sensitivity. When viewed from the south, particularly from within the Fish Island Conservation Area the proposed development would be largely obscured by existing development.
58/73
As currently assessed Officers consider that the development would have an acceptable impact, to varying degrees, on the setting of the Fish Island Conservation Area, the proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area and would not undermine the recently adopted FIAAP Policies, including the aims for heritage-led regeneration in Fish Island Mid and LP 7.4, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 and LBTH CS SP01 and CS SP10 Polices and MD Policies DM24, DM26 and DM27.
Block Q – The most significant impact is considered to be that which results from the proposed height of Block Q which is defined as a tall building, both significantly altering the skyline and being substantially taller than neighbouring development. Policy guidance by the LB Tower Hamlets and the Mayor of London as well as CABE/EH exists that stipulates that tall buildings should ‘provide a positive contribution to the skyline’, and ‘the design of the top of a tall building will be of particular importance when considering the effect on the skyline’.
Tall buildings should not be supported by local planning authorities unless it can be demonstrated through the submission of fully justified and worked-up proposals that they are of excellent architectural quality and in the appropriate location. For this reason CABE and English Heritage consider that outline planning applications for tall building proposals are appropriate only in exceptional cases where the applicant is seeking to establish the principle of a tall building as an important element within a robust and credible masterplan for an area to be developed over a long period of time. In those cases, CABE and English Heritage must be satisfied that the parameters for any tall building set out in an outline planning application and the principles established within the accompanying design and access statement will result in excellent urban design and architecture.
The guidance states that it is essential that the planning authority makes these parameters and design principles a condition of outline consent to ensure that the commitment to high quality can be realised through proactive control of reserved matters. The principle of tall buildings has not been established in the adopted Development Plan for this location.
Neither the LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy nor FIAAP identify the site as a location for tall buildings, either in terms of town centre location or spatial policy. The OLSPG does not recognise Fish Island Mid as a location for tall buildings. The tallest buildings proposed are those within the Outline element of the scheme, including Block Q. As such, Officers consider it appropriate this Block be included within the Outline element of the scheme in order to establish whether the principle of tall buildings can be supported in this location.
In assessing the Amended October scheme Officers consider that the parameters sought for approval do not allow flexibility to modulate this Block and reduce the overall bulk of the Block and its visual impact when seen from long views, particularly from sensitive viewpoints in Victoria Park.
The Applicant has agreed to allow sufficient flexibility, by reducing the minimum height parameter to eight storeys and reducing the maximum units sought for approval in order to allow that the overall visual impact of the block be reduced at detailed design stage.
The QRP have supported Officer’s intention to require architectural competitions as the basis for the design of the residential tall building adjacent to the A12. Contingent on securing scope for reduced parameters and an architectural competition for the design of Block Q Officers consider that there is scope for this block to support good design principles preserving the character and quality of an area and conserving and enhance the historic environment by ‘making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’ (NPPF para 131). Officers have also sought to secure an architectural competition for the detailed design of Block A.
59/73
10.12. Transport and Connectivity The application includes a full Transport Assessment to support the summary within the Environmental Statement, together with a draft Construction and Logistics Plan, Delivery and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan. These were revised alongside the revisions to the application in response to the LLDC’s and stakeholders’ comments.
Car Parking - In transport terms, the scheme proposals include relatively low car parking proposals of 0.36 spaces per unit for the overall scheme. This comprises 138 spaces for the 422 units in Phase 1 and 2 (ratio of 0.32) and 53 for the 100 units in phase 3 and 4 (ratio of 0.53). 2 no. blue badge parking spaces are proposed at Ground Level along Rippoth Road for residential visitor use with a further 2 no. blue badge parking spaces proposed within the school site.
A loading bay for commercial use is proposed to the south of the proposed Blue Badge spaces along Rippoth Road. 2 no. additional car club spaces are also proposed. The scheme also proposes on-street parking is permitted directly to the south of large family units in Blocks C and I but otherwise envisages that residents would not be permitted to apply for residents’ permits.
The London Plan defines parking standards (Table 6.2) for different types of development, including provision for disabled parking, cycle parking and ensuring needs of businesses for delivery and servicing are met. Officer’s assessment has taken into account the further parking guidance included within the Housing SPG at Annex 3 (Car Parking Provision Guidance) which provides more detailed guidance on applying the London Plan’s residential parking standards so that they reflect public transport accessibility levels of the site under assessment.
Acknowledging the London Plan’s generous maximum parking standards Officers have applied a stricter maximum parking ratio when assessing 1-2 bed units which aligns with LB Tower Hamlets parking policies.
Officers have also considered the difference in parking ratios which would apply were the site’s accessibility to be raised to a PTAL rating of 3-4 and have concluded that the proposed total parking spaces proposed would still be in compliance with the adopted parking policies of the London Plan. Residential parking proposals in Phases 1 and 2 assessed against London Plan Table 6.2:
1B1P + 2B3P + 2B4P 3B4P + 3B5P 4B7P 162 24 5
>1 1-1.5 per unit 2-1.5 per unit >347 (assume LBTH LP Policy MDD 0.5 ratio = 138) 36 10 184 Proposed 138
Residential parking proposals in Phase 3 assessed against London Plan Table 6.2:
1B1P + 2B3P + 2B4P 3B4P + 3B5P 4B7P 95 5 0 >1 1-1.5 per unit 2-1.5 per unit >95 (assume LBTH LP Policy MDD 0.5 ratio = 47.5) 7.5 0 55
60/73
Proposed 53
When assessed against the London Plan’s maximum parking standards (LP Table 6.2 which supports Policy 6.13) for residential development Officers have concluded that the parking numbers proposed within the Amended October scheme across all phases are below the maximum standards of the London Plan, even when applying a LB Tower Hamlets parking ratio for 1-2 bed units.
LB Tower Hamlets Managing Development Policy ‘DM22 - Parking’ requires development to comply with set parking standards, although the DMM documents is not part of the adopted Development Plan for this site, having been adopted by LB Tower Hamlets after the LLDC became the plan making authority for this area, the scheme has been assessed against the DMM parking polices as they are considered to have some weight as a material planning consideration. Residential parking proposals in Phases 1 and 2 assessed against LB Tower Hamlets Policy DMM 22:
1B1P + 2B3P + 2B4P 3B4P + 3B5P 4B7P 347 64 11
LBTH PTAL 1 - 2 = 0.5 ratio 1 per unit DMM 173.5 75 Policy 248.5 Proposed 138
Residential parking proposals in Phase 3 assessed against LB Tower Hamlets Policy DMM 22:
1B1P + 2B3P + 2B4P 3B4P + 3B5P 4B7P 95 5 0
LBTH PTAL 1 - 2 = 0.5 ratio 1 per unit DMM 47.5 5 Policy 52.5 Proposed 53
When assessed against LB Tower Hamlets maximum parking standards for residential development Officers have concluded that the parking numbers proposed within the Amended October scheme across all phases are either below or in line with the maximum standards of LB Tower Hamlets DMM Policy 22.
In addition to being assessed as numerically complying with LB Tower Hamlets and London Plan standards Officers consider that the provision of sufficient parking spaces to allow for allocation of parking spaces for family units would be of benefit in achieving the policy requirements of London Plan Policy 3.4 (Optimising Housing Potential) and LBTH Policy DM22.
Officers have recommended submission of a car parking allocation and management scheme car parking management strategy by condition which would allow control over the allocation of parking spaces to maximise allocation towards family units. The parking proposals are considered to accord with London Plan and LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy policies in respect of parking.
Highway capacity, access and layout – In relation to trip generation, it is envisaged that there would be a combined total of some 1,742 trips (down from 1,800 trips in the May Scheme) into and out of the development in the AM peak hour and some 322 trips (down
61/73 from the 400 proposed in the May Scheme) in the PM peak hour (a two-way journey is counted as two “trips”). The PPDT’s Transport Consultants have noted that the difference between AM and PM highlights the importance of the school in determining trip generation. The school would account for some 1,400 of the AM peak total of 1,800 trips with only some 400 attributable to the residential and commercial elements and in the PM peak the residential and commercial elements account for some 300 trips.
For car driver and taxi trips, the assessment estimates a total of some 181 trips in the AM peak and 73 in the evening peak. Without School trips this reduces to some 40 trips in the AM peak and 64 in the PM peak.
The PPDT’s Transport Consultants have noted that the impacts on highway congestion are generally limited. However the additional traffic results in the flows through the junction of Monier Road and Wick Lane exceeding capacity with a significant increase relative to the position without the Neptune Wharf development. Due to the scale of school trips compared with those resulting from residential or commercial trips in the AM peak, this increase is more pronounced in the AM peak.
In their First Round response LB Tower Hamlets Highways Department raised concerns regarding the capacity of the highway network. LB Tower Hamlets Highways Department have suggested that the Applicant should reduce car parking however the PPDT’s Transport Consultant has noted that one of the key issues underlying both the impact on bus capacity and the highway network is the impact of the proposed school and that means of addressing its impacts will need to be brought forward alongside the detailed school proposals.
Both TfL and LB Tower Hamlets Highways Department have both opposed the proposed inclusion of a dedicated are for school drop off on Remus Road and potentially encouragement of parent drop off and pick up in this area which is considered to be unacceptable to both TfL and the LB Tower Hamlets Highways Department as they both consider this is likely to encourage additional vehicular trips to and from the site.
The Applicant is not the promoter for the school so has undertaken their Transport Assessment assuming a worst case scenario which also provides for a school drop off area within the school site boundary. The final details of the school are not known at this stage. It is noted that plans showing the drop off are illustrative and that all matters within the school site, excepting access, are sought for future approval. As such detailed highway and landscaping arrangements, including any school drop off are not considered to be for approval.
The Transport Assessment sets out that there is about one car trip for every two parking spaces in the AM peak three hours, which is considered to be a reasonable prediction but could increase if walking and public transport were not attractive. The PPDT’s Transport Consultants have advised that it is therefore important to address any inadequacies in the links to public transport to maximise public transport mode share.
Proposed mitigation measures identified include: Upgrading of the local pedestrian/cycle environment; improving links to Hackney Wick station, contributing to its upgrade and contributing to a more direct route to the station; and helping secure an extension of Cycle Hire. The Amended November scheme has identified an area of land for safeguarding a TfL cycle hire docking station to the south of Block B fronting onto Wyke Road.
Public Transport – The Transport Assessment depends upon a low car mode share and a high public transport mode share which is dependent upon public transport being an attractive option. The submitted documents, including the Transport Assessment, acknowledge the limitations of links to public transport and the site’s currently low public
62/73 transport accessibility. The site’s low accessibility would therefore increase the risk of increased private car usage in preference to public transport or walking.
The Transport Assessment sets out that in respect of public transport that network improvements planned will improve accessibility making public transport an attractive option. However, as noted not all the improvements relied upon in this assessment are committed. In terms of public transport capacity, there are only modest increased demands compared to available capacity on London Overground.
For buses, there is a forecast of 48 AM and 40 PM extra users in each peak hour from the residential and commercial uses, but over 140 in the AM peak from the school use. The Transport Assessment concludes that given the range and frequency of the bus services within 400 m of the Site, the proposed trips by bus as a result of the Amended Scheme average five or fewer additional bus passengers bus in the peak periods.
For pedestrian routes, the Transport Assessment recognises the limitations of the existing network and makes provision for a future potential bridge to help create a more direct to Hackney Wick but this would depend upon future development north of the Hertford Union Canal. A contribution is also sought to contribute to upgrading the existing bridge or other pedestrian route improvements. Internally the Amended November scheme proposes access and circulation routes which would minimise vehicle/pedestrian conflict while providing appropriate access for servicing.
In their First Round response GLA/TfL raised concerns regarding capacity of buses and have sought a contribution to mitigate the impact of the proposed development in line with London Plan Policy 6.7. TfL have reviewed the Amended October scheme and informally advised that while they continue to seek a contribution they have revised the sum marginally in line with the reduction in proposed dwellings.
Connectivity – Contributions are sought in line with FIAAP Policy FI3.3 which sets clear priority actions for improving connections over the waterways and within Fish Island generally. Policy FI3.3 identifies that ‘Environmental improvements to Wansbeck Road’ should be sought to support development within Fish Island generally.
The priority list identifies that although improved connectivity over the Hertford Union Canal between Fish Island North and Fish Island Mid should be sought that there are a number of potential locations in which these improvements could be located, including the Hertford Union locks and Wansbeck Road. Improvement of connections between Fish Island Mid and North, with the exception of the existing vehicular link over the Hertford Union at Wansbeck Road, is dependent on development of the McGraths site and other landholdings further east including the Schwartz site.
The wording of FIAAP Policy FI3.3 acknowledges this by stating that upgrading of the Roach Road pedestrian and cycle Bridge will be ‘contingent on securing a direct route between Hackney Wick and Roach Point Bridge’. Design and planning analysis of how such a link could be achieved is currently underway to support the draft Local Plan work, but is not currently advanced enough to allow enough certainty on the location and nature of preferred connectivity enhancements.
Officers consider that further design and planning development work is required in order to further refine and identify which connectivity improvements should be brought forward first.
The FIAAP’s Implementation Plan identifies the need for further detailed planning and design guidance to ensure comprehensive delivery of the necessary infrastructure to support development in the area and the the LLDC’s draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) prepared as evidence to support the LLDC’s Community Infrastructure Levy is still at
63/73 an early stage. Officers therefore consider that a contribution should be secured with funding directed towards a list of prioritised items, to be agreed with TfL and LB Tower Hamlets.
10.13. Conclusions – The proposals are broadly compliant in transport policy terms contingent on securing mitigation measures including financial contributions towards ensuring walking and cycling are attractive given the current inadequacies of the walking environment and access to public transport requires measures to raise standards.
The submitted Transport Assessment’s conclusions depend upon public transport and walking being attractive options alongside the limits on car parking which Officers consider can be secured by means of financial contributions directed towards a list of local transport improvements. Contingent on securing an acceptable financial contribution the conclusions of the Transport Assessment are considered reasonable and the proposals would be acceptable in transport terms.
The applicant’s Transport Assessment identifies significant localised increases in traffic but it has been concluded that this primarily relates to the impact of the school. Similarly there are increases in bus demand but this is again due to projected school trips. Aside from these the Transport Assessment concludes that there are only minimal impacts.
In their First and Second Round responses the GLA and TfL responses are broadly similar on transport issues and are broadly supportive, with the parking levels ‘supported in principle’. The need for Travel Plans, Delivery and Servicing and Construction and Logistics Plans to be secured is highlighted. The response also sets out a number of contributions that are considered necessary and include contributions towards: Bus network contribution, although this is to fund a “school day only” service enhancement reflecting the dominance of school use in the AM peak pressure on bus services pedestrian and local connectivity and a site for and financial contribution to a Cycle Hire station.
In their First Round response LB Tower Hamlets although recognising that parking provision is acceptable in policy terms, and restrictions on applications for on-street permits are supported, suggest that the traffic impacts are unacceptable and consequently car parking should be reduced.
However as the PPDT’s Transport Consultant has noted above, and is also the case for the pressure on bus services, this impact arises primarily from the predicted demand which arises from the school rather than the residential and commercial uses proposed and hence reducing parking would have only a limited effect. LB Tower Hamlets seeks further commitments to pedestrian and cycling improvements in the vicinity of the site and detailed requirements relating to highway changes proposed.
A range of conditions and s106 obligations are recommended and include: maximum car parking by Phase and details of how the overall parking provision is applied to the different size of units; a car parking management strategy including blue badge parking car club provision; electric charging points; and a delivery and servicing strategy, wayfinding, cycle parking and facilities and safeguarding the identified space for future Mayor’s Cycle Hire sites. Conditions and/or planning obligations would require Travel Plans.
Contingent on securing the mitigation proposed by recommended conditions and s106 agreement the proposals are considered to be capable address London Plan including policies 6.1 (strategic transport approach), 6.9 (cycling), 6.10 (walking) and 6.13 (parking)
10.14. Sustainability & Energy
64/73
In their first round comments LB Tower Hamlets Sustainable Development Team stated that they had no objections to the proposed energy strategy, noting that cumulative CO2 emission reductions were greater than 50% compared with building regulation 2010 requirements, exceeding the then emerging LB Tower Hamlets MDD Policy DM29. LB Tower Hamlets noted that this level of reduction was supported but advised that a sample of the output modelling undertaken to demonstrate the CO2 emission reductions are deliverable should be provided. They concluded that the proposals are for Code Level 4 and a target of BREEAM excellent but recommended that LLDC request the pre- assessments to demonstrate how these will be achieved. Code 4 and BREEAM excellent should be the minimum target.
In their first round response the GLA concluded that the applicant had broadly followed the energy hierarchy to reduce carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole and that the proposals are broadly acceptable, however further information was required before the C02 savings could be verified. The GLA concluded that a reduction of 440 tonnes of C02 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development is expected, equivalent to an overall saving of 55%. These C02 savings were assessed as exceeding targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. In their second round response the GLA responded that having received the updated Energy Strategy the GLA’s energy Team advised that the new documentation still does not confirm that all apartments and buildings within the development would be connected to a single site-wide heat network, nor does it show the route such a heat network would follow. This is a key requirement and must be agreed to comply with London Plan policy. A drawing showing the route should therefore be urgently submitted and the required connectivity secured through an appropriate planning condition and/or s106 clause.
The PPDT’s Environmental Consultants queried a number of aspect of the submitted energy statement including commitment to building fabric U values, air tightness and low energy lighting, connection to Cofely DHN – and requested how this was to be achieved, further information regarding use of on-site low and zero (i.e. renwable) technologies and confirmation of how renewable energy carbon emission savings can be achieved – including potential use of roof mounted wind turbines and solar PV. Supporting information and/or confirmation relative to these elements was provided in the Updated Energy Statement.
Energy – The information provided does enable Officers to determine that an appropriate level of renewable energy provision will be provided by the energy strategy proposed by the applicant. A number of elements are required to be secured by condition and s106 including how future phases of development will achieve zero carbon targets in line with the requirements of LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy 11 which sets out a requirement to implement a borough wide carbon reduction target of 60% below the 1990 levels by 2025 and ensure that all new developments are built to be zero carbon (in accordance with Government guidance for residential development to be zero carbon by 2016 and non-residential development to be zero-carbon by 2019).
However, it is considered that these outstanding aspects may be dealt with through appropriate conditions; including future monitoring conditions with associated relevant s106 obligations.
Sustainability - Sustainability Statements dated September 2012 (and revised submissions in April 2013 and October 2013) were submitted in support of this application for both the detailed and outline elements of the scheme. Residential / Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 – 422 residential units are proposed in within Phases 1 and 2. The submitted Sustainability Statement includes a pre-assessment which concludes that the proposed residential component could achieve 71.19 credits which would exceed the required 68 credits for Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
65/73
The Sustainability Report includes a section which outlines the BREEAM pre-assessment credits proposed for commercial units above 1,000sqm and notes that smaller commercial units intend to achieve as many of these ‘sustainability features in relation to their size and location.
DMM Policy DM29 requires that sustainable design assessment tools be used in order to ensure climate change mitigation measures are maximised within developments. The supporting text to Policy DM29 elaborates that these sustainable design assessment tools, such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM, are used to ensure the development achieves the highest levels of sustainable design and construction (at the time of writing, this policy will seek to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and an Excellent rating for BREEAM Assessments).
The PPDT’s Environmental Consultants have reviewed the revised material and have recommended conditions but are generally satisfied that their queries and comments in respect of the May 2013 version of the documents have been addressed. It is recommended that outstanding aspects may be dealt with through appropriate conditions; including future monitoring conditions with associated relevant s106 obligations.
10.15. Other Matters The site is located within an area identified within LB Tower Hamlets planning policy as an Archaeological Priority Area. A condition has been recommended in respect of submission of a written scheme of investigation in order to comply with adopted policy.
Section 106 Heads of Terms Reference has been made through the assessment of the planning issues to obligations under the proposed s106 agreement. These principally relate to provision of a serviced site for a new school, affordable housing, footbridge construction, local transport contribution, viability review mechanism, the provision and management of Public Open Space, a Managed Work Space Strategy, Phasing and Estate Management and a Design Brief in respect of Phase 3. Discussions are continuing with the applicant at the time of writing and any update will be provided to Members at the Committee. Given the viability constraints of the scheme, potential funding contributions have to be prioritised and based on local priority and need these are considered to be the provision of affordable housing, the option of the school site for primary education and local transport and public realm improvements. The proposed Heads of Terms of the s106 agreement and headline obligations agreed in principle are summarised below:
Provision of site for primary school The provision of a 0.44 Ha (1.09 Acre) serviced site for a primary school to be offered at nil value for an option period of five years. The option to be triggered by written notice of 6 months ahead of vacant possession. The site will be transferred to London Borough of Tower Hamlets or an alternative education provider.
Affordable Housing The Affordable Housing offer is currently being negotiated. An offer has been made that the entirely of Block A would be offered as Affordable Housing. The offer is on a without grant funding basis but there will be a reasonable endeavours obligation to secure funding. Tenure split to be confirmed but either 70:30 affordable rent/intermediate tenures or 100% affordable rent (at LBTH pod levels). There will also be a viability review mechanism at a trigger point to be agreed to determine whether affordable housing can
66/73 be provided on-site in Phase 3 or in the absence of on-site provision an off-site contribution shall be secured.
The proposed Heads of Terms of the s106 agreement and headline obligations agreed in principle are summarised below:
Footbridge Construction The submission of a design specification and the carrying out of works in connection with a new bridge. The value of the design and works to be £250,000. Local Transport Contribution A contribution has been agreed in the sum of £250,000 towards footbridge enhancement works on the southern approach and/or if not required in its entirety as a contribution towards other pre-agreed pedestrian/wayfinding/highway junction improvements in the immediate vicinity of the site. Employment related To submit a Managed Work Space Strategy for approval which shall seek to assist local companies and businesses. An element shall be capped/affordable for a fixed period. A local enterprise scheme to include minimum targets for local labour, supplies and contractors.
Phasing and Estate Management Strategy To submit a phasing plan to ensure provisions for the timely provision of all phases of the development and associated public realm A site-wide strategy for managing the common areas and sustainable urban drainage structures Sustainability Including requirements to use reasonable endeavours to connect to Kings Yard
Public Open Space To provide, landscape and maintain in perpetuity the three areas of public open space and to afford unrestricted access to the areas defined as: Lofthouse square Smeed gardens Lockside place In addition, to secure permissive paths across the development site, out of school hors use of the Playing Field and highways access from the school to Wyke Road through Phase 2
Design Brief The selection of the architect in respect of Phase 3 is to be carried out in accordance with an agreed RIBA approach as set out in a design brief to be appended to the s106
67/73
Travel Plans To implement, monitor and review the Framework Travel Plan and the Residential Travel Plan Other provisions Obligation to pay a monitoring sum and meet LLDC’s costs in negotiating the agreement and reviewing any materials to be submitted under the proposed agreement
11. HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS 11.1. Members should take account of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 as they relate to the application and the conflicting interests of the Applicants and any third party opposing the application in reaching their decisions. The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report. In particular, Article 6 (1), of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation civil rights and a fair hearing; Article 8 of the ECHR in relation to the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR in relation to the protection of property have all been taken into account
11.2. The Equality Act 2010 provides protection from discrimination in respect of certain protected characteristics namely: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion, or beliefs and sex and sexual orientation. It places the Local Planning Authority under a legal duty to have due regard to the advancement of equality in the exercise of its powers including planning powers. Officers have taken this into account in the assessment of the application and Members must be mindful of this duty inter alia when determining all planning applications. In particular Members must pay due regard to the need to:
1. Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act; 2. Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and; 3. Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
11.3. Officers are satisfied that the proposed development and Officers’ assessment has taken into account the direct and indirect social and health equalities of the application. For the reasons set out in this report, it is considered that issues in relation to equality have been appropriately considered.
12. CONCLUSION 12.1. On balance, Officers consider that the proposed development would make a significant contribution towards the convergence objectives by virtue of the provision of 0.44ha of land for a school site and as such is considered to accord with the strategic policy regeneration aims of LP Policy 2.13.
12.2. The offer of 0.44ha site at a peppercorn rate on a 99 year lease in order to comply with the requirements of the FIAAP is of significant social benefit and would accord with AAP Policy FI4.6 (Education) in addressing the pressing need for primary school places and the policy requirements of LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP07(2). London Plan policy 3.18 (Education facilities), confirms that the Mayor will strongly support the provision of new schools.
12.3. LB Tower Hamlets in their First Round response noted that ‘An independent review, commissioned by the Council has shown that a 3FE primary school on three floors could be provided in the 0.44 hectare site identified’. LB
68/73
Tower Hamlets Officers further confirmed that ‘Officers are fully committed to delivering a primary school through the planning process as part of this development’. The school site, together with the whole application site lies within the LB Tower Hamlets AQMA declared in 2000 and covers the entire Borough.
12.4. The proposed floorspace of 1,729sqm (Use Class B1) is considered to support LB Tower Hamlets Policy SP06 FIAAP Policy FI4.3 and Policy FI4.3 by proposing a significant employment generating opportunity. The proposed floorspace and new job creation potential is considered to accord with NPPF guidance that development should contribute to building a strong economy.
12.5. The subject application would provide up to 522 new residential units (422 dwellings sought for approval within the detailed element of the application and up to 100 dwellings sought for approval within Phase 3) which would be approximately 18% of the borough’s annual target. In their first round response the GLA concluded that in respect of the proposed housing uses proposed on site that the principle of residential was strongly supported in strategic planning terms.
12.6. The Affordable Housing offer is currently being negotiated. An offer has been made that the entirely of Block A would be offered as Affordable Housing. The tenure split is still being negotiated but is offered at between 70:30 affordable rent (at LBTH pod levels). /intermediate tenures a 100% affordable rent (at LBTH pod levels). This is based on nil grant. Officers also seek to secure a viability review mechanism. In addition to the above, the scheme includes provision for the school site and in-kind contributions. It is recognised that provision of a serviced site for a new school has subsequently impacted upon the overall value that could be generated by a scheme on this site, which is reflected in a lower affordable housing offer than may otherwise have been the case.
12.7. Within Phases 1 and 2, the Amended October 2013 scheme has increased the level of family housing to 17.77% across all tenures compared with the May proposal for 15% within the same phases. Given that the land allocated to the school site reduces developable land, leaving approximately 1.95ha of developable land for residential and commercial development, and the challenging environmental conditions assessed within this report it is considered that the Applicant has reasonably maximised the proportion of family housing that can reasonably accommodated within the site.
12.8. In its Third Round response the Quality Review Panel has concluded that it now supports the revised planning application for approval. ‘A scheme of appropriate scale and massing, mix of uses, and architectural expression is now proposed, promising successful development of the site’. In considering the overall arrangement of the Masterplan and open spaces the QRP has commented that it supports the creation of several new public routes through the site, including access to the waterfront on the Hertford Union Canal and north south routes that could connect to a future bridge link across the Hertford Union Canal. The QRP has also supported the location and distribution of play facilities around the scheme.
12.9. As currently assessed Officers consider that the development would have an acceptable impact, to varying degrees, on the setting of the Fish Island Conservation Area, the proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area and would not undermine the recently adopted FIAAP Policies, including the aims for heritage-led regeneration in Fish Island Mid. The most significant impact is considered to be that which results from the proposed height of Block Q. The QRP have supported Officer’s intention to require architectural competitions as the basis for the design of the residential tall building adjacent to the A12.
69/73
Contingent on securing scope for reduced parameters and an architectural competition for the design of Block Q Officers consider that there is scope for this block to support good design principles preserving the character and quality of an area and conservomg and enhance the historic environment by ‘making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’ (NPPF para 131). Officers have also sought to secure an architectural competition for the detailed design of Block A.
12.10. The development is predicted to result in a significant net increase in the number of jobs on site, which within the constraints of other policy priorities is considered to be of significant merit and support the overall mix of uses on this current industrial site. 12.11. Officers consider that on balance, the scheme represents sustainable development and accordingly recommend the application for approval, subject to the necessary referrals and to the satisfactory completion (under authority delegated to the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions) of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
13. RECOMMENDATION The Committee is invited to resolve that:
They are minded to APPROVE the application for the reasons given in the report and grant planning permission subject to: i. Referring the Application to the Mayor of London and any direction of the Mayor of London; ii. The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in this report; and iii. The conditions and informatives set out in this report.
They CONFIRM that their decision has taken into consideration the environmental information submitted in relation to the application as required by Regulation 3(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and AGREE that following the issue of the decision a statement be placed on the Statutory Register confirming the details as required by Regulation 24(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011 including that the main reasons and considerations on which the Committee’s decision was based were those set out in the Planning Officer’s report to Planning Decisions Committee;
They AGREE TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY to the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions to: i. Consider any direction from the Mayor of London and to make any consequential or necessary changes to the recommended conditions and/or informatives and/or recommended section 106 heads of terms as set out in this report;
ii. Finalise the recommended conditions and informatives(including relevant definitions and annexes) as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce, the final planning obligations to be contained in the section 106 legal agreement) as the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions considers reasonably necessary;
iii. Finalise the recommended legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in this report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in
70/73
the heads of terms set out in this report (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions considers reasonably necessary; and
iv. Complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.
Conditions Condition headings have been provided at this time. The draft conditions continue to be reviewed and discussed with the applicant at the time of writing. Full conditions (including to dovetail with and, where appropriate reinforce, the final planning obligations to be contained in the Section 106 legal agreement) as considered appropriate by the Director of Planning Decisions will be set out in the Update report.
School Site – Phase 3 1. Phase 3 Brief and Specification 2. School Specification and Details – Final confirmation setting out: School Travel Plan Review/remove school drop-off Delivery and Servicing Strategy Pollutant dispersion processes around the buildings; Concentrations of pollutants at the air inlets; Pollution depletion mechanisms; Airtightness of the building (i.e. the ability of the building envelope to prevent the uncontrolled ingress of pollutants).
Commercial Floorspace – Site Wide 3. Retail Area – Maximum 4. Employment, skills and training including local labour 5. Further details of floor loadings, lifts and electric supply 6. P.D restriction to prevent conversion of office to residential use. 7. Submission of a business plan for the Lofthouse to ensure that it contributes to supporting the creative economy characteristic of the area
Design / Architectural / Landscape Quality / Waterway 8. Development to be carried out in accordance with drawings and documents; 9. London Plan – Minimum Space Standards 10. Minimum Play Space 11. Wheelchair Housing – No fewer than 10% of the total number of residential units within the development shall be constructed to be easily adapted for residents who are wheelchair users in accordance with the publication - Wheelchair Housing Guide Second Edition" by Stephen Thorpe and Habinteg HA. 12. Residential Façade Details (detailed drawings and sections annotated with materials and finishes): windows, doors, entrances, other openings (including reveals and cills); balconies, canopies and balustrades at roof level; external lighting; details of water runoff – Details and samples. 13. Commercial Façade Details (Ground Level Shopfronts and Entrances): Residential and commercial entrances, elevations of the shopfronts, including doors, windows and signage; details of refuse stores and plant rooms – Details and samples; 14. Landscape Details: Soft Works (species, provenance, size, density of planting and depth of planting medium);
71/73
15. Landscape Details: Hard Works (surfaces, decking, parapets, handrails, seating, lighting, boundary treatments and means of enclosure); 16. Permissive Paths through the Development 17. Details of Green Roofs; 18. Details of roof top plant rooms; 19. Code Level 4 verification 20. Non-Residential BREEAM 21. CO2 emission reductions 22. Details of CHP compatibility and future connection: To demonstrate that the development has been designed to be compatible with the connection to the district energy network in terms of flow and return temperatures and pressures; 23. Communal Heating Network details: Confirmation of connection for both commercial and residential uses. 24. Cooling Strategies Details: Details of the efficient cooling strategies to be utilised for commercial and residential areas; 25. Lighting & CCTV Details: Lighting to minimise overspill onto waterways. 26. Risk Assessment and Method Statement
Environment 27. Archaeology; 28. Contamination Risks; 29. Verification Report; 30. Unidentified Contamination; 31. Importation of Soils and Infill materials 32. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground unless agreed by LPA; 33. Approval for piling and foundation works 34. Grease Trap (A3 and Food Factories) 35. Ventilation 36. Details of ventilation/plant/etc 37. Air Quality Condition 38. Sound Insulation 39. Transportation Noise 40. Environmental Code – Detailed (Construction Management Plan) 41. Feasibility study to assess the potential for moving freight by water 42. Construction Hours 43. Impact Piling
Transport and Highways 44. Cycle Parking and facilities 45. Cycle Hire – Safeguarding and details 46. Parking layout, including blue badge 47. Car parking limits (by typology) + Car parking allocation and management scheme 48. Electric charging points 49. Car Parking – Commercial Units 50. Details of the entry arrangements to servicing and car park area - Parking Materials and Samples 51. Car club details 52. Car free development - Parking permit restriction 53. Construction Logistics Plan 54. Wayfinding
Management Plans and Strategies and Statements 55. Estate Management 56. Details of the waste management strategy
72/73
57. Green infrastructure statement
Proactive and Positive Statement In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and with Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended), the following statement explains how the LLDC as Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with this planning application: Following submission of the planning application, the local planning authority continued to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner.
14. Background Papers used in the preparation of this report 14.1.1 Application form and application documents 14.1.2 London Plan (July 2011) 14.1.3 The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (September 2010)
Appendices attached to this report are as follows:
1. Planning Application Area 2. Site Photos 3. Parameter Plans - For Approval 4. Summary Assessment of Height Reductions 5. Viewpoints 6. Illustrative Material 7. Quality Review Panel Report and LB Tower Hamlets Response 8. Peabody Letter
73/73